Commons:Village pump/Archive/35

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search
Village pump (Archives)

2004: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 2005: 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 2006: 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 2007: 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 2008: 52 | 53 | 54 |

This is an archive. Do NOT post here.
If you want to restart an old topic, copy the entire topic to the Village pump and add your post like you would normally.

Contents


[edit] July 27

[edit] Photographers/ Color accurate folks- your opinions?

[copied to Commons talk:Color accuracy by Wikipeder 10:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)] Please make responses there. (Mak)

A color calibration target is used for including an object with known colors in a photograph so that it is possible to adjust the delivery display (or printer) to reproduce the photograph's colors with the highest accuracy.

It would be nice if we could have some sort of suggestion for folks who are going out shooting objects where color accuracy is critical (cultural artifacts, paintings and so on). I guess the pro way to do scene matching would be to recommend taking the image with a color bar in the scene, eg Kodak Q-60 Q-13, GretagMacbeth ColorCheck, or even some Pantone Nuancier Pantone.jpg based target.

That way, a hundred years from now, folks will be able to look at a Commons image shot in 2006 and have a pretty good idea of what the colors realy were because there are known colors in the scene. But those are proprietary. I suppose we could use a SMPTE color bar, but color spaces of various devices are hugely non linear, so really that is probably not enough data points. Can anyone recommend a public domain color bar target for this purpose that would be readily available to anyone doing some Museum shooting? -Mak 22:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My thought is that we suggest folks use either the Kodak or ColorCheck targets, and cut the target up so that is is one long band, then photograph the object with the target at the edge(s) of the frame with the most representative lighting. Prior to upload, the photo is cropped so just a few pixels of each color is visible on one of the sides of the photo. This way, there is no motive to crop out an extraneous color bar because it shall not be noticable. A comment embedded in the EXIF metadata note which color target was used.
Commons will then be able to host authoritative images of paintings. Folks making prints of Commons images, or displaying images on electronic screens will be able to calibrate their output so that they can have color accuracy that is simply not possible without such a practice among commons volunteer photographers.
Of course the big problem is how to hold up a color band in the Louvre without the guards getting freaked out. Cameras are so small that they are easily concealed- but for low light, a wheelchair would be ideal for excellent stability and concealment of even the most bulky digital with a big light gathering lens- then take very long exposures, but I digress. But how to conceal that color bar? Hmmmm. Perhaps a helper who stands in frame with a Q-60 banded walking stick?
Joking aside, I suppose really we don't need Q-60 or Pantone ColorCheck targets. They are rather pricey ($60 USD) and possibly there are rights issues. All we really need is an image that a person could take to a photo finisher and have reproduced accurately. The spectral values can be specified extremely accurately in photoshop, so if we give them the correct values, they should be able to use a colorimeter on the prints until they get it right. Or would that wind up costing $60 for the resulting print? Humph. -Mak 19:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The practical truth about color targets is that they can only be used under very controlled conditions. What I have done in the past is to take two shots, one with the color target and one without... I adjust the image with color target and then transfer the the adjustments to the one without. As long as the image is digital, the color information is in the file and you just have to pray that the photofinisher is well calibrated. One hundred years from now the color will not change. Color calibration is a pain, it varies from monitor to monitor and output devices... In the absence of any calibration device, for output purposes, try a woman... due to the fact that women are not color blind or color biased, train them in detecting yellow/magenta/cyan bias. On the practical side, I eyeball the image I put out in my printer and tweak it... when I take to photophinisher, I ask them to run a test print and calibrate according to their machine and print my image without adjustments. If the image is not right, I adjust in photoshop and reprint. On another hand... worry not too much about color reproduction... most people do not notice....--Tomascastelazo 00:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Christoffer Wilhelm Eckersberg 002.jpg
C W Eckersberg 1841 - Kvinde foran et spejl.jpg

Tom, the issue I am addressing is not about small variations of color. Without a known color reference in these images, it is impossible to correct the image, or know which one is closer to the truth. I wish this were an uncommon problem, but take a coffee table art book to a museum sometime. Ok, most aren't as bad as the heavily red shifted one illustrated here, but it is absolutely reprehensible what these printers do with colors. I mean, they aren't even vaguely close. Worse, even if the color is close, you are obligated to be skeptical. One might assume that there was a printer error (eg on a Lautrec, where in fact the painter really did put green cast in the flesh colors. Anyway, regardless what the file says the recieved light colors were, the camera does not know what type of light (or possibly what goofy filter) may be screwing with the real colors. My thought was that only a known reference color will take care of this problem.


I know it is way over the top heavy accurate, but Jimbo at the wikimedia talk in Boston challenged us to crank up the quality rather than the volume. This will address that issue. Commons art should be highly highly color accurate. That is something that Britanica really gives short shrift to. The way to do it is to stop scanning books and get good photos in museums. Otherwise we will be stuck with image choices like these.-Mak 02:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any background in color calibration, but I take a lot of photographs in museums, so I'm interested. I gather that shooting paintings (for insurance demands, for instance) is a pain in the ass for many professional photographers. I'm not sure we can take really accurate pictures of paintings in usual Commons conditions (no tripod, no lighting system, etc.). It often happens that lighting is not homogeneous on the same picture: a dominant of tungsten light on one part, a dominant of natural light on one another. I'm not sure a color chart would help us in that case.
Now, we can still improve tremendously the quality of our pictures if we use these kind of charts. As for myself, I now use I collapsible white chart to correct the white balance before shooting (I never got any problems when holding it before an object, though museum guards tend to watch me closely in case I start frothing at the mouth). I shoot in RAW and then tweak the white balance if needed. The results are quite satisfactory while the process being easy (even if a bit tedious) to manage. If you explain to me how to use a color chart, I will certainly try it.
That being said, a lot of Commons users do not even change the white balance setting on their camera, so there's still a lot of education to be done. Jastrow 08:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The color charts are used in high quality reproductions. The charts are known values of color. The idea is to place a color chart someplace next to the subject and take the picture. This picture is then taken to the photolab where they analyze the colors of the chart and give you a filter correction factor. Then you go back to your subject and reshoot with the exact conditions and you are supposed to have a perfect color reproduction. This was during the slide era. Now what you can do you open the digital file, analize the colors of the chart with photoshop, for example, and adjust color so that you get the correct amount of magenta, cyan, red. If you adjust one color of the chart, theoreticaly all should fall automatically into place. That is a quick way of doing it and you save on the reshoot. That guarantees that at least the digital information will be correct, but there is still the problem of the output. You can have a digitally correct file that will not look good in the monitor and will not come out with good color reproduction. You have to calibrate for light temperature, exposure (because even slight over/under exposure will alter the color balance, and not at the same rate for different colors), monitor and output device. And even if you get all things aligned.... the display light will alter it! So, in practice, just shoot with good exposure and eyeball the output to avoid magenta, yellow or blue bias.... Unless there is a strong cast, most people won´t notice anything.--Tomascastelazo 18:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Image with colors pretty close to the colors as printed in the art book

Certainly in studio conditions like Tomas's scenario, a color target only offers miniscule difference when used by professionals who already are pretty close because they understand white balancing issues and exactly control and understand the color temperatures of their lights. I am not discsussing use by professionals but amateurs, and if we were talking about small variations, I would have zero interest in this subject. I am talking about huge differences in evidence in practically every duplicate image we have of art paintings. Editors are left wondering. Even folks who have seen the originals may not recall well enough the particular hues.


To illustrate- I carried out the procedure of eyeballing the white balance. THe results illustrate why a digital camera with manual white balancing will produce much inferior results compared to a process using a color target.


Using an art book image as a stand in for an original painting, I made 3 images. The first on the right will give you a fairly close idea of the original colors if you have a calibrated monitor. It was scanned on a flatbed scanner and I compared the original image to my calibrated screen. Pretty close. Ok. Next I took a photo from tripod using incadescent light and the camera on auto white balance. The results are the photo on the right. I knew it would be bad, but didn't expect it would be this far off. Now. If a color target with known color hues were present in the image, anyone other than the original artist could color correct it. We don't have to know anything about the light source to make the adjustment.


On the image page, you can see the information that the camera stated about the image. Pretty voluminous, but on the critical white balance value it says nothing- merely that it was automatic. Ok. Being able to eyeball the results on the lcd on the camera, I could tell it was way over the top too warm. So I went to manual and cut it down to 2500Kelvin.


Manually controlled color temp.=2500Kelvin
Closer, a pleasant enough image, but only problem- it isn't a very accurate reproduction, and gives the viewer a way different impression of the intent of the painter.

This is the result. Problem is- it looked pretty close on the LCD but not on the monitor. You tell me. Is it close enough? I don't think so.

We aren't talking about small degrees here. We are talking huge differences.


If I may, we could do a do it yourself, poor mans solution where the final output of the digital file is as close to the original we can get without going to expensive professional techniques.

  1. Download and print out a color chart with a gray scale similar to professional color targets. It doesn't matter how crappy the printer is, or how far off the original is from the print.
  2. Scan the print out.
  3. Adjust the monitor so it is as close to possible as the scanned color target. (Including contrast on the gray scale range). Result of this step is you have a pseudo calibrated monitor.
  4. Take a picture of the subject and include this printed out taget in the image.
  5. Using photoshop or Gimp or whatever, adjust the image data until the taget on the screen matches the color on your physical target.
  6. The result of this step is a pseudo color corrected image.
  7. Uploader certifies as part of the Image notes that they have used these steps (or better).


Result- a low cost, non technical trust based calibration scheme.


Granted- Tomas wasn't kidding- there are a huge number of other challenges to getting colors close to the original. It is true that without hard core calibration techniques, the resulting image will still be noticably different from the original.


But you won't have the egregious differences we saw in the first two Eckersberg images.


What do you think? Am I high?-Mak 05:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


I think having a colour target in art images is a very good idea. It seems the only way to easily insure colour accuracy, given that the vast majority of monitors, printers etc. that display the images will not be colour managed, and the bulk of cameras, scanners and imaging programmes creating the image neither.
I suggest a different approach: A simple but standardised card with a black and a white target to be put next to any colour crititcal object. This will have the advantage that
  • instead of subjective white balance, the white and black points can be set by a defined target using e. g. the GIMP's pipette.
  • colour errors from manual or automatic colour or contrast correction are avoided. A problem with reproductions is that the brightest areas on a painting do not at all need to be the 255 bright white that contrast junkies like humans or their computers' algorithems usually try ty achieve.
  • the white and black points can be set (and corrected!) by anybody who has the image on his screen, not just the photographer. The burden of dealing with colour accuracy is thus shifted from the army of amateur photographers to those who bother and to colour management experts.
A print-out-yourself card will not do, I'm afraid. There are tremendous differences in colour composition (black target) and reflexion depending on the type of paper, ink and printing process used.
The A and B field of a Q-13 grayscale will do. I don't see a problem with copyright there: It's just shades of gray, no proprietary colours like in the Pantone sortiment. --Wikipeder 08:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I own a reference card which looks like the one you're talking about, but I've never used it. If you could just write a little tutorial about how to use it with the GIMP, I'll go to the Louvre this week and try it. Jastrow 09:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


I haven't got GIMP around here, I'm afraid, but I'll try to tell you what to do as good as I can. Maybe someone can look over this?
Tutorial for a RefCard and GIMP
  1. In case you have a spot meter: When taking the picture, put the RefCard in exactly the same lighting as the object you want to take a picture of, and spot-meter frontally on the middle, gray target. Use the exposure value for your shot of the object.
  2. In case you can influence your camera's white balance: Manually set your camera's white balance with the RefCard's gray target in the exact lighting the object is. If you can't do a manual white balance, select the most suitable of the pre-defined white balance modes of your camera.
  3. Put the RefCard next to the object, making sure it's in the same lighting condition as the object and that it is frontally facing the camera. Take your shot.
  4. Load your image into GIMP, go Tools-Color Picker and click onto the white target of the RefCard. This will show you the actual RGB value of this target. To realistically depict colours, the value needs to be L 97, a 0, b 0 in Lab color space, which GIMP doesn't offer, so we'll use the RGB equivalent, which is 246,246,246.
  5. Then, open the curves tool (Tools-Color Tools-Curves) and in each of the RGB channels horizontally drag the upper right hand control point until the color picker will tell you that the value of the white target now is 246 in this channel. Unfortunately—as far as I remember—, in GIMP the color picker does not work simultaneously with the curves tool, so you will have to switch back and forth.
  6. Do the same with the black target of the RefCard. It needs to be L 15, a 0, b 0 in Lab color space, or 38,38,38 in RGB. Voilà!
This procedure is a lot easier in Photoshop, admittedly. Once you set the general white and black point value to L 97, a 0, b 0 or L 15, a 0, b 0, respectively, you simply click once on the white and once on the black target for this manoeuvre. The link you supply offers a good tutorial on what to do in Photoshop (in French).
--Wikipeder 16:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Mak, you are correct. That is one way to do it. In fact, I use a very similar method. Just be careful with the settings in the scanner. The best way is to override all auto settings, that includes exposure and color balance, operate in full manual. From there, you can do two things, 1) adjust in photoshop the color bias or better, adjust the scanner settings to eliminate the color bias. I always prefer to input the image as close as possible to the real thing. A good image will require less work than a bad image. A lot of people think that you can alter images with impunity, but that is not the case. Color shift of YMCK does not occur in parallel with exposure variations, that is, if you alter, for example, exposure by 10%, you would expect that the relationship between YMCK to vary accordingly, that is to vary up or down in the color values/relationship, but that is not the case. The best way to get into this is by learning the zone system and move on to color. To calibrate a scanner for exposure, make a gray scale of 10 steps in photoshop, print it, scan it and adjust so all 10 steps show. Make sure you adjust scanner first, not the monitor. You will have then two files to compare, a digital original where you can read values and compare to values of scanned image. If you want I can make a gray scale and send it to you with instructions.

Jastrow, best thing to do is to determine light source, read camera manual, experiment with color temperature settings, determine the best one for the particular environment and expose with an 18% gray card. In museums you don´t have much choice. If you really want perfect color reproduction, you must photograph under very, very controlled conditions. The 18% gray card exposure method will start you off with assuring an exposure that encompases the tonal range of the image, if it within the dynamic range of your equipment. Shoot one in the middle and bracket up and down by 1/3 stops. You may have to take a lot of pix for each painting, bt htat´s the way it is.... and at least it is digital. It is really nor complicated, eventually it becomes second nature, just like riding a bicycle.

If you shoot in Museums, do the following: 1. Determine exposure wth an 18% gray card. The card must receive the same light as subject. Even is the exposure readings vary once you point toward subject, use the info provided by gray card. Learn about it. 2. With the exposure information, take a picture of a target with a known value (rgb, etc). 3. Take picture of subject without target using the same exposure. 4. In computer, analize pic of target and adjust. Take note of adjustments. 5. Apply adjustments to pic of subject.


--Tomascastelazo 15:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The advantage of using a white and black target instead of a gray card (or in addition) is that you also know about the absolute tonal range. A white on an old painting with patina is actually rather a dark yellow sometimes, and a defined white target that's on the image, too, can put this in relation. --Wikipeder 16:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am stunned by the excellence of these responses. For the benefit of others, it would be nice if we could pull these together into a guidelines page for folks who are into making high quality museum photographs. I wonder if you folks would be willing to contribute your thoughts and knowlege to such a thing? Both an easy to do, low cost approach for folks on a budget and not interested in gearhead settings that many folks don't have on their cameras, as well as one for those who have the tools and the inclination to pursue an even higher level of accuracy.


