Commons:Village pump/Archive/2009/04

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

Contents

otisarchives1 / Otis Historical Archives Nat'l Museum of Health & Medicine on Flickr

The Otis Historical Archives National Museum of Health & Medicine has a photostream on flicer ([1]), where ervy single image is licenced as cc-by-sa-2.0-unported. But on the flckr user page the stream is called This is an unoffical home for public domain photographs from the National Museum of Health & Medicine. - Which licence to choose? sугсго 07:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Flickr doesn't supply public domain as an option. They probably are actually public domain. I'd double check with the user though. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks like PD-USGov is appropriate for those... PD-USGov-Military more specifically, as some of them appear to be old US Army (or maybe Marines) photos, and some are cartoons from an old US Navy publication, for the few I looked at. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Converting ogg to another video format

Hi! I was thinking about using a video from Commons in a MS Powerpoint presentation. However, I haven't been able to find a free (as in beer, even for just a trial period) Windows converter from Ogg to either avi, mpeg1 or wmv. I'd really aprreciate it if someone could point to the right direction. Thanks in advance. Samulili (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you try ffmpeg? There are Win32 binaries for it here. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try that. Samulili (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Steganography : .rar embedded in Commons pictures.

Hello,

Few days ago, Wiki-Bot on the IRC channel #wikipedia-commons tell us a picture is also a .rar archive.

A .rar archive in a picture ? oO

When you open it, you see two files :

  • a text file, containing a short copyright notice, freely extractable
  • an executable file (.exe), protected by a password

The author of the picture embed a .rar as a copyright protection measure.

But what about EXIF tags?

And furthermore, why must trust our users about the content of this executable file? What if in the worst case someone upload child pornographic pictures, virus or hidden information disguised in copyright information in this archive?

And furthermore, Commons is a free project, we want free pictures, using open formats readable by all. A not readable content is against that.

You can read the discussion with the picture author on de:Benutzer Diskussion:Psychodaddy.

So, I propose to file a bug on MediaZilla to add an hook on the Commons anti-virus code to reject any upload with a .rar archive embedded. --Dereckson (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was never activated on Commons. Did you read the bot message correct? Huib talk 11:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't know what you mean, but File:VancouverTransitPolice PD8092.JPG indeed contains 34kB of JPEG data followed by 36kB of RAR archive, containing a textual copyright notice and an encrypted executable. I'm frankly said at a loss as to the purpose of that. As a method of proving authorship this fails miserably, since the RAR can be removed as a whole within seconds, and then you're back to arguments based on earliest publication date. Lupo 12:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, the RAR here has the exact same function as an EXIF, is not safer or more reliable in any way (it can be removed as easily), and has the downsides of not being standard, and of being a potential vector of viruses etc.
I would recommand explaining to the user why EXIF is preferable and removing these RAR things. If the user is keen on security, he can introduce a cryptographic signature in the EXIF in plain text format. Rama (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Huib > exact message is <Wiki-Bot> Warning: VancouverTransitPolice_PD8092.JPG has an embedded Rar file --Dereckson (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • BTW, File:BahnhofWienMitte PD8579.JPG contains the same RAR. Lupo 13:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I've reverted it to the first revision, which has a higher resolution and no embedded rar. The question remains: should we delete revisions that contain a rar file? In my opinion, COM:FT should be a good enough reason to do so, but it might be a good idea to be more specific about this case in our policy. –Tryphon 13:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes we should. But ideally, the server should either just remove them (easy for jpegs: the file can be truncated at the first non-nested occurrence of EOI ($FFD9); non-nested because of thumbnails, which may themselves be using jpeg and thus be delimited by SOI ($FFD8) and EOI) or refuse the upload. Is the same thing possible with other file types? TIFF? Lupo 14:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Tryphon that we should augment our existing policy. All uploaded files should be in one of the formats of COM:FT and strictly conform to the corresponding specifications or standards. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  • This confirms an observation I made: the lengths people go to try to protect their copyright is antiproportional to the quality of their images. Maybe one day that gets named after me and I become as famous ad Godwin... --Dschwen (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the version with embedded RAR in the files mentioned here. Yann (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Mysterious fontbolding

Hello comrades in arms! Looking at my watchlist page you can see a lot of bold-fonted image pages. The bold font keeps coming back again and again, like it shouldn't, even after I have visited those pages. No huge deal, but can anything be done, do you think? Greetings! EmilEikS (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There is an explanation of this on the watch page. It is nested in the watchlist options. -- carol (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, I needed to see an animation of a mouse pointer showing me how to click on the preferences in my earlier days here.... -- carol (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Mm hm... I clicked "Mark all pages visited" and that took care of it for now. We'll see if that works when something next is visited by aliens from without. EmilEikS (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks that the items that are on your watchlist are bolded (see Special:RecentChanges). --Foroa (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
This functionality should bold only those pages that have been modified since your last visit. It has been broken for quite a long time, but it should have been fixed already. --Mormegil (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know when (or whether) it was fixed, but the bolding has not been working for me today, either. Some pages re-bold themselves even when they have not changed since they were last visited. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
This bug is still there for me. I reopened it. [2] Yann (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

renaming

I need to rename several files I uploaded as I got a number in the name wrong

SHould be 17A

. How do I go about renaming a file?--JIrate (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi JIrate, two options for renaming a file:
  1. reupload the file under the correct name and write {{badname|newname.jpg}} on the old files description page. This option is prefered, you can simply copy&paste the file description pages to the basic upload form, so it does not take so much time.
  2. place {{rename|newname.jpg}} on the images description page, the renaming will be reviewed and executed by a robot. The bot will upload the image under the new filename the same way and the old image will get deleted as a duplicate.
Option 2 will actually take some weeks, Category:Media renaming requests needing confirmation and Category:Duplicate are heavy backloged because of toolserver problems and the again deactivated Commons:File renaming - btw: whats with this great tool?? --Martin H. (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.--JIrate (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
A third much easier option has been available for a couple of weeks. Commons admins now have the ability to rename media files. So just ask any admin to do it for you. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
option will not work, has been deactivated. Huib talk 17:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Really? Already? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I got this "the user is not yet on the list of users approved for automatic renaming.". How do I get myself on the list?--JIrate (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A question about scope

I work in a research lab and I'm working to acquire photographs of some of the researchers, particularly the ones who already have Wikipedia articles. My question is about scope: if I take a photo of a researcher who is not currently considered notable enough to have an article on any Wikipedia, would such photos still be welcome on Commons? Do I need to distinguish people who are non-notable from people who merely don't have articles written yet? There is the possibility any of them may become more widely known in the future, but this is speculative. Thanks. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as the depicted persons agree with their image being published on Commons, I don't see why we couldn't host them. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 01:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If there are researchers around that have wikipedia articles then I guess that the research lab itself or some of it's projects may be notable as well; and as such photos of important researchers related may be useful. Image "notability" has lower requirements than article notability Belgrano (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree, that agreement of the depicted persons is the only thing needed to host the images on Commons. If the person is not (yet) relevant for an article on Wikipedia or a personal article on another Wikimedia project the person should at least do something relevant in the image or be depicted in a relevant environment. A non-notable researcher performing an experiment for example could be used in an article about the experiment.
But a plain portrait of a non-notable person is not in scope IMHO. --Slomox (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Bom Bom, you showed me what licenses I can use

Insert formula here

Thank you for answering my question about the license, but I can't seem to get pack to the page where I can choose the license to upload my files???

try this: File:GirlOnStageBehindCurtain.JPG I will stick a license for you to try to avoid deletion! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Fan art guidelines

The new Fan art page has gone live today. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That page seems to support the notion that this comic should not be deleted. -Nard the Bard 21:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

April 3

Argonne National Laboratory Images

Up until now, the images released by Argonne National Laboratory have actually been hosted under the wrong license on the Commons, as the photographers are not government workers and thus their photographs are not automatically public domain. The images were mirrored at their Flickr page but released under the cc-by-nd license. After discussing with one of the higher ups they have agreed to release all the images on the Flickr page as cc-by-sa. A few of the images are already uploaded to the Commons, but have the wrong license listed. I'll go and fix the ones I can find. The rest perhaps a bot should copy them over? Or just listing them here as a new resource for great science/tech images. Here's the link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Great work oddie5533. A bot that fetches all images would be helpful.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

April 4

cannot upload 自敘帖.jpg

it says "The name of the file you are uploading begins with PICT, DSC, image, ..., which is a non-descriptive name typically assigned automatically by digital cameras. Please choose a more descriptive name for your file." what's the problem?--Liangent (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

i uploaded it to File:Huai Su's work - Self introduction.jpg--Liangent (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

media of the day error

The boat seen on the video has a large red stripe which is the markings of the US Coast Guard and not of the US Navy. Can someone change that? Mieciu K (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done as requested, Template:Motd-en/04-4. --Martin H. (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 Not done the translations in: cs, hu, mk, no, zh. --Martin H. (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Latent categorization by template

I attempted to change category of File:0122 klzwick DSCN0812.JPG (it was categorized as "Cyclist crossings", but at image is no cyclist crossing). But I find that the category is fixed by {{WSTMtag}} template and coded by Wikis Take Manhattan project. I think, categorization should be made by uniform, transparent way. The category structure is evolving continually, every category will same to be separated into more detailed categories hereafter and such latent and coded categorization made such deveolopment more complicated.

I suggest, the categories should be assigned only by [[Category:]] at the end of page. Insertion of "category" by template is undesirable. What is your opinion? --ŠJů (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. As can be seen in #Yet another template that "generates" categories: Template:WVoclicense, we are fighting that as it makes category moves fairly complex too. But its needs some time and maybe, there should be more strict rules. --Foroa (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
If there's a new rule, I think there should be exceptions, in particular for hidden categories (license, user cats). --Eusebius (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
No new rule. We have several types of categories:
  1. Source categories (image from ......)
  2. License categories (PD-.....)
  3. Tracking categories (Vector version available)
  4. Topic categories
  5. Probably more
The first three are meta categories. Often hidden and usually added with a template. Templates should never add topic categories unless you're really sure you're not breaking the system (like for example book templates). Multichill (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Is that a rule already then? --Eusebius (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a defacto rule at Commons and nlwp, don't know about other wiki's. Multichill (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, 3. more broader: maintenance or special file types. Exeptions like 4 or 5: Non! Books are sources, book categories added by template are (non-hidden) source categories with some charakterisitcs of topic categories. Like other source and license categories they are included in the topic categorie structure like year, topic of the book or author. Other source or license categories are also sorted into the "regular" categorie tree like the White House photos (license) or the images from the library of congress (source, former license). So i can not imagine a template-based categorization outside 1,2 or 3. --Martin H. (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Personally I hate categorisation templates.KTo288 (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, that {{WSTMcat}} is not the cleverest way to categorise. But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. Categorization by template can be useful if the images are part of a regularly formed set. --Slomox (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
One template which categorizes in a good way is {{userpageimage}}. These images don't really need any other or any more specific categories. Samulili (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure; categorizing by templates is a tool for ill and good. For our WSTM pictures (I was an unsuccessful competitor, and uploaded and categorized my own pix rather than wait for the official process) the official process filled several cats with so many bad or rudundant pictures as to dimminish the usefulness of those cats. I have mentioned this in Template talk:WSTMtag but don't know enough about templates to take direct editorial action without fear of creating a bigger mess. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2

The Go button

See also Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_15#Cross-namespace_redirections, bugzilla:18354

The Go button on Commons is very premitive. It only goes to galleries if they are available and search if not. Why can't it go to a Category if there is no Gallery? and if there is no category with the same name it would continue searching. This would be very helpful because most images have categories assigned to them but many keywords don't have their galleries. Example: Clicking go for Indiana Jones: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Indiana+Jones&go=Go would direct to the Category:Indiana Jones, Which includes the images in a structured manner. If one wants to search he would click search instead of go.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I create these cat → article redirects daily just because this software is not able to do that.
I'd like an extra "category [[ ]] Go" button. Where can I propose that issue? --Mattes (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. Do u want another go button for categories?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well that's another topic, really. What I meant is, you look for "cats in art" so you type that in the "Go field" (what's the right term?) and then you come to "Search results". I'd create a gallery site and set a redirect to Category:Cats in art. That's to simplify work with Commons and prevents unnecessary frustration, time and effort. --Mattes (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep so it would be best having just the go button redirect to Categories in the absence of Galleries. A gallery for Cats in Art would be good. It could be devided in the history and with summaries and so on.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This issue has been discussed before on the Village Pump, see this archive item. There was consensus for changing the way the "Go" button works. A bug was placed on Bugzilla, but nothing has happened since. Mvangeest (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The last discussion was on making "search" as the default button. I'm suggesting making the go button, go to the category like Category:Whoopi Goldberg if there is no Gallery:Whoopi Goldberg available.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mattes (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Category adding

Are there any programs to aid in adding categories? I just added categories to 100 of the new German donation pictures - but took a break when I realized that there are about 300 more from the same photoshoot. Are there any ways to assist adding categories to batches of photos? Rmhermen (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There is Commons:AutoWikiBrowser but you need to be approved for that. It lets you specify a category and all images in it can have something change much faster. Example: It looks for pages with VEB... and appends the category: VEB... If there is no VEB... it skips the page and goes through the rest. There is also Hot cat which auto completes categories for you at the bottom of the page.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
You can go to your preference settings, and on the Gadgets pane, you can enable Hot Cat or Cat-a-lot, both of which can help in some situations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A question about Bundesarchiv photo licensing

While surfing on internet, i found a colour version of the b/w photo uploaded here from Bundesarchiv. Can that image be uploaded in Commons, and if yes, which license should be used? --Saə (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me the ww2incolor.com picture is colored (this is what they do in ww2incolor.com website, collecting and recoloring images from WWII) and derivative version of German Federal Archive's picture, so as image is released under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 all derivatives works should also carry the same license.   ■ MMXXtalk  12:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This only applies if they used the CC-by-sa work as basis for their image. They could still have gotten an exclusive permission from the Bundesarchiv, so we don't know whether they are publishing this under CC-by-sa and should thus not upload it to Commons. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You cannot assume in general that the same license holds for other versions of that image (higher resolution, colors etc). --AFBorchert (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well just in this case, I assume the German Federal Archive was the copyright holder or the image was automated public domain by age and archived by the German Federal Archive;
The license have no limitation for derivative works Also a Share-alike license dose not allow future restrictions on work. We can be sure that these two photos are exactly same and work of same photographer! so either all derivative works of this photo is free or the German Federal Archive didn't had the right to release the work under this license!?.
  ■ MMXXtalk  14:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
After more reading and research I think I was wrong. As this is a creative work 'hand-coloured' the image cannot be uploaded to Commons.   ■ MMXXtalk  15:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Template for commons images used with license violation

Ive had plenty of my images from the commons show up on newspapers and magazines violating the creative commons license under which i release them. and im sure a lot of other people hae also faced the same issue. i wanted to know if there is a template/category existing to add to such media so that people seeing the image know that it was used somewhere and also be used to publicly shame the organisation using such images --PlaneMad 14:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

We have Template:Published, but it is not humiliating. Maybe you like to use red collors and bold fonds and add it to the "org" parameter. Not following the requirements is a break of the license, #7. You should complain at least. --Martin H. (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
You might also consider to set up a user page like this. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Template:Published should do, can someone add another parameter probably legal=yes/no which can change the styling to make it more eye catching? and also add these kind of images to a new category for images used without attribution? i towuld be really interesting to see how many images from the commons are misused like this. am not too good with template markup, so can someone help out --PlaneMad 18:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Btw, the image is question is this: File:Taj Mahal Palace Hotel at night.jpg which was used on the front page of one of India's leading dailies today. thats 2.2million copies throughout the country, without any attribution --PlaneMad 18:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

April 6

IRC direct access

This link is dead. Just to let you know. I duno how to handle the situation. --Subfader (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That link is in some of the subpages of (at least) Template:Welcome (including the documentation). It was a link to a web interface, apparently for joining the channel without entering its name or selecting it. It looks like Commons:Internet Relay Chat has never linked there, and neither it nor its translations include links equally “direct”. --AVRS (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
COM:IRC did link there, as did its translations; the link was called “Java chat application”. --AVRS (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Are you on the right place... go to Wikipedia instead" warning

Don't you think this warning should and could be removed by the mediawiki software when the edited page is a user talk page ? Teofilo (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it should be changed with a notice that tell users "this is a talk page" and it is for discussions, or somthing like this, but mostly I didn't see registred and ip users misuse the user talk pages but they do creat articles in user namespace.   ■ MMXXtalk  07:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Here is the new code for the suggested change. Teofilo (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem when uploading a new version of a file

Permissions Errors
You do not have permission to do that, for the following reason:
The name of the file you are uploading begins with PICT, DSC, image, ..., which is a non-descriptive name typically assigned automatically by digital cameras. Please choose a more descriptive name for your file.

I got this error when I was trying to upload a new version of this file File:St. Mary's Church and Pharmacy.jpg, but it was alright when I did upload with new name File:St. Mary's Church and Pharmacy-edit1.jpg, did anyone else have same problem?   ■ MMXXtalk  14:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I always experience this ugly thing with images containing a -'- in their filename. So i thought this was the problem. Maybe the cropbot is exempted from this prohibition? And a note: Please use the high resolution 5000px .tiff file from the LOC for you work. --Martin H. (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
But why I was able to upload these files: File:St. Mary's Church and Pharmacy-edit1.jpg and File:St. Mary's Church and Pharmacy-edit2.jpg they both have -'- in their name? For some reason I can not access LOC website right now maybe it is a temporary problem from my ISP, but thank you for noticing me about TIFF file.   ■ MMXXtalk  15:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, i just tested it with File:Test ' in name.jpg, i was able to upload it initially, but no reupload is possible. So it is only a problem with reuploads and ' in filename. --Martin H. (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Finally I downloded the TIFF file, but I had to upload them with new names as reupload was not possible.   ■ MMXXtalk  21:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Bain collection from the LoC

Hi, all. I apologize if this has been brought up previously (and if it has, just point me to the right archives), but I've got a question about the suitability of use of images from the George Bain collection. Over at en.wiki, I have a FAC in progress (here) where User:Awadewit stated that unless definitive evidence that File:SMS Westfalen LOC 25466u.jpg was in the PD, the image cannot be used, and the "no known restrictions" line from the LoC is insufficient. Is this the case? And if so, why is {{PD-Bain}} even here, if it doesn't meet the requirements for Commons? Thanks for any help on this. Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It meets Commons requirements. "No known restrictions" is LoC-speak for public domain (it just reflects the fact that copyright and other law is extremely complex and it is impossible to predict future court decisions which may unexpectedly create new rights). The Library of Congress purchased the Bain collection (and thus the copyrights) in 1948 and placed them in the public domain, so it does not matter when the photographs were made or if they were published. This is why there is the separate PD-Bain tag rather than using regular PD-US tags; the reasoning for being public domain is different. The LoC only is putting up the photos where they own the negative (i.e. proving that it was authored and owned by the Bain company) rather than any of their prints (which may have just been copies obtained from other authors); if you look at the details page for this photo you see it is from a glass negative. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I had seen that the image was in fact the glass negative. So, just to be completely clear, I can safely put the image back into the article (I had removed it after Awadewit objected to it)? Thanks for your help. Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
If copyright status was the only reason it was removed, then yes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was just the copyright status. Thanks so much for your help. Parsecboy (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thumbnail Error of a File

I found a thumbnail error in File:Narita express-2008.02.02 1.jpg (Page for Checking the thumbnail). The original uploading user had uploaded a new but incorrect file after his/her first upload, and it seems that the problem arose when he reverted the second upload. I have tried to upload the original file, and then refresh my browser cache, but yet I can't find any solution to this problem. Hope I can receive some help from here. Thanks!--Altt311 (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thumbnails can sometimes take several hours to update, just be patient. If it hasn't changed in 2 days, please report back here. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Bolded entries in watchlist page

Why are some of the entries bolded in my watchlist page? Just curious. Gatoclass (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a technical explanation this time, but my empirical impression is, that the bold ones are the ones that have changed after you had a look at them. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Video without soundtrack

I created the template {{Video without soundtrack}} this would help a lot when viewing videos that have no sound. This has come to my attention when I viewed the file File:FA-18 Automated Aerial Refueling.ogg. Cans someone think of someway this template would be improved? I think all images with no sound should have this template. This ensures that a user knows that the video is intentionally uploaded with no sound and that nothing is wrong with the sound device or anything. Comments? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Categorization question

I just created a category for the Penobscot Narrows Bridge and Observatory. I moved it into the Bridges in Maine category, and removed that category from the images that I placed into the new cat. Is this correct? Should I therefore also place Category:Cable-stayed bridges in the United States into the new cat, and remove that as well? And should I create Category:Cable-stayed bridges in Maine, or is that overcategorization, considering there's only one at the moment? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

All is right. Remove Category:Cable-stayed bridges in the United States from the categorized images. Place Category:Cable-stayed bridges in the United States in the Cat Category:Penobscot Narrows Bridge and Observatory. Don't create Category:Cable-stayed bridges in Maine, there is only one a category wouldn't be useful. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Danke schoen. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Bitte sehr..--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible breech of rights

A few days ago I uploaded a couple of images of a prison in Parramatta, New South Wales. At the time I though it was harmless but someone has pointed out that I may have broken the law by taking these images. Does anyone know what the law is regarding taking images of prisons and prison guards in the act of duty in Australia. If I have broken the law maybe the images should be deleted, if not then they should stayAdam.J.W.C. (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm unable to answer your question, but I suppose Commons would consider such restrictions as non-copyright, and would therefore ignore them (I think the pictures would not be nominated for deletion on this basis). However, if you tell us that you have indeed infringed law and that the existence of the pictures on Commons could cause you some problems in your country, they can be removed per your request. Independently, it could also be argued that the face of the guard should be hidden to protect his identity, since the image could be harmful for him. --Eusebius (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I tried to google for a law like that and did not find anything. On [3] something similar is mentioned, but it only prohibits photos of Australian defence facilities. As long as nobody gives a reference to an actual law I would consider the images unproblematic. At least the first one, that clearly shows a building in a city. But the main motive of the second one is the person. That makes it much weaker. --Slomox (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advise. I thought at one stage that I may have broken some kind of anti terror law. I have actually been kicked out of a few places in the past and got a bit paranoid about these two pics soon after uploading. I thought the picture of the security guard with rifle slung over his shoulder would have been interesting in a couple of Wikipedia articles related to either jails or anything to do with security. The prison guard actually saw me taking photos, looked at me a bit and then turned away. He didn't seem bothered at all, he probably didn't think that he would end up here. When I get a chance I may look into blurring the face somehow. Cheers Adam.J.W.C. (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've seen the "Crimes Act Defence Act 1903 on trespass on Commonwealth property" signs around the Darwin RAAF Base (Which is on a huge block of land) but haven't seen the signs at the Wagga RAAF Base. Must say it seems to be a rather out dated law since the news media have access (including the public) to visit the bases on special days but they never banned the use of cameras within the base. With the above photographs would be fine since you didn't trespass on crown land and was taken from a public area but personality rights may apply with the second photo. Bidgee (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It should be clarified that a picture taken illegally is not, by default, illegal to distribute. The only culpable person would be the photographer, with no fault to Commons or content reusers. However, in some cases as a courtesy we remove images taken illegally by uploader request, in order to make it less likely that their transgression will be detected. If you're comfortable with the risk, by all means they can stay (and in fact, illegally taken pictures are particularly valuable insofar as they are difficult to replace). Dcoetzee (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The situation may be the same as it is in the UK. The authorities get very upset it you take photographs of security features such a security cameras, alarms and alarm control boxes etc., and especially 'keys'. This is because it is possible to make keys from the photos. Also, prison architectural plans, such as those used by maintenance departments etc. Photographs taken inside will need a 'building release' which is the equivalent of model release but for inanimate objects. Also, if the image shows any 'identifiable' inmates or staff etc., then model releases apply. (This doesn't seem to stop photo agencies placing stock images of prisons interiors on their websites and placing the onus on would be publishers to obtain release forms prior to publication)

However, photographs taken from public property (as yours are) appear to be OK (one only has to see the frequency of news article with external images, including cameras and all). However, the use of high power telephoto lenses from public rights of way is perhaps best avoided. The image of the dud with sunglasses is I would say borderline. But at 3.3 MB it blows up well (second opinion anyone?). Therefore, if you're paranoid, then I would suggest up re-uploading a version with a lower resolution or an image with a blurred face – GIMP is good for these tweets. Remember to note this blurring in the description. Then ask a administrator to delete the original image -just to be sure. It is IMO, a good image for WC, and so I think worth this extra trouble.

If you have a bona fide fixed abode etc., there is nothing to stop you asking to take inside shots even. This is more likely to be granted if you show that you know your own laws, and have a good reason for making the request. Never the less, they may want control on how some, or all, of the images are used. The prison may have written its own written photographic policy, if so you can phone up and ask for a copy. If on the other hand you just ask if you can come in a take some photos and sound hesitant, unsure and a complete twit, it will be easier for the guy on the other end to say “No, it not allowed”. Prisons belong to the tax payers – the prison authorities are obliged to allow reasonable legitimate access.

Hope this helps to allay your fears.
Just an observation: I could not see any indication of this institution's address either in articles or on the images description. Nor any map coordinates.

If however you hear that Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google are to be extradited to Australia, then be afraid, be very afraid. See this link for self evident explanation. [4]
--P.g.champion (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Nominate for deletion" link bug

Yes check.svg Resolved

When I clkick on "nominate for deletion", the request page is created, the image page is edited, but the script :

  • fails from editing the uploader's discussion page
  • fails from listing the deletion request on the requests' list of the day

Is there anything I can do on my computer to solve this problem or is it a bug in the script of the link ?

Teofilo (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What about other people using this "nominate for deletion" link ? Do you have this bug on your computer too, or is it only me ? Teofilo (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen what you're describing happen to me once or twice, but I don't see any kind of consistent patten to it. Mostly it works. Tabercil (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. For me, it is a consistent bug. What browser do you use ? I use Firefox 2.0.0.20. Teofilo (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I had this happen to me, using Safari. I only tried to delete one image though, so I can't say if it is random or consistent. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I solved the problem by putting "commons.wikimedia.org" on Firefox's white list for the "popup block" tool. Teofilo (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A load too wide

I uploaded this file (File:WideLoad.jpg) to Commons and linked it to this article in Wikipedia (en:Oversize/overweight load). Turns out there is already a file by that name in Wikipedia, as you can see in the article. However it is not of much relevance to the article! I note also that the image is in Commons under a slightly altered name (File:Wide Load.JPG). I'm wondering whether an administrator can delete my file so I can upload it under a different name. Verne Equinox (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  • The quickest way to solve the problem is to re-upload the same image into a new name, then request deletion of the first image as being a duplicate now. So, edit File:WideLoad.jpg and insert the top line:
{{db|1=Duplicates new image [[:File:newname.jpg]], also uploaded by me. -~~~~}}
After saving the edit, that image will show the step-by-step instructions for how to finish the deletion-request. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The other image should probably be deleted anyways; I think it was used on a speedy-deleted en-wiki article about a non-notable band. The draft is still available as a user sub-page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks like somebody made the changes before I got around to it. Thanks for the help. Verne Equinox (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've renamed the article on enwki to en:Oversize load to avoid the use of "/" in the article title (which usually denotes a subpage). Alternative names shouldn't be used in the article title - just choose one and redirect the other. WJBscribe (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Userpage help: Babel / Gallery overlap

Can someone who knows wiki-formatting help out my user page, User:GRuban? I added a Babel languages box and it's overlapping with the gallery of contributions. Is there a way that the gallery can grow to the edge of the babel box but then stop? --GRuban (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It depend to the size of Your/Viewer monitor, in wider monitors you don't see this problem, well in enWP you can set the numbre of rows in Gallery by adding perrow="Numbre" to the tag but in commons it is not posible to use perrow, maybe you can insert the images inside a table to control the size and rows.   ■ MMXXtalk  22:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Autostitch category

I see that Category:Created with Autostitch is a hiddencat. Does this really fit with the licensing requirement that images created with the demo version of Autostitch must be acknowledged as such? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the category is added by a template and the template is visible on the file description. --Slomox (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
OIC. I didn't see the template, so I manually added the category to my images that used it. Thanks!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I would think the template should be enough. Also note that Autostitch cannot impose terms on the copyright of any output; that is still 100% owned by the copyright owner of the source photographs. That would just be violating the EULA I guess, which is an issue for the Autostitch user only. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion feed?

Can anyone suggest a reason that we shouldn't promote the use of a 'deletion feed' for third parties who copy images from commons? There are a number of sites that copy material from commons with enough meta-information that they could follow and replicate our deletions. The idea being that this may reduce the harm created where people have copied material from commons with incorrect copyright claims. Of course, since the deletion logs are public they could already be following our deletions, but I don't know that we've ever really promoted it as a best practice. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting files

I grouped the files of the Tugboat TID 172 in Category:TID 172 and found out that half of the files in Category:Frederic Logghe Maritime photo collection is a copy of the other half, but in a lower resolution. Is it wise or polite to ask a bot to remove the lower quality files? --Stunteltje (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Arabic Interface

The Arabic interface doesn't behave like the Hebrew interface which should be the case. I mean by that the mirroring of the tools like the toolbox.

Steps to reproduce the intended functionality: Go to commons Go to my preferences Change the language to Hebrew (he)

Result= All of the interface gets mirrored. The toolbox, logo and search go to the right and the Username to the left.

Steps to produce the bug: Go to commons Go to my preferences Change the language to Arabic (ar)

Result= The whole interface stays the same and only the language keywords change.

What to do= Make the Arabic Interface behave like the Hebrew interface.

How to do that: I think: Copy

/* make the UI RTL in RTL languages. */
function RTLism(){
    document.write('<style type=\"text/css\">/*<![CDATA[*/@import \"/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:monobook.css/ar&action=raw&ctype=text/css\";/*]]>*/</style>');
 
if (wgAction == "history" || wgAction == "edit" || wgAction == "submit" ) {
     if(document.getElementById('column-content')!=null) document.getElementById('column-content').style.direction='rtl';
  }
}
addOnloadHook(RTLism);

from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.js/he to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.js/ar

That's what's said on https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18371

and also copy from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.css/he to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.css/ar

--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the code to MediaWiki:Rtl.js and MediaWiki:Rtl.css and will try to make it available to all rtl languages. --Slomox (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Template message box standardization.

This is the last call before I give up, many other Wikimedia sites have adopted these new message boxes, they are easier to build, and take less knowledge of WikiTables to function. Think we should implement them? ViperSnake151 (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Certainly. I noticed how easy it is to use (for example) ombox when I created this license template. I used it even though it's not policy. I don't see why we shouldn't follow other Wikimedia projects like enwiki. I am not aware of any discussion/arguments against these message boxes, however. Nillerdk (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
If it is compatible with our specific needs (we need a "language" line providing translation links), why not. Teofilo (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is what PD-USGov, Insignia, and one of our cleanup tags would look like as we have it now. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

These examples look fine to me. Teofilo (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
There should be a view template button. Usually I have to click edit, copy the template name, paste in search. Could u add a view button somewhere?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It really looks great, I'm all for it. Some harmonization can only be beneficial, it will make the image pages more readable and coherent. It would be nice if more people would comment on this though; right now it looks like no one cares either way. –Tryphon 21:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't care :-) I'm not a big fan of the design, but I don't oppose anything. --Eusebius (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Great! That's the spirit, people. More enthusiastic indifference? :-) –Tryphon 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and in spite of my enthusiastic indifference, I'd love to see how this kind of template renders when embedded in templates like {{PD-Art}} or {{self}}. --Eusebius (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Template harmonization is definitely good; though at one point a long while back we intentionally switched to 100% width templates, so I would recommend going back to that. I can't remember exactly where the discussion was but it was a long one :-) Probably because the 80% templates look terrible inside {{Information}}. I would also have the icons go back to 64px which I think looks much better. Other than that, looks like a very good idea. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll maybe set those to 100% and change the border to match WP's Imbox a bit more. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg SupportThese templates are so easy and cool. I created a template in just 30 seconds. Hope this gets through.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

LilyPond source

I'm taking a swing through the music samples that have w:GNU LilyPond code included in the description, and there's a fairly wide variety of syntax choices used. If we were to discuss standardizing this a bit, where would be the best place for the description? If there isn't currently a good place, would creating Commons:GNU LilyPond be a good thing? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at existing topics, like Inkscape, led me to create Help:GNU LilyPond.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Somebody took my username on Commons without my permission, can anybody help me to get it back?

The user tvdm1 took my username "tvdm" on commons.wikimedia without my permission. My account was changed to tvdm (usurped). I'm wondering which policy of the wiki-community that allows this to happen? Anyway, how can I get my username "tvdm" back? I was first on the Commons with that name, and other users should respect that. If it happened to me, it could happen to you all.....


Kind regards

--tvdm (usurped) 01:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that seems completely unfair to me. So if i don't login for a week, someone can just take my username?.. i don't think that should be allowed without permission from the original owner of that name.. And since he/she did not give permission, the action should not have been carried out in my opinion and he/she should get his username back.. --Ltshears (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, you were asked here, and your only contributions on commons are from 2006. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I was asked, yes, but since I'm an infrequent user not often dealing with the user talks, my username was usurped before I had a chance to answer. Besides, I have useful contributions, and the request for usupation should therefore be declined. But it wasn't.... So, somebody did the wrong thing here, and I should be entitled to get my old username and password back. Since tvdm1 is a bureaucrat, he should know this.
Username changes or usurpations are discussed at COM:CHU. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You uploaded three files in 2006.[5] That was the extent of your contributions. You failed to respond when asked.[6] In my opinion, there was good reason to assume you had either left the project or were editing under a new username. Your username has been usurped on nnwiki, by the way.[7] You last edited there in January 2008. If you are not satisfied with this result, the first step would be a polite request of User talk:Tvdm. If that is unfruitful, please take it to COM:CHU. The fact that you protested usurpation on nowiki may be relevant.[8] Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Your name is given to a other user that uses the same name on a other wiki but is active on Commons. I think that is probaly a good reason, because you can't claim rights for your name. If you don't use it and have only three edits and you are inactive for a long time I see no problems why somebody else shouldn't get the name. Huib talk 17:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems difficult to invent a SUL procedure (that can be terminated in a reasonable amount of time) for people that work on many wiki's using popular short acronym names without having such type of conflicts. The easiest way out it to find a more exclusive name and make it really exclusive by creating a SUL account and usurping your old user name (and history) in it. You might of course have better suggestions. --Foroa (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

April 7

TIFF file format

Am i get it right? we can upload TIFF format but we can not view the images?   ■ MMXXtalk  14:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Just like pdf. Multichill (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It's just so restorationists can store their TIFF versions here. They're not for general use. Kaldari (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Batch uploading

I'd like to suggest a project called: Commons:Batch uploading. The project would concern itself with importing multiple images from sites based on User requests/specifications. Flickr sets could be imported by a user request. This would be helpful for all of us. Anyone could just suggest a set of images on Flickr to be imported and the bot manager would do it in a day or two. This would be useful for the sets on The Commons and other cc sets. This would also be helpful for other sites like the Library of Congress digital archive.

Bot operators would be needed to assess the request. General Bot templates would prove helpful for people who want to get into the Mass upload requests. Known users who concern themselves with this kind of stuff are: User:Multichill User:Duesentrieb and others I don't know.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I just wrote my first parser for imports. I agree that some more clarity and sharing of code in a place like that might be useful. TheDJ (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I've done a number of extensive batch uploads recently, and would love to share tools for doing so with other Commoners. It'd also be great if there's a place where ordinary users can request batch retrievals and uploads. Some of the challenges of batch uploading that we could help overcome:
  • Extracting the highest resolution image possible from the source.
  • Extracting the metadata from the source and using it to fill in the image description page.
  • License filtering - figuring out which images are okay for upload and which ones are not. For public domain images, this is rather complex.
Dcoetzee (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
That is a great idea. --Jarekt (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I created the basic layout of Commons:Batch uploading. Any improvements are welcome and Participants are invited.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Batch uploading should contain general information about batch uploading, links to past uploads and links to possible future uploads. For each past upload we could create a subpage describing how it was done, what code we used, what problems we had etc etc to improve future batch uploads. Multichill (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Personality rights warning

In wich cases should the {{Personality rights}} template be added to a photo? Unknown people? People at potencially derogatory photos or situations? All living people? Belgrano (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

All living people, I'd say. Even people who may be alive, or were recently deceased. In one extreme case, "Indiana [...] [provides] recognition of the right for 100 years after death, and protecting not only the usual 'name, image and likeness,' but also signature, photograph, gestures, distinctive appearances, and mannerisms." (en:Personality_rights) All of our images allow derivative use. Even a glowingly positive image can have a derogatory caption attached to it, for example. Warning people not to do this is the very reason this template exists. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Creator collapse

This template is being used for example on File:Sichel-Arab_woman.jpg.

When I review a file, I wish the author's death year to appear instantly so that I can know quickly if the file is in the Public Domain or not.

So if nobody objects, I will ask an admin (I can't do it myself because that template is blocked) to edit Template:Creator/layout in order either to remove this whole collapse thing, or to set the template in an uncollapsed status before clicking. Teofilo (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This template takes many optional parameters and can get quite bulky in uncollapsed state, unnecessarily increasing the bulk of many File: pages. Collapsebility of creator template was requested and discussed at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2008Dec#Creator_templates. --Jarekt (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Why not just put the author death year field outside the collapsable part? Dcoetzee (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
If it is too bulky, then let's delete the whole thing and require the reader to go to Wikipedia to get information on a specific author. Teofilo (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest putting a function to uncollapse as default for a creator template. Short creator templates would benefit by not being collapsed.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. This would be a good compromise. Teofilo (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
An other possibility is to put the toggle button below the birth/death line. But as a whole, I find the whole thing quite cumbersome. If you look at File:Eyckbaptism.png you wonder why so much space is used when one can write "Jan van Eyck (Maaseyck, 1387 - Bruges, 1441)" on only one line : everyone understands that the first set of data is about birth and the second one about death. A table is not needed. Teofilo (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I could see putting the collapse functionality below the basic information lines. But really, is a single mouse click (which doesn't even involve a request back to the server) all that much? Especially compared with a suggestion to remove the entire scheme just to avoid it? Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Not "just to avoid it" but because removing it would be a positive improvement : an improvement of usability, an improvement of reading easiness. Teofilo (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No FOP = use {{dw}}?

Okay, I've noticed that in many situations (especially for images of France), people send images of buildings and sculptures to RFD rather than speedy delete them. Would it be in better taste to speedy delete "no freedom of panorama" images? ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really like that idea. People uploading such pictures are generally unaware of the situation, and it is very frustrating for them when their pictures get challenged and deleted. Making the no-FOP-based deletions automatic would just increase the rejection feeling. --Eusebius (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bot request to help detect copyright violations

I've seen several pictures in Commons which are direct copies of pictures from in Web pages. I think that a bot can be written that copies to a page all the JPG pictures smaller than say 320x200 pixels so they can be manually verified. It appears that most copyright violations are in this picture size. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be to hard to create a daily gallery of possible copyright violations based on certain criteria. Let's make a list of possible criteria:
  • Size of the file
  • Fileformat
  • Lack of templates
  • Lack of categories
  • New user
  • User with a lot of warning templates on it's talk
  • .... (feel free to add more criteria here)
Multichill (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thats propaly much too much work, I think we already have some 100 thousends cropped images smaller than this. If this is the place for wishes: EXIF data is often hidden if no camera is given, but sometimes there is text in the description or copyright field. I like to have a collection of images with the terms "Getty" "AFP" or "WENN" inside one of this fields. Not case sensitive. --Martin H. (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
p.s.:Didnt notice Multichills proposal: For new uploaded images it might be a godd idea. --Martin H. (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

New public domain templates

Also posted to Commons talk:Licensing

I've created the following new public domain templates to cover some legal ground our existing templates do not:

Any feedback is appreciated. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

PD-US-unregistered is just another way of stating {{PD-US-not_renewed}}, I'm pretty sure. I don't think registration was necessary for the first 28 years of protection, as long as there was a valid copyright notice. Renewal registration was required after 28 years. PD-US-defective_notice is essentially the same thing as {{PD-US-no_notice}}, since a defective notice was the same thing as no notice. But, maybe it is good to have a separate tag for that one. There are other conditions for defective notices -- printed literary, musical, or dramatic works required the year, some types of works had required placement within the work (like the title page, or one page later, for books), and the copyright symbol, the full word "copyright", or the abbreviation "copr." had to be present (other abbreviations were not allowed). See s:United States Code/Title 17/1976-10-18/Chapter 1/Sections 19 to 21. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Regarding unregistered, my impression is that during this period, registration was required (in addition to notice) in order to enjoy copyright protection (at least at the federal level). The intention is to deal with late original registration, rather than renewal. My source claims that for works published 1963 or earlier, "Registration after the year containing the 28th anniversary of publication is not valid."[9] See also [10].
Regarding defective notice, thanks for the advice about some things to add to it. I should also note cases in which defects are permissable (per [11]). Dcoetzee (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
That is because renewal was required after 28 years. At that point, if there is no registration, then yes it became PD. Registration was (and is) required to file a lawsuit, so lack of one could (and still can) limit damages, and failure to comply with the deposit requirement would prevent any infringement, but none of that would invalidate the copyright, I don't think. Federal copyright was secured with just the notice for 28 years, per §10. The only case I can think where the tag might apply is if a renewal was filed without an initial registration being filed first (which would be an invalid renewal), but I think the not_renewed tag is enough for that situation anyways (if it can ever really be proven). I'm pretty sure authors were permitted to file the registration and renewal at the same time, even 28 years after publication, so it wasn't much of a time limit. If you try to register after that, obviously it is too late, because the work became PD after not being renewed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, I see now. That makes sense. I've deleted the unregistered template and left the defective notice one. Thanks for your explanation. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny cats

Do we have a special category for somewhat funny (though legitimate) category-names such as Category:Big Things of Australia? --Túrelio (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice the "Novelty architecture" category? If I could I'd change that to "Novelty architecture of Australia" ViperSnake151 (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with Category:Big Things of Australia. I just assume that there may be a few more cats of that sort that might merit to have 1 sup-cat for "funny" cat-names and contents.--Túrelio (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This would be fun, but probably too subjective for our purposes. However, we do have a different category for funny cats. ;-) Dcoetzee (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Eccentric, Category:Unusual, Category:Absurd? Man vyi (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input.--Túrelio (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

importing Great Images in NASA

I was thinking that we should do an import of all the Great Images of NASA http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/

  1. They are historic
  2. They are often restored from the originals and much higher quality than the other NASA galleries.
  3. They are easy to scrape.

User:Multichill has offered to assist in the actual uploading, and I'll write the HTML scraper to prepare the descriptions.

Example page: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-000038.html

Example description Title: "Title field - GPN#.jpg"

Description

Full Description field

Date
Source Great Images in NASA Description
Author "Creator/Photographer" field (Original Source field is almost always set to DIGITAL, but I will evaluate during scrape if there are more useful uses)
Permission
(Reusing this file)

{{PD-USGov-NASA}} (if the creator field starts with NASA, otherwise they will go into Category:GRiN images requiring copyright evaluation. all images are PD as far as i'm aware)

Shuttle.svg This image or video was catalogued by one of the centers of the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under Photo ID: GPN-number AND Alternate ID: centernumber.
This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information.

Català | Čeština | Deutsch | English | Español | فارسی | Français | Galego | Magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Polski | Português | Русский | Türkçe | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | +/−

Category:Great Images of NASA I was looking at an automated way to add categories, but it seems their keywords contain no subject separators. Ergo you have: "Wernher von Braun Gordon Cooper Gordo Cooper MR-3", without a way to distill the substring "Wernher von Braun" from that. Any ideas ? TheDJ (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My current proposal for the scripts and stuff can be found here. TheDJ (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This batch upload is now in progress. Should be done by tomorrow. For details see Commons:Batch uploading/Great Images in NASA. It is about 1400 files in total. TheDJ (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

good fit?

is this (very much 'not safe for work' image - probably illegal for anyone under 18 to view in many countries) a good fit for commons? - puns on 'good fit' will not be appreciated ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a decent example of erotic photography. For what it's worth, I'm not aware of any country in which it is illegal for a person of any age to view anything. The person displaying it may get charged with "corruption of a minor" where applicable. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
There are already rules that set that all nude images must have a realistic educative purpose, if that's where this thread is aimed to. It's explained at Commons:Project scope#Censorship Belgrano (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Internationalization

Let's translate Creator, Information and Painting templates! Go to Commons:Internationalization and help out! What do u think of this Project?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain the difference between Commons:Internationalization and Commons:Template i18n? Multichill (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Saw the Commons:Template i18n a minute ago.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
created a redirect, I also did not find it a while ago. --Martin H. (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should try to recruit a translator team or a translator community. Looking at Commons:Template_i18n/Interface_language_statistics, we need much much more translators. At the moment translations are done very uncoordinated. It's mostly random users who come along a template, see that their language is not on the list, translate it, and then go on with other things. There are few persons who do translations on a regular basis.
A single person working on translations can improve the usability for speakers of that language greatly. All nds translations on Commons are done by me alone. At the moment - browsing with Special:Random - there's hardly _any_ page, that is not localized to nds at least partly. Depending on the time you can invest, a fairly wide reaching localization can be accomplished in a few weeks or months by a single person.
So we should perhaps try to contact Commons users native in so far less supported languages or users of the other projects in those languages and specifically invite them to participate in localization. But we need some kind of central portal that presents the localization methods and localizable templates and sorts them according to their importantness. --Slomox (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I can translate to Arabic and German. But coordination would be more motivating.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Rollback

Does anyone knows what happens to Rollback, the discussions stopped since 9 March.   ■ MMXXtalk  22:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

New image placement guide

I've been doing a lot of placing images in articles lately. I've written an essay with a step-by-step guide at Commons:Placing images. Feedback is welcome. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe something can be said about valued images, whose aim is to be good candidates for placement in an article. Or maybe it's useless, because there are too few of them (~600 at the moment) or because they are usually placed at nomination/promotion time. --Eusebius (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

April 9

Wikimania 2009: Scholarships

English: Wikimania 2009, this year's global event devoted to Wikimedia projects around the globe, is now accepting applications for scholarships to the conference. This year's conference will be handled from August 26-28 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The scholarship can be used to help offset the costs of travel and registration. For more information, check the official information page. Please remember that the Call for Participation is still open, please submit your papers! Without submissions, Wikimania would not be nearly as fun! --Az1568 (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Category unfolding

Is it only me, or have we lost the capacity to unfold several depths of categories with the [+] button? --Eusebius (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this too the other day. Looks like it is one level only now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I should file a bug then, if I ever find out how to. --Eusebius (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for volunteering ;) --Foroa (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done [12] --Eusebius (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The bug had been reported already by someone more aware than me of the MediaWiki extension involved. --Eusebius (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Design rights template

I have been looking for a 'design rights'-template (or industrial design rights) - simliar to those of {{Trademarked}} for trademarked items (and to some extinct {{Personality rights}} for personality rights). While Wikimedia Commons makes strong points towards copyrigt and to some degree also takes a notice towards trademark, it there - apparently - isn't any sort of notice towards design rights. Trademarks and personality rights are - among others - equally mentioned in the general disclaimer with design rights:

Any of the trademarks, service marks, collective marks, design rights, personality rights or similar rights that are mentioned, used or cited in the Wikimedia Commons are the property of their respective owners.

I haven't been able to find anything regarding this issue and that makes me wonder. Does anybody know why there isn't such a template - or if one exists - where? For the interrested: The background is the file File:S-tog.svg, which is protected by the danish design law (only in danish i'm afraid) §§9-12 (my translation, other danes is encouraged to proof-read):

§9. The design protection right, with exceptions as mentioned in §§ 10-12, that nobody without consent from the design owner, may use the design. Such use covers production, offers, marketing, introducing, executing, performing or use of a product, which utilises or stores such a design with the forementioned purposes.
Pt. 2. The design protection right, as mentioned in pt. 1, includes every design, which does not provide the informed user with a different unified whole. When judging the extent of the design right protection, the amount of liberty, which the designer had when developing the design, should be taken into consideration.
§10. The design protection right can not be exerted when
1) the design is used in a sole private context,
2) the design is used in a experimental context, and
3) the design is quoted or used for education, given that the use of the design is in accordance with good practice and doesn't harm the intented usage of the design and given that the source of the design is is attributed.
§11. The design protection right can not be exerted when
1) the design is used on ships and aerial vehicles, registered in other countries, if those are temporarily in this country, and
2) the design is used on imported parts and accessories, with the purpose of reparing and performing repairs of the forementioned ships and aerial vehicles.
§12. The design protection right does not cover actions, connected to the designs, which the owner, or with the owners conscent, is marketet within the European Economical Coorporation.

I think that the file mentioned should carry some sort of warning, but i'm not sure how to effect that. --Hebster (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A helhedsindtryk is more like a 'general impression' than 'unified whole', isn't it?
Are you sure that File:S-tog.svg is protected under Designretten? The S-tog logo is really plain and simple. I don't think it's protected. But of course the general question does not depend on that. Perhaps you could give some examples where the new disclaimer should be used and what it should say?
Design right basically says, that a producer of products is not allowed to make his products look the same as other producers' products. Car manufacturer A is not allowed to copy the look of Model X by car manufacturer B. But it wouldn't make sense to tag every photo of a car with a design rights disclaimer. Cause every car manufacturer knows that he is not allowed to copy the design of other cars. And few Commons users will ever start to design cars by copying from Commons' images. So the disclaimer would fulfil no purpose at the file description page of car photos. And I guess all professional designers know about design rights. So a disclaimer would only be useful for products that could be created by private hobbyists unaware of the laws too. But I don't know any good examples for that. Do you? --Slomox (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I actually think that 'general impression' would be a better translation than 'unified hole'.
Actually there are two elements in this as far as i'm aware. First the font used by DSB (named VIA) is developed by a company (Etypes) exclusively for DSB and as such is a protected design. Second the red hexagon with rounded edges with that exact diameter and length of straight lines and the white S with the font VIA is a protected design. So yes both the logo as a whole and the font used is protected by §9.
I can see your point with the cars. I never really considered it as relevant for physical objects, as much as for immaterial designs such as fonts, logos etc. --Hebster (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Someone recently created a {{copydesign}} template. I don't much like the wording of the template, but maybe it can be generalized to design patents and this "design right" stuff. Does the Danish law automatically protect all designs or do they have to be registered? According to en:Industrial design right, it sounds like they have to be specifically registered. I thought usually design patents need to be registered, but I really don't know about specific countries in Europe. (I think the tag was created because the U.S. did at one point consider a "design copyright", but rejected it -- though it was later implemented later for boat hulls, and only boat hulls.) For most design patents (like the car design example, and also the non-implemented U.S. law), photos and other media showing such designs are not protected; it is generally only to prevent competitors from using the design on similar products. Straight copies of logos are different, and protection probably varies widely by country. There is an international treaty around them, but it looks like the European Community only recently joined (and Denmark only in December), and the U.S. has not,[13] so protection is likely to differ (or be nonexistent) depending on the country. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the {{copydesign}} template, but it could serve as a starting point. As you i don't agree with the wording either as it is currently. The designs has to be registered with the "central industrial property offices of the Member States" (in Denmark that is Patent- og Varemærkestyrelsen). The danish law - as far as i'm aware - is a fully ratification (with a couple of further national limitations) of Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 and Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs. From what i can gather of both the EU text (article 12) and the danish law (§9), it only confers with straight copies and reproductions and not photos including the protected designs. As such File:Allerød3.jpg wouldn't require the template while File:S-tog.svg would. --Hebster (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to read http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschmacksmuster#Geschmacksmuster_und_Bildrechte in German --Historiograf (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Die Abbildung eines geschützten Geschmacksmusters wie z. B. des ICE in einem Nachschlagewerk oder einer elektronischen Enzyklopädie dürfte unproblematisch sein, sofern das Bild den entsprechenden Artikel veranschaulicht. Richtet ein freies Projekt aber einen gemeinsamen internationalen Bilderserver ein, auf dem ohne Verklammerung mit entsprechenden Artikeln hochwertige Bilder geschützter Gegenstände kostenfrei und zur beliebigen Verwendung unter einer freien Lizenz zum weltweiten Online-Abruf bereitgehalten werden, so könnte dies eine Verletzung des Schutzrechts darstellen, da man nicht unbedingt von einer Zitierung ausgehen kann.
How general! How 'not insiderous' ;-) --Slomox (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

English speaking OTRS volunteer needed

Yes check.svg Resolved

Hello,

Could an English speaking OTRS volunteer have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bhaktaraj Maharaj Morpankh.jpg and explain the uploader what kind of E-mail, written by whom is expected ? Teofilo (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I linked the pages that explain how to give permission: please also notice our new OTRS noticeboard which is suitable for these kind of requests. Ciell (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't know about the noticeboard. I made the following edit on COM:OTRS to advertise it a little better. Teofilo (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thank you! I didn't even realize we didn't put it in the information there yet :-D. Ciell (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It was there, but only in the "See also" section at the bottom of the page. Teofilo (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Keeping old versions of periodically updated images?