Good luck on your experiments Jastrow. At my location we have works of less general interest, but the museums aren't buttheads about tripods either. On the other hand, it would be fun to do some guerrila photography- bypassing the Louvre guards by using a wheelchair as a makeshift tripod. I wonder if you can do better than the Yorck project CD ROM version of Le radeau de la Méduse. As I recall, the lighting there is from the side and uneven. Who designs these Marquis de Sade lighting schemes of these museums anyway. Some are almost deliberately designed to produce wierd reflections so the only way to view them is from the strange angle. -Mak 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Point to consider, these types of instructions can also put people off providing an image as they find that meeting the colour criteria beyond the capabilities of their equipment or themselves. Reading the discussion so far it sounds a complicated requirement to adhere to, when the opportunity to photograph is restricted either by time or equipment limits(storage space). Commons would be better served to have some way of identifing images that need to be recreated in a higher res, colour balanced. We want in the first instance a useable image of xxx, if you can do x,y,z then thats a bonus. Then we highlight that an image exists of xxx but we would appreciate another taken using the coonditions x,y,z. If quality is the general concern for improvement currently we load images from sites like flickr maybe to improve quality we set minimum requirements from these type of sites. Gnangarra 17:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
That is a very important point. The answer to that should be a two-step approach as I outlined above:
  1. The photographer simply sticks a RefCard or standardised grayscale next to the object so it will be on the image, too. Nothing more (except proper exposure) will be required from him.
  2. An image editor will adjust colour representation in the image with the help of the RefCard/ grayscale that is in the image.
Photographer and image editor may be the same person, but they need not be. This way, photographers do not need to bother about colour management and tricky image manipulation. As long as there's a RefCard or standardised grayscale in the image, after they uploaded the image, image editors hanging round at the Commons can easily replace the image with a colour corrected and possibly cropped version. Anybody whishing to verify the accuracy of the colour rendition can just go back in the file history and re-check with the uncropped version that still has the RefCard/ grayscale on it.
--Wikipeder 23:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I strongly suggest the use of an 18% gray card because by only using a black and white target does not necessarily render white in its "correct" zone in the gray scale, while the 18% is a known reference value as far as density/exposure is concerned. This is very important when you consider the color variations possible due to over/under exposure. Regardless of the method used to color balance, exposure is definitely a must first step. It makes things a lot easier down the line. This, of course, is for color reproduction purposes. Worry first about exposure, second color balance. Those are the two variables to consider. Instead of a spot meter under these circumstances, I would use an incident light meter in order to avoid wrong readings.--Tomascastelazo 17:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You are right about the importance of a gray card for correct exposure. I just think it should not be used instead of a standardised grayscale or RefCard, because it does not allow for adjustment of tonal range as described above. --Wikipeder 23:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Radeau de la méduse is exhibited on the first floor of the Denon wing, where it's now forbidden to take pictures :-( Jastrow 17:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How to make a gray scale in Photoshop

1. Creat new document
2. Size: 2000 x 1500 pixels, 300 dpi is a good start.
3. Pick gradient tool, white on one end, black on other.
4. Click on one end, drag to other end horizontally.
5. In menu bar go to image – adjustments – posterize
6. On posterize, type in 10 in the levels box that appears.
7. There you have it, a 10 step gray scale. You can calibrate monitor for exposure values with this one, print it and use to calibrate scanner.
8. Once you have calibrated for exposure, calibrate for color using methods described earlier.
I have uploaded a gray scale at Image:gray scale.jpg --Tomascastelazo 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Gnangarra- I was imagining completely optional measures that a person could take if they were motivated to do so. It certainly would not be a requirement.


If a person had taken these steps, they would use a template something like the following:
Colour Correct I, the uploader of this work, certify that this photograph satisfies the first set of requirements for a colour corrected image.

For more information on these requirements please see Commons:Color accuracy.
-Mak 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipeder - The gray card should be an 18% gray card, it can be bought in photo stores, it is designed specifically for exposure, it is a known value. Of course the use of a Mcbeth color chart would be nice too. Ideally, I would determine exposure with gray card, shoot a pic with color chart in image, take color chart off, reshoot. Then analyze in computer. It may sound complicated, but it is not. I´d rather have one good picture than two bad ones. It is worth the time and effort.
Mak - Crutches give you a higher point of view too... they make good monopods :o)--Tomascastelazo 04:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Tomascastelazo: I am trying to think up a workflow that would allow very accurate colours while putting as little a burden on the photographer as possible. The idea is to not deter people but to have them simply stick a RefCard somewhere in the image so others can do the colour correction. One shot, if there is a RefCard on the image, it not yet colour corrected, if it is cropped already, it is.
Personally, I would do something different, too, ideally: shoot RAW, exposing right, with a colour chart and grayscale on the object, then take the shot with the same exposure values but without the charts.
On a guideline page, we should probably have both outlined, the at-least-stick-a-chart-somewhere approach as well as a guide to an excellency. Where would we best put such a page? --Wikipeder 08:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[End of copy to Commons talk:Color accuracy Wikipeder 10:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)]

Could you guys take this elsewhere now? It could be quite valuable to keep as reference. Commons:Photography colour calibration or Commons:Colour calibration just Commons:Photography tips or something, please? pfctdayelise (translate?)

There has been developing an extensive guide at Commons:Quality Images, How about moving this onto the discussion page for Commons:Quality images guidelines once finalised it will become part of the requirements for QI portraits any way. Gnangarra 08:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipeder - Thanks for the link... great one. We are basically suggesting the same thing. People then could upload both images and have someone color correct them. Maybe we can upload an example. However, I do not think it should become policy, only suggestion, and at the begining have it for artwork reproductions. I will try to get a color chart sometime next week and we can run the experiment. The lengthly discussion was necessary to bring light into the subject. --Tomascastelazo 13:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Let's take all further discussion to Commons talk:Color accuracy Don't post responses here in VP anymore but in Commons talk:Color accuracy. OK? See you there. -Mak 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] July 30

[edit] Please move another category

Category:Native Americans flags to Category:Native American flags -- Himasaram 11:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I did it myself, manually... Feel free to delete the empty category. -- Himasaram 05:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] July 31

[edit] Where is "Vandalism in progress" (COM:VIP) link?

There seems to be an active Matt314 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) who is tagging things for speedy deletion, as the deletion process seems to be undergoing some automation, the vandalism is probably harder to catch. These images and probably many others, are in use, as CheckUsage plainly shows. Therefore, marking them for speedy deletion is obvious vandalism. --Connel MacKenzie 04:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I did mark some images as {{Morguefile}} yesterday which redirects to speedy delete, please see en:Template talk:MorgueFile. Sorry, I was not aware that these images are heavily used, but since there were a lot of these images that I found via Special:Linksearch I checked usage for only a few. --Matt314 07:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Listed them at Template:Deletion_requests#Images_from_Morguefile. --Matt314 07:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, marking used files for speedy deletion is OK if they are clear copyvios or or clearly against policy. However, in the case of images that have been around for a while, with their license status being disputed, a regular deletion request would of course be better, and unlinking would be good too (preferrably with the help of the local communitites).
Calling this vandalism is a bit far fetched; As far as I can see, the images have to be removed. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 08:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Characterizing it as "vandalism" is perhaps less than productive. But your new template "morguefile" is a new twist, and quite unfamiliar. Having read the above pages, it is completely unclear if the name "morguefile" refers to "dead images" or to some website, or both.
I still don't understand commons. Why do you do this to sister projects? You've got that cached "red X" replacement method you can use if you're not going to ever use the CheckUsage tool. The same links to commons don't exist when there is no image.
The reason this (or, rather, these images) don't meet commons' criteria is still very unclear to me. Does tagging it with 'morguefile' somehow magically identify a copyright violation source? Why doesn't it identify that source? The veracity of whether it actually is a copyvio can't even be checked. The template name "morguefile" implies only that the image has already been orphaned (which obviously is not the case!)
Commons' policies again seem to be exceeding their remit. Even with some sister projects using CheckUsage to identify major errors on the part of commons' sysops, the knee-jerk reaction to identified problems is unacceptable. This image was re-vandalized and deleted without a replacement placeholder, nor without being orphaned. The overall policies that commons are permitting are completely out of hand.
How is it that any commons sysop actually believes actions like this are helpful? There can be no such thing as a speedy delete on commons. Replacement of images with a cached placeholder sidesteps all the problems your current abusive policies permit. Why is commons so resistant to doing things right?
Perhaps you don't believe that these policies are frustrating, infuriating and disruptive? Do you (collectively) just not see the problems this causes? --Connel MacKenzie 16:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Morguefile used to identify images from http://www.morguefile.com/ which was believed to be a free source. After several discussions (including as linked above), it was decided their license was not sufficiently free. The terms of use are not acceptable. So Morguefile images should not be used.
The template was thus deleted which is rather unfortunate as non-admins cannot now see its history. It was recreated as a RDR to template:noncommercial to alert users who tried to use the template, that it was no longer acceptable.
This is a pretty standard process that I don't see much wrong with. We have to be flexible in response to changing understandings (and also changed licensing terms).
User:Matt314 is not an admin. I'm not sure if you're angry about the tagging he has done or deletion someone else has done. If it's deletion I suggest you approach that admin directly.
Commons has to balance copyright concerns against the desires of the projects. It's an extremely long, unfun and involved process to not upset anyone. With all due respect, no copyvio would ever be deleted if that was our only concern.
I'm pretty sure we've never claimed to be perfect or above reproach, either. So we make mistakes, we're human, sorry we haven't solved that one yet and managed to run the Commons solely on bots. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that human sysops should be perfect (obviously, I am far from it.) I'm saying that something is still systemically wrong with commons. Note also, that I'm not asking you to balance copyright concerns against anyone's desires. I'm only asking that images not be deleted when not orphaned. This can be accomplished a variety of ways. But I still think the best method offered to date, is to replace the copyvio images with the red "X" image. That way, image linkages on sister projects would be able to find the page on commons.
Take me, for example. I contribute content to commons, in the form of audio pronunciations I record, properly categorized through the commons' maze. I also upload occasional pictures from my digital camera (again, properly licensed, properly categorized through the commons' labarynth.) I focus my efforts in the area where I can help the most: the Wiktionary written for English readers. With about 50,000 manual edits in my main account, and many thousands more edits from 'bot accounts, one might say that I really know my way around en.wikt:. I helped get Commons Ticker turned on, on the English Wiktionary. But I, myself, am flummoxed, when it comes to finding a commons conversation about an image or audio file, if it is linked from en.wikt: but deleted on commons.
Am I really that poorly informed about how commons works? I'm sorry, but I have to doubt that conclusion. Is commons really that poorly organized? Well, no, internally it is mostly self-consistent. The only major, wholesale problem with commons is that sister projects don't have any of the needed, proper links to commons' discussion pages. Once an image or sound file is deleted, the only links that remain on sister projects are to LOCAL upload pages. Finding your way to commons then, is nightmarish, to say the least.
For other sister projects, such as the English Wikipedia, where no CommonsTracker is possible, the difficulty is increased dramatically. Especially if, like me, you are not a regular contibutor there.
The one single most helpful thing commons can do, is to replace files, instead of deleting them. The continuous stream of commons admins claiming that it is difficult, implies that commons admins don't participate in sister projects anymore, at all. I don't understand the resistance. There simply should not be a delete function on commons (except for previous revisions.) But the delete function, as it is used today, causes more problems than it solves.
A recurring theme I hear espoused on commons is that sister projects don't participate in commons activities enough. I think it is clearly because the links don't work. Commons Ticker is of interest only to the small handful of people involved with it. But almost all pages are affected by commons activities. If you'd like more participation from average user, then please do something to make commons accessible. The links can work properly, if you replace files instead of deleting them. And if the links work, you may find out just how many are affected by deletions.
Thank you for your patience in reading this. --Connel MacKenzie 19:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is very hard to find an image that was deleted on Commons, from redlinks on local projects. However I see this as a fault of the poor software. It should be trivially easy to provide a link to the Commons deletion log for pages in the Image: namespace. I actually opened a bug about this recently but unfortunately bugzilla: is throwing errors at me. If you can access it, search for "redlinked images" and you should find it.
I'm only asking that images not be deleted when not orphaned. Well, actually, I think that's a reasonable request and it is a practice I and many other admins choose to follow. It's not policy, though. I will ask about it on the mailing list (commons-l) and we will see.
However I strongly disagree that a better solution would be to replace images rather than delete them. Masses of extra work and double-checking is not going to help out our backlog any. And I am not sure why you see it as a better solution! Take Image:Vatican coa.png. It has been 'crossed' since 21 July. But it is still used in at least 5 wikis! Isn't this cross equally damaging to the projects, left in their articles, as a redlink from a deleted image? I don't understand why a deletion is more damaging. They seem the same to me. So... is being a Commons admin just doing this dirty work, manual labour? If so, I think you will understand why Commons admins don't support it!!
Thanks for this patient and calm post. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
In the example, Image:Vatican coa.png, the projects using the image now have a direct link to the commons page (from where you can find the COM:DEL discussion.) While it is true, that the red X appears on the rendered project page equally as disruptive as a broken link, the linkage it contains is invaluable. --Connel MacKenzie 17:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
See my post to the mailing list Deletion of still-used images. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It is good good practice to delink images before deletion. So there should be no redlinks. But you claim also, that it is deficult to find out why the image was deleted. Well, not that difficult: You can copy and paste the image file name from the article history into Commons and then read the deletion log, which usually gives a hint, why the image was deleted. Or you can use "What links here" and you will surely find out. So, where is the problem? --ALE! 09:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have to agree, it is pretty difficult. On en.wp and I guess all projects, when you click on a redlink image, it actually takes you to the upload page. So first it takes some manouvering to check the logs. (For many users even this much would be impossible.) Then if it's not in the logs you guess it must be a Commons image. If you're not an admin, you won't see the nice deleted edits here, which can give a lot of information. Many reasons given in the deletion log are pretty cryptic. And if you are deleting from a discussion on COM:DEL, you can hardly summarise the whole discussion in the reason. So looking up the discussion, possibly in the archives, also takes some hunting. I think this is a fair criticism: there are definitely ways to improve the software to make all these things link together better. For example I think the local project deletion logs should also contain a link to Commons deletion logs. That would be a good start. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • ALE!, that is precisely the point. Most things in Wikimedia just work. How often do you cut-n-paste into a search box on a sister project? Even in IRC I don't do that; the links are clickable and go right to the proper page. But, using your method, I'm still not going to find a page that has been deleted. Finding the COM:DEL conversation from there (when you don't even know that the shortcut is "COM:DEL") is more than a little frustrating. Likewise, finding the deletion log. Don't forget, the mediawiki-savvy users will already be frustrated from having spent some time looking for the image on their local project. None of these steps should exist. When a person reading sister-project article encounters a red X, they can click it. With all those linkages in place, they will soon see the tag on the commons image page, and its link to COM:DEL (usually also with a sufficient explanation right there.) That person reading the entry can then click [back] and get to the broken article. From there, they can ask sensible questions and search for replacement images.
But when the image is simply deleted/missing, the scenario is different. Clicking the image link brings one to a local image upload page, without the filename. Cutting and pasting from the URL/location bar, a computer literate person can then get the url-encoded filename. Then, from memory, type http://commons.wikimedia.org/ (since there is no link, remember?) and paste the url-encoded filename into the search box. When the search finds nothing, the person can correct the url encoding and still not find the page. Cutting-and-pasting the title-name, they can then find "Special pages" and from there find "Logs" and from there find "Deletion log" and enter the proper title name in the third box on the right. At that point, they may discover (if every previous step was followed perfectly) only who deleted the image, but usually not why. Following the ever darkening trail, they end up at that users talk page, only to discover that it is a 'bot account "owned" by someone else. In a few more 10 second page loads, they may then find their way to some admins talk page. That admin will invariably have no recollection of deleting the image in question (how could they?) After a day or two, that admin will reply on their talk page with a link to COM:VP and COM:DEL. If the user (who has followed every step perfectly so far) manages to return to commons two days after that, (nearly a week elapsed in real-time, now,) they can finally find the original nomination for deletion. The original nomination for deletion was probably politely worded, and nominated with a very reasonable justification. But in the meantime, the sister project has not had its image (in fact, has had its pages mangled inexplicably) for over a week. An "undelete" request at this point will often fall on deaf ears; the time for discussion has long since passed. Sister project sysops (such as myself) may now be involved in the process, perhaps trying to find a replacement image. But they probably never saw the original image, and have only a rough idea of the replacement image desired. So they embark on the nightmarish foray through the commons: categories to find a new image. With luck, the sysop will be able to break out their camera, go to their local zoo, and take a picture of the Puma themselves. Then, they need to learn the commons' uploading license requirements, the commons' categorization requirements, and their own project's linking requirements to get the replacement image properly back in place. (That is, of course, assuming every step above is followed *perfectly*.)
Note also, the more common occurence: the drummer from a band finds a Wikipedia article about his band, but three out of five album covers are broken links. The drummer is high on heroin, and starts several flamewars on Wikipedia before being blocked. One week later, the same is repeated. Several months later, someone realizes that the stoner had a legitimate complaint to begin with...and then start the above detective work.
I understand perfectly, that it is a pain for commons: sysops to upload a small dummy file. It can add minutes to a routine deletion. It can slow a 'bot down to 1/10th its original speed. But that small upload will save multiple people hours of frustration, days/weeks/months of elapased time (where the final rendered page is broken, for all to see) and spread good karma far and wide. People previously unheard from, (perhaps the original photographers who don't understand mediawiki very well) would now suddenly have a voice on commons. This would facilitate the goal of encouraging sister project participation enormously. --Connel MacKenzie 17:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I've got two words for everyone: CommonsTicker :) -Samulili 18:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
But, didn't I mention a couple times that I use CT? Let me say it again: I do use CT: how else would I have any idea about where stuff happens in Commons:? --Connel MacKenzie 08:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I encourage everyone here to vote and comment on bugzilla:6909: "Redlinked images shouldn't go to Special:Upload" - I really feel this technical shortcoming is the major part of this problem. And also note some of the responses to my mailing list post such as Raimond's excellent point that we gain a lot of moral upper ground by being able to say, "We delete copyivos ASAP". If we delay deletion, we cannot say that. I still oppose totally the 'cross' method. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
But, why? --Connel MacKenzie 08:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Totally acknowledge User:Pfctdayelise! And with the regards to the CommonsTicker. I did not know it. Very useful. It should be shown on any edit and upload page for images. --ALE! 07:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Connel MacKenzie's idea, applied literally, would in my opinion not work because it is not possible to see reverts onto image on ones watchlist. Within minutes, someone would have gone to the images and reverted the newly uploaded red X, and we wouldn't spot it.
However, it would theoretically be possible to upload a red X, then delete the old revision, leaving the image description page intact. I guess we could implement this system, if the admins are prepared to do it, and -- more important -- the projects support it. I can only speak for myself as an admin, and I am willing to do it when deleting images on the commons:deletion requests: if I don't have to orphan the image, it might save 30 min. / image.
Fred Chess 00:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not know that file reversions behaved that way. That sounds like a separate bug. The second method you suggest seems very reasonable to me. You are able to restore deleted old revisions right? If so, then your method sounds optimal. --Connel MacKenzie 08:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Have you experimented with the "save 30 minutes per deletion" method you described, yet? Did you get positive results from that experiment? --Connel MacKenzie 07:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erin Silversmith's conduct