I have made a number of graphs of statistical data that I update periodically, either monthly, quarterly or whenever needed. As an example, see File:US consumer credit.png. Every version of these images is retained. However, each updated version contains all the information of the previous one, plus the most recent data. I think the same applies to other images of a comparable nature, like charts of currencies. (See Monaneko's admirable collection in Category:SVG Temporal graph.) Doesn't this lead to a steadily growing collection of images that are surplus to requirements? I don't know whether space is getting scarce on our servers, but if it is, may I suggest that we delete old versions of images of this type? Best regards, MartinD (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about performance. Anyway, deleted images are not deleted on disk, the images are just hidden for normal users. So deleting images won't safe us diskspace. Multichill (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reply. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tif/png problem

I posted my image problem to Commons:Help desk#Tif and png problem but no one has been able to tell me what to do. The tiff File:Dead letter office.tif does not seem to be supported and the png File:Dead letter office.png will not display even though it is less than 12mb. What the solution to make either one work? None of the help pages helps me. Ww2censor (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't nominate for deletion. Commons accepts tiff files and they will be in the future have thumbnails. PNG files with over 12million collors don't have thumbnails either which will be fixed in the future. What you should do is just have the tiff files available for any restortionist or just as an original and convert it to jpeg and upload it again. Don't forget to link it in the other versions place in the description. If u can't do it I would be glad to help or do it myself. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Uhm, I did tell you what the problem was and I did tell you what to do: Use the smaller version for thumbnails and link to the larger version from the smaller version's description page. This is not very satisfying, but the only possible workaround until thumbnailing of large images is fixed. As this might happen anytime in the future, we don't delete the larger versions. By the way, I was not talking about 12 Megabyte, but about 12.5 Megapixel. Your image has 4.662×3.745 pixels, that is about 17.4 Megapixels, which makes it too big for our current scaling software. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so I will reduce the png image size to below your suggestion. I didn't really understand your explanation. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, you shouldn't have uploaded a downsized version over the actual hi-res one but rather uploaded to low-res version under a new file name. This way the thumbnail file can later be deleted and replaced with the hi-res version, once the scaling software is fixed. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories on templates

Should categories on templates be on the template itself or on the documentation page? When I edit the noinclude section of an template to add a category, this still means a complete rerender for all inclusions of that template. Will this still happen if I add them to the documentation? I'm not sure, does somebody know? --Slomox (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki doesn't parse the noinclude parts when transcluded (it stopped over a year ago). Rocket000 (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Review of File:Lolicon Sample.png

Is this image illegal?

Human.v2.0 is claiming this image is illegal and needs to be deleted as child pornography. As I am not aware of any laws in the United States under which this image would be considered child pornography, I am bringing this issue here for discussion. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 22:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a ridiculous assertion. First, Kasuga wouldn't have drawn it if it was pornographic. Second, there's no nudity, and no sexual situation portrayed. We have pictures of real naked children on Commons, and have for a long time; this doesn't even come close. Powers (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh hai isn't child porno supposed to be all naked? ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, apparently I should elaborate before I'm left open to ridicule or additional threats of banning. For starters, I did not say that it is child pornography, I said that the image can fall under the recently introduced legislation in the US and other countries where cartoon depictions of underage sexualized imagery is prosecutable under similar standards as child pornography. Frankly, the laws are ridiculous in their wording and even more ridiculous in their use; the fact that the image is being used in Lolicon certainly does a lot to reinforce the intention that it be a sexualized image of underage youths. I don't know Kasuga, don't know a thing about him, and don't care to be making any assertions based on this image or anything else, however "he wouldn't do that" isn't much of an argument in and of itself.
What I'm saying boils down to the fact that the image has a questionable legality at the current time, as well as brings nothing more to the article than using an image of child pornography in that article would. This is not, as has repeatedly been claimed by Nihonjoe, an issue of censorship in my eyes. It's a question of legality (and the possible ramifications of which being much steeper than the much-more-easily-enforced copyright regulations) and (to a lesser extent) of it having negligible value to the article itself. Signed, Human.v2.0
Has anyone asked Mike Godwin for his opinion? He is the Foundation's General Counsel after all... – ukexpat (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I contacted him and pointed him to this discussion. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 23:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I've reviewed the image, and it is neither obscene (according to the Miller test) nor child pornography as the concept is understood in the United States (no actual use of children). The image isn't even terribly controversial.MGodwin (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If that's "illegal child pornography", then so are the clothing ads in my Sunday newspaper. It might be illegal in Iran; not even under the most restrictive anti-CP laws in the United States is it illegal. --Carnildo (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The more important question to ask here is whether this image is a threat to children, or whether its production involved the exploitation of children. The answer is, obviously, no. If we're breaking the law by showing it, which is extremely unlikely, then the law is stupid and deserves to be challenged. And I believe that if it came to that, the community at large would stand behind us. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
If this image is illegal under the current law, then about half of the anime and manga produced and shown in this country, which often contain such images, are illegal as well. I'd favor leaving the image be until and unless we see a big furor in the broader world regarding showing such images on television as child pornography. John Carter (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
As far as the PROTECT Act of 2003 and the related HR 4472, exploitation of children during production is a non-issue. Well, it is still an issue in the sense that these cases keep getting overturned one way or the other every six months (one individual has appealed twice successfuly only to have the conviction re-applied last time, if I recal correctly. It's entirely possible that it's been re-appealed since last fall, but I am unaware of that.), but that is kinda moot here. And regardless of how stupid a law is or how many people support you in breaking it, you should keep in mind that it is still the law; Blue Laws banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays (until a certain time or altogether) are indeed quite stupid, but I would still be fined or jailed for breaking them regardless of how much my boss felt otherwise.
On a less abstract topic, Carnildo, you are not entirely correct. There have been several instances (and no, I'm not going to find a source because this isn't a relevant enough point) were authorities have differentiated in the "viewing style" or what have you with people visiting Nudist webpages; tagging frequency of visits, time periods and other factors to identify the intent of some visitors as having a decidedly pornographic nature. While I am unsure if there have been any prosecutions based solely on this research, there is certainly legal precedent that the intentions of the distributor and the viewer are taken into account. I hold no doubts that the same clothing ads would be marked as pornography if the magazine was instead titled "Lil Kidz 4U to PEEK!"
Anyway, the two legal documents that I mentioned in the first page form the basis for my concerns, as it was specifically the PAo2003 that initiated the "cartoons can be child porn, too" factor. I will keep looking for more specific laws or cases, though I obviously do not claim to be a legal expert in this area so I might be missing a few notes. Human.v2.0
PROTECT Act of 2003 refers to the Miller Test in determining if an image is obscene or not. In order for the image to be illegal, it will have to be legally judge obscene. Although I am not a lawyer (and you are probably not one either), since this image would not be classified as obscene under the Miller Test, it would not be illegal under the PROTECT Act of 2003. As for pending legislation, taking any action on that would be WP:CRYSTALBALLing. --64.127.58.192 00:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer states that Nothing on Wikipedia.org or of any project of Wikimedia Foundation Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a legal opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of law. Based on that we should let Mike Godwin who is a professional lawyer deal with this. He also likely knows what legal impications if any this image presents better than anyone who has posted here.--76.66.181.27 00:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Here are the three parts, all three of which must be satisfied for it to be considered obscene:
  1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
  2. Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
  3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific.)
Now, it's possible it would meet #1 depending on who was viewing them. However, it clearly does not meet #2 (no sexual conduct, and no excretory functions being depicted), and it clearly does not meet #3 as it could meet serious literary, artistic, and/or scientific functions as it is being used to illustrate an encyclopedic article. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 00:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
From 18 U.S.C. § 2256:
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
[...]
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct
[...]
(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I was under the impression that "indistinguishable" in that context means that the subject depicted is in fact a minor rather than a "real" minor. - 131.211.210.237 12:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The quote and bolded section is the text of the law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything legally wrong. There's no sexual conduct or sexual poses and if this were to be illegal, children modelling underwear in your standard door-to-door commercial folder would be illegal too, which it isn't - 131.211.210.237 12:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Mike has already weighed into this discussion above saying he sees nothing wrong with it. If our own legal counsel says it is fine, that's good enough for me. Resolute (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Sad fact is, there will still be people who will remove the image under the pretense of it being "child pron". --64.127.58.192 19:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Meh. There will always be more who will restore. We've been through this many times already with articles such as en:Muhammad and en:Virgin Killer. Resolute (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I respect the concern about child pornography very much, and yet this image does not look like child pornography to the best of my judgment. In my humble opinion, there is no such problem with this image. Nevertheless, I do wonder why we should have this image on the Common. What is the purpose of having it here? What does it demonstrate? What kind of educational value (in the broader sense of the term) does it have? I am rather concerned about turning the Commons into a dump of files without considering their purpose. Drork (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It's being used AFAIK as a "tame" example of lolicon on English Wikipedia. I don't think WP:NFCC would allow us to use a non-free image for that. ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
purpose. Multichill (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the main purpose of the image is to allow us to illustrate certain directly relevant subjects without breaking any laws. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this make a good gallery?

Take a look at Allosaurus. Do we really need all that text? Am I the only one that uses side links to link to Wikipedia? I continually see people making all kinds of links to Wikipedia like that. I also see lots of ugly boxes (like on Category:Reptilia). Have people abandoned interwiki links!? Ok, the species and wiktionary links make sense, and at least I don't see Commons in that box anymore, but why Wikipedia? Where's the logic in all these redundant links? Rocket000 (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The point of the descriptive text in categories, as far as I see it, is to uniquely identify and briefly describe the subject, with a link to Wikipedia for more information. It's only a lot of text because it's in every language. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
That's the point. We have localized Wikipedias to describe things. And we have side bars and interwiki links to link to them. Why the redundancy? Rocket000 (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a template specialist could say if an {{autotranslate}} template could be used in such instance to make the text more compact ? Teofilo (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It could, but that would prevent people from accessing the descriptions in languages other than their interface language, which is not really desirable. Meta has some sort of javascript-enhanced autotranslated template, maybe we should have a look at that for such purposes. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you like KISS?

do you know KISS? - I mean keep it small and simple. ... If you know it; why is Special:Upload filled with so much very important and usefull informations that you have to take care not to miss the most important; the upload form? ... Special:Upload is not linked on the right side so a new user will use Commons:Upload as that is link on every page. So only users with some idea what they do are using Special:Upload. Do you really think they are reading all the informations there? ... Could you please reduce this page to what is really necessary? Its really nice to get informations about freedom and the description and how to Help people find this file or Other tips - but a user who is experienced will do it or will not. You are not changing anything with all this informations. .. So please; reduce Special:Upload according kiss so I dont have to scroll through all the informations nobody is reading anyways ...Sicherlich Post 17:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see your problem. Either you are not yet familiar with the upload process, then you need Commons:Upload. Or you are already familiar with it. Then it's only one more click to the page most appropiate for your needs or you could easily set a link to that page as a bookmark, per JS, whatever.
Uploading and the things connected with it are a complicated matter. It can not be KISS-simple like the Google main page. --Slomox (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
so i tell you in the kiss-way; there is far to much text on Special:Upload ...Sicherlich Post 18:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, removing it will not make people read it. --Eusebius (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
maybe they are going to read the important things then? .. and even if not; than there is no scrolling anymore means more compfort ...Sicherlich Post 18:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
BTW, it's not directly related, but the look and content of the upload pages, at least when accessed from the left side links, depend on the language set in your preferences (that's why I don't necessarily see what you see). Anyway, would you please point out the parts that you deem not useful/important/necessary? --Eusebius (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Things are not uploaded here at user's comfort and the copyright information set afterwards. It must all be there from the begining. We don't delete just confirmed copyright violations, but also thngs whose copyright we are not certain about. And if we keep the upload form "small and simple", many users would not be aware of this and may not provide the needed information, and then may become disapointed when their image is deleted. They may also be if they pass a copyright violation though all the menues of the upload form and it get's deleted anyway, but they can't comply that nobody told them that such deletion could happen. Belgrano (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
@Belgrano; experienced users dont need to get told all that stuff; they know already as they are experienced ... for all others there is alread Commons:Upload. "but they can't comply that nobody told them" - so to put it into extreme; please copy all guidelines to the uploadform - so nobody can complain it was not written .oO ...Sicherlich Post 18:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
@Eusebius; english version .. and sure; no problem:
  1. "It's all about freedom" ... All users of files found on Wikimedia Commons must be given the Four Freedoms:' and so on. Experienced user know all that. They dont need to get again and again. If the dont know one special detail they need to check it anyways in detail so a link to Commons:Licensing is more then enough
  2. "Help people find this file". - same as bevor; experienced users know not to upload images with names like IMAGE1234.jpg. ... what might be useful is the link to CommonSense
  3. "Other tips:" -
    1. "Upload the highest resolution file that is possible." same as sad bevor; not need for expierenced
    2. "Only upload file types which Commons accepts" - wow great; as far as i know there wrong file formates are blocked from uploading anyways so no need to write it
    3. "Wikimedia Commons is for educational or informational content" - yeah; experienced know it already as the have some exoerience
the only thing which would remain is Describing your uploads as there is the Template:Information which is quite usefull to copy and paste ...Sicherlich Post 18:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

@Belgrano; experienced users dont need to get told all that stuff; for all others there is alread Commons:Upload.

Your argument for all those point is basically: "experienced users don't need that, others can go read...". But the unexperienced users (and "absent-minded" experienced users) are the specific reason why this text is here: they DON'T go read COM:L or anything else, it must be stated on the very upload page they will use. Experienced users can just skip that, I've done that 400 times and I still don't see the problem. There might be ways to customize the upload form to your needs, also, but I'm not familiar with that. From what you've stated, I think everything must remain on this page. --Eusebius (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want to skip all that, you can link the basic upload form in your own user page, and use that link each time you want to upload something. Besides, I know in wikipedia in spanish of a method to disable the copyright warning when editing (for each specific user that disables it, not in general), but it would take someone with more understanding of the mediawiki interface to see if that can be applied in this case. Belgrano (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Sicherlich: if I understand you correctly, part of your point is that unexperienced users should get all the information at Commons:Upload, but that experienced users who go to Special:Upload directly don't need that information. However, it is possible for unexperienced users to end up on Special:Upload: from Commons:Upload, click on "It is from somewhere else" and you'll end up at Special:Upload. At least for those users, we need to keep the text. Pruneautalk 23:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) On the Help desk some users have asked why Commons is so complicated, or they have (perhaps rhetorically) complained about this. So I attempted to address that question with: User:Teratornis/Why is Commons so complicated?. To the original poster: there is a difference between w:Accidental complexity and w:Essential complexity. We should constantly seek to identify and remove the former (and indeed, this is the basis for cutting costs and increasing efficiency), but we cannot remove the latter without destroying value and functionality. --Teratornis (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

PikiWiki Israel

In File:PikiWiki Israel 2176 Kibutz Gan-Shmuel sk12- 201 גן-שמואל-נטיעת פרדס 1949-50.jpg, no direct link to the source file is provided, as is usually done in the case of Files coming from Flickr, for example.

I feel uncomfortable with these uploads, because we have no possibility to check the profile of the original uploader and see if his profile is consistent with his uploads.

If we stick to our rules, an OTRS confirmation Email should be required for every file, because the uploader uploading on Wikimedia Commons and the copyright holder are two different people. Teofilo (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Why add "Pikiwiki Israel" in the file name ? When a file is uploaded from Flickr, we usually do not add "Flickr" in the file name. Teofilo (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the source should point to the image page on that site. Otherwise, there is no way to verify any licenses. The one you mention has a bogus license -- it can not be cc-by, as it is PD-Israel. If the author is unknown, Creative Commons and GFDL licenses can never apply. PikiWiki in the filename is somewhat annoying, but not really a problem (unless they want to require it or something; that would be too much -- they can be renamed if there is a good reason). Overall I agree though -- there is no way to verify these licenses; we really should be able to see if users on that site habitually upload copyright violations there since otherwise it could be a form of flickrwashing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
While they lack a photographer's name, some of the pictures I checked have a collector's name, who, I guess, believes he has some sort of copyright ownership, but some clarification is needed, perhaps by way of an OTRS ticket. Teofilo (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The Pikiwiki project has nothing to do with Flickr or similar projects. Please forget about Flickr when we discuss the Pikiwiki project, it works in a totally different method. Pikiwiki is a first initiative and it is still somewhat experimental, so please be patient about problems that occur, and you are more than welcome to suggest solutions in case you see a problem which the organizers didn't think about. Pikiwiki is an initiative of Wikimedia Israel and other Israeli free-content adhering organizations. It is in basically an alternative fully-localized interface to the Commons'. Image contributors can use a Hebrew-language interface and handle all the "paper-work" in Hebrew and in a way which is adapted to the Israeli law. The Pikiwiki site upload the images directly to the Commons, but keeps some extra information about the images, the kind of information which is probably relevant to the Israeli users. The management of the project keeps the users' statements in which they waive their copyrights in a special archive. In case of doubt, such a statement can be easily located by contacting the management directly, or Wikimedia Israel (which is the Israeli Wikimedia chapter). The prefix and number attached to each uploaded image meant to allow the localized interface trace the image. This is how Israeli users can browse these images through a Hebrew interface which also present extra information relevant to the Israeli users. If this project turns out to be successful, we hope other Wikimedia chapters in other countries organize similar project, which will make the Commons richer and more accessible. Drork (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
"It is in basically an alternative fully-localized interface to the Commons" --> Unless a consensus is reached, building an alternative interface is, I am afraid,
a) possibly a way of hiding from the scrutiny of reviewers
b) possibly a way of undermining the rules which are enforced on Commons with the support of the Wikimedia foundation
Your idea of "fully localizing" the interface probably shows that you do not understand the Commons project. Commons is about inviting people from different language areas to work together and share their files. You are doing the opposite : you are building a wall between some hebrew speakers and the rest of the world. If you look at Category:Road signs in Israel you can see that most of them are written in 3 languages. But your pikiwiki site is written in only 1 language.
"Pikiwiki is an initiative of Wikimedia Israel and other Israeli free-content adhering organizations." So it should be considered as an independent website, and be dealt with, here on Commons, with the same rules and practices we use when dealing with all kinds of source websites. This is why I think the comparison with Flickr is relevant.
Wikimedia chapters are not democratic bodies because they do not organize elections to elect user's representatives as members of the board of trustees as is the case within the Wikimedia Foundation. I trust the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't trust Wikimedia chapters. Teofilo (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

April 8

Help editing Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request

I am trying to add the date parameters in the "delete" template as follows , but I don't manage. Can please somebody help ?

I would like to add the following :

{{delete|Images of [[User:XYZ]] are suspected copyvios|Images of XYZ|Images of XYZ|day=2|month=October|year=2014}}


Teofilo (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Undisputed addition, regular usage if the template and not more work while opening a MDR with copy & paste. You added one Images of XYZ to much, I would also add the parameters names reason= and subpage=. --Martin H. (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done Added it, the to much Images of.. was copied from the helppage, but it was useless. --Martin H. (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Teofilo (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome, thank you for finding a possible improvement of Category:Deletion requests, there are still many images inside not listed on any log. --Martin H. (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
These same date parameters should be added at the end of the following sentence of the instruction text on Template:Delete :
''please make a mass request by manually adding {{delete|reason|group_name''
Teofilo (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It might be added at the end of the following sentences on Commons:Deletion requests/listing a request manually :
A)If you are nominating many images in a series, write {{delete|reason|subpage
B)(the note at the bottom of the page) For example, add {{delete|All photos of User:Mike are suspected copyvios|Images of Mike
C) ''{{delete|REASON FOR DELETION'' .
Teofilo (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
By the same token, date parameters must be added on Commons:Deletion requests/box. Teofilo (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

image garbled, need help

Can someone please have a look at File:China-Yunnan.png, it somehow looks garbled. Purging did not help. The thumbnail seems to be ok. Thanks --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Both thumbnail and full image work fine for me. Perhaps you should try it again, and possibly with a different browser. --Davidt8 (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

April 12

Wiki icons/favicons

I found a mention of Wiki favicons at Category talk:Icons but I don't know if anything ever happened to the idea of having a collection of favicons for the various Wiki web sites. I like to have the appropriate favicon on my desktop, but sometimes the only way to get one is to do a screen capture followed by various kinds of editing. Is there such a collection, or maybe a category?--Davidt8 (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it would be within the scope of the project. There are various website providing favicon repositories, if that is what you're looking for. --Eusebius (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I am looking for icons specific to the various Wikipedia websites, not computer icons in general. There would be the objection that the .ico format is not one accepted by Wikimedia Commons, but other formats would be fine by me, since Irfanview software can do the conversion easily. Why do you say it might not be within the scope of the Wikimedia Commons project?--Davidt8 (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with shunting an Image ans adding a english description

I and an Ip tried to ad a english description to File:Kleinbus Linz Linien.jpg. It doesnt work. Dont ask me why. I didnt know the bus type when uploading the image, so I have choosen a more common name, but after identifying the bus I think the correct name should be "File:Auwärter Sprinter Citystar Linz Linien". I cant find the "rename"-function. Does anyone know how these problems can be solved? --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no active rename-function on Commons. Renames may be requested by placing the template {{rename|Auwärter Sprinter Citystar Linz Linien.jpg|reason}} on the image description page. The rename is then eventually performed by a bot.--Túrelio (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The description didn't show up because of a typo: you typed l instead of 1. I fixed it and it displays fine now. Pruneautalk 22:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

April 13

Cormac McCarthy

Please help. I've just translated the article of the writer Cormac McCarthy from en.wiki for hu.wiki, but his photo with the file name: Carthy_mccarthy_promo.jpg doesn't come through (the one that's in the en.wiki). I searched Commons , but only his book The Road is there, and a picture of the musician by the same name. Not trace of the writer's photo. I'd appreciate your help. Thank you, --71.221.98.225 03:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk"

That image is not a free image, and is only used on the English Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use. I do not have any information on hu wiki's non-free content policy, but if they don't allow this type of image then you simply cannot use it. Additionally, the English Wikipedia version is not properly in compliance with their policy, being high resolution - I am downscaling it. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, all right, thank you for your advice anyway. Now I know. Best wishes,--71.221.98.225 05:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Depreciate Help: namespace

There is no specification on when to use Help: and Commons: namespaces. I have a big problem with that because when I want to know about something I don't know which one to use. More namespaces make it problematic to find what you want. Please remove the Help: namespace and keep only Commons: for any guidelines (which are in the end Help). When one looks at Category:Commons_help, one will find most in the Commons namespace. Also most links found on Help:Contents are in the commons: namespace. So why confuse everyone with having two namespaces. This is really counter intuitive and is no "Help" at all.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me. Looking at [14] it seems we have very few help pages and most of them are redirects. Completely deprecating it should be easy. --Slomox (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Our help sucks. Deleting the namespace won't solve the problem. Multichill (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not about how bad our help is, it's about the unnecessary Help namespace. If I want to know something about Bots I would have to think about whether to type Help: or Commons:. In which case it's actually Commons:bots . If I want help about Fan Art I would type Help:Fan art where it actually is Commons:Fan art. The two Namespaces make it really confusing, I'm therefore asking for Help to be removed and replaced everywhere by Commons. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
We want our help files to be easy to find. It doesn't really matter where the page is located, as long as anyone looking for it can find it easily. Deleting the Help namespace won't make anything easier: there will always be new users coming from Wikipedia and expecting the pages to be in the Help: namespace. Instead, we should create redirects. I'll do this straight away for Help:Bots and Help:Fan art. If possible, we could also make "Help:" an alias of "Commons:", so that redirection happens automagically, but I'm guessing that there are technical issues preventing this. Pruneautalk 18:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Than there should be no more Help: Titles and all should be Commons: with Help: redirected to them. There should be some guideline or specifications on which basis we create Help: namespace. Else there should only be Commons: and Help: would redirect in all cases to it.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's get rid of it. Move anything worth keeping to the Commons namespace. General wiki help should be on Meta or MediaWiki.org anyway (do will really need to soft redirect a whole namespace?). Commons-specific help is pretty much all in the Commons namespace all ready. Rocket000 (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Should I post this on mediawiki? Should I start moving all help namespaces to commons namespaces?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Hot cat" and category redirects

Yes check.svg Resolved

When one uses hotcats (the tool in My_preferences/Gadgets), categories marked with {{Category redirect}} show up as legitimate category names.

Do you know a way to solve that ?

Do you think categories tagged with {{Category redirect}} are really necessary ? Why not delete them all ?

Do you know who developped the Hot Cat software ? Do you know any software developper who might be willing to improve the Hot Cat software in order to solve this issue ?

Have you ever used "Cat-a-lot" ? Is it a useful alternative as far as this problem is concerned ?

Teofilo (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's ok if you're using HotCat. It will change it automatically to the right category when it saves. But yes, we try to keep them to a minimum because they do cause problems. Rocket000 (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this answer. I did not realize that it would change automatically. There is no worry, then. Teofilo (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Category redirects are most useful for cases where he alternative names are very different from the names of the real categories - for example when they're in a different language. In some cases if we didn't have redirects, we'd end up with two categories anyway that would later have to be merged. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
And when you have many redirected hotcats stating "people from xxx", people create their own "people from yyy" while the "people of yyy" category exists. (Or American, French xxx ...) So redirected cats with bad syntax, capitalisation errors, in/of/from errors cause bad training and redundant category names. --Foroa (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
And the people I see doing the most category cleanup work would know best ;) Rocket000 (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi all,

I was wondering if someone could answer a question for me, please. On the Manx wikipedia project the logo for the project reads:

Wikipedia
Yn kicklipaid seyr

Is it possible to have this changed to:

Wikipedia
Y chicklipaid heyr

The grammar of the language dictates that the k in kicklipaid is lenited following a definite article (in this case yn) when the word is feminine. The same rule applies to the adjective seyr which should be rendered heyr in this case. As for yn - this form is only used between vowels or between a vowel and a consonant. If it is a phrase-initial definite article followed by a consonant then it must be rendered as y. We on the Manx project would appreciate it if someone could change it for us, or guide us to someone who can help us with the problem. Thanking you in advance, MacTire02 ec Wikipedia Gaelgagh / MacTire02 (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Each wiki maintains its own logo. Yours is at gv:File:Wiki.png. Maybe you can ask the original uploader to change it? You should probably protect that and add some WMF copyright information, BTW. Rocket000 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Checkusage error

Yes check.svg Resolved

"Database Error: Host 'wolfsbane.toolserver.org' is blocked because of many connection errors; unblock with 'mysqladmin flush-hosts' (sql) on sql/toolserver - failed to connect to WikiList database "

Teofilo (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am getting the same error on both Check usage link and gallery link..--Ltshears (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be OK now. Teofilo (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Search not updating

I have only just opened an account on this site, so a complete novice - I have uploaded some pictures of Pocahontas, I tried a search for 'Pocahontas' but the images did not appear, the file names are POCAHONTAS 01.jpg, POCAHONTAS 02.jpg, POCAHONTAS 03.jpg and in my description it has the word Pocahontas - why do the pictures not appear when I search for them?

The search index takes time to update. Wait for a while. Meanwhile you need the exact name to access your files. You can check your upload log. Additionally, when uploading photographs of statues, please take care to read our Commons:Freedom of panorama policy. In many countries, a derivative work of a non-free copyrighted statue is itself non-free and so not permitted on Commons. In this case, since the statue is situated in the UK, I believe you're fine, but use the {{FoP-UK}} tag on your images. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

April 14

Non free pictures of contemporary artists works ?

hello,

I am not a specialist in art, but for me, all the contributions from this user are not free and should be deleted. What do you think ? Okki (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends, where the fotos were made. If it is UK or Austria, then FOP can also appliy indoor for permanent applications/art if this 'indoors' is a public place like a museum. But those images I checked of the contribs where made in France, so they definitely have to go. -- Cecil (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

LIFE Photo Archive

On November 18, 2008, Time Inc. announced that the legendary photo collection of the defunct LIFE magazine (which includes over 10 million images) would be digitized in partnership with Google and hosted on Google Image Search. This is a great opportunity for Commons. Thousands of very valuable images can be potentially uploaded here (some have already been). Time has indicated that 97% of the images have never been published before. Therefore, most of them should use the {{PD-US-unpublished}} tag if appropriate. All images created before 1894 and those whose author died before 1944 can be hosted on Commons using this tag without any problem since they are currently in the public domain in the US. The status of other images should be checked separately.

I have done all the preliminary work in terms of category and template creation. Therefore, contributors are welcome to start uploading images!! Just use the {{LIFE}} source template. If Google indicates a location and/or a year for the image, you can include them in the template by using the "location" and "year" parameters. Images will be automatically categorized accordingly. Google's image descriptions are in English, so hopefully this means that many contributors will participate in the uploading process!! Regards. --BomBom (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey nice work with the templates BomBom. Why isn't the naming scheme "Life, xxx, ID" ? Like in the images from the modern Egypt website?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The older date should be 1897, not 1889. A 1997 law expanded that period from 100 to 120 years but was not retroactive. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The wording should be shortened in the template-box {{LIFE}}, which would also simplify translations. In general, use digits for "97%" rather than "ninety-seven percent". Perhaps shorten the box by simply moving the extra details to the template-doc section, outside the box. Many other template-boxes are WAY TOO BIG (such as {{PD-old}}), so beware copying the style of other boxes, most of which are designed-by-committee ultra-wordified-redundant-complexifications. Keep it simple. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, new short wording looks great with link to template-doc. -Wikid77
Regarding the naming scheme, I agree with you Diaa that it should "Life, xxx, ID". The problem is that I did not upload any of these images. Most of them were already there before I started organizing them through categorization and template use. They should probably be renamed. I suggest that images uploaded from now on follow such a naming scheme.
As for Carl, are you sure about the 1897 date? This page says 1889. Could you please provide the relevant legislation? With regard to the template-box, I have greatly shortened the text within it and removed it to the template-doc section as suggested by Wikid77.
The en:Copyright Term Extension Act (effective starting October 1998) changed that term from 100 to 120. See the "Amendments" section at the bottom of the 17 U.S.C. 302 notes. It was not retroactive, so works under that criteria created before 1898 would have been public domain by then, and remain that way. I sent them a note; maybe they will update their chart. Note that you can't use that date if the author is known (unless the date of death is unknown to the Copyright Office; you need an actual letter from them in order to use that criteria), and also that "unknown" is not the same thing as "anonymous", which is usually very difficult to prove. It is most usable for unpublished works for hire. However, note that LIFE magazine did not exist back then, and so would have needed to obtain such works from other sources, which strongly suggests they were published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Argh, sorry, I was wrong about that -- while the term was extended, the 1976 Copyright Act (effective starting 1978) guaranteed 25 years of protection for those unpublished works, so none of them started to expire before 2003 -- meaning they were all still under copyright when the term was extended. So, 1889 is the correct date, and will advance one each year, so your current tag is correct. But the caveats I mentioned still apply -- and also that LIFE may have obtained some of these older images from non-U.S. sources, so terms in those countries may also need to be taken into account. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Finally, is there a way we can centralize efforts to upload images? I think several users could combine efforts and upload batches of photos based on date/location. Uploading from the Memory of Modern Egypt Digital Archive was slow because there are very few active Arabic speakers. However, in the case of LIFE images, everything is in English, so it would be far easier. All suggestions are welcome. Regards. --BomBom (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
In the case of Modern Egypt I could help a lot, but I was discouraged when my uploads were deleted because of the naming scheme. Plus the site of Modern Egypt is very difficult. You can't just download an image and you can't copy any text because it's all in Javascript. I would support having projects to upload certain batches of Images. Maybe something like Commons:The Batchers which would have its own bot to fetch batches when images are released in the public domain or CC-by or CC-by-sa. Having just a project for Life is very short sighted because after all images are uploaded the project would be dead. I would however still help out in a project for Life or Modern Egypt. Specially in a project for modern Egypt. Barnstars for these projects would encourage more people to contribute. Competitions would also encourage more people. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been doing a lot of batches lately, often from sites that make it quite difficult to do so. I'm happy to help out in any batch retrieval, license filtering, and upload effort of public domain images. I prefer to work on high-resolution images, though - the low-resolution ones are not as valuable and far more numerous. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have done some research into LIFE images about various subjects. It appears that they claim a copyright over anything, even if it is more than 150 years old... This is a shame. I found quite a lot of interesting images for Commons. Examples: India, Thoreau, Ruskin, Tolstoy, Gandhi, etc. Images from India are public domain 60 years after publication even if the author is known. So I think that these images are safe if the photograper is Indian or unknown. If the photographer is not Indian, they were probably first published outside India, so not OK. How to request a mass upload by a bot? Yann (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly another flagrant example of copyfraud. Images from the 20th century where the photographer's name is known are clearly works made for hire whose copyright is undisputably held by Time Inc. in its capacity as owner of the defunt LIFE magazine. Therefore, the copyright notice for these images makes sense and has legal value. However, by what right does Time allow itself to claim copyright over this artistic painting, for instance, whose author Jacques-Louis David died in 1825?! Obvious copyfraud. They simply aren't coherent with themselves: on the one hand, they claim 97% of the collection is unpublished, yet on the other hand they totally ignore the US copyright rules defining the status of unpublished works. US law, on which {{PD-US-unpublished}} is based, is pretty clear on this: an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work or a work made for hire created more than 120 years ago is PD.Therefore, I think it's pretty safe to upload pre-1889 photographs, and most of them do not contain a copyright notice anyway.
A mass upload by a bot would be of great help: the bot would simply need to "detect" the year in the "Date take" parameter, and if it's pre-1889, then this would mean it is OK to upload it on Commons. I have no idea how bots work, and do not have the technical abilities to do this. However, if someone could come up with such a bot, it would be truly appreciated. There are hundreds of photographs taken before 1889 which are very valuable and which would be great for Commons. A manual upload of all these would be truly fastidious. Who has the technical abilities to come up with such a bot? Regards. --BomBom (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of fetching these images for mass upload, but the license situation just gets fuzzier and fuzzier to me. Above it's suggested that {{PD-US-unpublished}} is appropriate for pre-1889 images. But at Commons_talk:Licensing#Google_LIFE_images, User:Carl Lindberg says "LIFE did not start until 1936, so none of their "unpublished" material is public domain." The natural conclusion is that most of the images old enough to be PD were published close to the time they were created. I can begin uploading as soon as I figure out the license situation, so please supply your input at Commons_talk:Licensing#Google_LIFE_images. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been moved to Commons:Batch uploading.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

April 5

Check usage for all contributions

Hi, scrolled through lots of help pages but couldn´t find advice: Is there any tool apart from CheckUsage to check the usage of numerous or all own contribution at once ? Thanks for a hint... --Detectandpreserve (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Use catscan or similar to produce a list of images (most tools have a CSV option). Copy paste it in Checkusage after hitting the "bulk mode" switch. Works probably with up to 1000 images at once. --Foroa (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Great hint, worked perfectly - thanks a lot ! --Detectandpreserve (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

copyright policy with regards to "adult images"

Commons has adequate amounts of pictures of human genitalia and female breasts in general. This being the case we can afford to impose certain standards. In particular the number of drive by uploads is something of a copyright problem. Therefore I propose that images of human genitalia, human female bare breasts only be accepted in the following cases:

  • Uploads long standing users
  • With clear and solid OTRS permission
  • Very clearly PD due to age.
  • Very Clear PD due to the likes of US federal goverment or crown copyright expired.

Furthermore I suggest that medium term we should begin removing such images that don't meet these standards.

This is not an attempt at censorship against such images. Things like the suicide girl pics which I understand have a solid release will be unaffected. It's simply an area where historicaly there have been a lot of copyright problems and still are a lot of potenial copyvios.Geni (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of difficult to objectively identify "long standing users." Also, to add another category, I think we should also retain images of breasts that are significantly different from existing images; for example breasts affected in appearance by disease or malnutrition frequently fall into this category. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It's already told at the project scope that nudity images must be realistic useful for educative purposes, and that we won't hold just any new photo of sexual organs for mere porn purposes. It's enough with that. Such redundant images can be considered for deletion on those grounds (and they are), and copyvios are speedily deleted no matter the topic of the image.
"Long standing users" as uploaders is not a good rationale: the reasons to keep or delete a file must always be related with the image itself, not with the uploader. I may be one of such "long standing users", but I will never provide such content for Commons. The only one who will ever see my sexual parts is my girlfriend (and perhaps a doctor if I have problems someday), and browsing the web seeking sexual content is boring and a minefield full of spywares, virus, pishing, google bombing, pop-ups and all the evil things from internet at every corner. So, if a new user can provide such files that are of big quality and educative interest, then by all means let him do so. Belgrano (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Would the above considerations also apply to the images in, say, Category:Felis silvestris catus? There are some large sets of photos of people's pets that are very similar to each other, for example in Category:White cats. It seems to me that if we are concerned about duplication in images of women's bodies, we should be equally concerned about having dozens of photos of nonencyclopedic white cats. However, I don't think we need to be concerned about this. People upload pictures of things they find interesting - if they upload a few more pictures than we need for all the Wikipedias, that is fine as long as the freedom to upload lots of pictures keeps people uploading. Since we don't pay people money for uploading pictures, the only thing we have to offer is a bit of psychological reward for their efforts. If someone else is not interested in looking at pictures of people's pets, or pictures of nude women, it is very easy to not look at them. This is distinct from the issue of copyright, of course, which applies regardless of the subject. --Teratornis (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the point is that a picture of a cat does not have the associated complications of personality rights and privacy, as well as the apparently disproportionate amount of copyvio that occurs with images involving nudity. At least, I haven't heard that pictures of white cats are a focal point of copyright problems, though I've probably seen weirder things on the wiki. I think Geni's supposition is that, if a class of images is gets more than its share of problems and are subject to a special set of restrictions, then it's reasonable to give that class of images scrutiny proportionate to the problems it gives us. The argument seems fairly reasonable to me, though the proposed restrictions feel overly strict for an initial pass.
The development and use of {{nopenis}} and the more recent {{nobreasts}} indicates that a significant number of editors feel that the unregulated uploading of these types of images has imposed a downside on Commons. I figure it should be just a matter of time before this gets codified. If we're going to add exceptions for usefulness, can we add one for images of people of color? One would think only white people have genitalia or breasts from the English Wikipedia pages on those topics... - BanyanTree 09:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
{{nobreasts}} contains this bizarre sentence:
  • This message is not intended to be taken personally or as an attempt of censorship.
    • The passive voice with missing actor ("is not intended" (by whom?)) is classic weasel wording.
    • Whoever wrote that sentence may not have intended this clear attempt at censorship "to be taken" as such (presumably by the victim of the censorship attempt), but can any reasonable third party imagine the victim of this censorship will see herself as anything but?
I understand every Web site has to censor some content, but is there any need to jog on the euphemism treadmill here? When we censor content, we should be honest about what we are doing. Sometimes telling lies may be expedient, but for lies to work they must be believable. When we censor people, and they know we are censoring them, we aren't fooling anybody when we lie about what we are doing. --Teratornis (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Removed that part. Rocket000 (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Longstanding is probably me going a bit far. Probably better phrased something like "users with a non-trivial upload history". It's mostly meant to target images like File:Christinas.jpg and File:Gotta stand up.jpg where that is the user's only upload or cases where there are only a handful of uploads and edits either on commons or on other wikimedia projects.Geni (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
So you propose we put up fences for uploads that show nudity. How do we select the "better images" (can we vote?) ? Also lets not forget that basically, we will enforce "uniformity" on such images in the languages of ALL wikipedia's that way. There might be good reasons to show different breasts in the breasts article of every single language version. That would kinda stifle the freedom of a lot of authors. I mean, the "proof of age" argument I can understand, but the others (why PD for heavens sake?) are basically pointless, unenforceable and unusable in practice. And let's not forget that proof of age likely will already keep out 99% of such uploads... TheDJ (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
What does any of that have to do with my proposal?Geni (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
To clarify Geni's proposal a bit on his behalf, his conditions are intended to be a disjunction (at least one of them applies) rather than a conjunction (they all apply). In other words, he feels that PD-old or PD-government images are generally of sufficient nonredundant value (e.g. historical or significance value) that there is no other need to justify their inclusion. He doesn't actually mention age verification as a condition, which I agree would be unduly onerous.
I'm skeptical about claims of this area being a copyright minefield though. My impression was that people generally upload pictures of their own genitals, which is certainly in line with our copyright policy. Can someone point to evidence here? Dcoetzee (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it means that all naked people (if their face is not shown) tend to be all similar, and by seeing 4 or 5 naked women or men you have seen them all (why did you thought I said porn was boring?). Under those conditions, it's hard to tell if PD-Self images are truly own works or images taken from some random porn site Belgrano (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

challenge basic premise; i disagree with the assertion that "Commons has adequate amounts of pictures of human genitalia and female breasts in general". the quantity of material present is not greater than in any other common-subject category, it is in fact somewhat less than in most other common-subject cats. there are just more people who object to media that they find "controversial", or "objectionable". i have not problem with imposing quality standards, as long as they are fair & applies equally, across the board, to all categories, not just used as an excuse to censor material that some people don't like. however, there are clearly established wmc criteria for inclusion/exclusion of media. the quality standard needs improvement/clarification. but there is no policy limiting quantity of media, providing that the media meets wmc criteria for inclusion. this is a media archive, it is meant to serve as a stockpile of media "raw materials" for use. look @ the stuff we are getting from those 2 large german photoarchives; there is massive duplication of subject-content. (& we don't generally have this kind of discussion, on a serious level, about "non-controversial" categories of subject matter) Lx 121 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

follow-up on further reflection, i disagree with another key point the original post raised. There is no basis to assert that such images are more (or less) problematic than other material on wmc. certainly not moreso than any other images, or self-images, of people. the kind of restrictions being talked about here fall far outside wikimedia policy/scope, are clearly obstructionary & intended as censorship, & some of them borderline absurd.

would be be treating this proposal at all seriously, if the subject-category under discussion was "non-controversial"?

the real issue here is that some people don't like this kind of subject matter, & want to restrict it on WMC, for personal/religious/whatever reasons. commons is not censored. i'm sorry, nothing personal against Geni, but this is an excuse to censor, not a real "problem".

Lx 121 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree with you, except to the extent that images in these categories may require more review and oversight because of the need to enforce Commons:Photographs of identifiable persons. I've recently been working in the area of portraits, where even two slightly different copies of the same portrait - or sometimes two different photos of the same portrait - are kept because either may continue information the other does not that may be useful in later restoration. How can we anticipate to what use our media may be put? What if some researcher decides to do statistical research on images of naked people? We are not just a media repository for Wikipedia. And the argument that these are more susceptible to copyvio is a red herring that has not been demonstrated - frankly, I think copyvios in the area of celebrity photos is a much bigger issue. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

April 11

Not duplicates

There are a huge lot of images at Category:Duplicate, but not all of them are truly duplicated images. A great number of images I checked have wrongly placed templates, that talk about a duplicate file that does not exist (not because of being deleted, I checked the logs). Is it possible to prepare a bot for removing such templates in those cases? Belgrano (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

it probably isn't just "mistakes". some people are very enthusiastic about deletions on here. you might find you have more issues to deal with, than just getting somebody to write a 'bot. can you give some examples, or make a cat/list? Lx 121 (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, that would be very silly to do, as admins are humans, no bots, and no human user would be so dumb as to delete a "duplicate" of a file that does not exist. I removed some of such templates, but when I realized it was a plague, I thought a bot would be better for that, so that the category can be cleaned of false duplicates and admins can deal with real cases of possible duplicated files. For examples, I can mention File:950629 STS71 Atlantis from MIR.jpg, File:Antares on the Frau Mauro Highlands.jpg, or File:Arthur Godfrey - George Cooper - Smith de France.jpg. Not hard to find: of the first 4 files in the category (when I'm writing this), 3 are good examples of such misplaced templates. Belgrano (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The dupes-Tool does not show us those images marked as duplicate where the other file is missing (which is usually just a mistake by the one who put it there: either typo or the user meant 'rename'), so we can't delete them accidently anyway. Those images where the template is not correctly filled out will be left after all the others have been deleted. They it is manual work to check why they are still left. I would not suggest to let a bot remove them. It should be some error control. Also as a human it is easier to figure out where the problem was. If it was just a typo we can correct them immediately. If the user meant rename, we can fix that too. A bot is not that good at recognizing a reason. -- Cecil (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Where is the problem?
  • [15] clearly a dupe
  • [16] clearly a dupe
  • [17] clearly a dupe
  • [18] clearly a dupe
  • [19] same pixel size but the smaller file size suggest lower quality. So I tagged it as dupe.
-- Common Good (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

sometimes people do silly things; on pretty much ALL the wikimedia projects, there is a division between deletionists & inclusionists. also, different people have different ideas of what constitutes "duplication". i agree with you on this, & if you do get somebody to write your bot, please let me kno who; i have a list of things that could/should be botted on here, but nobody to write the code (not my specialty) Lx 121 (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have found the problem: it is in the usage of the template. Most of the duplicates appear with red links because the template requires to introduce files with the "File:" prefix (without it, instead of File:Example.jpg it links Example.jpg). However, it seems that it is needed to mark them without the prefix for Commonsdelinker to work correctly. I guess that then it is the template itself what needs to be redesigned, to add the "File:" prefix to the parameter when showing the thumbnail at the right. However, being a highly used template, the change should be analyzed before implementing it. And perhaps a bot would be needed anyway: if we prepare the template to receive "Example.jpg" as parameter and show a thumbnail of "File:Example.jpg", then images that included the whole name as parameter would link to "File:File:Example.jpg" images Belgrano (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Could be fixed with the #ifexist parser function probably. Prepend a "File:" if it doesn't exist. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
hm; well i am glad you tracked down the problem, & thank-you for putting in the effort @ Belgrano! how did such an obvious defect get missed tho, for something in mass-use? & do we need to backtrace deletion records here & see what might have gotten removed by mistake? Lx 121 (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The log is here, much work to track it ;) --Martin H. (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Update Commons File types

Could someone who knows why tiff is better than png and why it should be used and which one to use, update the commons file types on Commons:File types please? I would do it myself but I don't see the big difference.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

TIFF is a lossless format (as PNG) which is intended to be used with photographs needing it (restorations for example). Its differences with PNG are:
Diti the penguin 10:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
AFAIK TIFF thumbnails cannot be rendered at all ATM. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
What about the compression and layers and when to use png or tiffs. I mean should all images of the Library of Congress be converted to png before uploading?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, it was added as a courtesy to any archives that wish to donate material, since most scanner software can scan into TIFF, but not directly into PNG. PNG generally has 1/3rd the filesize, and should be preferred for almost all options not involving batch upload.Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

On partial restorations being uploaded as TIFF: It may be convenient to allow it, but I don't see any reason not to convert all such TIFFs to PNG and update the links. The smaller file sizes will be extremely appreciated by any restorationists not using extremely fast connections. Mind, it would be much easier if we simply insisted that ten seconds were spent converting TIFF to PNG in the first place: We are not looking at good practice here, and the longer we let it go on, the worse it's going to get. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Since TIFF is a more widely used archival format, accepting TIFFs positions us to accept large donations like the Bundesarchiv and Dresden University donations in uncompressed format. In the long run that becomes a very powerful option as more libraries and museums donate material. The larger picture is this: large institutions that decide to release their collections to the public are choosing between WMF Commons and Flickr. Probably within the next year, either we or Flickr will become the principal outlet for this material. Obviously the best solution is for that to come directly here to Commons, rather than appointing Flickr reviewers to scavenge the crumbs from a commercial site. Yes, PNG has its advantages. No one suggests getting rid of PNG. More options is good, and including TIFF in our range of options is going to reap major benefits over the next three to five years. Thumbnailing support hasn't been implemented yet; we're looking to add that as soon as feasible. Best regards, Durova (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And regarding partial restorations and TIFF formatting: current projects are in use as demonstrations to decision makers at these larger archives. Having the uncompressed files available in a format these managers understand means one less element that needs to be explained as our volunteers negotiate with them. Anyone who prefers to upload in PNG is welcome to do so, but having interim TIFFS among our presentations gets us one step closer to very important 'yes' decisions. Durova (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, regarding thumbnailing, as long as we're implementing this change I'd like to see PNG thumbnails of JPEGs (for very small thumbnails), and JPEG thumbnails of PNGs (for lossless uploads of raw photos and scans). This has long annoyed me - I'd like to do away with redundant uploads of alternate formats. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

404 error on image

I'm trying to download the old version of File:Belize-CIA WFB Map.png (the one uploaded in 2005), but I'm getting a 404 error—does anyone have any idea why? The image was only replaced last year, so it doesn't predate image undeletion. --Spangineeren ws (háblame) 15:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The original image has probably been physically deleted on the server. I know that there was a massive image loss due to a bug last year, maybe it's releated. --Eusebius (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hrm... well that's not too comforting. I managed to find the old file on another website; hopefully I'll be able to do that for any other missing CIA maps. Thanks for your help! --Spangineeren ws (háblame) 15:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The Wayback Machine has it here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured sound -> Featured Media

I propose to move Commons:Featured sounds to Commons:Featured Media. Featured sound hasn't received any attention and through a bigger scope people might post and review featured sound, video and animation. Featured Pictures should revoke video files and only accept 2-D images. This is just a general proposal that I think might make commons a better place.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a difficult problem because sounds are obviously evaluated according to an entirely different set of criteria than images that require different experience and expertise to evaluate. On the other hand, it's clear there just aren't enough interested users around to drive it. To be honest, I think the best thing to do is simply abandon this project. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Creator template need your help

We have been struggling at the creator template to make it display the birth and death year next to the name of the photographer. Could someone help out in this? The feature is explained here: Template_talk:Creator#Proposed_change:_dates_of_death.2Fbirth and the changes should be done to Template:Creator/layout. Your help is really appreciated. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

April 15

Category:Steamships by name

Is it a good idea to integrate these names in Category:Ships by alphabet? --Stunteltje (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes.
  • In ships by name, you integrate either one type of ships or all types of ships.
  • For most people, a ship is completely defined by the following keywords (in order of importance): water, ship, its name, motive power (wind or engine), purpose (fun or work), size (man size, river size, sea size), ... so the name is the most important disambiguation factor we have to try to capture and categorise.
  • This should coexist with Category:Steamships by name --Foroa (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Improvement of Commons:Upload aimed at already published own work

I would like to suggest adding one more item on the Commons:Upload main page :

A) Replace "It is entirely my own work" by "It is entirely my own work, as yet unpublished"

B) Below, add a new item, with the following title : "It is entirely my own work, already published somewhere else" / or "It is entirely my own work, but I have already published it on my website or blog"

C) On the guideline page for this new item, we should tell people to either add a credit to themselves (under the same name or nickname used as user name on Commons) and a free license notice below the picture on their website, or to send an E-mail to COM:OTRS, revealing that they are both that website's owner and the person who created the uploading user account on Wikimedia Commons.