I didn't want to report this here, but I'm left with no alternative.

Erin Silversmith replaced Image:Yes check.svg with a new graphic that she created from scratch. I preferred the original image, but I didn't feel that it was my place to revert (thereby unilaterally declaring that the previous version was superior). Therefore, I decided to upload it under a different name: Image:Green check.svg.

A short time later, Erin deleted this image as a "duplicate." Obviously, it was not a duplicate, because it was no longer available for use under its original name.

I responded by politely requesting on Erin's talk page that she restore the image. This led to a discussion (partially quoted below) that she then removed in its entirety.

Erin indicated her unwillingness to allow both icons to co-exist (referring to my desire to do so as "idiotic"), and she reverted to the previous version of Image:Yes check.svg (implying that I was too stupid to figure out how to, despite my explicit indication that I didn't want to). She stated that "if [I] can't accept an improved version and insist on multiplying junk, then [she]'d rather the slightly inferior one remained as the sole version." Instead of restoring the proper description and licensing information, she added the statement "Gregory Maxwell's version has been reverted to to please User:Lifeisunfair."

In response to my request that she reduce the image's size by removing extraneous information (which she previously mentioned doing), she replied that she "won't make any more improvements to the image, as there is the risk that [I] will persist in reuploading old versions under new file names and [she doesn't] want to have to follow [me] around with the delete button."

Meanwhile, a related deletion discussion produced this exchange, in which Erin was similarly rude.

I don't know about the Commons, but this type of behavior isn't tolerated at the English Wikipedia. I'm an administrator there, and I would never abuse my tools in this manner (by unilaterally deleting an image in favor of a different one of my creation), nor would I dream of addressing another user with the incivility that Erin has displayed.

I've attempted to resolve this dispute amicably, and I'm posting this as a last resort. —Lifeisunfair 06:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If Eryn's only complaint was that the old version was bloated, someone could go back to my orignal and change the stroke width by hand... My orignal was around the size of her improved version but someone later loaded my file into an editor to change the stroke width and in the process bloated the file. Really though, size shouldn't be a concern... we don't send the actual SVGs to the users, and someday when we do we will be sending them gzipped. --Gmaxwell 06:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Erin believes that her rendition looks better. She described yours as containing "strange flat bits," but I don't see anything "strange" about them. In my opinion, her icon's shape is peculiar and unconventional. (Checkmarks usually aren't so rounded and uneven.) Nonetheless, I was more than willing to allow both files to remain, and I even allowed hers to take over the original name. To Erin, this was utterly unacceptable. She felt that the idea was "idiotic," so she reverted from her "superior" version to "please" me. —Lifeisunfair 06:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think she's only some kind of ignorant... have you ever tried to contact some of the other admins who could talk to her? Usually, normal admins shouldn't act like this... --Sven 20:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I posted this in the hope that someone (perhaps an admin) would intervene. —Lifeisunfair 23:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
As I read it, the image policy says that you don't overwrite a file, unless it's a very minor correction. Re-drawing the image in a different style is not such a case, so overwriting the image is the wrong thing to do. However, jumping up and down about it is also the wrong thing; I'm going to upload Erin's version as Image:Green check.svg and let both versions exist. Alphax (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not "[jump] up and down." I calmly and politely raised the issue on Erin's talk page, and I attempted in vain to reason with her until she removed the entire discussion. I turned here as a last resort, but it seems as though Commons sysops are free to behave however they please with impunity.
I wanted to allow the two images to co-exist, but Erin indicated that this idea was "idiotic" (preferring to remove her version instead), and she threatened to "follow [me] around with the delete button." —Lifeisunfair 00:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
In fact, Erin has nominated her own image for deletion, and she's pretending to be entirely unaware of the reason behind the new file's existence. —Lifeisunfair 02:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Going by what is stated at Commons:Deletion guidelines one should not speedy delete images based on ones perception that it is superior to another. Personally I would say that artistical creations, such as "Yes"-signs, have all right to exist in multiple versions if they are different. But I can't view svg files on my computer and so I can't tell how they differ...
Fred Chess 21:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
One has a straight left edge, the other has a curved left edge; one has one slope, the other has another. Firefox 1.5 can view them. Alphax (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commons and multilingualism

In my opinion languages on commons are badly supported outside standard help pages. We have categories in different languages, mostly in english. Categories are limited through mediawiki's implementation but normal image pages for example are not. Everytime I upload a picture, I have to decide which language I should use. Recently I am deciding in favour of german, as it is my mother-tongue and there is no point in making understanding harder for my fellow wikipedians. I could write in different languages but I don't wanna be bothered with missing support or unreachable documentation. And please don't ask me to fix anything myself, cause I am only using commons instead of local (german) wikipedia. All I say is: I would help ppl with other languages to understand my pictures, if there would be an easy and satisfying possibility to do so. What is unsatisfying?

  1. Documentation on the upload page how to specify descriptions in different languages.
  2. Including different languages in general (technicaly impossible to tell which language is used cause no xml-lang tag is used).
  3. Only displaying local language and ignoring other languages on display.
  4. Handling of discussion threads in different languages ("Hey guys I don't understand what you are saying, please speak english")
  5. Support of non-english-speaking ppl on pages like deletion request and so on. I might be wrong here, but a often heard complaint on the german version of village pump is that the requester needs help with something cause he doesn't speak english well enough.

I don't wanna blame anybody with this, just wanna point out some problems of an average user. If there are easy solutions for my problems, I would be thankful for any hints. --Chrislb 18:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • There are varying Multilingualism philosophies. It is useful to keep in mind that not everyone has the same goals or approach when they discuss multilingualism.
Regarding point two, perhaps you are unaware of the way you can indicate language using a language template like so:
Français : Je parle français en petite peu.
  • Maalehefrayim1.jpgIssue- the more languages on a page, the more the visual clutter. Commons is on a bit of a grand adventure regarding omnilingualism. Consider the image Image:Hitler and Mussolini propaganda Luce photo.png. Let us assume the world 10 year from now, and each of these captions where hand created describing the particular scene of Hitler and Mussolini's meeting in Rome. (In this particular example, these actually aren't and are topic sentences copied from the wiki articles on Hitler in Mussolini from the respective language wikis). A question that immediately hits you is: What if most of the languages were represented? Look at the number of interwiki links on the sidebar. What if every single one of those languages had a caption? The description would be enormous.
    • One solution advocated by some is a text folding feature. Right now, if your browser supports stylesheets (nearly all do), then the individual users can customize their view of the articles to hide all text marked with the language templates (eg {{fr| text}} for languages they are not interested in. The problem with this is that it is a bit of a hack and is not a solution for casual visitors to commons. There are other solutions for text folding, but would require non trivial changes to the mediawiki software. Since this change would primarily only benefit Commons- and then only the few pages that have large numbers of multilingual passages, that positions the feature pretty low on the priority list.
  • This is a frequently discussed subject so perhaps some of the old timers can fill in more here. -Mak 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Chris, Sorry for my late reply, but here are some thoughts. We don't want to add too much information to the Special:Upload page, because it becomes bloated and most users don't read it anyway. We have a Commons:Help desk (as well as this village pump) where you are welcome to ask questions.

As Mak said, the best way to add descriptions is to use language templates like {{en|this (insert caption here)}} -->

English: this (insert caption here)

These templates have the SML language description stuff built in, so they should be easy to use. To show only certain languages using these tags, add this to Special:Mypage/monobook.css:

.description { display: none; } 	 
.en { display: block; }
.de { display: block; }

This would show only English and German tags. Keep in mind many people don't use the tags at all and if tags only exist in Spanish, for example, you wouldn't see anything at all.

You are frustrated at the multilingual support, I have to say we are too, and most if not all of the troubles are software/technical. (The majority of admins are not native English speakers.)

For discussion such as deletion requests in multiple languages, you are of course welcome to discuss in any language, but I don't see any way to support this better unless you suggest we all learn German, and Spanish, and Chinese, and Italian, and... If you want more German discussion I guess you simply have to kick the German-speaking admins up the butt and get them to help out more. You're welcome to do that. :P

I hope this helps a bit. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer but I guess the developers have to work on that till everybody can be ok with it. As long as we have the state now we should urge everybody to learn more languages, what's not a bad point anyway ;) --Chrislb 06:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 3

[edit] Catalan claims

I have a disagreement with User:Martorell about category names. In spite of this rule, this user wants categories with catalan names and reverts some of my last changes ( example : http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Cities_and_villages_in_the_Land_of_Valencia&action=history ).

See the talks on my page and his page.

I think that Martorell is a catalan activist and desorganizes the project with partisan claims (he classifies Catalonia categories under french ones!). What do you think about this ? --Juiced lemon 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chauvinism claims

The only one difference that I see between rules applied to articles and rules applied to categories, is that "others" must be in English. In the rest of the case, I consider it's the same rules applied to articles. Am I wrong?. It's not desorganized, it's organized with other criteria. The actually desorganization is that you don't asked anyone before to do very wide changes, first to put template purposes and to talk in the discussion page. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 20:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC) PD: I'm not a Catalan activist, I'm a Valencian Wikimedian.

I don't need your permission to make changes, i. e. create more specific categories in order to classify haphazardly arranged images. You didn't ask me, and you have reverted my changes and put again images in imprecise categories (example : Girls in historical Valencian costumes.jpg (diff)). --Juiced lemon 22:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It isn't about permission, it is about consensus. You came to a work already done that anyone found it any problem for a long time. Why do exist templates such {{Move-category}} or {{Move}} specially indicated for very populated categories? These aren't ornamental. Haphazardly arranged images were very few images, the category Category:País Valencià was organized well enough altough it was needed to do some improvings, specially in typos, and you done it, ok, very good for you. But you fell in cultural arrogance with me. There are a lot of toponyms in native form in categories. Here exist Category:Sevilla and not Category:Seville. The same matter for Category:Mallorca and not Category:Majorca. Or Category:A Coruña and not Category:Corunna. Or Category:Granada and not Category:Grenade. And anyone see it as a trouble, only you. Only in the case of non-English sentences it was seen as a problem, such as Category:Escuts de Suècia being moved to Category:Coats of arms of Sweden. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
PD: And what about moving[1] Alacant - Alicante to Alicante? It isn't a category, it's an article. According to language police it says specifically to respect native form. Another exemple is Bruxelles - Brussel and Brussels as a redirection. Your reasons against me are lacking in truth. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 23:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand, (and anyone knowing different please correct me), you can do as you please On article pages. Regarding Category names the two main bits of guidance are-

  • use Ascii characters in category names
  • use english language cat names (for now)

So to the point of this dispute- What about proper nouns? I came across the same issue regarding which place name to use when working on the By location category scheme. I don't know that there is a broad standard for this. Maybe that is wrong. I considerred the following approaches

  • Choose the version used the most on the net (with the greatest search hits on google).-
    • advantages- uses the term that most users are most likely to use when searching for something.
    • disadvantages- It's majoritarianism, and if imposed broadly means that minority cultures are at an extreme disadvantage since the terminology of the majority will always squelch the minority.
  • Choose the version on some online authority that allows input. This could be any of the wikis or even a nonwiki source, but since english was chosen for the category language, it makes sense that English WP be the authority.
    • advantages- Minority views have a chance because motivated individuals can get the title accepted on EN:WP by being persistent.
    • disadvantages- People may not be able to find the item since they are unfamiliar with the alternate spelling of the proper name. By insisting on local terms, the general public has a more difficult time finding information on the local places and culture that the advocate presumably is attempting to assist. Their actions have the opposite affect.

I chose option 2- go with EN:Wikipedia, and folks on that scheme went along with it. To be honest, there weren't a lot of folks there to argue with so I don't know how representative that decision is. Really, I could have gone along with the google scheme too, but I strongly prefer inclusiveness of minority views. Let the people fight it out there, and whoever wins, and whenever it flip flops, fine- we can rename the cats here. As far as Commons search goes, it doesn't matter, because for example you can make catalonia and catalunya go to the same place. That's what I wrote in the policy.