Teofilo (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Valencia station and FEVE/FGV trains

A long time ago, I took some pictures off the FEVE trains in the regional Valencia station. I dont know the name of it. The station no longer exist, except for the station building wich remains. Does anyone know the name? I catorized the pics under FEVE rail and FGV (Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana). At the time (1981 - 1987) the trains where stil run by the FEVE and later by FGV. Should the pics also be classified under FGV? (More generally should we classify trains historicaly under the running compagnies, or by region? Or a seperate sub-category?)

example: File:FEVE Valencia 4.jpg

Greetings, Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Rollback

Dear fellow Wikimedians, the rollback feature has been activated on Commons. All contributors interested in the tools may apply on Commons:Rollback/Requests. Regards, →Nagy 17:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

April 16

Low quality Images with Watermarks

It seems to me that we have a large number of images waiting to watermark removal in Category:Images with watermarks which are of either very low quality, with very little encyclopedic value. Sometimes those watermarks are very hard to remove and there it is a waste of time if the image is not worth it. I would like to nominate them for deletion on the basis of Replacebility + Quality + Watermark, without having to argue about scope or license. Can we agree that that is good enough reason? --Jarekt (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Some examples:

Images like File:Bellows.JPG could be definitely marked as no permission. If images lacking EXIF and small resolution (likely to be taken from Web), you could also add no source.
We have more then enough images of domesticated cats and dogs, I think we should use regular deletion request.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Arguments in a DR could be about scope inclusion: if the file is of low quality, with a prominent watermark, and can be replaced with benefit, then it somehow lacks educational value. It is also true that many watermarked images (or images with borders) are unspotted copyvios. --Eusebius (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Usually when removing watermarks I target images that aren't orphaned first, since they presumably have more immediate educational value. But yes, copyvios are quite frequent in that cat and sometimes I miss them. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
So assuming it is not copyvio I assume I can mark pictures of pets, babies and body parts as DR with "Scope + Watermark" reason. How about File:Azrou Maroc.jpg file? It is a advertising billboard for a blog, but it probably is within scope and the license looks OK. Can we argue that the watermark makes it useless for any project so it is out of scope? --Jarekt (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we should keep it, unless we can find a similar point of view on the town to replace the picture (it is used). --Eusebius (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
No, such watermarks can be removed relatively easily, believe it or not. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
How? Is it something you can explain easily? --Eusebius (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think these images can be deleted with "Scope + Watermark" reason. Yann (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Me too. As long as they're so bad that no one would use them. But if any are in use, they're excused. Rocket000 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
These images (except the obvious copyvio) shouldn't be nominated for deletion, let alone be nominated for speedy deletion. Deletion images because Category:Images with watermarks is somewhat full is bad. Multichill (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Not because it's full, because they'll never be used. Of course, consensus is needed, so no speeding. Quality is too subjective. Rocket000 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Dcoetzee that a lot of those watermarks can be easily removed but they usually are not removed and they sit for years in the watermark category. So the way I read the above advice: the unused watermarked images of poor quality and/or marginal scope or which are easily replaceable can be nominated for a regular deletion (no speedy).--Jarekt (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I roughly agree with Jarekt's conclusion. Any image which is educational and not redundant should be kept, and the watermark can be removed if and when someone actually wants to use it. It's not difficult using standard tools like clone brushes, and even automated procedures like infilling are beginning to become widely available. Translucent watermarks can be removed as well, as I did with the LIFE logo. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Cascading protection broken?

See User:Zzyzx11/En main page which is fully protected with cascade protection enabled. Two images are on this page: File:Josh Blue by Bryce Boyer.jpg and File:Darnley stage 3.jpg. Neither of the image pages shows that they are being used on this user subpage, and consequently, neither image is protected. Anyone know what's the deal here? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's because the templates on that page are using ParserFunctions to show different images depending on the date. The link tables are only updated when the page is saved, so any changes to the way it renders after that will not be properly recorded. It's essentially the same issue as bugzilla:14404, only depending on time instead of user language. The fundamental problem is that MediaWiki's link tracking assumes pages won't change unless they (or templates used on them) are edited, which is an assumption ParserFunctions can break. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so User:Zzyzx11/En main page needs to be touched every day then or something? howcheng {chat} 17:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that should do it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Licence tag deletion request?

I have recently seen an image por speedy deletion with those reasons. They seem solid enough, but more expert views should be involved (wich would mean it should be turned into a deletion request). However, such reasons go beyond that particular file and may apply for the {{PD-FLGov}} licence tag itself and all the images using it; so the deletion request should be about it instead.

Problem is, I'm not sure of how to do such thing. Do questionable license tags go through regular deletion requests, or is there another system? And, being a template, how do I start a deletion request without messing the images that use the template?

Note: This thread is only about the technical issue of how to manage this kind of discussion. Opinions about the topic itself, keeping or deleting the PD-FLGov licence tag, should be done at the correct place when it's open. Belgrano (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You can open a DR for the license template. It's been done before, see [20] for precedents. howcheng {chat} 22:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The deletion request is located at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-FLGov. If anyone reading this has someting to say about the licence tag, please do it there, not here Belgrano (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Tag image sources for completeness

I was just viewing the Category:Images from the Library of Congress and found multiple collections. The problem is I didn't know what images are missing. Could u please in the future say how comprehensive each specific collection on commons is? This could be easily visualised with a progress bar at the top of a category like using {{Progress bar|42}} Which would result in:

42% completed (estimate)

   

Anyone could just go to the LOC page and see the specific collection and add the template.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we want to clone the Library of Congress site here. Picking useful images is great, but they have way, way too many images (and actually, most of their collections aren't even complete on their site; they are continually adding stuff, so their content keeps changing too). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeated error message

This wiki has a problem Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties. Try waiting a few minutes and reloading.

(Cannot contact the database server: No working slave server: Unknown error (10.0.2.160))

i keep getting this error message when trying to edit pages and categorize photos, is anyone else getting this message.. I got this message several times while trying to post this.. lol --Ltshears (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The servers are having problems today. Sorry for the inconvenience. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok Peter. thank you.. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't just me.. --Ltshears (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Nope, not just you. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

LIMITS ON WIKIMEDIA COMMONS: QUANTITY LIMIT?

I'm starting this as an open discussion on a point of commons policy that i feel has not been properly addressed:

SHOULD THERE BE A COM:POLICY RE: QUANTITY-LIMIT ON MEDIA FILES OF A GIVEN SUBJECT?

(when those files meet ALL other WMC criteria for inclusion; i.e.: 1. legal (copyright & other considerations) 2. media quality standards (image resolution, focus, audio clarity, etc.) 3. potential use as educational/informative, as per WMC policy definitions)

Right now, this issue IS NOT clearly defined in commons policy/scope.

there are a few vaguely worded references to the subject, but they do not set out a definite set of parameters; the wording that is there right now is subjective, borderline pointy, & open to interpretation as a justification for removing files that some users may find objectionable.

it IS being abused, & it IS being used as justification for censorship, when NO other legitimate rational can be applied.

we do not have serious discussion about WMC having "too many" files on non-controversial subjects, nor do we routinely delete such files, on that basis.

this quasi-policy is ONLY being applied to files that some WMC editors find objectionable, i.e.: nudity/sexual content. in such cases, it is typically being applied in the absence of any other credible reason for deletion of the files.

it is not being cited as a reason to delete pictures of trains, planes, busses, automobiles, houses, trees, birds, etc., etc., etc.

there are clearly defined reasons for deleting files, which we can at least hope are being applied even handedly, but quantity limits are ONLY being cited in cases of controversial subject matter, & usually in the absence of other, more legitimate reasons to delete.

right now, WMC policy on quantity limits is UNDEFINED & IT IS BEING APPLIED UNFAIRLY & UNEQUALLY.

either we have a policy limiting quantities, or we do not.

i don't think we should, WMC is a MEDIA ARCHIVE, & the purpose is to stockpile material for potential use.

BUT

if we are going to have a quantity-limit policy, then it needs to be:

1. CLEARLY DEFINED

2. OPENLY DISCUSSED & VOTED ON (etc. )

3. APPLIED EQUALLY, TO ALL TOPICS

right now this is not happening, & that needs to be fixed.

Lx 121 (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't SHOUT, it isn't nice. Your comments are pretty vague and general, but it's quite clear that you in fact object to a specific deletion (or set of deletions). Could you maybe link to the deletion which you think should be overturned, so that we know what you're talking about? Generally speaking, Commons has a scope which states that Commons does more than "stockpile": we only host files which are potentially useful for educational purposes. Some files are uploaded but are not realistically usable for educational purposes and therefore get deleted; amongst others, this is true of images of nudity where numerous better quality photographs of similar subjects already exist on Commons. Cheers, Pruneautalk 01:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
No, in fact i do not object to any specific deletion or deletions, i object to a vaguely worded quasi-policy that is being applied unequally & used for the purpose of censoring commons. I don't really think my post was "vaguely worded" but i can have another go at it:

there are clearly defined criteria for inclusion of media on WMC, i don't have a problem with that. but there is no clearly defined quantity-limit policy for files that would otherwise qualify & the current vague wording in "scope" is being abused to justify the removal of files that would otherwise meet all WMC criteria, simply because some people object to the content of certain files for personal reasons.

1. if there is going to be a commons policy limiting the quantity of media allowed on a given subject, then that policy needs to be clearly stated & discussed.

2. if there is going to be a quantity-limit policy, it should be applied equally.

3. right now, there is no such policy on commons, just some vague weasel-wording in scope, that is being used to justify deletion of media that some people find objectionable, but can provide no other justification for the removal of. this rationale is not being cited in serious debates about media quantity of non-controversial subjects.

4. the current situation is unacceptable; it makes a joke of wikimedia is not censored. either we have a quantity-limit policy that is clearly stated & applied equally to all topics & all media, or we admit that we are are censoring based on subject-content, independent of whether the media files in question meet all other WMC criteria or not.

i hope this is clearer now?

Lx 121 (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I almost started to read that. All cap titles are one of the biggest turn-offs. It's just not fun to read. You should try writing like how you see others do. Thank you for not shouting the second time, but please do use some capital letters, i.e. start sentences with them. Don't use so many line breaks. Write in paragraphs. Use italics for emphasis, but don't overdo it. Let your words speak for themselves. Use #s to create numbered lists. Sorry to be giving you writing lesson (further reading), but the way you write directly effects the type of reason you'll get. Ok, now I'll try to read what you wrote. Rocket000 (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, now my response: There is no COM:NPOV policy here either. There's obviously a consensus for what that template has been used for. Yes, it's true we don't apply that "we have enough" excuse to other subjects, but that's our choice. There is no "wikimedia is not censored", there is a "Wikipedia is not censored" and a "Commons is not censored". If you want to get technical, then both are a joke and always have been. We censor all the time. That's admins' #1 job - deleting crap. We censor "out of scope" pages like articles. We censor test pages. We censor vandalism. We censor non-free material. No, that's not what we mean by "censor". Removing material where there's a consensus to do so is not censoring. As far as a written down policy goes, I suggest you read COM:SCOPE. Rocket000 (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Funny, it's to some extent the same issue that I've brought up a few times... I was told that there is (currently) no danger of lack of storage space on Commons. But would it be an idea to institute a policy that it's OK to check whether an image is used on a Wikipedia project (other than a page or user page on Commons) and if it isn't to ask the uploader whether he intends to do so, and if this doesn't happen within a given time, to delete the image as it is apparently not required? Also -a bit of a hobby horse of mine, I admit- since the quality of images tends to improve over time, would it be an idea to encourage the use of better-quality images, and later deleting the ones that are no longer needed? See, as an example, Image:ING House Amsterdam.JPG, which I think is of a far less quality than Image:INGHouse1.jpg. MartinD (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Please no. We're an image archive. Multichill (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Commons is imho a database or archive where a wikipedia user can find additional pictures on an article, which can be very helpful - this is why the wikipedia articles have links to the corresponding commons page/category . You can't put all good pictures into one article. Furthermore Commons is also source for other purposes not just wikipedia or related projects. So please don't start deleting unused files. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
@ rocketship000; i'm sorry, but what you are describing is censorship, right from the textbook definition. it is censorship here & now just as much as when the national socialists were claiming their "consensus", or iran, or afghanistan, or soviet russia, prd china, n korean, etc.. "freedom" does not mean "only what the majority feels is acceptable". the application of policy which you describe is censorship, & violates wm principles at the most basic, fundamental level. there are clear criteria for inclusion/exclusion of files @ wmc. those criteria do not include a quantity limit, or the restriction/censorship of material (which is legally correct, in order re: copyright, & meets the wmc standards of quality & potential educational use) simply because it is "controversial", or might offend some people on a personal level. Lx 121 (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
@lxship121; Not when the majority also defines the word and writes the textbooks. No seriously, like I said it is censorship. We were never not censored. Wikipedia was never not censored. What you say is nothing new. We knew. We know. So what? Rocket000 (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


What this is actually about

@Diti, how dare you even suggest that. We were worshiped as gods - some time ago. CAT
• No. There's only one god. Your father

Lx121's comments are in reference to Template:Nopenis (which was recently kept), in case anyone was wondering. As I've said before, there's nothing obliging us to keep every single one of hundreds of similar images of random guys who shot low-quality photos of their penises with their cell-phones and then uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons, and if we decide to prune some images which are low-quality, redundant with respect to numerous previously-uploaded images, or lacking in any legitimate quasi-educational use, then this not "censorship" in any particularly meaningful or relevant sense. AnonMoos (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't delete the images outside Commons' scope equally. I'm sure you could notice it by browsing, for example, Category:Domestic cat. Diti the penguin 07:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this and similar categories should be cleaned. --Jarekt (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that is NOT what this is actually about

Please do not put words in my mouth Anonmoos or presume to speak for me; especially when we are on opposing sides of an issue; i would not treat you in such a discourteous manner.

i find the template objectionable on a number of grounds & i do feel that the deletion debate was closed prematurely & improperly, after less than 12 hours. (AnonMoos & i were on different sides of the issue, not surprisingly)

However the template is symptomatic of a larger problem. commons does not have a clear policy on limiting the quantity of media allowed on a given topic. but "we have too much of this stuff already" is being used selectively as a rationale to delete files that would otherwise meet all WMC criteria for inclusion.

the arguement of excess quantity is not used seriously in deletion debates re: non-controversial subject matter.

only when the subject is something that a person or group of people find objectionable. then, in the abcense of any other legitimate criteria for deletion, the arguement "well, we have too much of this stuff already" is dragged out. there are some vague weasel words in "scope" that are cited, & the offending media is quickly & (usually) quietly removed.

That is Censorship.

also, for the record: if you compare the number of images in the category of "penis", with the number of images in the category of "hands", "faces", "rosa", or any number of other common categories, there is not an excessive number of images in the penis cat; the categories listed all have greater numbers of media files, some of them have "many times" as many.

yet, no-one is seriously claiming that these other categories are "too full" & further uploads should be deleted as a general rule.

either commons has a policy on limiting quantity of media allowed on a given topic, or it does not (personally, i don't think it should; wmc is a media archive).

either commons is censored, or it is not

with current practice here, we are pretending one thing, & doing the other.

that needs to be addressed.

(i like the cat pic btw; but does stuff like that & lolcats, really meet the test of "educational"?  ;P )

Lx 121 (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


Lx121 -- I said what I did because your rambling disquisitions seemed to have been triggered by the response to your Template:Nopenis deletion proposal, but for some reason you carefully avoided directly mentioning Template:Nopenis in any way (leading to the somewhat vague and abstract nature of your comments, as previously pointed out by Pruneau above). In any case, no one is advocating quantitative limits such as "Wikimedia Commons can have at most only 500 pictures of penises" (that's certainly not what I'm advocating). What people are in fact saying is that when many redundant low-quality images which have very little usefulness for Wikimedia Commons' main purposes accumulate, then it's time to do some pruning and cleaning -- and that preventive action can also be undertaken to avoid the build-up of many redundant low-quality images which have very little usefulness for Wikimedia Commons' main purposes... AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


Lolcats do as we have an en.wp article on them. Thus they are used educationally as a picture for that article.
As for penises... meh. I reckon it's a useful template because most penis pictures are rubbish self-photos by people who for some reason get off on knowing there penis is here. If it's a good photo of a penis, keep it, otherwise get rid of it. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Anyway, as it happens, I feel that Commons probably does have enough lolcats to more than satisfy the needs of any Wikimedia project, and that we don't really need any more unless they are of exceptional quality or unless they meet some specific need that similar existing images don't (even if it's just "I'd like to have this particular picture on my user page"). That said, I personally feel no need to go looking for unused or low-quality lolcats to nominate for deletion, and I doubt anyone else does either: beyond the overriding principles of the project (no illegal or unfree content, yes files that are in active use), a lot of content on Commons lives in such a limbo of "might be useful, nobody wants it gone". A few random lolcats here and there are unlikely to bother anyone, but that doesn't mean our mission includes being a lolcat repository, any more than it includes being a porn collection: if we kept getting more and more lolcats daily, eventually someone might indeed start asking if we really need them all. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


i have no problem with removing media that legitimately fail the basic wmc criteria for inclusion, but that's not what is happening here. "controversial/objectionable subject-matter" files are being deleted on a far more arbitrary, & more restrictive set of standards than non-controversial subject-matter files; demonstrably so. the rationale for deletion often does not even come close to accepted wmc policy, as it is applied to other files. if such weak rationales for deletion were applied in other subject-categories, it would not be considered acceptable. the quantity of material in the subject-category of penises (for example) isn't greater than the quantity in other, simillarly common (but non-controversial) subject-categories; if anything, the quantity is somewhat less. yet there is no serious applied practice of limiting uploads in those other categories, on the basis of "we already have too much, so we don't want anymore!". either we should change wmc policy to declare in favour of censorship, or we should change policy to impose quantity limits, or we should stop this practice, & apply the wmc criteria for inclusion/exclusion fairly, to all files, in all subject-categories. for the record, i am an inclusionist. wmc is a media archive; it is supposed to be a large collection of media raw materials. also, i have nothing against lolcats XD Lx 121 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I think what it comes down to systemic bias. People enforce our scope restrictions in the areas they care about, that either attract their attention or their interest. The criteria will never be applied fairly, because no one is being paid to go through all sorts of categories looking for out of scope images. This is an essential limitation on a volunteer project. On the plus side, an orphaned out-of-scope image sitting around that hasn't been identified yet does very little damage - all it costs us is a small maintenance cost. I do personally believe that we should be quite permissive in allowing many very similar images of genitals and breasts, but whatever the standard, it will be applied unevenly, and that's okay. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
That was pretty much my point too. We have rules that apply to both penises and lolcats, saying that files with no realistic educational use may be deleted. The difference is that people rarely bother to spend much time enforcing them on lolcats, because, honestly, who cares? Yet some people do, for various reasons better and worse, find it worth their time to ensure that Commons does not accumulate large amounts of uneducational pictures of genitalia, so the rules get enforced more consistently in that area. Arguing that this constitutes censorship seems a bit like arguing that laws against disturbing the peace are unfair because they're only enforced if somebody bothers to complain. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Unknown streets in Manhattan, NY

Hello, Please help me identifying these streets in Manhattan, New York. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ö, Yann (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong license - my fault...

Sorry, but I need to delete this file - it's incorrectly licensed. Not O.K. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please tag such files with {{speedy}} next time :-) --Kjetil_r 21:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for deletion, and also for useful template. I apologize. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Model consent forms

(Excuse the cross-posting, but I realized after posting my question to Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people#Where to upload consent forms with possibly sentitive address information? this is probably a more watched location.)

For Wiktionary, I worked with an ASL teacher to get photographs of his students producing signs they learned in that class. Each images thus clearly qualifies as a photograph of an identifiable person, so I also created consent forms which they all signed, except for the minors, whose forms are being sent to their parents/guardians for an additional signature. Now I want to upload the consent forms somewhere, but I'm concerned about the address field on the form. Presumably, the students wouldn't want their addresses made so public. Should I block out the address on the scanned copy, upload the altered copy to commons, and just keep the physical copies on file in case consent is later challenged? Or is there a more secure upload scenario for storing the unaltered consent forms, where the general public would not have access? Rodasmith (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at Commons:OTRS. That's probably what you are looking for. Multichill (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Multichill. Rodasmith (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Escudogordinhos.JPG

This seems to be own work derived from copyrighted material such as a Southpark character. I'm not very experienced here so I would like to read your opinions on what to do. Malafaya (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC) ✓ DoneClear infringement of copyright. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why has the Gallery policy been abandoned?

Commons:Galleries was proposed a long time ago. I think it should be made as an active Guideline. There should be something about Galleries in Commons! --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's been abandoned, it's just that guidelines/policies tend to stay "proposed" until someone's bold enough to change the header. Normally, I would be, but I started that one. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah we can't properly abandon it like everything else until it's official. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons Weekly

I've just created a general news page called commons weekly on Commons:Commons Weekly. Feel free to edit it, read it and have fun with it. The page is still a general draft, any changes are welcome.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I made a few minor tweaks. :)Juliancolton | Talk 04:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
As noted on the talk page, considering the slow pace of Commons I think a monthly newspaper would be more reasonable. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Extended discussion as the discussion wasn't closed after 14 days already

For your information: User Ibn Battutta extended the discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Ships by IMO number now under a new header: Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/04/Category:Brig (ship) --Stunteltje (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Coats deleted

Hi community, the user:Maxim deleted:

... and others suspect

This is like delete flag of countries. And not delete consulting for this images. And this user should be know that before delete images very used, have delinker wiht bot, this deletes and not delinker this affects to Spanish Wikipedia and others. Please consider some administrator restore it, and see case for case that is copyright statusShooke Flag of Argentina.svg Flag of Italy.svg(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 21:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

All where missing essential licensing information (see CAT:U) Maxim(talk) 21:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that is corresponding to {{PD-ineligible}}, for example Coat of en:Kenya, the coat part is part of flag, so many flag will be deleted, so i believe that is better a consulting of delete, is much this? Shooke Flag of Argentina.svg Flag of Italy.svg(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 22:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The description of the coat of arms (the blazon) is public, but its representation, as an interpretation of the blazon, can be copyrighted. Please see Commons:Coat of Arms. --Eusebius (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, in the kenya case, is posible upload the coa in the flag ? Shooke Flag of Argentina.svg Flag of Italy.svg(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 22:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want the shield and spears extracted from a file like this one, yes, it is possible and non-problematic, but it wouldn't look much like the coat of arms depicted here (which is missing a proper source and could be deleted, by the way). If that's what you want anyway, just ask me. --Eusebius (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying this, sometime i will extract shield and spears from flag of Kenya, regards Shooke Flag of Argentina.svg Flag of Italy.svg(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 17:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Flag of Kenya (shield).svg --Eusebius (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

respectfully disagree with Eusebius. this is not general, artistic heraldry. we are talking about standardized national designs that see widespread public usage. unless it can be demonstrated that a particular depiction varies in some significant, copyrightable way from a country's "standard design", there is no credible basis to assume copyvio issues here. even then, the basic design would still belong to the country, not to the artist; at best their creation could be considered as a kind of derivative work. the onus would be on the copyright "holder" to claim some unique copyrightable property/ies in their variation of the national coat of arms design. if there is no ability to assert such design distinction(s), there is no possible claim for copyright, at all.Lx 121 (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think your argument about the variation of the design is interesting, but may apply only to specific examples. I admit that I'm thinking of heraldry from an Old World and somewhat historical point of view and that I'm trying to adapt this POV to the more recent pieces of heraldry (or anything that could resemble it). In the case of most "standard" CoAs, the actual depiction may vary a lot and artistic creativity is really relevant. For instance, the blazon of the city of Lyon (France) includes a lion rampant which is a very common piece of heraldry. But how do you represent a lion? You will admit that there are a lot of ways, and that it needs a certain artistic sense. And indeed, most pieces of heraldry have many different representations which certainly pass the threshold of originality and to which copyright should be attached, independently of a PD blazon. On the other hand, many recent coats of arms/seals/logos resembling crests/whatever are not attached to a litteral blazoning and are primarily described by their official pictural representation. Quite often, they include au naturel figures (sorry but I don't know the English heraldic terms), non-standard heraldic figures like the almost-realistic representation of an event, a building, a person, a landscape... In those cases, if one wanted to re-create an independent representation of the crest, one's artistic liberty would indeed be somewhat limited to copying, but only for this part of the crest. This is why I think that when such a symbol must considered PD because of the law or because of its age, the PD thing should apply only to the blazon (litteral description) and to the representations made by the official bodies represented by the symbol. I really think that any other representation, made by a Commons user or by another artist, attracts copyright on its own. --Eusebius (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

follow-up i read thru the cited article Commons:Coat of Arms. it talks about civic (private/personal/family) coats of arms, not national (or any government) emblems. i don't think the policy stated there applies in this case... Lx 121 (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no such restriction, but I'm not a native English speaker. Isn't the national Welsh flag national enough as an example? --Eusebius (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The case is same with non-civic Coats. See a example: Coat of South Africa, the Coat is non free. If not source, we can't know the license, like other media without sources, should be deleted any coat that not source can determined. If not, go to fair use, and this site is not place for this. Shooke Flag of Argentina.svg Flag of Italy.svg(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 00:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


In traditional European heraldry each coat of arms is based on a textual description, or "blazon", and many different artistic renderings based on the blazon might be considered acceptable as a version of the arms. In such situations, the general principle is that if you make a new visual rendering of the coat of arms based on the textual blazon, then you own the copyright to your particular rendering, and are perfectly free to release it under a suitable license to Wikimedia Commons if you choose to do so. However, other people's artistic renderings of the arms may be under non-free copyright, depending on the usual factors of the date when they were made, etc.

However, if an emblem is tied to one particular official rendering only, and no artistic variations are acceptable, then this is a lot more like a corporate logo than traditional heraldry, and the copyright situation might be different. AnonMoos (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Deviantart

I don't know if this was alread taked about, but do you guys know that Deviantart have many good images under CC license? I alrready uploaded 2 good images from Deviantart, File:Little mermaid statue.jpg, File:Mega leaves by erdmute.jpg. I think this host site can be so useful as Flickr is. Especially if this proposal be accepted, cause Ddeviantart have many great fan arts. What do you guys think about making a tool to upload files from Deviantart directly to Commons, like Flinfo and so on? Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Fan art is now active and the proposal has been accepted. Images from there would be really helpful. Maybe you can post for a batch upload on Commons:Batch uploading. However many images are non derivative and non commercial, which is against our policy. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Have a care: "Commons:Fan art" has been accepted, right, but the cases when fan art is not acepted is the vast majority of fan art in internet, even if explained briefly in the page comparing with other issues. Most of the accepted things (mere allusions or general ideas, fan art of literary books, etc) are exceptional things. In the internet, outside Commons and it's educative aims, when we talk about fan art, in 98% of the cases we talk about someone drawing his own superman or wolverine. Belgrano (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
If we do do this, maybe we should extend the Flickr review system to cover any site of this sort containing CC licensed images with the ability to change licensing. ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A Deviant review would be nice. I'd upload more images but I got lazy =P. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

  • From a look at deviantART, I think it has even more problems than flickr with people posting images under CC licenses when they have no right at all to do so. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That's right! That's why I think we should start thinking about a DeviantArt review. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

USFWS logo - breach of copyright

The USFWS logo, is, according to the USFWS:

The Service logo is our official "trademark." Its use is reserved for official publications or other products of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Use of the Service logo without prior written approval is prohibited. Restrictions on use of the Service logo were published in the Federal Register on February 13, 1984 (Vol. 49, No. 30, page 5387), and 18 USC 701 provides for enforcement.