Any educated person knows that its Wien, Firenze, Venessia or Catalunya. Personally, "Catalonia" hurts my eyes and my ears, but that's what it is in En:WP, so tough break for me. If I felt strongly- I would argue the case on En:Wiki. -Mak 23:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's Commons, it isn't Wikipedia in English. It's a multilingual project. I'm agree that categories must be in English for sentences in order to a standard language. But, I suppose it's an eventual solution until a tech improvement multilingualism in categories. And, in adding, if we would read en:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not we were noticed that Wikipedia doesn't considers as a dictionary itself. Specifically it's telling that "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used", so it shouldn't be the authority.
But proper nouns belongs to persons and their culture, and some persons aren't English-speakers. Would do you translate "Don Quijote" as "Sir Quixot"? Or "José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero" to "John Louis Rodericks Shoemakers"? I think it should be respected in native form, and using the {{Category redirect}} template for alternative categories.
Anyway, all the characters you find in "País Valencià" used are ASCII, as Category:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Aren't these? --Joanot Martorell ✉ 23:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Right. You mean the place would be called New York, not ca:Nova York. Heh heh. Small joke- I get your point and my personal opinion agrees with yours. If Chicago were translated from the Native American Potawatomi language, we would call it in English "Skunk Cabbage". Personally, I much prefer Chicago, and that people be faithful to to how things are named and pronounced locally.
We are making progress here on Commons. But in the meantime we will have to endure some of the absurd transformations that people make of local pronunciations and spellings. As I said- everyone is guilty- the catalunyan wiki names for "Venice" and "Florence" are just as awful as the english names. And you think catalunya is treated badly- Consider the awful approximations that non slavs make of slavic language names. "Khruixtxov" doesn't come anywhere close to the correct pronunciation- even though all of the sounds necessary are regularly made by speakers in catalunya. Even take the easy names- how about the capital city of Russia. Moscou? There should be a v sound in there (transcrit Moskvà)... Why not spell it the way it sounds. Nevermind- hard to break habits, unfamiliar consonant combinations, lazy mouths and all that I know.
In regards to Commons, we do not yet have a multilingual category translation but it is not unlikely that we will see it one day. In the meantime we have to pick one language for internally encoding the lookup names. What the display names are will be handled at display time- but natively, the database has to have a single encoding form. It so happens that our only display form is identical to the encoding form. But that will change. While we are only able to use english, to determine the encoding for proper names we must use some authority, and you must admit that using en:wiki is better than google as an authority. You are absolutely correct that en:wiki is not a dictionary but the wiki dictionaries currently have insufficient coverage- of course it will change but today, it just doesn't. I personally believe that an evolution of the wiki dictionary solve much of the single language user interface problem so that everyone can interact and display Commons category space in their own language.
For the time being we need to have a single language to map to, and there are much worse choices than english.
Regarding Ascii- you are confusing ascii with Ansi or Extended_ASCII. Ascii is the character set that is on everyone's keyboards and has no accented characters. The diacritics common in the north of europe will not be found on keyboards in the south, and vice versa, so using diacritics though faithful to the local language and pronuciation makes Commons less accessible to people that can't type them. It's true that most knowlegable people know how to input characters on their keyboards, (cyrillic is commonly used on mine) but we want grandmothers to be able to use the wikis.
I know it is an undesirable situation, but I firmly believe it shall not be permanent.
-Mak 02:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC) -Ammended because my wikitext about ca:Nova York was not visible. -Mak 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you're in right about the using of ASCII. I've mistaken in it, and I would have no problem to change "País Valencià" to "Land of Valencia", but... what about a lot of proper names with accentuated vowels as the exemple I showed in my former intervention, Category:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero?. Should it be Category:Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero without "é" (e accute) and "í" (i accute) accents?. Sure?. Or in categories such Category:San Sebastián, a basque city, should it be Category:San Sebastian, without "á"?. I'm not sure at all. Why not to adopt Extended ASCII? Sure there are also scandinavian and germanic diacritics. Perhaps, the most important is about using Latin alphabet, and all diacritics used for Latin alphabet should be welcome.
Also I see another problem, I understand that here should use Florence instead of Firenze, Catalonia instead of Catalunya, but because these are traditional names in English (exonyms), and because these are very widely known places in the world. But I think we shouldn't follow all the names used in EN Wikipedia, because some of Valencian toponyms are in Spanish form and among others are in Catalan form, there are no form in English for most of these. You may find, by exemple, in en:w Alicante. Is it in English? I don't see as it, it's in Spanish, instead of "Alacant" in Catalan. Also you may find Elx in en:w, in Catalan instead of "Elche", in Spanish. Or bilingual Catalan-Spanish form such Alcoi/Alcoy. But Juiced lemon insists badly that "Alicante" is in English, and I'm disagrees him.
In order to decide wich form to use for Valencian toponyms in Commons, here was decided a lot of time among the users who are working classifing in Valencian toponym categories to follow the linguistic predominance stated legally for each municipality. As it, some of these are declared as Spanish ("Castillian"), and among others in Catalan ("Valencian"). According this criteria, we use Category:Torrevieja (in Spanish) instead of ca:Torrevella (in Catalan), because this municipality is officialy Castillian-speaker native. But we use Category:Alacant instead of Category:Alicante, because it's officialy Valencian-speaker native. In the article name, we use the official form, it's Alacant - Alicante, such Bruxelles - Brussel, because both forms are official.
I also want to note that I wouldn't like to suspect cultural arrogance, ethnocentrism for Juiced lemon, because the fact he moved article Alacant - Alicante to Alicante with no reason (it isn't a category). --Joanot Martorell ✉ 08:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
PD: I've noticed that below the edit box there is a table of different characters with diacritics used by some languages. So everyone can select Catalan, Spanish, French, etc. and click over a accentuated vowel. In this case, it shouldn't be any problem to input accentuated vowels for scandinavian or germanic keyboards. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 10:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a decided opinion about this, but some things to think about. Mak said that Any educated person knows that its Wien, Firenze, Venessia or Catalunya. Well, until I looked it up just then, I didn't know Firenze was Florence. Whether that's because I'm uneducated or not European or some other reason, who knows. Commons should still be usable by """non-educated""" users in any case. :P

For place names. Make sure you think your argument all the way through. Should we have category:中国? OK, no problem... then should we have Category:People of 中国? Or Category:中国人? (Ignoring the possibility of category:中國, (traditional) and the like...). And for countries with multiple official/native languages, multiple representations in multiple scripts and all equally accepted and prominent? pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, for those languages usually there are latin transcryption systems, such the romanji for Japanese script. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 08:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a small note, it's not that simple. For a start Chinese characters are recognised for 8 major Chinese dialects/languages, a transcription system is only for one. Secondly the transcription system is more like a crutch for learners than the true language in characters. This is my impression. I imagine it is very similar for all non-latin scripts - Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Arabic, Sinhalese, Russian, ... .... using a transcription system is not a great solution. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I can just emphasise your point. There is no point for Koreans to learn one of the korean romanisations, as they have an alphabet themselves. Other example: We have a dispute on german wikipedia which romanisation to use for cantonese, if any as there is no accepted standard. The only solution for me seems to be a category in the native language, though I don't know how mediawiki will work with that. Commons is a bit arrogant as it asks ppl to learn english or at least the latin alphabet. You can see my dislike for the current status on language support a bit higher on this page. Anyway, all we can do is: try to work with the current system given as good as possible. --Chrislb 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I have moved just now Category:País Valencià to Category:Land of Valencia. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 09:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not arrogant: I just try to proceed with method. When I edit a image file, I manage to correct all the categories at the same time. So, the categories Catalunya and País Valencià were moved during a general sorting process.
You criticized me for moving Alacant - Alicante to Alicante “without reason”. Of course, I had a reason: “Alacant - Alicante” is not the name of a town. There is no rule about article titles, only a proposal for native name of places. It means that you have to keep a single name for the place. IMHO, composite titles must be prohibited, because you can always choose the first item of the list as the single name.
I choosed “Alicante” as the native name, because it seemed to me that most of the population were castillan speaking people. If I was wrong, you can rename this article as “Alacant” : no problem. --Juiced lemon 10:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, most of people speaks Spanish in Alicante, it's true. But it isn't a reason to avoid "Alacant" in article title nor the categories. When we use linguistic majority criteria, so let change all in Chinese, the most spoken language in the world... _' It was largely discussed in Category Talk:País Valencià about the names, and all users who participated there are agree to an criteria for those subjects. But no problem, your work checking categories into Category:Land of Valencia is good, in general overview, only there were some biasing or, at least, should discussed first. If you say you aren't arrogant, ok, I believe you, I give you a chance once more. Cheers. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 11:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a datapoint- there is no standard for "extended ascii"/"8 bit ascii"/"ansi". I think you mean to propose that "Latin-1" become the symbol set for categories. But it still doesn't address the keyboard problem. How do people type stuff into the search box for example if it is accented. I agree unaccented characters are very strange because they are completely different pronunciations and indeed are different (mostly non existent) words. The impact is bad for browsing categories. One thought was that for categories that had interwiki links to catalunyan or russian wiki article, the engine could display the correct local name at the top. The better solution is to make reference to a version of the Wiki dictionary that had good coverage. This would not work for many low end browsers without support for CSS and Javascript. The problem with making it server side due to the expansion of the cache to cover every version of the pages for every language. Not a pretty choice, but I vote for client side polymorphism to solve it. But I am not interested in working on that project and rather unfamiliar with the machinations on this subject so it is really up to the developers who are. I suppose there is some value for interested parties expressing how valuable this would be for commons so that developers understand the relative priority. Does someone have a link to the bugzilla entries for this feature?
In any case, the situation at commons in my view is temporary, so really you guys might as well not waste your time over it. When Commons comes out with the feature I described (or some functional equivalent) Castilians will view it one way, the Catalunyans another. Personally, I would think the most interesting struggle is getting the "authentic" names into the lingua franca versions- eg EN, FR and what have you. But of course the place to fight that struggle would be on other Wikis. (Not that I am attempting to send you elsewhere. Commons needs people which strong interlanguage skills.) -Mak 17:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
In general terms, I'm agree with your thoughts. I want only to point once more about the diacritics: I'm not sure at all, but I'm supposed that if you input in search box a word such "telepopmusik", the search engine would treat all accentuated vowels as not accentuated, and there would show you "télépomusik", "télepopmusik", "telépopmüsik", etc... as hits if those exists. Am I wrong?. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 19:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You're rigth Joanot. And I'm not Valentian. It may be useful to explain that just as English is spoken in EU, CA, UK and AU, Catalan is spoken in France, Andorra, Italy and Spain. Where is the political or cultural bias then? We're in Commons aren't we? Or may we see this as the English Commons?--Friviere 17:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of the disputed categories

(no exhaustive list)

Category names Wikipedia references
according to Martorell according to the WC rules
Alacant Alicante w:Alicante
Cities and villages in the province of Alacant Cities and villages in the province of Alicante w:Alicante (province)
Comarques de Catalunya Comarques of Catalonia w:Comarques of Catalonia
Perpinyà Perpignan w:Perpignan
Province of Alacant Province of Alicante w:Alicante (province)
Province of Castelló Province of Castellón w:Castellón (province)
Province of València Province of Valencia w:Valencia (province)
Rosselló Roussillon w:Roussillon

updated (comarcas/comarques). --Juiced lemon 00:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Martorell have reverted my edits to restore most of the incorrect categories. --Juiced lemon 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Those forms aren't only mine, but also for a several users that showed their disappoint with you. And those proper names aren't English... all are Spanish or French, and their criteria is clearly following linguistic majority. The "linguistic majority" is for chauvinism thinkings as you have, not for a multilingual project such Commons. These arent Commons rules, these are YOUR rules. I will request a checkuser on your user account, I've my suspects of sockpuppeeting. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 18:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
My rules are the Wikimedia Commons community rules. If you don't like these rules, that's YOUR business. But, you cannot impose YOUR rules over YOUR categories. I have added references to the table (tell me if I made mistakes). --Juiced lemon 00:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
These aren't English names (aren't traditional exonyms), so a criteria was managed already since now for these cases. That's all. If you want to change this criteria, let's go to discuss it but, please, don't overpass with an non-existent rule about to follow en:w (Commons:Language policy).
If you're so interested to change toponyms of Spain into traditional names in English, perhaps you should start for actually English names such Seville, Grenade, Majorca, Corunna, Minorca, etc... and keep waiting to see the reaction of users who were working in these categories. The list you show here, any of these are in English, and in each article you refer from en:w: it's mentioned in starting both names used, and specifically it's telling forms in Spanish, French or Catalan, but not in English.
Your problem aren't the rules on Commons. Your bussiness are cultural bias, and political reasons, in special for those french subjects (Perpignan, Northern Catalonia, etc...), as you're French person. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 00:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC) PD: Notice that I'm from Alacant, as my user page tells...
PD2: If you are so interested to follow en:WP... why don't you accept the following from en:Perpignan: "Perpignan was the capital of the former province and county of Roussillon (French Catalonia or Northern Catalonia). It is also capital of the historical Catalonian comarca of Rosselló. You want to follow in some subjects, but you're avoiding in another subjects that aren't in your interest. Is it political reason or not?. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 01:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
We can see continuous war editions about this theme. Pasqual (ca) 09:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't add more words, potilical matter is the evident reason of this fight. I subscribe all that Martorell wrote. Pasqual (ca) 18:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Northern Catalonia

The disagreement is not only about category names, is also about Northern Catalonia. Commons is a multicultural project, and people of Northern Catalonia have right to be represented here. The official website of the Conséil Général des Pyrénées Orientales recognizes the Catalanity of this territory. Before making big changes, we should ask for them and talk about it. If not, can be considered vandalism for some administrators Pmmollet talk  07:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC).

Northern Catalonia is not a existing region, but part of cultural identity claims. Northern Catalonia people and Northern Catalonia places don't exist, as Catalonia don't belong currently to the islamic world (see Age of Caliphs.png).
You have no right to mess up the Wikimedia commons classification system with political claims. For near everybody in the world, the Catalonia category concerns a autonomous community of Spain, not an old region. So, architecture of Catalonia concerns only spanish buildings, and is not part of architecture of France, and so on for other Catalonia categories. --Juiced lemon 11:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Northern Catalonia is not only a political claim, but also it's a cultural claim. There's the same culture, architecture, language and gastronomy in Spanish Catalonia and Northern Catalonia. If Wikimedia Commons it's a place where anybody can storage culture, why not to put both Catalonia together in a Category, when most of people from Pyrenées Orientales feel la catalanitat or la catalanité (in french)? --Pepetps 13:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I support this proposal. --Juiced lemon 13:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well... Juiced lemon, you said: "Northern Catalonia places don't exist, as Catalonia don't belong currently to the islamic world (see Age of Caliphs.png)". Wow! Are you saying that Catalan origin are arabic roots? I'm sorry to telling that you're bad informed. Please, read first en:History of Catalonia, en:Principality of Catalonia and en:Northern Catalonia. Once it's done by you, you would be able to discuss with right aknowledgement. Administrative borders aren't the unique reality. Cheers. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 13:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
My opinion remains unchanged : we cannot make ambitious plans based on hypothetic future events. --Juiced lemon 13:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It isn't about future, it's about present-day. It is not about borders only, it's about culture. You aren't unchanged, you are moving into editwars, and it's no consensus. I've blocked you for two hours because of ongoing editwar crussade, I'm very sorry because you aren't willing to reach mutual understanding. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 14:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
That is an abuse of your administrator abilities. Your “concensus” sums up in your own opinion. You have allready blocked another user for the same reasons (impose your viewpoint) : see [2]. --Juiced lemon 18:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I have had to stop your editwars. I'm not the only person you're struggling, also with pmmollet and pepetps. User Joan Puigbarcell had the same problems as you show here: arrogance, overpass works of other users with too widely changes, editwars, linguistic and cultural biasing, political thinkings, etc... This user was worried only to "delete" very correct information, and we want to add more information. We don't want hide anything, but you want hide that in France there is Northern Catalonia. The same attitude, the same motivation... same user? I will request checkuser on your account. Cheers. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 19:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I just intend to follow the rules : I have no bias. You act as an extremist : you don't respect any rule (except of yours) and anyone. I assume that we (I and Joan Puigbarcell) are not your first victims. --Juiced lemon 20:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration?