They also say:

Please use alternative images if you need a graphic.

Seems to me that this is the same restriction as applies to the NASA logo, which we don't use on Commons. I'd suggest that File:US-FishAndWildlifeService-Logo.svg be deleted, and replaced by one of the alternatives they offer. "Icon A" looks the most suitable. - MPF (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And same for the ARS logo File:US-AgriculturalResearchService-50thLogoAlt.svg, and maybe others too - I fear the whole lot need to be checked - MPF (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
That's just a trademark-esque restriction. Most US government works are public domain, but some are governed by other restrictions. ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree the quote above is more about trademark restrictions. However, I'm not sure the logo can be considered a work of an U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties. –Tryphon 16:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
For these kind of restrictions we have {{Trademarked}}. Multichill (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, I think {{insignia}} is a bit more appropriate. Also, most works of the US Government are PD. Period. ViperSnake151 (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Nope, it is not a breach of copyright. They are works of the federal government and thus public domain (copyright-wise) without question. There are other laws which give some protection to federal insignia (usually fraud-related), and in some cases agencies have gone and registered trademarks for their logos (though not the Fish & Wildlife Service from what I can tell), but all of these have nothing to do with copyright. They are what the {{insignia}} tag is for. See Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. I don't think there is any reason we should avoid using the NASA insignia either -- there is a special law protecting that one in particular (14 CFR 1221), but it allows use on NASA publications, which is what the license tag is used for (many of their images have a footer area which already has the insignia, which uploaders often crop off). You could even argue that using the other image in the NASA license tag is against the wishes of 14 C.F.R. § 1221.101(a). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

upload - coat of arms

May I upload coat of arms which fall under PD regardless their authors are unknown? - Xbspiro (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears the question is not trivial. See above. --Eusebius (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you uploading versions made by yourself, based on the original textual blazon, or are you uploading the versions of the arms you found in a book or on a website? AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Generally, whoever draws a specific version of a coat owns the copyright to that version -- it is a work of art like any other, though obviously different versions will have lots of similarities, and are not necessarily derivative of each other (though that is still possible). Some countries apparently prohibit copyright protection on such emblems -- countries who were part of the old Soviet Union seem to have tags like this -- but I'm not sure that many do. Coat of arms are (usually) defined as written words, and that description is certainly PD, but each realization of that design may have its own copyright. There is a {{PD-Coa-Hungary}}, but I don't know any of the legal arguments around that one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, they are on a webpage (www.nemzetijelkepek.hu) owned by the Prime Minister's Office of Hungary. Most of the coat of arms uploaded there are lacking information about their author(s), therefore I cannot provide such a data when I would upload them to Commons. I have read in Commons:Coat of Arms that blazons are identical from reprezentations from the view of copyright, however it seems to be that under Hungarian law if a blazon (made by a municipality) exists which covers a reprezentation then such a reprenzentation doesn't enjoy protection by copyright law. I don't know about any legal arguments about {{PD-Coa-Hungary}}. - Xbspiro (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
If it comes from the PM's Office, I'd say it is reasonable to assume that it is an "official [...]document issued by an authority or other official organ", and thus can be uploaded with {{PD-Coa-Hungary}}. Be sure to credit the source properly, though. It wouldn't have been the same if it came from some private website. --Eusebius (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

April 19

Chage name

I have made a mistake with the name of two pictures files: Tlacuache01.jpg and Tlacuache02.jpg, is it possible to change the name of the files to coati01.jpg and coati02.jpg? Regards, --Cvmontuy (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi. You tag the files with {{rename| new name | reason }}, but I just did it on both files. Thanks! —UED77 (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Gif thumbnails

When a gallery contains gif files, like Category:Ancient Greek architecture, my computer nearly freezes, requiring something like 5 minutes to open the page, so that it is easier to close the tab (if possible) or to turn my computer off and on again. It is completely unrealistic for me to work on such categories.

The origin of the problem is that Gif files are not shown with thumbnails, but they are given in their original file size, leaving Firefox to compute the resizing by itself. This resizing of gif files by Firefox seems to be a too heavy burden for the computing capacities of my computer.

So why not provide jpg thumbnails for gif files, to make gif-including categories easier to watch ?

Teofilo (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a known technical issue. The short answer is that the tools they currently use don't deal well with this type of conversion. As a workaround we may choose to simply exclude all GIFs over a certain size from being visible as thumbnails in categories, but that would also require code changes. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Formerly, thumbnails of GIF images without transparency worked extremely well (better than PNG thumbnails in many cases, actually, something which encouraged at least a few people to upload GIFs in place of PNGs), but then a few months ago the developers announced that thumbnailing animated GIFs was becoming too great a burden on the system, so they turned off thumbs for all GIFs, both animated and non-animated. If they could just turn back on the thumbnails for non-animated GIFs, then that would make a number of things work more smoothly...
P.S. Generating JPEG thumbnails would avoid the ridiculous annoyance of your browser having to download a full-size image (which could be huge) just to display a 120-pixel mini-thumb, but using JPEGs would not be very useful for providing clear resized versions of images at intermediate resolutions (for example, the max 800 pixels wide or 600 pixels high previews seen on image description pages). AnonMoos (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the answers. As a workaround, I am using "upload.wikimedia.org/*.gif" as a filter on "Ad block plus", the ad-removing tool on Firefox. Teofilo (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete categories please?

Yes check.svg Resolved

Hi, I managed to create two redundant categories Category:New Zealand museums and Category:Lawn Bowls. Could someone please speedy delete them? Note: I had been in the process of asking the museums one to be moved to Category:Museums in New Zealand because I couldn't locate that category - I never would have expected to find it under Category:Education buildings in New Zealand, and I think it should be directly beneath the buildings in NZ cat. Dramatic (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Both deleted. WJBscribe (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
That was fast! Thanks. Dramatic (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

April 20

Bold items in watchlist

I'm having a problem where changes in my watchlist keep reappearing in bold (i.e. changes since I last visited them), despite having visited the pages, and/or clicking on Mark all pages visited. Is anyone else having this problem or is it just me? (For reference, I use classic skin in IE6 and Firefox 3) – Tivedshambo (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have the same problem. I use Firefox 3.0.8. I thought it was a problem with the local setup. Sv1xv (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
See Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009Apr#Mysterious_fontbolding. Mvangeest (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

UserMessages

Am I the only one experiencing issues (recently) with the UserMessages gadget? Like, templates not autotranslated anymore and missing headings? --Eusebius (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, they totally broke it trying to auto-translate them (it was partially broke before because of the lack of subst'ing). I hardly ever use that script or those templates anymore. Rocket000 (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but I guess many people do, since it's provided as a gadget... Apparently most templates now work, but I still miss a title for "end of copyvios" (and language is forced to /en). I'm not very good at templates/javascript so I'm not sure how to solve that. --Eusebius (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody tell what should be done to solve the problem, or point me to a working version of the gadget? It's getting really annoying. --Eusebius (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry. If I was good at javascript, I would work on it. I'll look at the templates. Rocket000 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I think if they stop forcing the /en, it would solve some problems. With autotranslation, you don't use the subpages directly. The whole script needs to be rewritten. There shouldn't even be any language options for autotranslated templates. One or the other needs to change and I don't think undoing the autotranslation is what people want. Rocket000 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, and sorry for sounding bitter. Actually the gadget works for most messages (when not using the language option, of course). I just cannot tell why there's a problem with "end of copyvios". Maybe it's the template, maybe it's the JS, I just don't know. I agree that the language choice points should be removed. I will do it, some day. --Eusebius (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't apologize, I meant I was sorry that you were annoyed. :) Anyway, I looked at {{End of copyvios}} and the template seems fine. It's just that /en part that's messing it up. The script inserts "{{End of copyvios/en}} ~~~~" when it should insert "{{subst:end of copyvios}} ~~~~". Rocket000 (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Try it now. Rocket000 (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It now works (for this template), but it's because I've found what to change in the JS. The /en is forced from there, I've removed it but only for "end of copyvio". Now that I'm more clever (well, I'm not sure JS makes people clever, but you got me), I should have a look at the rest. --Eusebius (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The gadget now relies on autotranslating rather than forcing /en, for all templates. What remains to be done (by me later, or by someone else in the meantime):

What we really need is a complete "user message" reform. Pick 9 or 10 real important ones, standardize those, push for complete translations (as represented here), and then make the script to match. Most of those messages are pretty ugly too. Maybe I'll start working on this again. Rocket000 (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Rocket: Please do! And both of you, thanks for working on this. Finn Rindahl (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, we probably need an "out of scope notice" message, useful when a picture gets deleted on this ground. --Eusebius (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
You mean Template:Project scope? Or a more redish scary warning? –Tryphon 10:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to scare :-) This template is useful because it explains the reasons, but it does not point out a picture. I think we need, in addition to this template, a mere notification that a picture has been deleted on this basis ({{Speedywhat}} could be adapted, but it is very vague, I think it is not useful anymore). Something like {{copyvionote}}, maybe less scary... --Eusebius (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, suggested modifications to the list of message templates available from the gadget, please react:

Update: {{unfree}} may be useful in the case of NC/ND restrictions. --Eusebius (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is based on my own usage and my own vision of what this gadget should be. Again, please react! --Eusebius (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I like {{unfree}}, it points out what free means. Many, many people dont know this. --Martin H. (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with that. I think the test ones can be cut down to one, maybe two. Who warns people 4 times for vandalism anyway? Remove {{No re-uploading}} I mistakenly used that instead of {{dont recreate}} and realized it's a poorly worded (and incorrect) template. {{welcome}} can still be used for IPs, I guess, but welcoming random IPs that change all the time is kinda silly so remove it. {{please describe images}}, {{please link images}}, {{please tag images}} I never use either. It's a wiki. It's not necessarily the uploader's job to do all that. {{please name images}} maybe, but I wouldn't ever use it. Rocket000 (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

For welcoming IPs there is {{Welcomeip}} (not internationalized?). I generally don't agree with your argument about "please ... images" templates (we require users to categorize their pictures, and for most self-taken pictures, if the uploader neither categorizes nor describes them they become just useless, wiki or not) but I think the templates don't need to be included in the gadget. --Eusebius (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes, obviously some people feel that way (that's why we have the templates), however it's not a view shared by everyone (definitely not policy), so that's a reason why it shouldn't be included in the gadget. Personally, I don't think it's right to tell people what to do. We all volunteers here. For example, I just went to someone's talk page that uploaded some very high quality images awhile ago and then stopped suddenly. The talk page did not have a single real comment just a bunch of "please do this" or "please do that". That's not a way to thank people for donating their work. You may feel comfortable doing it, bots may have no issue with it, but not everyone, and thus shouldn't be in a gadget for everyone. Rocket000 (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I must of course agree, but even though Commons:Categories does not have a policy tag, one can read there that "each file must be put into a category directly, and/or put on a Gallery page which is categorized". I never use these tags, but I understand they could be used. I've crossed the way of several users, for Asian countries for instance (i.e. I don't speak their language) uploading unidentifiable snapshots of unidentifiable places. If they don't tag, who will? In some cases, the files are never used on another project and Commons is just seen as a personal file repository, with the files not obviously out of scope, but worthless anyway. This is a side issue anyway, we basically agree on the fact that these tags should be removed from the gadget for it to be useful and handy. --Eusebius (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It is a policy that every image should be categorized but it doesn't say by who. But yes, the important thing is that these should be removed. Rocket000 (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice. Just started testing it. One issue I noticed so far: It doesn't accommodate for templates that have optional parameters (such as {{project scope}}). But looks good! Rocket000 (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes it does, it's just that MediaWiki:Gadget-UserMessages.js doesn't handle a parameter for that template either, and my code mimicked the handling of the currently active implementation. I've tweaked the config in my script a little: it should now prompt for a filename for this message.
As an aside and for the benefit of others: by default, this new implementation doesn't add umpteen links in the sidebar, it just adds one single link "Notify user...", which opens a popup containing all the message links. Less clutter in the sidebar, but if you really want all those links in the sidebar, that can be configured, too. From a technical point, I think the new implementation makes it much easier to add or remove messages, or to change the handling of a particular message. In addition, the interface can be localized. Lupo 07:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I haven't looked at your tool yet, but it would be nice if the two parameters of {{blocked user}} would be prompted for, if it's not the case already (not the case in the current gadget). I like the idea of the single link. I don't like the idea of having several scripts for the same thing, should your tool become the gadget in the end? --Eusebius (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
That's the idea. Note that both the current implementation any my rewrite currently are limited to query one parameter only. Changing the new implementation to query more params would be easy to do for a second parameter (just making it prompt twice). For more parameters, it would be better to redesign that whole prompting part to ask for any number of parameters using one single dynamically created form. That might get a little more complex. Lupo 08:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

April 10

Tracking Use of Media

Subject intended for open discussion & development:

There needs to be better tracking of media file usage, both on & off wikimedia, but ESPECIALLY tracking off-WM usage of WMC files.

improving this would allow us to get a MUCH bettr idea of who well WMC is working & where we need improvement.

Lx 121 (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We have {{published}} for files used by media organizations. But of course, the whole point of Commons is that people can reuse our files. We can't impose any kind of tracking on reusers, since that would go against the freeness of the files. Pruneautalk 01:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
didn't mean tracking in that sense, but it would be nice to get an idea of how we're doing. what about using something via google/google image(/media) searches? it should be possible to write an app that can search out uses of our files, especially if (big if) the users honour the fine print details of CC (attribution, etc.). we could do that & openly study useage of WMC files, without restricting anybody's freedom of use. Lx 121 (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I really don't see that as a priority for Commons and thus will not work on it. However, if you're able to design a similarity engine better than tineye's, in order to make automatic Google images queries possible, nice. It's not a trivial problem, I'm afraid. --Eusebius (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Luckily, some people are tracking re-use in newspapers and similar. For results see: Category:Commons as a media source.--Túrelio (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That's cool, I didn't know about that. If I see any Commons works reused I'll be sure to apply the right tag. License compliance seems someone poor though. :-( Dcoetzee (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal license templates

Let me give you a short introduction into a recent case on de.wp: User:Martina Nolte uploaded images on the German Wikipedia and added a user-specific license statement to each of them, that said, that she requests that her name must be provided in the image caption whenever her images are used/re-used. Inclusions of the images on Wikipedia pages were exempted from that. When some third party re-users of Wikipedia articles displayed her images in those articles, she wrote them cease and desist letters (connected with a fixed fee of 1400 Euro). Subsequently there was a big discussion on de.wp, whether this was correct - morally and legally (see e.g. Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen/Angebliche Abmahnfalle).

The problem in this case basically was, that User:Martina Nolte allowed Wikipedia to use her images without her name in the image caption, while the same was not granted to third party users. A perfect mirror with all image description pages present would still have been a violation of the license.

In the end all her images were deleted.

This as some preliminary information.

On Commons many users use user-specific license templates (see Category:User custom license tags for a selection [there are many more]). Any of them can contain additional conditions. It's almost impossible to make sure, that those templates don't contain problematic conditions or are altered in problematic ways (like retrospectively changing a PD-self release into a more restrictive license). Those templates are hardly ever on any watchlists except of the creator's one.

For example I just came across a template, that says CC-by-2.5 + where the image is stored/displayed electronically original metadata must be retained and be included with further copies. That's a limitation on derivative works and would mean, that the images tagged with this template are not free enough for Commons, doesn't it?

My opinion is, that we should avoid personal license templates. Every user should provide one of the accepted licenses under "permission". But no "home-brew" licenses. --Slomox (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Slomox, most of what you write and what is written in detail on de-WP and in suspicious German blogs about my "case" is not prooved by anyone yelling there and I cannot understand why you spread this mudbath from de-WP to Commons while discussions are going on there. "In the end all her images were deleted." - it's not ended; we still have discussions if these deletions were and are allowed. So STOP defaming me; it's enough now. --Martina Nolte (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is not about you at all. Und zum Thema "mudbath" sag ich nur: Wer Wind sät... --Slomox (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, then its only hard to understand why you spend half of your contribution on this "case". (...muss am Schlammbaden und Fischen im Trüben teilnehmen?) --Martina Nolte (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
There's two problems. First, where do you draw the line? There's custom licenses that are basically a standard one but tweaked to included the user name or something trivial like that. Saying no custom licenses at all might deter valuable contributors who were perfectly within policy. And the second issue is on the other end. What constitutes as legally binding? What template they slap on the image page, or what they say? There's be multiple cases where an image has a standard license like {{cc-by-3.0}}, but in the permission field they write "For Wikipedia use only". When these images get nominated for deletion, we always go by what the user says and not the license. This is why we can't control it simply by controling the templates. They don't matter. Rocket000 (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose setting up something preventively anyway. Diti the penguin 00:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
preventively?. Stuff like that is everywhere here. Rocket000 (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
What I meant is Slomox want us to “[preventively] avoid personal license templates” so that we wouldn't come across such issues any more in the future. I don't think it's a nice idea. Diti the penguin 00:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, then nevermind. :) Rocket000 (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
But wait, just one more example: [21]. Heh, they always find a way. Rocket000 (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment CC-by-sa explicitly allows ([22] section 4c) copyright owner to specifiy some details of attribution: Use name/pseudonym, optinally "sponsor institute", title of work, etc. Regardless of CC, these moral rights would be guaranteed by law in many jurisdictions anyway. I think it would be too restrictive to forbid adding these informations in some manner. When using templates for providing these informations, there is a danger of a later change of terms. Instead of forbidding personal templates, wouldn't it be more reasonable to make it policy to subst those templates - effectively removing the dynamic factor? I have used a custom template myself (Template:Christoph Münch Creative Commons photos, and I'll consider substing those soon. Nillerdk (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I suggest that we require that every image has one (or more) of the standard licensing tags, and that personalized tags only consist of a credit line («please attribute John Smith»), a link to a home page («see www.myphotohomepage.org for more of my photos») and similar things. --Kjetil_r 08:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I dunno. I think personal templates including licenses are okay as long as they're not modified to remove the license. Lots of people use the same license for all their images. We don't protect image description pages to prevent license changes. Would it help if we either 1. protected user license templates or 2. required the use of subst? Dcoetzee (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I use a personalise template for licensing and have two prior versions, I disagree with a subst requirement because people can change what they request as the attribution this doesnt alter the license. Also CC-by-3.0 is compatable with cc-by-2.5 a user is able to update to the new license, even the GNU/GDFL license can be changed to CC-by-3.0, the Foundation is considering/wanting this change. Even still if a user template was to be changed and the person then attempted to take action against a third party the page history is there to show that the image had a different license and when, unlike flickr where there is no history retained of alterations and a person can change it at will thats why we have to run a bot to ensure the license at the time of upload was an appropriate free license. Under pinning all of this is the fact that there are very few people with oversight access that can exsponge a page history so such scenarios are not an issue, even then there would be a record of it occuring.
    I can see merit in having a requirement that custom license templates be protected and even some minor advantage in having a reviewing process for them. Gnangarra 15:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I can see where personal license templates can be useful is when it goes into more detail (Not complex but rather giving more detail in how the licensed image should be used and what happens if it's breached) but not too much (sort of summarising it otherwise it just becomes to long). I'm not far off making a personal license template as I've had too many images being used against the licensing conditions. Latest site to use my image without any attribution and have just sent a final notice (Sent emails before but have gone unnoticed or ignored) but if not acted on I will send a take down notice. In doing all that it takes up my time and I rather not get lawers involved (or it becomes too costly). By having a personal license template it could save me all the time and effort in trying to get sites who may not understand the licensing conditions and also stop those from say that they don't understand the licensing since it would be in plain text (which I hope to have in all languages). Bidgee (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
No personal template will stop people not understanding our current standard license templates. If the standard templates are hard to understand, we should improve their wording instead of creating clarifications in personal templates from which only few people will benefit.
Adding any additional requirements (like "don't change metadata" or "I want to be attributed in a more visible way") weakens your licensing. GFDL and CC are legally defined licenses and very clear. Every "personal" alterations to these licenses "disturbs" the clearness of the licensing. They may make your license more easily attackable or could make your license completely invalid, which could lead to deletion (or to loosing a lawsuit). So they are dangerous for Commons and for the creator too.
About "attribution lines" like Nillerdk and Kjetil_r mention them: the standard CC templates have an "author" parameter, that should be used to include information like that. Additionally the "author" parameter of the information template can contain that information.
Substing is no solution cause my main problem is with users making statements that invalidate or contradict the license information. We should educate users to use plain standard licenses. GFDL, CC etc. were invented with a purpose: It would easily be possible to release works with "use it for whatever, but name me". Basically the same as CC-by. But CC-by is a legally defined text worked out by lawyers, when "use it for whatever, but name me" is very vague when it comes to a lawsuit. The standard license gives the creator better legal security. The standard licenses are in the interest of the author. --Slomox (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I have had some sites state (small sites that don't have a great deal on knowledge on licensing) that they don't understand the CC licensing and a lot of the time they don't look at the CC website. Take CC-BY-3.0 for example which has "In short: you are free to distribute and modify the file as long as you attribute its author(s) or licensor(s)", It states nothing about publishing (Even thought I know thats what distribute means but someone without any knowledge may not).
I do see your point and agree that there are some personal template licensing templates what go against the files license but there are some valid personal template licenses and if they have greater detail without going against the license then I see no issues and it should be up the the uploader and we should support them. I do think there should be a policy or guidelines for personal template licenses so that it doesn't risk Commons and the uploader from being sued or any other law suits. Bidgee (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
there are some valid personal template licenses Please give examples for valid reasons for personal templates. The only reason I can think of is convenience. It's easier to type "{{Slolic}}" (short for "Slomox' personal license template") than typing for example "{{GFDL-user|Slomox}}{{cc-by-sa}}{{0}}". But if you note down the licenses on your user page and copy'n'paste them when you want to upload something, that should be no problem.
Most of the personal license templates I looked at, were just convenience tools. Just a wrapper for a set of different standard templates. But with the additional disadvantage, that often the text was copied instead of included per template, and so not localized. Most of the rest were templates with "problematic" provisions. Only some few were templates, that had valid points for which no standard template exists. Like "would be nice, if you send me an e-mail, if you use the file somewhere". But that could better and more easily be covered by an additional standard (non-license) template for "e-mail please" too. --Slomox (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Not long ago, someone suggested that we should have a procedure for accepting license templates. I think that the proposition was accepted but I wonder if such a page has been set up? When it comes to personalized license templates, I think we have two options:

  • either we make the templates go through the same procedure as other templates
  • or we create a policy on what we demand from personalized license templates.

Samulili (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, after that discussion I created Commons:Licence template validation to collect thoughts and develop a validation policy. But it didn't gain much momentum, cause the discussion was already archived. --Slomox (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we could have something like {{License addenda}} to cover the most common types of addenda in personal license templates. At the moment the test template {{License addenda}} supports the three common additions "please send me a voucher copy if you use my files", "please inform me if you use my files" and "ask me if you want me to release the file under a different license".
That should already cover many of the personal license templates. Other cases could be added. --Slomox (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

April 17

Diffusion of The Library of Congress Category

Category:Images from the Library of Congress has over 11,000 images. I think it's time for it to be diffused into subcategories. It would be best to categorize according to collection, which can be easily done with AWB through the skip function (I'll take care of diffusion). However the LOC category is embedded into the LOC template and can't be removed unless we change the templates behavior. Does anyone have an opinion on that? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There is already a mixup with the subcategories: The HABS/HALS/HAER and the PD categories are license categories and should not be in the LOC category, which is a source category. --Martin H. (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I view this category as a maintenance category and large number of images there does not bother me, just like thousands of images in Category:PD-ScottForesman etc. However if we want to split it I would propose adding an extra attribute to LOC template that defines collection, (or year, location, author or some other good splitting criteria) and use it to auto-categorize those files. --Jarekt (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
No, please don't diffuse it. This is a good source category. And please don't mix it with topic categories. Multichill (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with multichill. Good source category, no need to diffuse it. TheDJ (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
If it can be done with minimal effort (maybe like Jarekt's suggestion), it would be good to divide them up into the Bain collection, the Matson collection, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
That was what I meant. Divide the LOC images category into collections if available. What would be against that?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

April 18

{{OTRS}} templates

(Posting here as the template pages may not be heavily-watched)
I keep coming across images using the template {{OTRS}} or {{PermissionOTRS}} without any parameter. In both cases the text defaults to saying that "permission for use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system", but gives no further detail. Almost always, searching OTRS finds nothing of relevance, which is not surprising since had the tag been added by an OTRS volunteer after verification the ticket number would have been included. We have {{OTRSPending}} for use when an email has been sent that needs checking. Use of these other templates without a parameter simply causes confusion and makes work for OTRS volunteers who have to check in each case if fact some permission has been lodged (even though it virtually never has been).

Could these two template be modified to display an error message if used without a parameter? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, although placing them in a hidden category might be even better so that users are not alerted to the problem and do not have the opportunity to copy a valid template and get rid of the error. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I find {{Gary Lee Todd permission}} to be an excellent example for what the OTRS approved templates should indicate. This lets us know the basics of the ticket without having to bother the OTRS volunteers for what the ticket is for all the time. Jappalang (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad description of the image in the filename

Hello!