OK... obviously this isn't going anywhere productive. I suggest that you both accept a third party to arbitrate. They will listen to what both of you have to say and make a comment about what future behaviour from both of you should be. It will only work if you both agree to accept the arbitrator's conclusions, even if they disagree with you. Obviously you cannot both be right. Will you agree?

In the meantime please stop ALL edits related to this in any way whatsoever - even if you are leaving things in the 'wrong' way just please STOP, it won't help. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I would accept. But, hoy many users is it involved in arbitration?. Can we choose any person to belong to arbitration?. Or, at least, can we refuse any person?. Must I repeat the arguments, altough here are a lot of it?. Can't I continue to tagging un classified images related to Category:Land of Valencia?. It isn't about a specific category, it's about our way of work. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 08:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
A neutral third party will be welcome! I agree to stop any edits related to this until resolution. --Juiced lemon 08:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
To Martorell: I guess all involved parties can have input, but obviously the main two parties would be you and User:Juiced lemon. Can you find some other unrelated images to tag? I think we have a lot to choose from in that regard. :)
Thanks to you both for agreeing. I will try to find someone suitable for arbitration (that is - someone who doesn't have a strong opinion on Catalan politics etc) and I hope you will both accept them. (BTW I'm just making this up as I go. :)) I'll keep looking for an arbitrator now. cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I will try to find someone genuinely neutral. And I trust that you are both users acting in good faith, who will not refuse someone who is neutral. So far this trust has not been destroyed, I hope we can keep it intact. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 4

[edit] Chemical structural formulas PD-ineligible?

I have found that many, even quite simple, structural formulas are marked as being without license or without source information. I wonder, however, if most of these could be considered {{PD-ineligible}}. See for example [3], [4], and [5]. They way to draw them is quite standard and not much creativity can be used, so I'd say yes and even the more complex ones can really only be drawn in one way [6].

Still, I do ask myseld where to draw the line. Coloured and 3D: [7], [8]? IMHO, PD-ineligible, as even the colours are standard.

This beauty, imho, is over the treshold of originality: Image:Tumour_suppressor_p53-DNA_complex.jpg. -Samulili 16:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image watermarks

On English Wikipedia, there is a clause in the image use policy against adding watermarks on user-created images and there is a template (Template:Imagewatermark) for images with watermarks on them. Are the images with watermarks (from what I noticed, most of them are copyright notices and a few titles/descriptions of the image) allowed in here or should we import that template from en.wiki ? Bogdan 20:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see #Watermarks_on_images slightly above. NielsF 20:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{No source since}}

Images Rainbow4.jpg, Rainbow3.jpg, Rainbow2.jpg, and Rainbow.jpg, are all tagged with the no source since. The tag sates: image can be speedy deleted seven days after this template was added and the uploader was notified. The meta-data clearly defines the source of these images; a FinePix A210 , FUJIFILM camera, used in the same day, same time for the four pics, by the user Anthony, I don't think that he will make it back here in time; Anthonys latest contribution here dates back to 05:23, 5 October 2005. He posted the four pics back on 2004, and he used the same camera in almost all of his other pics. This is not about the four pics, this is about the procedure used. The way No source since tag is used should be evaluate carefully. --Tarawneh 04:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want, change the tag to {{own work}}. But the fact is, no source (author) information was provided. We are not allowed to guess. We can only work with the information people give us. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
On top of his discussion page he links to his en wiki account. en:User talk:Anthony DiPierro --Denniss 00:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weird nature

As I managed to categorize numberous images, pages or categories, I found some incoherence in the category names. In particular, there is some confusion in the categories related to environment (nature) ; so I made a list of wrong subcategories in this talk page.

According to w:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), here there are 77 wrong subcategories for a total number of 172 subcategories. What do you think about this ? Do you agree with my proposals ? --Juiced lemon 13:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC) updated. --Juiced lemon 15:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't follow en.wp to the letter. Their policies are not Commons policies. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Commons policies are often ignored, and that's why I made this work. I didn't choose Commons:By location category scheme as a reference, because this document is ambiguous. For the listed cases, it seemed to me that en.wp policies were identical to Commons policies. Please, review my list and identify the differences (if any). --Juiced lemon 15:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Huh. Commons documents are ignored and flawed, therefore everyone should ignore them and make up new ones? I note you made no contribution to the talk page of Commons:By location category scheme. I am not sure why conformance to peculiar patterns of preposition use is important, but hey I know there are some who didn't see what was wrong with adjectival placenames. Anyway, if you make your case and if there are enough folks that agree, more power to you. Personally though, the only thing I feel strongly about the prepositions is that they ought to be predictable.


Perhaps to some category folks, it is intuitively obvious that parks, sunsets, and zoos are in countries, while caves, landscapes and forests are of' countries. I am a native speaker and I certainly don't understand why having multiple patterns should be propagated that deliver no clear benefit. If Commons is to be used by substantial numbers of non english speakers, how do we expect to explain these odd rules. They simply aren't predictable. But maybe we should really be having this conversation on the by locations schemes page. -Mak 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of a "false" document

In 1943, Belgian resistance published a false "Le Soir". In these days, the Soir had been "stolen" by Germans and journalists of the Soir were traitors. I made an article about the false Soir and I am about to aquire an original (at 70 euros, it's a bargain for a piece of history people died for) (a copy of the Soir and of a facsimile can be found here).

I was wondering whether I could put pictures of this "Soir" in Commons, but I am highly uncertain. The false Soir was published by a resistance organisation during war time. I am at lost. What do you think? Fair use in fr:WP is the easy solution, but is there a way to put this in Commons?Bradipus 21:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

2006-1943=63 years, I am afraid you will have to wait 7 more years. I can only assume that the copyright laws still apply, despite the nature of the publication being illegal at the time of publication TeunSpaans 07:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thumbnails not working

[[Image:Parts of OS Edition 1 1880 25in Derbyshire Sheet 50.png|thumb|Example of not working thumbnail.]] Last night I uploaded Image:Parts of OS Edition 1 1880 25in Derbyshire Sheet 50.png, however non of the thumbnails work. You can view the full size version. Lcarsdata Talk | E-mail | My Contribs 10:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a recent bug report which could well relate to this. See http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6316 William Avery 20:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Not only does that thumbnail not work, but it totally b0rks my firefox every time it tries to load this page from my uni Unix machine. (I had to turn off image loading all together.)
[2:57] X Error of failed request:  BadAlloc (insufficient resources for operation)
 Major opcode of failed request:  53 (X_CreatePixmap)
 Serial number of failed request:  854578
 Current serial number in output stream:  854580

nasty. Sorry, but I'm nowiki'ing the image in case other people have this problem, too! pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a limit of 12 megapixels for thumbnailing PNG files - larger PNGs will be served to the browser unchanged and are then scaled on your computer. Scaling large PNG files takes a lot of memory and CPU, which may bog down your system and/or crash your browser. This high demand is exactly the reason for the limit: scaling such images would bog down the servers. Note that the hard pixel based limit applies to PNG only - for scaling/rendering JPG, SVG, etc, there are time and memory limits in effect. If they are hit, the effect is different - no picture is served to the browser at all.
A workaround for this problem is to upload a scaled version directly after uploading the full scale image (which should be available for reference). I'll go ahead and do it for Image:Parts of OS Edition 1 1880 25in Derbyshire Sheet 50.png.
While I think such limits are necessary, they could be implemented more smartly. For PNG, it could be detected on upload if thumbnailing of that image will be possible - and a warning could be shown if not. Also, it would probably be a better idea to show an error message than to server the full sized image, which is likely to break the browser. Also, rendering errors for JPG or SVG files should be made obvious to the user - just serving nothing is quite confusing. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles or Categories

Is there any guideline on when to create an article and when to make a category? There seem to be quite a few photos that are uncategorized and just relying on a categorized article linking to them to give them their context. Personally I'd rather there were no articles at all on commons, just progressively narrower categories. I would be interested to know the justification for any conventions used here. --Cfp 14:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories cannot be easily renamed, and if you do it, you lose the history. It's the main obstacle to a general use of categories. --Juiced lemon 15:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
So for things like Latin species names where this isn't an issue (latin names very rarely change) is using categories all the way to the "leaf" acceptable (i.e. placing images rather than articles in categories)? --Cfp 18:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be something in the FAQ about this (if there is already I certainly didn't see it), because I've just had some hostile reverts of images I had placed in a category with no justification what so ever in the comment. If it is decided against putting images directly in categories (which I truly hope it isn't, particularly in the case of latin names), then "The Commonist" tool should be changed to add images to galleries rather than to categories. (It already adds images to your personal gallery as it's final step, so I can't imagine the change would be too hard.) --Cfp 21:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
For animal and plant pictures, we have some specific guidelines at Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life. Stan Shebs 01:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPAM filter

I have a problem with this page : Image:Pommesgabel.jpg. I want to modify its category, but my changes are blocked by the SPAM filter, though I didn't add any URL. What must I do ? --Juiced lemon 15:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've created a workaround for the image description page. Given that it is a website of GFDL photographs, we may want to revisit whether it belongs on the blacklist or not. Jkelly 17:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless edit war

There is a difference of opinion on the the name of a category. As a solution to the controversy, the other party has decided not to discuss the issue and instead redirect the category to their prefered category name without moving the images in the unpreferred category.


The reason I favor the particular category name I do is that the alternative is regarded as an insulting term by the people to who the term applies. I myself was surprized to learn that "Anasazi" is perjorative, but this has been thoroughly discussed on the wiki which corresponds to the greatest number of interested parties on the subject, and the concensus opinion was to change the name. I have explained that NPOV is a commons policy and for this reason the insulting term should not be in the category structure.


At this point the discussion was deleted from the person's talk page. It has instead been moved to the talk page of the new category Category talk:Ancient pueblo people. I am perfectly happy to continue reverting (it takes me about 2 seconds to initiate it). However after 22 edits, it is my feeling that enough is enough and I am seeking arbitration or any other solution to the issue. -Mak 16:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm totally ignorant of what would be right here so I've protected the categories in their status quo. It's the wrong version of course, but someone with more knowledge of this situation should look into it. I hope for now this stops the editwar a bit. NielsF 16:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
NielsF- ok, but I request a prompt decision one way or the other. The bulk of our holdings on anasazi/ancient pueblo people is invisible in this state. ... Oops nevermind- I see you changed it from a hard redirect. -Mak 17:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

“So far, Categories are in English” does not mean “a Commons category name is always the title of the wp.en matching article”.

IMHO, “Ancient Pueblo peoples” is clearly a wp.en eccentricity. We have not to follow it. Anasazi is a widely used (by english speaking people) term, therefore the Category:Anasazi is “in english”, as specified. So, I don't find any reason for a editwar, except a too zealous user (it's not a matter of urgency). --Juiced lemon 19:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That is true. There is no policy that says en:WP is the authority on names. And I am not at all sure that that is the best solution either. But there are much worse authorities. For example, "frequency of usage" has problems too. Sure, by Google hits, "Nigger" has 4 times as many hits as "Black person". So is that the authority we should use? Does that override NPOV policy? The problem is this class of problem is potentially large because the terms that many groups have historically used for their neighbors were frequently hostile and nearly always unflattering. Depending on who a western explorer talked to first, one of the terms become known to the outside world, and the rest of the world is unaware of the insult. Should we care? Are majoritarianism views more important than respect for local cultures? While I am the kind of guys that refers to the postman rather than the "mail carrier", I think it is proper to determine whether the dominant term truly violates NPOV and if so, change it according to some external authority. Ideally, in the case of proper names that have to do with cultural identity, I think it fair to allow the group concerned be able to decide the names. I don't know if we can support that kind of procedure in the short term due to lack of manpower.


The specifics of this particular category naming dispute can be discussed on the talk page referenced above, but this is exactly the situation here. So the explorers talked to the enemies of the anasazi first and so that is the name that stuck. The broader question is whether we want to arbitrate every one of these silly naming battles here on Commons. As with the debate over catalunya which Juiced Lemon is currently involved with, I really think Commons should decide on some general external authority to settle such disputes or we will only see this sort of conflict become more and more common.


Which Venue? The anasazi groups ancestors speak english as a primary language, the region occupied by the anasazi is in the present day US, and so it makes sense that the venue for settling the naming dispute should be En:WP. If not there, we should name some other well populated venue that allows consideration of all points of view where folks can hammer out a concensus opinion. The EN:WP has done so and in deference to their opinion I named it the way I did. A week ago, I had no opinion on the subject.


If en:Wiki is the wrong venue for people to hammer out concensus, we should name some other venue or criteria for deciding names. Whatever it is, I think the wrong answer is to name Commons as the venue because the population is just too low to get a fair cross section of interested parties on particular subjects, and there are much more important things that admins need to be doing.


-Mak 21:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey! I don't want to fall out with you ! There was only my opinion (I continue in the Category talk:Anasazi page). Recently, I created the Category:Jaw harp, in spite of the en.wp article title (w:Jew's harp) : I choosed a self-explanatory name which don't needlessly mention Jews. What do you think about this ? --Juiced lemon 09:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that Jew's harp was a pejorative term so I don't know what bearing you thought this had on the current conversation. Understand- this is not about politically correct speech, but terms that significant percentages of the affected party's population feel is insulting. -Mak 17:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if Jew's harp is a pejorative term, but this musical instrument has no connection with Jews, and I didn't find this mention in other languages (see w:de:Maultrommel for a list of various names about this instrument). In english, the term “jaw harp” is a serious alternative to “Jew's harp” (cf Google), so I prefered it as a more international term. This example was intended to show that we have not to be always in line with en.wp. --Juiced lemon 09:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with your point, Mak. When the dispute has nothing to do with how the media is organised, I don't see any reason we shouldn't adopt en.wp terminology. I think that's a good way to offload our own disputes ;). Commons:Language policy (which effectively acts as our naming policy, as well, perhaps that should be separated) could do with some improvement. BTW - this is not about politically correct speech, but terms that significant percentages of the affected party's population feel is insulting. - I know some people that would still say they're the same thing ;) pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Poor wording on my part. I should have said, it is not about all classes of politically correct speech. The shift from accepted use of the term "colored" to alternate terms was an exercise in what we now call "politically correct" speech. It is a change most people agree with. So I happen to be one of the people who agree that this anasazi- pueblo peoples thing is politically correct speech as is some of the other disputes. The dispute that are a priority to confront are those having to do with violation of NPOV.
The measure I proposed is two fold. It is insufficient for someone to claim they feel insulted. I happen to count some radical feminists as my friends and they sincerely feel slighted if they are not referred to as womyn. They are in the extreme minority so don't think they have standing until they show that anything but a group of extremist individuals feel this way. Personally I think enough is politicized without politicizing language as well. The opposing point is that language is a political tool of cultural suppression which actually has some truth to it. I wouldn't use the strident terminology to express that concept, but anyway, I just don't want to see a lot of these silly disputes sucking up the time of Commons admins.