I think it is not possible to "rename" an image once it has been uploaded. File:Alexius I Comnenus.jpg has a bad filename: according to the summary and to this (french) talk page, the person portrayed is not Alexius I, but Prince Alexios. As I am not accustomed to the procedures here, would someone please do... whatever is necessary to do in order to correct this (download, upload with a new filemane, merging histories, deleting the image with the bad filemane... I don't know). Thank you! GillesC (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So the summary is correct, but the file name is incorrect? You are right, the file name cannot be renamed, at least not by the ordinary editor/contributor here. I suppose the file can be downloaded and uploaded with a different file name, but I will leave further help/progress to the more advanced people here. --Davidt8 (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I started process of renaming the file to File:Alexios Komnenos (1106-1142).jpg. --Jarekt (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Admins can rename the file now. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually admins cannot move images, but a bot can User:BetacommandBot see Commons:MediaMoveBot and the checkpage Commons:MediaMoveBot/CheckPage if your name is listed on the check page +admins by default the bot will rename the images for you. Betacommand 21:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Query on uploading images of my art collection

I have purchased a collection of oriental art. I am curious to know about all the pieces. May I upload them to this site to see if there is someone somewhere that can help me find out where they are from and their age and if they are valuable. They range from a nearly 4 foot Celadon Guanyin to a nearly 2 foot porcelain Guanyin surrounded by the entire collection of the 18 Buddhas. I also have 18 individual celadon buddhas all hand painted, robes are of the celadon glaze each in perfect condition hand painted with three dimensional faces open hollow mouths with teeth and tongues. You can even see the tips of their fingernails beyond the tips of their fingers. I also bought a 6'x 3' framed in the oriental style with wood pegs holding the art piece in the frame. It is an amazing piece with dragons some 5 toed and some 4 toed painted and etched into a slab of some type of pottery material. Very heavy! 5 ivory 4 inch statues and many other beautiful staues, horses and Giant foo dogs, garden seat plus more. This is my first time to come to your site. I find it fascinating how you do all of this. I am not very computer savvy, but I will sure try my best. Thank you Miss Martinez

It's only possible to upload them, if you are sure, that they are very old. So old, that the creator is dead for at least 70 years and copyright has expired. --Slomox (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
If you are uncertain about the age of the pieces, you might try uploading them to another site - for example Flickr - and then linking some people to them to try to identify the actual age of the pieces. It's best to not upload them here until you have strong evidence that they're old enough to be public domain. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I gave this a header (to split it from the date header). On topic: if you have bought the art from a store, contact them for details of the artist. Your ownership of a work does not override the creator's possible copyright. Finding his or her identity might prove to be extremely difficult if the statues you possess are mass production works. Jappalang (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

NZ Licensing question

New Zealand's Alexander Turnbull Library has placed some historic NZ photos on Flickr The Commons. My understanding from the licensing rules for NZ is that government photographers in this collection such as Thomas Scales are fair, because Crown copyright for material prior to 1945 is fair game. Is this citation[23] sufficient for documenting the official status for Henry Armytage Sanders, Thomas Scales and Malcolm Ross?

Question 2: For photographers of unknown status, what is the a fair rule of thumb for uploading a photo from this collection? Current work is death of artist + 50 years Commons:Licensing#New_Zealand according to the 1994 NZ law, if unknown artist, 50 years after the date of publication [24].

Question 3: What is the PD NZ template for life of the artist plus 50 years? The PD-NZ's all talk about crown copyright. Should I just create one for non crown artists citing the 1994 law, or does one already exist and I'm too thick to see it?

This came up in response to a note en wikipedia military history project-J JMesserly (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:PD-NZ seems to be OK for "life of author + 50" cases. It reads "Creator died prior to January 1, 1959" on the "D" row. I was unable to read your 2nd external link because "The server encountered an internal error and was unable to complete your request - Error 500: Internal Server Error". Be careful about "unknown authors" : in countries like Britain and Australia, you must make a "reasonable enquiry" before saying you don't know the author's identity. I don't know, but it might be similar in NZ. Teofilo (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I was the editor who drew this collection to the attention of the en-Wikipedia wikiproject (in the discussion noted above). I have already uploaded some images to commons, for use on en-WP, and I note that User:Dramatic has as well. These can all be found at Category:Images from the New Zealand National Library. ‎
‎ ‎ Regarding the copyright, I based my decision (regarding PD) on the NZ National Library's own copyright explanation for TheCommons collection: National Library images that are part of The Commons are marked as "no known copyright". This means that the Library is not aware of any current copyright restrictions on this work, either because the term of copyright on the work has expired, or because no evidence has been found that copyright restrictions apply to the work. We are making these images available for people to discover, comment on, share and use. We welcome you to: [...] use the image for your own creative work. [...] To the best of our knowledge, all images we add to The Commons have no copyright restrictions. Given these images are specifically chosen from the National Collection (a NZ govt facility) by their own curators, I would assume "reasonable enquiry" has been made. (Although they to add a disclaimer that However, we can't guarantee that sharing these images may not inadvertently infringe upon the rights of copyright holders unknown to us. We also can't guarantee that your use of these images will not inadvertently infringe on copyright holders' rights, and we can't accept liability if this should happen.)
Regarding the Template:PD-NZ: that does seem more appropriate than the PD-old. I uploaded using the Flickr tool, which didn't offer it. I can go back an change them if that is the appropriate tag. Gwinva (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Note that a lot of the images are by William Hall Raine who died in 1955. PD-NZ states that works by creators who died prior to 1959 are PD. Gwinva (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
TeoFilo, thanks. Sorry about the bad link showing the death date of the photographer. The link appears to work for me now though it is very slow. There is another site that is considerably faster (alternate natlib source). Skip past the image.
Gwinva, it's a great find. Thanks. If you are going to use PD-NZ, it would be helpful to indicate which provision applies, eg cite a location that establishes the photographer was working for the crown, or that the photographer died prior to 1959-1-1. I believe the national library of NZ is competent, but the most solid licensing info firmly establishes which facts and which rules support the claim of PD status. We should provide this info whenever we can. I have some boilerplate links for some of the photographers. We should just use the same ones. Lastly, don't these guys just offer these on DVD? Why don't we just get the hires versions and bypass these flickr commons wannabe images? -J JMesserly (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I've now found another problem. It seems that being PD in NZ might not be enough enough for commons - it needs to be PD in the USA as well, which requires 70 years after death. See Public_domain#Material_in_the_public_domain. But that seems a bit bizarre. Does it negate all of PD-NZ? What's with the in other countries adhering to international copyright treaties, then? And does this outweigh crown copyright also? See. That page also notes the following: "If the work was published before 1923, it is in the public domain in the U.S. If the work was published 1923 to 1995 (inclusive) and not copyrighted in its countries of origin in 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S. Otherwise, if the work was published before 1978, it is copyrighted in the U.S. for 95 years since the original publication (i.e. at least until 1923 + 95 = 2018), and if it was published 1978 or later, the work is copyrighted until 70 years after the (last surviving) author's death." If this disqualifies these images for commons, can we transfer to en:WP as Fair Use? Gwinva (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Generally, if the copyright expired in the origin country, it has expired here. My bet is Rule of the shorter term applies for NZ origin content, but perhaps others more knowledgeable would care to comment. -J JMesserly (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the shorter term rule does apply for NZ content, but the problem is, the US doesn't accept it: m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term. There's also Template:Not-PD-US-URAA, which I don't quite understand. Does that tag for deletion, or imply there might be a problem, but they'll hold onto them until they decide what to do? Gwinva (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
(Answer my own question): I see they go in Category:Works copyrighted in the U.S., along with 1,673 others sitting there waiting for someone to figure out what to do with images which have no copyright except in the US. Do we just tag the relevant NZ ones in this manner?Gwinva (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Even if the rule does not apply (and the link you provided points out that it is a debatable point), under US rules a large portion of these are PD in the US too. If you look at Cornell's excellent table of rules here, my argument why this is becomes more clear. Page down to the section "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals". For works:
  • Prior to 1923 Works publicly distributed outside the US by foreign nationals are PD in the US.
  • Prior to 1978 Works publicly distributed before 1978 and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996 had to conform to all rules and conventions for US copyright.
It is very unlikely any of these NZ photographers were even aware of US copyright conventions let alone adhered to the rules. This does not put them all in the clear because the 1996 cutoff would eliminate a percentage of these photos if the rule of shorter term does not apply. Unfortunately those by Raines would be PD in NZ, but not in the US, because his works were not PD in NZ until 2005. As for Crown copyright photos- those prior to 1945 are all in the clear because all of those were in the PD in NZ as of January 1, 1996.
I am not a lawyer, but this is why I believe that even if the rule of shorter term is false, the majority of the NZ national library photos will be found to be PD in the US. But this example illustrates why when uploading photos it is very helpful to include all documentation that would affect licensing (eg- date of public distribution, date of photographer death, whether the photographer's work was for his local government).
Perhaps it would be good if some of the folks experienced with CopyVio determinations could offer their reading on this situation. -J JMesserly (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OTRS check pls

Can someone do some checking of the OTRS queue for me please? I'm looking at File:Adsaf.JPG which supposedly has an email sent to OTRS giving permission. I'm curious as to what precisely that email says as this image seems quite prevelant on the 'net according to TinEye. Here's the TinEye report - http://tineye.com/search/6880fd4d40ef0b9c16b472e4886cf91663be2468. How can this person provide the image? Tabercil (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You can make a request on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Diti the penguin 00:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Note that "Source: 網路" is "from the Internet", "Date: 不知道" is "no idea", and "Author: 宣傳照" is "publicity photo". Likely the uploader is trying all methods to get the photo of this entertainer to be used on one of the Wikipedias. I doubt there is truly an OTRS, and if there is, the information provided is likely false or unqualified for free use. Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I'll tag the file appropriately, and I hadn't known about the OTRS noticeboard. Tabercil (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

April 21

ESA photographs not free enough for Commons, or are they?

I think they are definitely not free for Commons use because of ESA's statement: If these images are to be used in advertising or any commercial promotion, layout and copy must be submitted to ESA beforehand for approval to: ESA Multimedia multimedia@esa.int

The above clause can be found at: http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmgdownload.pl and here at Commons at Category:ESA. Also ESA's statement is clearly non-free at: http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMNYZS1VED_index_0.html .

Unfortunately ESA's clauses confuse both myself and, I am sure, good-faith uploaders.

I looked through some of the ESA category images, and while most seem Ok (because they did not come from ESA), others that did come from ESA are wrongly tagged. For example File:Herschel_esa_090119.jpg is tagged as Public domain by ESA, File:LISA LPF.jpg is tagged PD-Art, and File:ERA-spatio hires.jpg has been nominated for deletion since 7 April 2009.

There seems to be an attempt to communicate with ESA at Category talk:ESA to get clarification, so maybe ESA really did release some images as truly PD or other free license and Commons is waiting for the official ESA-PD license.

I do not wish to add warning tags on these myself because I am never 100% sure of these things. Could some expert check through that category please? 84user (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Non-free. Delete. ViperSnake151 (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Internationalization and Localization of Commons Pages

Hi,

I used to be really active (Administrator, contributor, translator) on the Commons two-three years ago, and have recently returned, wanting to help out. I have a couple of suggestions and if agreed upon, I'll gladly make these changes myself. Never propose something unless you're willing to do the work :)

  1. There is no predictable way to get to a localized Commons page. Pages like COM:POTD forward to the English version, but COM:POTD/de or COM:POTD/fr don't exist, one must either visit the English page and click on the corresponding link to the language or know the localized titles already. I believe it would be reasonable to create pages like COM:pagename/isocode that forward to the appropriate page.
  2. I used to maintain this page for curiosity: User:UED77/Lang templates. The naming of the templates shows little consistency with the naming of the associated pages. This means more copy-pasting from the English page during translation, and lack of predictablity, like my previous point.
  3. It is already an agreed policy that categories will be in English. Commons-namespace pages, however, are localized into many languages. However, whenever the English page changes, the other-language pages get out of sync, which might be considered "outdated", depending on the significance of the change. This not only generates more work for translators, but also reflects badly on the Commons' localization efforts. Therefore, would it be possible to create a modular system, where a master template would include various section templates? This would result in a unified layout between language versions (master template), and when the Commons community decides to rewrite a section of a page, only the corresponding section would need to be translated again. This would be especially helpful for pages like COM:FS and COM:COWN.
  4. The translation coordination page COM:TCC is sadly out of date with the pages that we now have. Better coordination of the creation of new English help pages would result in quicker translations. I can help, but it will take me a while to familiarize myself with the new pages.

UED77 (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, please take a look at Commons:Template i18n. Maybe Commons namespace is next. Multichill (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I will definitely begin translating those into Hungarian, and looking into what other templates/pages can be included in this effort. —UED77 (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Category scheme Commons maintenance (mainly Category:Commons maintenance content) needs a complete make over. It needed it before, but now with autotranslate, it really needs it. We don't need pages of category descriptions anymore. We can do it just like how templates are done with /lang subpages. Rocket000 (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


COM:POTD could be something like
#redirect [[{{#switch: {{int:Lang}}
|de=Commons:Bild des Tages
|fr=Commons:Image du jour
|#default=Commons:Picture of the day
}}]]
That would make it redirect to the appropiate page. --Slomox (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Please don't make shortcuts redirect dynamically. One sometimes wants to go to a page in a certain language and not to the page in the interface language. We should rather have localized shortcuts like COM:BDT for "Bild das Tages", COM:IDJ for "Image du jour" or similar. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want to go to Commons:Bild des Tages directly just link Commons:Bild des Tages. I don't see the problem with that. Why is that an argument against shortcut redirects? --Slomox (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
When I want to go to Commons:Picture of the day, I type COM:POTD into my browser. I don't want to be redirected to the German page. Why can't we have a different shortcut for that? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
But localized shortcuts like COM:BDT do not satisfy predictability. If I want to go to the Arabic POTD page, Commons:صورة اليوم, but I can't actually read Arabic, and I won't know which language link on the English POTD page will get me there, because they display the localized name for the language: العربية. Same thing with any localized Commons page, say, the Main Page. Even the English name is not particularly predictable; why is it "Main Page", not "Index", which is long-used WWW convention? (But that's not my argument...) As a proof-of-concept, I created COM:INDEX to redirect to the English main page, COM:INDEX/de will redirect me to Hauptseite; for someone not familiar with Germanic languages, the actual titles look really similar, but the Slash-ISOCODE convention allows you to get there predictably: COM:INDEX/alsHouptsyte, COM:INDEX/lbHaaptsäit, COM:INDEX/stqHaudsiede Commons, COM:INDEX/ndsHööftsiet, COM:INDEX/noHovedside, COM:INDEX/nnHovudside.
Why not let each language make their own shortcuts? In their own languages. This is kinda English-centric. (and no making it less convenient for English speakers by adding a /en to the end doesn't help anything). Rocket000 (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so it's not predictable. But how often do you go to Arabic POTD page if you don't speak Arabic? Do you really need a shortcut for that? Rocket000 (talk)
Each language having its own shortcuts is fine, but my proposal intends to help trans-language settings. I actually visit the Arabic and any other POTD page quite often, to check for obvious vandalism or see how other languages are doing on the captions. Ideally, people could also use Commons:صورة اليوم/de to get to Commons:Bild des Tages. Since the number of pages are finite and controlled, this large list of links could be maintained by a bot; I can think of many uses for this, from vandalism control, checking for bugs, seeing if a language page is up-to-date to the mutually agreed "latest" version, and even convenient data extraction for our or third parties' scripts. In a perfect world, there might be an automatic solution to append "lang=ar" to the URL, regardless of what language the page is in, and it would find the Arabic version if it exists. —UED77 (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hum, for a single page in the Commons namespace, you would maintain a fully connected graph of shortcuts? This is more than 8000 shortcuts for the single Main Page. --Eusebius (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I am sure a bot could do it, or an eventual MediaWiki feature could be used. Stranger things have happened; when CommonsTicker auto-updates dozens of wikis whenever we change an image here. Maintaining them by hand is not what I'm proposing, but perhaps if a master list would be used, that's manageable; that's 1 page to maintain, much like the lang templates we have now, not thousands. —UED77 (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
My combinatorial explosion remark was only about your Commons:صورة اليوم/de example, I don't see how to achieve that without a lot of new pages (maybe a feature that I don't know about) and I'm not sure I see more value in it than in the current /lang. Only a short remark you can ignore. I don't know much about i18n, I'm not too much involved. --Eusebius (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, only with the last comments I realized what was actually meant. When I made my first comment, I didn't realize, that predictable was the key word in the original question. If we want to have something predictable, then we should create COM:POTD as language-dependant redirect and make COM:POTD/en, COM:POTD/de, COM:POTD/fr redirects to the local versions. That's predictable, language neutral and provides a common entry point.
Commons:صورة اليوم/de is a bit over the top, I don't think that's meaningful.
Whether we create COM:BDT additionally to COM:POTD/de would be independant from the question whether we create COM:POTD/de. I personally don't think, that local shortcuts are necessary, but if others want it, I won't oppose. --Slomox (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
How is using COM:POTD for all languages language-neutral? That's the English shortcut. Rocket000 (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, _any string_ is language non-neutral (the namespace name isn't language-neutral too). The premise of the original question in this thread is to create a _predictable_ entry point. A predictable entry point is generally impossible, if we define language-neutrality in the strict sense. --Slomox (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Category problem

Hello,

some days ago I created Category:Flugplatz Schmallenberg-Rennefeld as a subcategory of Category:Schmallenberg and Category:Airfields in Germany. It does appear in the latter, but not in Category:Schmallenberg - where's the Problem? Regards, --El Grafo (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It does appear, but on the second page. You have to click "next 200" or "nächste 200" to see it. Category sorting is quite odd. Subcategories are treated just like images during sorting. But the images are all sorted under "File:" and therefore "Flugplatz" is almost at the end. (But please don't ask me, why categories are _not_ sorted under "C". I have no idea ;-) ) --Slomox (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that happened to me before.. It took me awhile to realize that i had to click page 2 too see it.. --Ltshears (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, that's a really strange kind of behaviour, but at least now I know it's not my mistake. Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I found that quite confusing and annoying as well. The only solution I know is to keep less than 200 images in categories that have subcategories. (which is probably a good idea anyway). --Jarekt (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Database error with gallery script

I get the following error, when I try to see the pictures I uploaded:

A database error has occurred Query: SELECT cl_to as cat FROM categorylinks LEFT JOIN u_daniel_cache.commonswiki_nontopics ON namespace = 14 AND title = cl_to where cl_from = 6592927 AND id IS NULL Function: getCategories Error: 1146 Table 'u_daniel_cache.commonswiki_nontopics' doesn't exist (sql-s3)

Parameters for: Gallery

Smiley.toerist, Descending, since=ever, until=now, Format=Normal(HTML)

Is there some corruption in the Database or data wich causes problems?

Smiley.toerist (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The "tools" are just having one of their periodic problems. This is fairly frequent, and usually is fixed reasonably quickly (unless the fix requires hardware purchases). AnonMoos (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Iranian who died in 1896

Please excuse this newbie question but this Iranian cleric (Mirza Hassan Shirazi) died in 1896.

According to the copyright claim on this page, according to Iranian law "... copyright in photographs and movies lasts 30 years from the date of publication or presentation ... "

Since it is well over 30 years since 1896, is this image now in the public domain? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess, the modern Iranian copyright law didn't exist yet back then (the version {{PD-Iran}} refers to is from 1970). So we cannot rely on that. To be sure we need to know whether there already was any copyright law at those times or whether the modern law is retroactive. I guess it's hard to investigate this. From a pragmatic point of view I'd say: Even with a term of 70 years it's very very likely that the image is PD now. So I would say it is okay to use it on Commons.
But on the other side: I can hardly recognize anything on the image... The quality is so low, that we don't gain much. --Slomox (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd say {{PD-old-100}} for that, since it would have been taken within the life of the subject. ViperSnake151 (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

April 22

Exif geolocation metadata

When I click on "Show extended details", at the bottom of File:2005-09-17 10-01 Provence 641 St Rémy-de-Provence - Glanum.jpg, the geolocating metadata (they should be 43° 46' 21.34" N, and 4° 50' 1.33" E) are not showing up. Is there a reason for this, or is it a bug ? Teofilo (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a bug. Exiftool says the missing tags are indeed there in the file, but the serialized metadata in the image table doesn't include them. So the bug would seem to be in MediaWiki's Exif metadata extraction (Exif.php), or possibly in the PHP exif_read_data() function it uses. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh, yeah... actually, it turns out Exif.php can't handle GPS coordinate values: it lists the wrong type for them, so they get rejected by the type validation, and even if they passed it, it wouldn't know how to format them for display. I'm not sure why it even pretends to support GPS data at all. SNAFU. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
So perhaps when "Show extended details" displays something like "North or South Latitude : North latitude", it means something like "this file has geolocating data in its exif, but you must extract them by yourself, using some other software". Perhaps it is better than no information at all. I wonder if I must report this as a bug on bugzilla. Teofilo (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It's already there: bugzilla:13172 (and duplicate bugzilla:15546). I just committed rev:49677, which should fix it once it's deployed. (Thanks to Brent G for the patch.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I added this on the page Commons:Manipulating meta data. Teofilo (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not coat of arms

Category:Coats of arms has some images around that are not coats of arms, such as File:Artru250.jpg or File:Antoine Paris by Rigaud.jpg. However, the category is not inside the image pages. Surely this wrong categorization is caused by a template. Can someone with knowledge about them find and fix the problem? Belgrano (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed already. --Slomox (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed here. Multichill (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This is what the devs warned us about when using {{int:}}. It screws with the database integrity. Imagine if we create a template that purposely categorizes based on the user's interface language. Rocket000 (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
That's nonsense. Database integrity is not affected. --Slomox (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
So how did it get in the category? There was no category link at the bottom. The template only added it for users using that specific interface. But there's only one category so the result is a integrity violation. You seriously think all MediaWiki programmers are wrong about this? Rocket000 (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course the edit of FdeAvalos produced an awkward and hard to trace error. But that's the only difference to normal vandalism or inexpertly (in FdeAvalos' case) edits: it's only reproducable for users of that specific language. But the "integrity" of the database is not affected.
Similar errors could be produced by almost any advanced functions. You give the example of setting a category depending on user language. What about setting a category depending on revision id, on timestamp, on user gender, on number of pages in the wiki, on page size etc.? That's all technically possible and will result in categories that could change every time the page is rerendered.
The number of possible user languages is limited, the software could easily be extended to cover multi-language renditions of a page on the database level (if MediaWiki ever will develop into a software with true support for multilingual wikis... It depends on the developers).
If "rendering the page in different ways dependant on variables" would really pose a problem, the only way to solve it would be to deactivate all parser functions and variables. --Slomox (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Those are different because they change the category for everyone. When you base it on a variable that's different for different users you run into problems. You simply can not have something in a category for English users and not for German users. Rocket000 (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
We knew we had this problem when we started this whole autotranslating thing. To keep the category table unaffected we should never include categories in language versions of templates, only include categories in the main template. Maybe someday mediawiki will implement this in a better way, but until then we're stuck with this trick. Multichill (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Those are different because they change the category for everyone Gender does not.
When you base it on a variable that's different for different users you run into problems. Whenever a system evolves and produces new features, the complexity of the system rises and that is inescapably connected with new problems. That's a general feature of progress. Do you think the problems arising out of unreliable link tables and templates looking different for different users outweigh the advantages of being accessible to everybody? If not, then don't complain about the progress. Instead either work on making MediaWiki a truly multilingual software that natively handles the problems arising out of multilinguality or just accept the new times. --Slomox (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so it's not "nonsense" now. Ok... Rocket000 (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
And this isn't a new feature. We had it forever. We just decided to (mis)use within the last year. I'm not complaining or saying we shouldn't use. I was just pointing out what the problem was. :/ Rocket000 (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Can this image be uploaded here in Commons? I think it is too simple to be copyrighted. Regards, Mel 23 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the source country. --Eusebius (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

April 23

Flickr, where are you?

Just curious, but I have been waiting a day now in vain for the flickr pic to show up: see here. How much longer does it take? Gun Powder Ma (talk)

I uploaded the file. Diti the penguin 19:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk)

Pictures of dead people

A sensitive issue, are pictures of dead and disfigured people really allowed at Wikipedia? I am probably not the only one who was caught by complete surprise to see them, and it was not a pleasant experience, not to mention that the integrity of these victims of war too is violated. I am for removing them and all similar examples: See here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Project_scope#Censorship. Megapixie (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to state an opinion on the specific case (I don't know, whether the images fulfil a specific educational purpose or whether there are personality rights to be acknowledged etc. pp.). But generally we also need "intense" images. A wikibooks about medicinal aspects of death may need photos of dead disfigured bodies to fulfil its educational purposes. So its not possible to avoid images like that completely. Personally I think there should be some sort of warning for content like that (also for other content that may be offensive), but a warning system is not yet technically implemented. So at the moment there's not much we can do about it. --Slomox (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Most horrible on the 2 images in the linked category is the sourcing. Qualified for {{nsd}}, no publication, author, website mentioned, simply nothing. --Martin H. (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Slomox. Wikimedia's goal of general encyclopedic coverage includes the unpleasant aspects of the world. Death, disease, slavery, war, etc are encyclopedic topics. Images illustrating the realities some topics may shock or disgust some people. This is a world where there are disfigured corpses in addition to the cute kittens and pretty sunsets; that we're more comfortable looking at the latter doesn't make the former out of scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Stereograms

I'm dealing with a PD collection containing a large number of stereograms (these were all the rage in the early days of photography). My question is, should one of the channels be extracted from each of these images to create ordinary monocular images? It seems a bit odd to use stereograms directly in articles. Also, do we plan to have any special software support for stereograms, e.g. with different viewing modes, as is done with JPS files? Thanks. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A channel should be extracted with the stereogram image kept as an archiving source.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
We have a Category:Stereoscopy with many subcategories for such images, e.g. Category:Stereo cards. You stereograms would be most welcome there. Monocular images can be created as needed, but the stereograms should definitely be uploaded intact. --agr (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Page to refer people from whom we are requesting images?

Do we have a page to refer people from whom we are requesting images? Something like that would be very useful, I think. It should say what we are and explain our license requirements in a way that is oriented to outsiders.--agr (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request

Where can (must) I request a deletion of one of my own pictures? Paul Hermans (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Same place as always (Commons:Deletion requests). You can nominate an image by clicking "Nominate for deletion" in the toolbox on the left. Multichill (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Make edit buttons go away depending on namespace (Javascript)

I hate it when I want to make a quick edit to a file description page and the cursor gets positioned wrong cause the edit buttons above the edit box pop up in the very same moment I click. I do many copyedits to files and it's annoying. Does anybody know a good Javscript snippet to disable the edit buttons in the File namespace?

And just out of curiosity: Does anybody know why the edit buttons are inserted by Javascript instead of HTML? --Slomox (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to hide the toolbar with CSS; this example will do that in namespace #6 ("File:"):
.ns-6 #toolbar {display:none;}
-Erik Baas (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice solution. I was somehow fixed on a Javascript solution and didn't think of CSS ;-) Thanks. --Slomox (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

April 24

Valencia rail expert knowledge

I have upload some pictures (from slides) off the Valencia railways from the years 1981 and 1987. (Category: Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana). There are a lot of railways cars wich have disapeared. I am no expert in what type off cars there where. Can someone with Spanish history railway knowledge fill in the blanks? The station where I took most off the pictures has disapeared and I dont remember the name.

Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions :

Teofilo (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Merging image projects on WP

The English WP Project en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media is up and running, and we are currently merging and consolidating image/media projects and pages over there. To get involved head over to en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media. Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 18:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo

This image has been discussed here. With renewal searches coming up empty, the "PD-Pre1964" tag is my reason for uploading it. When I attempt to, I get a message saying it will be deleted within seven days. The email I received with a quasi-permission is also found on the discussion thread already linked. With no copyright renewal would his approval not matter and should I continue uploading this picture? And if so, how should I fill out the form so that I don't get that message? Beantwo (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What will keep this photo from being deleted? Beantwo (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

find copyvio image at tineye

hi, all. I write a script, a bot can find similar images at tineye. This check new upload images. This report of similar images.

Can add a note template similar images on image page? So that more people can check the image copyright issues.--shizhao (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That may be problematic, as TinEye's Terms of Service says that "Automated searching on TinEye via search scripts will not be tolerated, and will result in blocking of your IP address and/or other termination of your TinEye account." For a possible alternative, Google is also introducing Google Similar Images, but currently it seems to require knowing the id of their thumbnail. Maybe someone can figure out how to get a thumb id from a url? It is probably something in that test database of theirs though, with a problem similar to Woodeye where only a fraction of the known images have been imported. --Para (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we could contact them, see if we could get an exception for a Commons bot. --ChrisStubbs (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I have send an email to TinEye--shizhao (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know about Google Similar Images. Looks interesting. And the results linked on the main page are quite impressive! Well, of course they are, that's the reason Google placed them there. Other results are often rather odd, to avoid the word ridiculous. Does anybody know how the search works? It's obviously not a real image-analyzing search engine like Tineye is. If it would solely rely on the image content there should be much more images of other blonde women in the Paris Hilton image search. Obviously the context of the image plays a big role (wich is a good or a bad thing depending on whether you want "the same image" or "the same motive". Tineye seems to be a much better choice for "the same image").
@Para: You can search for a keyword or a filename and - if your image appears in the results - click on "similar images" below your image. But most images aren't yet indexed and have no "similar images" link. --Slomox (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The BBC had an article about how searching for "similar" images to British politician en:John Prescott turns up a lot more photos of Renee Zellweger than photos of him: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8014247.stm -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I write a {{similarimages}}, notify on image page. see File:John Deacon Live.jpg. if image checked, use {{Similarimages|checked}}, template will hidden. see File:Wales 1974 200px.png--shizhao (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

US Military image renaming

Whilst browsing through the military sections of Commons over the past few months, looking for FP worthy files, I've become convinced that current naming system of many US PD images needs to change. Many titles of many files are simply the Department of Defence serial number, which is useful for the armed forces to easily catalogue and store their images, but not very helpful for people trying to find images scattered throughout the sprawling and often poorly charted expanses of Commons.

As someone who has been guilty of taking the lazy route and simply calling the uploaded file '07450-N-1233F-125' or some other crypitc name, I've decided to start planning a renaming effort. As a relative novice on Commons, however, I thought it might be a good idea to consult with some of the more learned members of the community, with regard to issues that may be encountered.

So, I present my plan:

Goal: To rename and categorise military images.

Reason: To bring images in line with Commons naming policy, which states that images must have a descriptive (read:not cryptic) filename, and improve the quality and ease of access of said images. The renaming will also be useful when nominating for PF, QI and VI status.

Method: Betacommand has access to the Commons database, and has agreed to deliver a list of images with titles (or parts of titles) fitting the format \d\d\d\d\d\d-\w-\d\d\d\d\w-\d\d\d and \w\w-\w\w-\d\d-\d\d\d\d\d\d where \d is a number and \w is a letter. MediaMoveBot will then be used to move the images to more approriate destination. I have applied for Trusted User status to assist with this. The DOD Serial number will be retained in the description of the image, so images can be traced back to their source.

Format: I personally think that the image name doesn't need to contain the serial number, but if the opinion is that it should, then I'll do it that way. Also, to avoid issues with the Bot script (it refuses to recognise a slash), F/A-18 and the like will be written FA-18.

Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a brief explanation about the DoD serial number: the first field of 6 digits is the date, the letter of the second field is the branch (Army, air Force, Navy etc), the third field consists of the last digits of the photographer's social insurance number and the first letter of his surname and the last is just a serial for the particular photographer and date. So 080423-N-7883G-107 means that the photo was on 2008-04-23 by a sailor or other USN employee, who is identified with 7883G and its the 107th photo he shot on that day. He must submit the photos with a filename of this format. Sv1xv (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Sv1xv (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Very interesting (and quite useful for images that have been uploaded without a date), thank you for the clarification. But do you agree that it's not very searcher friendly (or descriptive) on Commons? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Descriptive: not really, the only useful information in the DoD serial is the date. Search friendly: doesn't matter, providede the file is added to the proper categories. Sv1xv (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think renaming the images is very useful, finding good categories is. But if you insist on renaming them. Please don't rename these images with a bot, wait for the image move to be functional again so history won't get lost. Multichill (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not insisting on renaming, I'm merely putting the idea forward. I'm not going to be doing anything until the community has decided whether or not I should. Also, what is the 'Image Move'? It sounds quite useful. And yes, I can easily add categories as I go along. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, how is anyone supposed to find and categorise images if they have no logical name to search by? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
By looking at the description. Multichill (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Might I point out that pictures are required, according to Commons, to have a descriptive filename? And may I also point out that military images I have nominated have been opposed for FP status due to their cryptic naming? Also MultiChill, I've noticed that a gallery you were responsible for has the naming system I wish to implement. Is there any reason why we shouldn't standardise?

I've also noticed that your NASA gallery is largely uncategorised. If you like, I can categorise these along with the military pictures. In some cases I'll have to; I'm planning on nominating about 30 for FP status. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Search engine problem

I don't understand why File:Letoon_tempel_axb01.jpg does not show up when I search Letoon in the search engine. (Compare with Mayflower search). Teofilo (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I experienced similar problems all the day. --Túrelio (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Search is completely broken for me. Whatever I search, nothing will show up in the search results. --Slomox (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
One of the search machines decided to go down in flames. People are working on it to fix it. Multichill (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
go down in flames woah - do we have an image of that? --Túrelio (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps an error message should be displayed in such cases (however rare might they be) instead of "no file with that name found". Teofilo (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

April 25

"Template styles" migration

I am about to ask on MediaWiki talk:common.css about adding the CSS classes for our new message box prospects to Commons. The templates do not need them, but the classes may improve more advanced usage of them. ViperSnake151 (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

April 26

Add a "collapse" or "skip" link on the top of Special:Search (MediaWiki:Searchresulttext) and other search form improvements

A) The search box in Special:Search is presently being sunk down to the lower decks of the reader's internet browser by heavy boxes above it :

  • 1) the "sitenotice" : " Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2009 are now open. Apply now!"
  • 2) "the "Rollback is now activated on Commons, you may file a request here." message
  • 3) the "Browse" and "Search" menus (taking as many as 6 or 7 lines on my computer screen) :
Help
  • Phrases in double quotes: For example, "holly dolly" returns very few results as opposed to holly dolly.
  • Exclusion: Terms can be excluded with -, for example windows -system (note there is no space between "-" and the excluded term).
  • Wildcard search: Wildcards (symbols representing unknown text) can be prefixed and suffixed, for example, the search *stan will produce results like Kazakhstan and Afghanistan.
For more details, including fuzzy search, Boolean operators, and keywords intitle:, incategory: and prefix:, see Search Help on English Wikipedia.
Browse
Search

The first two are collapsable. The "Browse" and "Search" menus are not collapsable, as far as I know.

Is it possible either to provide a "collapse/uncollapse" button for these boxes, or a "skip" link, like {{skip to talk}} on the top of Commons:Categories for discussion ?

My concern is that in order to fully use the AJAX capabilities, I need a bit of space below the search box, and I thought it would convenient if I had a way of quickly moving the search box to the top of the computer screen without needing to use the vertical scroll bar of my browser.

B) After finding the right spelling with AJAX, I wish I could go directly to the gallery or category under that name. However, Special:Search does not provide a [Go] button, like you have in the left margin. Would it be possible to add a [Go] button there, so that people can enjoy together the large size search box, the AJAX spelling check facility, and a quick way to go to the sought page ? If this is not possible, why not design an entirely new tool which could be called Special:Go ? Another possibility, which would require much more software design, would be to provide the user with a button near the left margin's search box, which would make the search box instantly increase its size in a popup covering the main part of the page. Or why not have the search box's size increase automatically when the user types more letters in it ? (the "Enlarge Searchbar on first strike" function seen on this page looks interesting)

C) An other and smaller problem is that when you click on "search" in the left margin, without typing anything in the box, you are taken to the "Advanced search" which is very very low at the bottom of the page, so that when you want to go to Special:Search in order to use the large search box there with AJAX, the best is to type a random unused word in the search box before going there, and perform a dummy search with that word, which is not 100% convenient. You might want to know why I don't want to perform my searches from the box in the left margin : the reason is that it is very short, and when I look for a category, its name more often than not exceeds the size of the box, while I need to check my spelling with AJAX.

D) My fingers are getting tired with typing "C-a-t-e-g-o-r-y-:" whenever I need to search a category. Would it be possible to add an "autotype category:" button somewhere near the search box ? Perhaps as a gadget tool in Special:preferences ?

Teofilo (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed MediaWiki:Searchresulttext edit


Any comment ? Teofilo (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg SupportI think this one is a very good idea. Post this on the talk page of the Searchresulttext on MediaWiki talk:Searchresulttext and an admin can replace it there. This is certainly something I'd support and that would make life easier. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

own licence box

Heyho,
how to handle files useing an userspecific licence box for the media? The user did not choose a given licence in the upload dialog but places a self constructed license with special boxes. F.e.: File:Obus-detail-rr-10.jpg, the Licence box is like here. In my opinion these uploads are not handled in a right way of Licensing. Thx for help, greetings, Conny (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC).

This one is ok because it includes a GFDL license. But I'm not convinced it is particularly useful. --Eusebius (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The licensing is ok, the free license {{GFDL-1.2}} is used, non-commercial reusers can use the file under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NonDerivative 3.0 (US). This is perfectly fine and covered by Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing - at least one license is a free license here. Also it is no problem to grant particular reusers different license conditions, in this case the WMF - thats the holder of copyrights decision. Why didnt you ask Ralf himself? --Martin H. (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for information. I asked here because of getting the way of commons in this questions and not to get the way of Ralf. What about the onlyuse of licence cc-by-nd - is it possible to integrate these pictures in a book ordered from PediaPress? If there are 10% from the money for WMF, is this still noncommercial? I think PediaPress will also get a little gain to pay there technics and employees, is this still noncommercial? Greetings, Conny (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC).
By the way: {{GFDL-1.2}} is not used in the File - isn't it worrying, when the Sourcetext of File: is used for further usage? In my opinion the sourcefile should consist of the offical licence templates, or? Conny (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC).
1) Pediapress must use the file under GFDL 1.2 if the project is concidered commercial, so yes, it is possible. It is not possible to upload an image under a cc-by-ND or NC license only, those are unfree licenses and they can be used additional to a free license only. Thats important.
2) Yes, you are right, according to Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy user sepcific license templates with a license initself should be used with subst:. However this rule is not enforced at the moment. But according to various discussions and opinions Commons is on the way to handle custom license templates more strictly. That means: license always on the imagepage, only user templates without license but attribution or contact information are a very good idea.
--Martin H. (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
But why do we allow GFDL-version-X.X-only at all? We are voting about the switch to CC right at the moment. But the switch is only possible for content that is licensed under the newest version of the GFDL. If we switch, that would mean that any article that contains one of Ralf Roletschek's images cannot be used under CC-BY-SA. After the switch CC-BY-SA-only content would be allowed, so if CC-BY-SA-only content would be present the article could not be used under GFDL-1.2 too. The only possible reuse-license for the whole article would then be CC-BY-NC-ND. I don't think, that we want this. --Slomox (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Images are exempt from that according to Wikimedia. I mean they can be any free license, like the GPL for example. They consider them separate from the text. Rocket000 (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
No... the article text is changing licenses. The arrangement of the text and images is a separate collective work, which would also be changing licenses, but that does not affect the licenses of any of its component works (text and images). This is the reason why using CC-BY-SA (etc.) media is OK now, with GFDL text/collective work licenses. Images do not need to change licenses to be usable on wikipedias which switch to CC-BY-SA. We may have that right, and may want to do it with eligible images so to better enable derivative works, but I don't think it is required nor should it result in any images being deleted. If authors want to keep with GFDL 1.2 I don't see an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving a welcome template

I am planning to move Template:Welcome/zh to Template:Welcome/zh-hans (following the naming convention at Meta). I am just worried that this move might have a "larger impact than I thought" since it is substituted quite often. Suggestions? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You would also need to fix the Template:欢迎 double redirect. MBisanz talk 05:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
What's the exact naming convention? Is this relevant for {{zh}} too?
I once created {{scriptselect}} for a similar situation. Having "ku" set as preferred language in the preferences contains no decision on whether to use Latin or Arabic script. Therefore Latin Kurdic translations should reside under "/ku-latn" and Arabic Kurdic ones under "/ku-arab". {{scriptselect}} can then be placed under "/ku" to display both translations (if they exist) so the user is served with a translation meaningful to him in every case. I don't know, whether this is useful for Chinese, but Chinese is at least supported. Have a look.
To the question: I don't see any problems with moving it. --Slomox (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks guys. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

New Award by Wikimedia local chapter

Wikimedia Italia, the Italian chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, issues an Award for people who gave significant contributions to the open projects supported by Wikimedia Foundation and/or Wikimedia Italia. One of 10 categories of the award is reserved to Wikimedia Commons users. It will be assigned up to three prizes for each category. The Award regarding Wikimedia Commons will be assigned to the user(s) who has upload to Wikimedia Commons the best image (photo, illustration) or multimedia, between April 15 and May 15 2009, concerning the theme: "Palladio and his influence in the worldwide architecture". The area of interest is Category:Palladian architecture and nearby. The awards ceremony will take place in May in Vicenza. See the detailed Call for bids and Bylaws on Wikimedia Italia website.
To start collecting recommendations on Commons images, we need a page like Commons:Wikimedia Italia Award 2009. Here's the scratch (I'm not a motherlanguage... so fix it!). --Marcok (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question

Is something like this Logitech VX Revolution boxed.jpg a copyvio because of the box art? And what about pictures of an iphone or a camera or any tool? Do we have a template like personality rights for tools? Which says that tools can be photographed without infringing copyrights?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Image casebook#Product packaging (and Commons:Applied art). In general, useful objects cannot be copyrighted under U.S. law (or that of most other countries, as far as I know); they can be protected by design patents, but such restrictions don't affect Commons in any way. Product packaging, however, can be copyrighted, provided that it passes the threshold of originality. I would personally (disclaimer: IANAL) consider this particular image to be close to the borderline: the box has few copyrightable elements, and those might be considered de minimis (as the logo on the mouse itself would certainly be). However, given that, for most educational purposes, we'd actually prefer pictures of the mouse without the packaging, and given that we already have such pictures here on Commons, I'd recommend we err on the side of caution here and delete the packaged version. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Categorization script

Hello. I've created a categorization script which applies the COM:OVERCAT rule. I think it is important to help by using it. Please read about it here. Write for any questions.--OsamaK 07:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you happen to take a look at imagerecat.py (part of pywikipedia)? It can filter overcategorization (imagerecat.py -onlyfilter -page:) and do much more. Overcategorization filtering is also part of Commonsense since a couple of months ago. Multichill (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't find Commonsense thing. Can you explain it a little more?--OsamaK 08:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
That's because it isn't a user option, it just happens. You can play around with it at the standalone tool ([http://toolserver.org/~multichill/filtercats.php?source=[[Category%3AAmsterdam]]%0D%0A[[Category%3ANetherlands]] example]). Multichill (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that rule can not be applied blindly. For example an image may show A and B where A belongs to B. There is a very good reason to keep this image in both categories. This image is an example of that principle. Samulili (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think in most cases it'll be true. Yeah, there would be very few exceptions, that's why this task needs to be done by a human being.--OsamaK 08:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I thought the bot'd be running independently, but if it's run by a human, then there should be no problem. Samulili (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I do run my filtering tool to automaticly clean out subcats of Category:Categories by country by alphabet every once in a while. Multichill (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Panoramioreview

Licenses on http://www.panoramio.com/ also get changed like Flickr. Is there a template to be used for images from there?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Deborah or Debbie Harry?

Hey guys - I'm really exhausted from the Category:2009 Tribeca Film Festival and I have some really great shots, 90% of which I haven't begun to upload (time problems). I wanted to ask a quick note - I see Category:Debbie Harry was turned into Category:Deborah Harry - that's more proper, but nobody calls her Deborah - does anyone think it's better to use the really common name for Cats? I don't care one way or the other - food for thought. And I have some new Debbie Harry photos coming our way. --David Shankbone (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Category:Debbie Harry ever existed. I usually go by what enwiki calls their articles. And in this case it is Debbie. Rocket000 (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree, for English language people, common name per en:Wikipedia (eg, "Jimmy Carter"; no need for the more formal name if they aren't actually called that in practice). I've given a bot order to move the contents of Category:Deborah Harry to Category:Debbie Harry, after which Deborah Harry can be made a redirect. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Infrogmation, you vandal! ;-) Multichill (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is related to the Debbie Harry category move; (this has now been done: could I ask a German wikipedia Sichter to "sight" my last "Ungesichtete Version" for w:de:Deborah Harry, because I have just updated the {{Commons}} link to point to Category:Debbie Harry (diff). I do not have "Sichter" status there. Thanks.) Meanwhile I updated the articles in all languages with Latin alphabets to now point to the new category. I'll leave the other languages alone. 84user (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

File:CandOCanalBoat.jpg

We have a Category:Trekschuit, but it is the Dutch version of these ships. Is there an English word for these ships, pulled by horses? --Stunteltje (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In the UK they are often called narrowboats, or just canal boats. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I knew, but look at the dimensions. This is not a narrow boat, she is much longer. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Longer than 24 meters (72 ft)? I don't think so... Sv1xv (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Coming from the U.S... I think "canal boat" is the general term for boats used specifically on canals. The NPS page for the C&O uses that term.[25] Maybe more rarely "mule boat" or "horse boat" for that exact type... Google has a few hits on those but not all that many. This 1884 publication found using a Google search seems to usually use "canal boat" for either horse or steam-powered boats, but does refer to regulations specific to "horse boats". I've not heard the term narrowboat (though we do have Category:Narrowboats). Maybe we need a Category:Canal boats, with Narrowboats and Trekschuit as subcats. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The "category names in English" rule is okay for things that exist worldwide, but it does not make much sense to apply it to things that depend on culture. Things like regional culinary specialties, local traditions etc. rarely have an English name. We shouldn't mechanically apply English names. Non-English names should be okay, if the category topic is not known in English. That as a general statement. I don't exactly know about Trekschuits, perhaps there is indeed a good English match. But we should abstain from merging Category:Trekschuit with non-matches like Category:Narrowboats. --Slomox (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the "narrow boats" will do. The narrow boats are typical English and were powered by horse(s), later by steam and nowadays by combustion engines. The Dutch "trekschuit" only by horse(s). Problem is that these ships only exit as museum- or traditional barges. If we use canal boats, people will use the category for all barges, as they do with "river boats" now. Thanks for your opnions. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added Traditional barges- London Barges gives a precedent. A barge plied the Thames and Medway canal which is a wide canal- and equally a barge is used as the official vessel of the Lord Mayor of London. ClemRutter (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Jerry_Avenaim

I have concerns about the contributions of Avenaim. There are two issues involved with copyright as it relates to for-hire works (Avenaim photographs for Vogue, TV Guide, etc., and has released low-quality versions of a few of those images GFDL). It is quite possible, even likely, that Avenaim does not have the authority to release these if they are, in fact, owned by Vogue et al. Vogue is perhaps the most prestigious magazine in which a photographer can have their work published, and I seriously doubt they would hire a photographer for images that they could then release to other publications. It's a serious issue; publications like Vogue specifically hire the photographer to shoot for them, as opposed to Getty or Wire Images, where the work may be reproduced several times. It's great to have professional work; however, when a magazine like Vogue is hiring Avenaim to do a specific photo shoot for them, it may not be Avenaim's provenance to allow us to use them as well. --David Shankbone (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a matter of the contract between the photographer and the magazine, of which there is no way for us to know the details. If they are not an actual employee, it is never obvious if it is a "work for hire". Unless specific information is available proving the photographer no longer owns the copyrights, I think we tend to assume good faith that the uploader has the rights they claim -- if it is a contractual violation, the uploader is liable, and it is their risk to take. Presumably the photographer should be well aware of the terms of contracts they sign. For all we know, these are photos the magazines chose not to use and therefore were not subject to the contract... among many other possibilities. The magazines can always file DMCA notices if they feel the photographer is not justified. As it stands, we have a (verified) photographer claiming copyright ownership to these photographs, and I see no reason to not assume good faith on that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that. But it's worth noting. --David Shankbone (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Carl Lindberg already said it pretty well, I agree. Cirt (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Difficulty in uploading

Contributing to commons is very difficult due to unoptimal upload procedure and account restrictions. The derivative tool doesn't work and new accounts cannot upload new versions of images, yet there is no easy way to link a new upload with an already uploaded file and mark it as a derivative work. I hipe someone can take care of the UI so that people who don't have the time to learn all the tags can contribute meaningfully. IO87 (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What we'd really need is some form of stable versions for files. Then there wouldn't be any need to disallow reuploads from new users. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

April 27

Banknotes of Egypt

Category:Banknotes_of_Egypt contains many images that are probably copyrighted according to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Egyptian_Intellectual_Property_Law_82_of_2002_%28English%29.pdf . Can someone please double check ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Egyptian copyright law exlcudes from copyright: "Official documents, whatever their source or target language, such as laws, regulations, resolutions and decisions, international conventions, court decisions, award of arbitrators and decisions of administrative committees having judicial competence". It is not clear if it excludes banknotes, postage stamps and similar items. Sv1xv (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

April 28

Pre-1923 US-Copyright of foreign works

http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/04/more-messiness-with-copyright-duration-of-foreign-works.html --Historiograf (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, more complications to US copyright law. --Jarekt (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Except I'm not sure Hirtle is right in this case. It would mean that someone from these countries got a longer copyright term than a U.S. author. If Hirtle were right, a Vietnamese author who published a book in, say 1919, would get a copyright of 95 years (because copyright relations between the U.S. and Vietnam were established on 1998-12-23; after 1998-01-01, when the U.S. term extension from 75 to 95 years took effect), whereas a U.S. author who published a book in 1919 got one (if he renewed the copyright) of only 75 years. (Besides, a German author also would get "only" the 75 years for a book published in 1919, because Germany has had copyright relations with the U.S. long before 1998.) I don't think that's the intent; such a treatment could generate inequalities galore. 17 USC 104A(a)(1)(B) says "Any work in which copyright is restored under this section shall subsist for the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted in the United States if the work never entered the public domain in the United States." I believe the last part ("if the work never entered the public domain in the U.S.") refers to 17 USC 104A(h)(6)(C), which clarifies the causes of "PD-ness" considered by the URAA at all: failure to comply with formalities such as renewals, pre-1972 sound recording, or lack of national eligibility (i.e., no copyright relations with the non-U.S. country).
So, if Vietnam had been an eligible country and the Vietnamese author had complied with the U.S. formalities, what copyright would he have gotten? At most 75 years, not 95 years, because his work would have been PD in the U.S. by 1998 even if he had complied with all formalities. The URAA would "restore" this copyright, and then immediately place the work again in the public domain as its 75-year term had already expired by 1998 and it thus did not benefit from the 20-year extension in 1998. Thus 1923 remains a hard cut-off in the U.S. (Except maybe in the 9th circuit, who once issued a ruling to the contrary.) Thoughts? Lupo 13:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: all this is assuming the Vietnamese author of the 1919 book died 1948 or later. If he died before 1948, his book would've been PD in Vietnam on 1998-12-23 (current Vietnamese copyright law has a term of 50 years; I assume earlier copyright laws, if they existed at all, had shorter terms) and thus its U.S. copyright would not have been restored at all. See 17 USC 104A(h)(6)(B). Lupo 13:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with you. I have always presumed the restored works were essentially deemed registered and renewed appropriately, and got whatever the corresponding U.S. term was based on when it was published. Restored copyrights should have been extended from 75 to 95 years along with all the others, as well -- I'm pretty sure all the bilateral copyright agreements basically said the U.S. would treat foreign works the same as domestic works (i.e. no rule of the shorter term or longer term; works always get the same term as U.S. works). This interpretation would not be consistent with that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hubble Images

{{PD-Hubble}} says that "Hubble material is copyright-free and may be freely used as in the public domain without fee, on the condition that NASA and ESA is credited as the source of the material". {{PD-USGov-NASA}}, on the other hand, says: "Materials from the Hubble Space Telescope may be copyrighted if they do not explicitly come from the STScI.". The latter also links to http://hubblesite.org/about_us/copyright.php, where the following information can be found: "If the credit line for an image lists STScI as the source, the image may be freely used as in the public domain as noted above. However, for credit lines listing individuals from other institutions, you will need to contact that institution listed in the credit line to advise you on the copyright policy for that image.". Thus, the remark in {{PD-Hubble}} that HST images are generally in PD seems to be incorrect. Or am I wrong? --Vesta (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The {{PD-Hubble}} template needs serious revision, IMO. Most Hubble images are credited to several institutions. Although NASA and the STScI do not claim any copyright, the ESA requires attribution under a cc-by license. Other institutions may claim additional copyrights on particular images. Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe the {{PD-Hubble}} template is fine as it is (except that it is STScI working under the mentioned contract not ESA). It is true that the STScI copyright statement, which has not been changed for many years, seems somewhat out of tune with the reality of digital media today. Lars Lindberg Christensen (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Downloading images

May I download and use images from this site? If so, how do I "save image as" and get a good resolution? I am only getting very small images.

Of course you may download images, and you may use them, even commercially, according to the terms of the "license tag" displayed on the image page. If you want to download the image in the highest quality available, go to the image page, click on the image to uploade the full size image and then use "save image as...". Sv1xv (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
But, please credit the photographer/author, if requested, and comply with the license. For more details see: Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. --Túrelio (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
There are two simple ways to do this. One is to click on the image to get the full size image, which you can then save. The other is to right click the image and choose "Save Link As". Dcoetzee (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

April 30