As for english WP, I can see a case for setting the venue elsewhere. It would be nice if we didn't do everthing on a case by case basis, and had a clear general rule on determining what the external authority is but on the other hand I hate huge sets of rules delineating byzantine bureaucratic processes. EG: The authority for determining names shall be EN:WP extcept in the following cases: 1) where a term is disputed as it appears in the EN:WP applies to a specific group, and is considered pejorative by a substantial percentage the population of that group. In that case if there is a foundation wikipedia that corresponds to the group, then the authority shall be that wikipedia, so long as the resulting name is expressed in Ascii equivalent.


Hopefully we will not have to require such a rule, but if the volume of these becomes measurable, then I would advocate something like this text. It will be interesting to watch the Catalunya arbitration. I suppose it could set some precedents for future disputes. -Mak 21:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luke Ford's photos

Hello. The user Gildemax (now away for a long time) wants to delete the images I took from Luke Ford's website, because he can't verify the authorization here (see my talk page). There is already a lot of pictures from that website on Commons, they are not deleted and the English Wikipedia (here) even advise to upload images from here. Can someone do something about this? Thank you. (and sorry for my approximative english) --Delias 20:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sysop status request

Hi there,

I've been lurking around and contributing to commons since a few monthes. I now think that my current experience of sysop on fr: may be of some help here...
I saw that there are comments about the overwhelmed admins here so if you think I can be of some help to them, for example by deleting old speedy deletions, you can vote here.
Best regards to all,
-- AlNo (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preview

Hallo,

I didn't found another page for questions, therefore I ask here:

How can I modify (in the monobook.css ?) the width of the preview-thumbs on the category-pages ? The value in "preferences" does not work in that case. Augiasstallputzer 16:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can. I have a feeling that's hardcoded into MediaWiki. I guess a codegeek will correct me here if I'm wrong... --pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guide to taking pictures

We have a lot of pro photographers here, which is great, but we also have a lot of people with point-and-shoot cameras who can take pictures of things that the pros don't have access to. I think we need a simple guide page like How to take pictures for Wikipedia, in the same style as w:Wikipedia:How to create graphs for Wikipedia articles, as part of w:Wikipedia:Graphics tutorials or a Commons page, for us amateurs. For instance, in taking macro closeups of objects, I've discovered some things:

  • Use macro mode, but zoom in all the way, too - puts more of the object in focus and increases resolution
  • Tearing a plain paper folder apart makes a nice floor and backdrop for the object, it's easier and the crease is subtler than trying to tape pieces of paper together
  • Putting other white paper on the opposite side of the object from the lamp helps diffuse the shadows and make the lighting more even
  • Using the Levels... tool in the GIMP helps get that nice pure white background

It might fit into Category:Graphics abilities, too, which I just now discovered.

See w:Talk:XLR_connector#XLR-LNE. That's a pretty rare connector, but the first image was pretty poor quality. — Omegatron 19:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a simple "how to" for amateurs should be produced- but focusing as the others do- not so much as a primer on the entire subject of photography, but focusing in on the commone errors people make on images intended for a wiki. Is there really not one in Wikipedia?
The document Commons:Quality images guidelines is a place where some of these sorts of tips are recorded for people who are motivated to see that their images achieve a "Quality Image" status. Note Commons:Quality Images are different than Commons:Featured pictures- Featured images has to with the extraordinary merit of the image as a whole. The "Quality Image" label is achieved simply if your image ticks all the checklist of technical items for the image- such as focus, not under/over exposed, no motion blur and what not. -Mak 22:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Clip.jpg
Yes, not a general guide to all forms of photography, but guidelines on how to take high-quality, informational images for articles. Stark contrast and shadow would be good for general photography, but not for an encyclopedic matter-of-fact picture of a paperclip, for instance. — Omegatron 23:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop writing all your tips on the Village pump! Just create a page and get writing! :) Connecting it up with Commons:Quality Images would be a good idea IMO. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. 38.99.151.202

[edit] Name?

I was browsing comments when I came across a person that wondered how we should be called? Because wikipedia has wikipedians, etc. I hope the awnswer isn't commoners.--Mac Wanter 02:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I introduce myself precisely that way on other wikis.... -Mak 07:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, we do. :) 'Commoner - one of the common people'. I didn't like it at first, but it's grown on me. Very egalitarian. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, well. I guess it's worth it if you think about the files here.--Exquisite-battery plugged.pngMac Wanter Talk 03:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
This came up during Wikimania - we need to stop thinking of ourselves as just Wikipedians, Wikinewsies, Wikitionarians etc. and start thinking of ourselves as Wikimedians. I still think of myself as a Wikipedian (my "wikipedia" hostmask on IRC reinforces that), but just as multilingualism becomes more natural to us, so will multiprojectalism... Alphax (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 10

[edit] Upload

When I try to upload an image, I get an 'invalid language code'. Am I the only one? TeunSpaans 09:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved, error message no longer appears. TeunSpaans 10:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image problem with Image:Miami Florida city flag.svg

Image:Miami Florida city flag.svg is stated as having a source of itself. Circular source reference? Interesting :) More problematic; the licensing claims that a user of ours releases it into the public domain. I doubt the user has rights to release the image. With respect to city flags, there's an open ended issue; we assume flags are PD but we (to my knowledge) haven't shown anywhere where this is supported by law. I started a related discussion at Commons_talk:Licensing#Capitulating_clarification_of_copyright_status. This image needs to be fixed, both in source and in licensing. --Durin-en 12:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It lists en.wp as the source. Of course, there is no image at en.wp under this name now, so the Commons copy comes through. Generally this means the image was originally uploaded to en.wp, has been transferred here, and deleted there because it's available here. From the logs I think this is the case here, too.
There are two problems here. One is that of flags. Flags cannot be assumed to be PD. Aside from that, there's the problem of whether creating a representation of a flag actually creates copyright (so you can pd-self flags you create), or whether such an act doesn't trigger any copyright and therefore any representations have the same copyright status as the flag itself, ie PD (we hope). I find it problematic... and the problem is not treated uniformly here. Some say PD-old, many say PD-self or even GFDL|etc. Apparently the laws may even differ from country to country about this.
I would like to see us adopt a rule that any PD design (such as flag, COA) must also be tagged as PD-(old, whatever, not self), *even if* the creator could potentially claim copyright. But it's a murky area.
Secondly is of using website-wide templates. These are also are frequently problematic, even for US govt websites. They need a lot of scrutiny. But they are so popular that I guess we won't stop using them, even though it's an incredible hassle when we find out one is actually not free after all. D'oh. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GPL v3 and screenshot

GPL does not cover screenshot. You are left with fair use or obtaining permission from developers of software, as far as I understand. The key in the license is "the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does." in Section 0 (quote from Free Software Foundation's GPL page.) This means that the screenshots are not under the free license, but just plain copyrighted.

GPL is now being upgraded to the next version (version 3). There has been the second public draft for anyne to comment. After reading the draft, I came to the conlusion that the issue is still not addressed.

I personally think that screenshot of GPL'd software should be usable freely, even in jurisdictions without general fair use like provision (Japan does not have one). Joint copyright cannot be exercised without the concensus of the all parties (i.e. one person cannot give permission without consulting with others). This will help Commons.

Comments can be filed here: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-2.html

Tomos 18:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Um... hmm. If that's true, it's kind of a worry, since we have been assuming that screenshots of OSS are in fact free. See {{free screenshot}}. Can we get a retrospective amendment...? pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
To me this reads differently. To repeat the quote: "the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.": to me this means that output that is generated as a direct result of the program code falls under the GPL (in my mind, this includes GUI elements and icons that come with the program - unless they are third party and non-GPL, in which case they shouldn't be shiped with a GPL program anyway). If the program however is used to show someone elses work (like a web page in Konqueror, or a text you typed in OpenOffice, or a graphic you opened in GIMP), the programmer obviously has no rights to it, and it's thus not covered by the GPL. If you take a screenshot and want to publish it, you need permission of the creator of that work.
So, I don't really see a problem in the spirit of the license. However, if I take a screenshot of, say, a Wikipedia page shown in Konqueror, then the program components would be GPL, but the page content would be GFDL, and it may also show some CC-BY-SA picture on the page. In such a case, what license would be correct for the resulting screenshot? As far as I know, none legally, because the licenses are legally incompatible, even if they are congruent in spirit.
A practical solution is to identify the licenses of the individual parts of the screenshot. That should usually be satisfactory for everyone, but i'm afrais it's not legally sound. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not particularly experienced with GPL, and I'm not a native English speaker, but let me try to convince you. Would you take a look at the definition and explanation of what "work based on the Program" means? To quote the key part,
" a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you". "
(Again taken from FSF's GPL.)
From this definition and explanation, I took that GPL's intended definition of a work based on the Program is something that changes a source code, and not something that is created by running a program. Screenshot certainly falls into the latter category, and therefore outside of the scope of GPL.
But let's assume that I am wrong (not a bold assumption indeed), and screenshot is covered by GPL. The situation is not at all better in my opinion. The reason is that if covered by GPL, it is subject to the requirements of Sections 1 and 2. Requirements include "conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty."
I suppose some requirements, such as conspicuously placing a disclaimer warranty may be okay to ignore - that might result in the creater (uploader) of the screenshot warranting the quality of the screenshot, and that is not perhaps a disaster because screenshot will not do much harm as far as I know. But some may argue it is still a license violation technically/strictly speaking.
So perhaps we can agree that GPL does not handle screenshot issue very well, even if we may have some different interepretations of how it applies or does not apply to a screenshot.
And may I suggest that we should let the GPL v3 drafters to know about this?
Besides, I agree with you, Duesentrieb, the license complication issue you mentioned. Tomos 11:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I personally would disagree that in the absence of explicit license language the copyright of a screenshot defaults to the authors of the code. Either the graphic elements of the program are licensed under the program's license OR the copyright is owned by the owner of the computer which has generated the image, IMO.
That part of the image which can be said to be a derivative work of the original program code consists of things like icons and other copyrightable graphical items. These are clearly GPL licensed.
Those parts that are NOT GPL licensed would be owned by the creator of the work - which, if you're taking a screenshot of the program on a computer you own, is YOU.
IMO, I see no way in which a screenshot of a GPLed program is not a combination of (a) GPLed graphical image elements, and (b) elements created by running the program that do not contain GPLed elements, and are thus owned and copyrighted by the screenshot creator/computer owner.
Licensing the resulting mess under the GPL is, I believe, fully in compliance with copyright law and common sense. We don't have to play the game of trying to twist licenses in ways they shouldn't be twisted to see what falls out. Morven 08:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Licence check

Could someone who speaks Spanish (better than me, I'm afraid I only know enough to get into trouble and not enough to get out of it) check all uploads by User:Rbb l181. The licensing doesn't seem right, but rather than tagging all of the images it would be preferable if someone could check the site they've been copied from with regards to the licensing on publicity photos there. Cnyborg 19:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any licensing information... there was just a generic copyright notice on the bottom. Anyways, publicity photos are rarely (if ever) free use. ~MDD4696 20:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That's what I'm thinking; probably {{copyvio}} for the whole lot, then. Cnyborg 22:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complain about User:Gildemax and User:Zirland

I am writing to complain about these two fucking idiots. They deleted a whole cat of images properly described and tagged under the PD-Mexico-NIP template. Every single image was in the public domain (it was confirmed by us in writing in W:ES [9]).

I spent countless hours describing them, cropping them, filling every single detail (all the way down to the photographer's name) and on July 22, 2006 Gildemax requested a speedy delete because he visited the Mexican Presidency website and saw a GENERAL DISCLAIMER stating that UNLESS IT WAS STATED OTHERWISE, the material offered by the presidency was available under a restrive "Creative Commons México By-Nc-Nd 2.5." license [10]. But THOSE PICS HAD BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN PREVIOUSLY!!!! Once they are on the PD they stay on the PD!!!!

We had their confirmation in writing and it was clearly stated in the template. However, this moron thought it was too funcking hard to confirm the e-mail and he got rid of them. They were used heavily by most Wikipedias covering Mexican bios.

If there's a way to bring them back pelase do it.

Ruiz 22:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Your incivility will do you no favours! Do you have an example image (so I can see the deletion log). Thanks/wangi 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if Zirland or Gildemax were aware of that e-mail. Are they users in es-wiki, did anyone tell them about that message? {{PD-Mexico-NIP}} is also deleted, but the discussion page has related, allbeit vague, information. Six weeks ago someone asked to contact "Noticias e Información de la Presidencia". Why didn't anyone who was interested in keeping the images contact them?
Furthermore, I wonder if Mexican law permits "releasing to PD"? Because of such ambiguous messages, Commons:Email templates should be used. -Samulili 23:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I am restoring the images until this is resolved. Obviously you are quite angry, but please remember not to make personal attacks. We will sort it out. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I just restored all the images (~120). Here's some points which some people might think were obvious, but apparently not everyone:
  • Established templates should never be speedied. Put them through COM:DEL.
  • If someone well-meaning tags them as speedy nonetheless, retag/untag and take the long route. Admins should never follow speedy tags like robots. People make mistakes. But if you don't pay attention and just delete everything blindly, you make it YOUR mistake.
  • These were deleted on the 28 July. es.wp (where I presume they were used the most) has a CommonsTicker. What is this project's policy for monitoring it? Why did it take two weeks to notice this?
--pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I apologize for being so rude but you might realize how I felt when I saw more than a hundred clearly-tagged pics, a rather explanatory template, and many categories written in several languages deleted in speedy mode by a rather careless admin who didn't hesitate to erase them without verifying one single bit. I spent way too many hours cropping them, classifying them, explaining why they were on public domain, filling up every single technical detail in the pic and suddenly this guy comes up during the holidays and gets rid of them!
Furthermore, when I first tried to contact Zirland I couldn't help but notice his first message, where where User:dbenbenn wrote down (welcoming him as an Admin, barely 2 months ago): “Congratulations! Just remember that images cannot be undeleted, so please be careful when deleting them”. I just couldn't believe it!
Now that they are back, I can answer some of your questions:
  • To Samuili: The template has a rather obvious link to the e-mail, the Mexican law allows all sorts of works to be released to the PD (every bit of the third chapter of the Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor is dedicated to the PD) and Commons:Email templates wasn't used because the e-mail was received in 2004 (apparenlty 2 years before that template was created in the first place).
  • I don't know why wikipedians at W:ES didn't noticed the Commons Ticker. Most students in Latin America (which are the bulk of the Spanish-speaking wikipedians) were/are still on summer holidays, so that may explain it.
Thanks a lot to User:Pfctdayelise for bringing most of them back. I'll contact the presidency so they can fill up the new e-mail template. However, I still think some admins out there should be way more careful and think it twice before deleting 120 pix clearly tagged, sourced and showing evidence of their status as PD.
Ruiz 23:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Please add a notice to this template explaining that the CC tags on the websites are not valid (because...?). Any admin that notices a contradiction between a licence tag's claim and a website's claim will always believe the source (website) unless they have specific reason not to. Too many people lie about licenses to do otherwise. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Todavia no creo que as imagenes son PD. Yo hablo e leyo Español pero escribo mui, mui malo. He lido el e-mail, pero no pudo verificar en el web site, que informa una otra coisa ([Commons México By-Nc-Nd 2.5.]). @ Ruiz: A me no me gusta la palavra moron and do not call me fucking idiot.
Still I do not believe that this imagenes are PD (see bottom of http://www.presidencia.gob.mx/). I can speak an read Spanish on an advanced level but my writing is very, very bad. I did not find on the web site any information that the imagenes are PD also this license tag {{PD-Mexico-NIP}} for me is not official tag as I did not find it on Commons:Image_copyright_tags_visual. I do not feel bad that I have flagged this unknown license tag as on the web site is written something very different ([Commons México By-Nc-Nd 2.5.]). @ Ruiz: User:Zirland is not a moron and do not call me fucking idiot.
I propose that a neutral nativ Spanish speaking admin writes to the PRESIDENCIA DE LA REPÚBLICA of MÉXICO and ask if the imagens are really PD. Maybe Ruiz is correct, the circumstance do not speak for him --gildemax 17:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Folders

We need to have an option to upload complete folders to the commons.--Exquisite-battery plugged.pngMac Wanter Talk 03:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We have some user-created tools that allow easy mass-upload, such as Commons:Tools/Commonist. The ability to upload more than one file at a time is bugzilla:488. It would probably not be that hard to implement, but for social reasons there are definite advantages to not having it enabled. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary: as far as I know, it's impossible to implement in a reliable way. I have added a comment to the bug report. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 09:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
What are the social advantages?--Exquisite-battery plugged.pngMac Wanter Talk 16:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
IMO: people already upload a lot of crap, which takes a lot longer to get rid of than to put here in the first place. This is not assuming bad faith... this is reality. Allowing them to do it en masse doesn't sound like my idea of fun.
If there was a flag we could give to trusted users to let them, that would be cool. I didn't know it was difficult as Duesentrieb described. But anyway, I really recommend using Commonist or the Perl script. pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Download Commons (sic!) for a school image bank

Hi!

I need to been able to download the Commons's image database to create an easy image bank for a school board. At least, i would like to download public domain pictures.

Do you have any way????

Or what is the easiest way to give access to the database??? For the french wikipedia, I install a Google box. Does it posssible to do it with Google Image and Commons??? A details: I need to find a easy way: some students are as young as 6 years old.

Thank you VERY MUCH for your help!


ho yeah... Please answer at: my talking page on french wikipedia


Bestter Discussion 12:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your question is not quite clear:
  • what does "install a google box" mean?
  • do you really want to have all the images locally? That's a lot of data, and not very useful by itself.
  • do you want just the images, or all their meta data (destriptions, galleries, categorization) too?
A few notes:
  • Google image search does not support searching specific sites, and it does not seem to work very well with mediawiki.
  • Since recently, the "normal" google search picks up image pages on commons, though: this search for example works well, but you don't see thumbnails in the search result.
  • I have written a media search for commons, but it's pretty slow, especially for "broad" search terms, and the advanced options don't quite work yet.
  • I believe that the best way to find images on commons is navigating the [category structure]
regards -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

below is a copy from my talk page -- Duesentrieb(?!) 12:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Hi!!

Few weeks ago, I post a question about downloading the commons pictures and you begun to answer me...

i will be more clear

I'm a computer technician for a school board, in Quebec. The system (a portal) I'm working on will soon have the possibility for kids (and teacher) to easilly insert images in their documents, through the portal database. It's very easy. I need to find image bank, ideally free. Majority of image company will charge us (a lots!) for their image database. And i think that the commmons database is beautiful!

In fact, i need the easiest way to give students and teachers access to the commons database. And the mediawiki search engine is not good, i think.

Do you know how could I resolve this problem?

thank you very much!


Bestter Discussion 01:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok now...
  • As far as I know, there's currently now bundle of all media availabel for download. It would be very large (more than 310 GB) - it's impractical for download. Downloads of meta-date is available here: [11]
  • When using media from Commons, you must follow the license terms for each file. This mainly means you have to mention the license and attributing creator and source, but the exect terms depend on the individual licenses.
  • We currently have no really good way to search for images by keywords. As I mentioned above, the best way to find images is to navigate the category structure. You can also try to use google, but you'll get text-only results.
  • There is a proposal called InstantCommons that would allow other wikis to use Commons media seamlessly. It basically means automatically copying media from commons on demand. You could implement somethign similar for your portal - I can provide you with scripts for downloading files as well as the necessary meta-date for any given file name (I currently use this for the picture of the day).
So, there's no ready-to-go solution for your problem. It can be made to work, but it requires some amount of programming on your side. You could also post to a mailing list and ask for cooperation - Commons-l and and Wikitech-l may be worth a try. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 12:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


That's not good. I can't understand why the commons developer didn't an easy and powerful search engines. Cause why put a huge database if people can't access the data???? My problem is very simple: How can 6 years old kids can use an image bank easilly????? Did someone can help me???? I can't buy a commercial image bank!!! And many image on commons are open and copyleft.... But it's too complicated to search! I'm really stuck!!!!! SOMEONE, Please help me if you could!!! a poor computer technician that need help Bestter Discussion 03:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Brion made a tar with all images used on the italian? wikipedia because they needed it for a quite-offline wikipedia showing. But keep in mind that commons repository is much larger (several gigas). If your children are english speakers, they could follow our category structure, though the integratoin may be difficult (set a hook to he images? drag&drop?). Note that some contents may not be adequate for your 6 year old pupils, like some contents of Category:Sex. Platonides 18:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] About Jery Sandoval's photos and its possible deletion. Please, don't take any decision without read it first.

Hello to everybody here.

These pictures should not be deleted because they belong to a fan web page that I belong too (see main article Jery Sandoval in Wikipedia.

These photos were uploaded by other fans and they asked me to upload them in Wikipedia. The photos don't specify if got or not got copyright (because many of them are scanned or taken from other pages. I guess fans knew it) ; then I supposed that had copyright but they can be used freely.

If I made something wrong I apologise but I'd like you don't delete the photos. The Jery Sandoval's fans and me we're proud on her and an article of her in our Wikipedia (because I'm wikipedist too)will be a "present" (spanish: homenaje)for her.

Thanks for your precious time.

--S.V.B.E.E.V. 16:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No copyright notice doesn't mean that the images are free. In this case, however, there is a copyright notice on the site http://groups.msn.com/JeriSandoval where they were taken from; at the bottom it says "Todos los Derechos Reservados Jeri Sandoval 2006". Cnyborg 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corrupted images?

HurricaneWilma19Oct2005.jpg

I've noticed a number of images like this one: Image:HurricaneWilma19Oct2005.jpg (its ~3.5 MB). If I download the file and view it locally I get the big jpg. If it is used in another project, like Wikinews n:de:Vierter schwerer Hurrikan in US-Saison ist der stärkste aller Zeiten, the thumbnail works. However, when viewing the Image on Commons (or the image description page on any project) or the thumb here in a Category or gallery it seems corrupt. What's going on here?--Nilfanion 17:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I can make a thumbnail here. The question is why is the image page not displaying the image correctly? Its not the size; Image:Typhoon_saomai_060807.jpg is similar image that is higher-res and bigger, yet displays fine.--Nilfanion 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Try doing a hard refresh (CTRL+F5 in the most popular browsers) or dumping your cache. ¦ Reisio 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't work for me, I tried purging the server too. I'm really puzzled by it.--Nilfanion 19:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I have the same issue. Is it rendering correctly for you, Reisio? Jkelly 20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's very big - rendering probably fails to a memory or time limit. In such a case, upload a scaled version (max 3000x4000 pixels or something) over the original (but always upload full scale first). Note btw that large jpegs generally work, because jpeg is designed to allow scaling without loading the entire image at once. But this does not work for jpegs stored in "progressive mode", like this one. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 00:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I the size is an irrelevancy. I uploaded a new (and higher res) version of Image:HurricaneWilma20Oct2005.jpg over a similarly dodgy image and it works now. It might be a "progressive mode" setting or something else comparable to that. Actually I'm concerned that this problem might be leading us to delete many images from commons that shouldn't be. I saw this deletion request with deletion reason being "not .jpg" I downloaded the old version of Image:Imagine.jpg, ran it through GIMP and reuploaded. The new version is functional and has a smaller file size... That smaller image might be a better example of this problem: If you download this [12] old version of it you get the file. However, if you open the webpage you get a non-image (tested in IE 6 and Firefox). There's something funny going on, and it could be costing us good images, being "corrupt" speedied when theres a bug.--Nilfanion 01:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Size is relevant - although it's usually not a problem for non-progressive jpegs. There's nothing magic going on - thumbnailing fails if it takes too much resources. The original version of Image:HurricaneWilma20Oct2005.jpg is big and in progressive mode - so the servers refuse to scale it. The original version [13] works fine in my browser (FF on Linux), btw, it just takes very long to load and completely bogs down the box when Firefox tries to scale it - which is precisely the reason the thumbnails don't work.
This is nothing new or surprising. But as I have said before, it would be nice to get some feedback from mediawiki when thumbnailing fails.
Regaring Image:Imagine.jpg: the original version is simply corrupt, or use some strange variant of jpg. When I try to open it locally after downloading, Firefox says the image is corrupt, and KDE's kuickshow reports "Application transferred too few scanlines". ImageMagick, eog, Opera and Konqueror can handle the image, however. The full scale image on the server is not touched by MediaWiki - it's not even served by MediaWiki but directly by Apache (or lighttp or whatever). If there's a problem with a full scale file, it's not a MediaWiki problem. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I agree its not a MediaWiki problem; its a problem with the images. I've also seen a similar problem occur with a png (it was speedied as corrupt). These files seem to have a common issue, which is their dimensions and filesize are bigger than they should be for no apparent reason. There is a tweak that could help though. Perhaps the category/gallery images could be implemented in the same way as the thumbnails? The Oct 19 Wilma pic is odd and doesn't display in a cat/gallery but it does in a thumbnail (at least for me). A possible workaround for this problem could be for sysops to download apparently corrupt files and check them before deleting. If it can be fixed and doesn't meet any other speedy criteria then the fixed image should be uploaded - possibly after deleting the original corrupt image (I'm not sure if the GFDL would allow that).--Nilfanion 11:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I kinda think it's the uploader's responsibility to not upload corrupt files! If you want to patrol COM:DEL for reasons such as "corrupt" and fix them yourself, I'm sure they'll be saved from deletion. But I sure don't think fixing them myself is part of my admin duty. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with this. The first image of Hurricane Wilma - I downloaded the version directly from the NASA site and uploaded it. That file was identical to the apparently broken one, so it was broken. There's no way the admins should have to suffer that kind of effort, though it might be worth bearing in mind with small images. So now that file has two dodgy files in their history and the working version. Do we really need the 2 old versions; after all its a PD image.--Nilfanion 22:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of the Day

How can Commons Picture of the Day be displayed on other wikis? --Tarawneh 01:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So far, technically, it can't. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How do I become a "not new" user?

I just created an account in order to upload an improved version of an image already on commons. The system wouldn't let me 'cos I'm too new here. What do I have to do to be "not new"? (I know I could upload the image under a different name, but that seems counter productive and likely to lose the history. -- SGBailey 07:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I belive you just have to wait a few days... --Stefan-Xp 08:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Wait 4 days from the moment when your account was created. If you don't want to wait, you could upload the improved version and ask someone else to move it for you, such requests are common at COM:HD... NielsF 13:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transport/transportation

We have Category:Transportation in Saxony, while in Dresden, that is Category:Transport.

I thought that "transportation" was the US term for “transport”. Can you explain me the subtlety above ? --Juiced lemon 10:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

To me they are the same. And on en.wp w:transportation RDRs to w:transport. I think it is just people getting carried away with creating nouns. :)
Unfortunately there is no standard usage here. :( --pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. Do you suggest that the term “transport” should be used (as en.wp does), in particular when a new category is created ? --Juiced lemon 22:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Probably easiest, for cross-wiki linking if nothing else. Also, more international.
James F. (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
To Juiced lemon: Yes I do, because it's shorter and 'transportation' conveys no extra information. Creating the equivalent 'transportation' cat and making it a RDR is maybe not a bad idea. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. Unfortunately, Category:Transport is currently a redirect to Category:Transportation, and therefore I have already created several “transportation in” categories. If the consensus converges on the term Transport, the first action should be an inversion of this redirection. --Juiced lemon 18:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rider Waite Smith Tarot deck

Someone uploaded the entire deck of these unfree images. I managed to get a few done...[14] but I can't get to the entire set. The color version of these images are held by the US Games company, who managed to color them and get a copyright for them in the 1970s. These are not public domain, like this.

Thanks. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 19:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Has this been done? The only one I can find is Image:The Magician.png. Jkelly 21:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks done... Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 02:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

I know Commons policy on fair use images is none at all, ever. I'm not disputing that or intending to by bringing this up. However, it might be useful if there was a template here on commons along with a standard image which says "There is a fair use image with this filename on en.wikipedia". This would serve two possible purposes: It would discourage someone from uploading a free image to the commons filename equivalent of a en.wiki FU image, which would stop its use on en.wiki. The second is that it would enable the FU images to be categorised with appropriate images on Commons, when a certain topic has its free images hosted on commons, the fair use images become isolated from related images. Does this sound like a good idea?--Nilfanion 00:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Filenames are pretty meaningless. It can be worthwhile to add your local "media available at Commons" templates to pages. Jkelly 01:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if there is even an easy way to check, at upload time, if there is a file with the same name on en.wp, let alone checking if it's tagged as fair use. I suspect the dev's might have something to say about it.
Secondly... it wouldn't work. If an image exists with a certain name at a local project, it always calls that image. The Commons image can never be used. The real problem is people uploading fair use images to use on other wikis.
Regarding this: it would enable the FU images to be categorised with appropriate images on Commons, when a certain topic has its free images hosted on commons, the fair use images become isolated from related images. ... I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Categorisation, OK. I thought categorisation of fair use images was discouraged. If not, surely it should be, because it shows the images out of the context of our fair use claim. Which is the whole reason the magic word was introduced - for fair use categories of images on en.wp. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a marginal benefit for some sort of change to the upload code so that the user gets warned when uploading to commons that there is a image of the same filename hosted on another wikimedia project. If the uploader got a warning similar to what is currently given when uploading to a file which already exists on commons it might be beneficial. On the categorisation thing, thats what I get for posting to the VP when half-asleep :) There's no point to categorising FU images with the free ones, as fair use images should only be used in a very limited number of articles, their existence in those articles is categorisation enough (that plus the FU in... cat).--Nilfanion 12:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually that would be a mediawiki change wouldn't it? If you upload to en.wiki an image that is already on commons, would you get a warning?--Nilfanion 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. In fact, you can't do it, unless you're an admin. You have to choose a different name.
Typically people upload stuff to Commons because they want to use it in a particular wiki. If they do this and then find their wiki already has an image with this name, and thus they can't use the Commons image, I guess they will upload it here again with a more distinctive name. So it's kind of self-correcting. There are like 200 wikis... checking them all for a marginal benefit -- hmm. I'm not really convinced. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 15, 2006

[edit] Caricature ordered by the user

I'm considering uploading a picture of mine to Commons and displaying it in my user page. It is a caricature I ordered to someone else. I'd like to ask:

  • If uploading the picture would configurate a copyright infringement (I don't think so, because it's a picture of mine and made by request); and
  • How to I tag it: I'm not the author but I would license it by myself, in opposition to a situation when a user uploads an image someone else licensed under the GFDL/CC.

—Leonardo Ferreira Fontenelle 02:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The author still holds copyright, unless you have some written agreement where they transferred all copyrights to you. Even if it's of you, it makes no difference. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain, in the United States at least, if the subject of the characature purchased the image, the subject normally retains the rights of the image; unless different arrangements have been made with the artist. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 13:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It's called the "work for hire" provision of copyright law... AnonMoos 04:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That's what I understood when I read the Brazilian law. How should I tag the image: "GFDL/CC" or "self GFDL/CC"? —Leonardo Ferreira Fontenelle 11:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Please note that while this might apply to some countries, such as the United States and Brazil, but not to all. I found that Norwegian law specifies that the author of an ordered portrait (which is not clearly defines but probably includes both photos and drawings) holds the rights, but must have permission from the subject to publish it expect when displaying it in his workplace as an example of his work. Cnyborg 16:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd be interested in knowing the result of this discussion. --Evrik 14:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The image was uploaded and I tagged it as self, because it seamed the only way to multilicense it. Leonardo Ferreira Fontenelle 03:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tech update

Special:Imagelist has been revamped. (I don't know what it used to look like, but I hope there's a few more improvements to come! :o)

Also, meta: has enabled email notification. This means users can choose, via Special:Preferences, to receive email notifications when various things happen, such as their user/talk page being edited, something on their watchlist edited, etc.

I recommend we request the dev's to implement the following:

  • Enable email notification on Commons (for user's talk page only, if nothing else).
  • Require confirmed email address for new users.
  • Have as default, users are emailed when their talk page is edited.

Or if people reckon that's too harsh, at least the first one - enable email notification for talk page changes. Until single login happens, that's a great way to stop complaints about not being notified of Commons image deletions. I mean... I don't know why we didn't do this before!!

Agree, disagree?

--pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't know, It seems too much. Maybe if this is limited to uploaders only. No upload until email confirmation. --Tarawneh 01:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to requiereing confirmed email for anyone but admins. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 17:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] InstantCommons update

The implementation of m:InstantCommons has finally been authorized by the Wikimedia Foundation, and development will commence in the first week of September.--Eloquence 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That is great news. I am really looking forward to the implementation. Longbow4u 23:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hanclarta

This user is continuing to upload pictures of TV stills and publicity shots to do with 'Friends' even after talk page warnings and deletions. Seems to have learnt to tag them PD-self. See the upload log. William Avery 21:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted all of them. Can somebody who speak Spanish give him a {{warning}} and tell him to stop uploading copyright violations and tag them as PD-self? Tell him that he will be blocked if he continues. --Kjetil_r 21:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I have been considering an Administrators' Noticeboard for these kinds of requests to administrators. What do you think, is this a good idea? / Fred Chess 13:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Black list of policy violators will be useful too, so their future contributions could be reviewed (and not forgotten :-). --EugeneZelenko 14:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I posted him a warning in Spanish. --Nethac DIU 12:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal promo OK?

Please take a look into Image:Sunset_may_2006_panorama.jpg. Is it really OK to use the community webplace for personal promotion and soliciting? 192.18.42.10 21:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there is anything wrong with Template:Fir0002 17 and its like. Jkelly 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
ACK, it's fine. The image description page is the one place people can spruik their wares. Better to have a big template there than a watermark or image credit in the caption! pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the part about "contact me to negotiate terms for commercial use" is compatible with the GFDL license. If it is GFDL it can be used for commercial purposes, with no further negotiates (except for high quality images, but the one here IS an hq image...)--Jollyroger 22:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The copyright holder is allowed to multi-license his works. That's why people can upload their images under both the GFDL and a CC license. If Fir wants to sell a license to use his images under a non-GFDL license, he is perfectly able to do so. For example, if someone wants to use one of his images without mentioning its source, Fir can sell that individual a license to do so. ~MDD4696 00:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 16

[edit] Rethinking COM:DEL

Hello, I have posted a message on the mailing list about the need to brainstorm for improvements to the current deletion system, or management of it rather. Replies and ideas here and there welcome. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the template into multiple sections could certainly help, I'm not sure what ratios the types of requests are in but almost 500K in one template seems too much to me. If the main template is split into several others it could help, perhaps these: Media, superseded and near-duplicates, photographs, other individual images, problem user contributions, Template/Categories (for the mass deletion requests) and everything else. A by-date split wouldn't be effective seeing how some debates hang on for ages and others get speedied almost instantly. One bigger change which might make things simpler could be a en:WP:PROD-like system for suspected copyvios and suspicious free licenses and the like. Then the closing admin could delete them if they are sure and listing it at COM:DEL if they are not.--Nilfanion 09:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually a question. Why is the deletion requests page in Template space at all? To my mind the logical structure would be to have COM:DEL explain the policy, have the subpage Commons:Deletion requests/Current (or similar) for the active requests and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Foo.jpg for the individual images. Certainly I see no reason for the template to be transcluded onto COM:DEL, if you just see how to request a deletion, why should you have to download all the current debates too?--Nilfanion 11:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I don't know about PROD for uncertain ones, the current NSD/NLD 7-days works pretty well IMO. Good ideas for some splits -- especially "problem users", and other "mass deletion requests" such as templates/categories (since they should get a lot more eyeballs than uninteresting copyvios).
If you read my post, you will see I explain why it's in the template namespace. You always have to keep in mind translation. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, NSD/NLD is pretty similar to PROD. You made a mistake in your follow-up post, subpages are enabled in template space Template:Featured pictures candidates/Image:Foret.JPG for example - that would probably work wouldn't it?--Nilfanion 12:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
A by-date split would actually be possible, but only if they are not on the same page. The template:deletion request would then only give links to different date-templates. The only disadvantage is that it is difficult for people just "dropping by" and voting, but IMO those votes are more disturbing than useful. / Fred Chess 13:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
To Nilfanion: Look at that template. There is no "parent link" back to Template:Featured pictures candidates. Subpages are not enabled in the template namespace. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
To Fred:We need those drop-by voters to get more eyeballs on votes. I don't think we should make it hard to drop-by voters. At the moment I think splitting by type of request, rather than date, is probably best. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to put my current preferences for which way we should move with this, on my user page. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also started some tests on my user page. -- AlNo (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
For the suggestion to split into sections based on the type of deletion, suggested by pfctdayelise, there is at the moment not a functioning backbone. It would lead to redesign of the deletion-template and of the quick-delete javascript, in ways I can't imagine right now.
For the suggestion of making each deletion on a template, suggested by AlNo -- first of all I don't understand this method, and secondly it would require great changes in the way Deletion Requests work: writing a template for each nomination, and then adding it to another page, is not a simple procedure for those people who don't understand it, and I have never seen this implemented in such a high-traffic site as the Deletion Request.
I'll expand on my own suggestion at Template_talk:Deletion requests. Do me and Commons a favour by commenting.
Fred Chess 15:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be much easier to handle this in two ways. One we can either go one template per deletion way (like it is on en) or go the one template per day way. Or perhaps both. En.wiki way is much easier to manage and bots can actualy take care of most of the maintanance that way.
One thing for sure the current system is not working anymore.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 21:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Please continue the debate in one location, Template talk:Deletion requests. --Cool CatTalk|@ 11:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this picture acceptable?

After uploading Image:HOBisgaard1.jpg I have become unsure as to whether this is acceptable or not. I have been told that if an image focuses on persons then one must get written permission to declare the image free use. That is not the case here. Should the image be deleted then? --Lhademmor 08:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The people on the image are making an appearance on stage. Afaik their consent to publication can be assumed. Note that in the case of people performing on stage, they may hold a copyright to any pictures taken - but that doesn't appear to be the case here. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uluru - use of GFDL and CC may not be possible

Uluru

All the images of Uluru in this gallery/article may be in breach of Australian law a discussion is currently taking place at w:Talk:Uluru. Photographs of the rock for non commercial use are allowed but commercial use is by permit only, GFDL allows unrestricted commercial use. Based on the discussion taking place the photographer could be prosecuted for releasing images for commercial use without aquiring the appropriate permits. Gnangarra 10:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/uluru/vis-info/pubs/guidelines.pdf the guidelines about photography at Uluru, these are enforced using the Enviroment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Enviroment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000 this act allows for fines and/or imprisonment for offenses under the Act. Gnangarra 10:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it retrospective???! pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
law changed 1999, commercial permits are issued for 3 year periods only. It would be unenforcable as retrospective as a photographer in the 1970s could not be expected to know what the law will be in 20years. --Gnangarra 01:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attack page

Please see Brianna Laugher, this page needs attention from an administrator here. I believe it's an attack page, created by a vandal. Thanks. --86.139.111.146 10:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Also done. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It's back AGAIN! --86.139.111.146 12:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public user account

Please block Seinhorn (talk · contributions) - the account has publicised its password! --86.139.111.146 11:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay imposter

There's an imposter of Essjay going around vandalising userpages [15] - name is %CE%95ssjay.--Nilfanion 16:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There's been some nonsense, obviously related to somthing on en. Let us know if you see any more. Jkelly 17:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 17

[edit] Willy on Wheels

An image related to the infamous vandal Willy on Wheels has been uploaded here, at Image:Willy banner.PNG. It might be intended to illustrate an article, but could also be intended for mass vandalism across projects. Admins should be aware of this in case it needs to be speedily deleted. Cnyborg 00:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As it seems to be completely outside of project scope, I've deleted it. NielsF 00:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image link list

Hi. Is it possible to generate a list of all uploaded files by a user, including the link to the large version of the image? E.g. similar to Special:Log, but not only with the link to e.g. Image:CapsuleHotel.jpg but a link to the full image http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/CapsuleHotel.jpg. Alternatively, is there a template or special message that can do that based on the image link? Many thanks -- Chris 73 00:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is a special syntax: Media:CapsuleHotel.jpg. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks! -- Chris 73 00:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of toolboxes

I've set my language to Hebrew, but some of the links on the left aren't translated (while some are translated). How can that be changed? (I'm willing to translate them myself, I just need to know how.) Tamuz 13:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please prepare translations for MediaWiki messages mentioned in MediaWiki:Sidebar (like MediaWiki:Welcome and etc.) here. One of admins will move them to MediaWiki namespace (like MediaWiki:Welcome/he). --EugeneZelenko 14:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Most of these pages don't yet exist in Hebrew. What do I write if I want a link there to appear as "שער הקהילה", go to Commons:Community Portal and have a tooltip text of "אודות המיזם, איך תוכלו לעזור, איפה למצוא דברים"? Tamuz 14:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Post them here and an admin will move them into the MediaWiki namespace. See also MediaWiki_talk:Sidebar#Don.27t_translate_this.3B_translate_these_instead.... Hm for tooltip texts possibly you have to update Languages.php ..... ? pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on new template

Hi all. I'd like to get some basic feedback on a new template I created, Template:Series. I couldn't find any other similar templates, but if anybody knows of some, please let me know. I'm just looking for ideas or general comments people have... there's still a lot that could be added. Discuss at Template talk:Series, thanks! ~MDD4696 21:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Please try and find a graphical icon to represent 'previous' and 'next', to make it free of the need to translate. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Good idea.
I don't know if this will be useful, but you wanted a similar template, and here is: Template:Succession. --Nethac DIU 12:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with .gif image

The Commons image MIHAN_masterplan.gif‎ does not appear on the Nagpur article. How do I fix this? Thanks! Danianjan 03:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Using photos of people shot in public places

I've read here (in archive 33, Voyeur photos) about Jimbo's statement that it will be better when all people on photos gave their confirmation for putting their photos on Wikipedia.

Can anybody give me a link where were these Jimbo's words? --Jaroslavleff 06:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:BadGIF

I've been copying over a hefty number of images from en.wp which are GIFs, generally because the source image is a GIF too, for example Image:Chris1988rain.gif. However, I find the phrasing of the BadGIF template confusing. It currently says to tag the image with both {{duplicate}} and {{delete}} and then list on COM:DEL. However, different filetypes are explicitly mentioned as not being duplicates on Commons:Deletion guidelines. Something needs clarifying...--Nilfanion 07:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the template to comply to current policy. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 14:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's the right way to dispute license tags?

Hi, I'd like to dispute the license information on two images: Image:Gyurcsany Ferenc.jpg and Image:Turanm40.jpg but I find the {{disputed}} tag confusing.

I don't want to delete these and they both have sources (kind of). I only want to dispute the given rational for their PD tags.

What's the right way to do it?

Thanks, nyenyec ☎ 12:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

For the first one: try contacting the uploader. It's a good first step. :P
Also check COM:L, country-specific PD laws like this usually have their own templates. If this assertion is correct, one should be made for Hungary. If not, the image should be deleted. It's also worth checking en.wp which has some very detailed tags. If you don't want to/can't find anything, nominate it for deletion. (Don't worry, this is far from an automatic, or even timely, process. :)) The onus is on the uploader to show the image can be used freely.
For the second: it is a simple "mark as {{subst:nsd}}". Other projects are not a valid source. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Wait, you can speak Hungarian. hu.wp should have some clear advice about whether this is true or not. That's the best place to check. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks, for the first one I contacted the uploader previously in EnWiki (and also left a note on the image talk page). I just wanted to mark the page with a warning, so that commons users are aware of the disputed status and found no easy way to do that.

The second one I'll nominate for deletion. -- nyenyec ☎ 15:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Image:Kile_1.7.1.png

Seems there's an issue with Image:Kile_1.7.1.png. On the description page it is a blank image. On the w:Kile page it's fine, and when you click on the image to view full size it's fine. My account was too new to try re-uploading it, but another user did it for me and the problem remains.—the preceding unsigned comment is by Ktdreyer (talk • contribs)

I cannot reproduce this problem. It renders correctly for me. Did you purge your browser cache after the reupload? Jkelly 01:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and just now I've tried it on a different computer as well. I'm using Windows XP, and with both IE and Firefox I get a solid blue image. Before posting here, I asked about it in #wikipedia and a few users there experienced the same problem. For example, User:Geni, an admin on en wikipedia, saw the problem and tried reuploading it to no avail. Thanks for your attention :) --Ktdreyer 05:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please, attention: abuse of power

My English isn't so good, sorry, but I will try explain:

The user User:Erin Silversmith isn't respecting my original uploads. It's important to me, for sentimental and historical question. He "renemed" my original picture at Image:2349439843978243 014.jpg to Image:Closeup of part of flag of Brazil.jpg without my permission and he uploaded again. He speed delete my Image:SLoriginal.png work under all requirements of Commons, only because he made a bad copy-version of this at Image:Tear system.svg. He make a war edit in [16] on PT.WP and he will be blocked on this project by sysops. Please, this case need attention of community and more respect on my works that I spend a lot of my time working specially to this wonderful project. Please, I'm waiting for providences. Thank you very much. FML IconSP.jpg hi 03:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Look! He delet it (Image:SLoriginal.png) again and protect the page. And look that isn't the same original GIF version, without transparent background. He can do it? It isn't "speed delection", it is "furious delection". I upload the image again in Image:SLoriginal2.png and I hope respect in this time. FML IconSP.jpg hi 03:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all, the user you refer to is a "she". The first part of what you mention (the renaming) is absolutely no problem, because you didn't upload the image with a clear name before, furthermore all of your statements etc. were kept, so that's an improvement in my eyes. No one should require permission for this sort of action, although a note to the uploader would've been nice, but not requested.
For the second part about the image I think there's a difference of opinion (and yes, I've contributed to that deletion request, and disagree with you) about what's a good enough (replacement of an) image. I agree with you that the deletion isn't completely according to what I think is right, therefore I've restored the original and reopened the deletion request. Please be constructive as well in the discussion and not behave as though you own the image. NielsF 03:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
NielsF, what is the policy about names? It's new policy? Because it is a international project and the name must be irrelevant. The description yes, it's very relevant, and just need translated. If I send with particular name, it's because a reason and it's a signature of my work. FML IconSP.jpg hi 04:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Files should be uploaded using descriptive names - that the project is international does not change that. Numerical-only names aren't really all that helpful. Morven 08:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

FML is normally a good user, but he doesn't seem to understand that he gave up his rights over his images when he uploaded them to Commons. He believes that people have to ask permission before editing work released by him under GFDL/CC licences. I call on him to calm down and read some policy. — Erin (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Erin, I think you are a good user too, but it isn't in game. The problem isn't in you made any derivad version of my works, it's very good! But the problem is on delete the my original image. If you are envolve on this problem, will be nice if you don't delete by yourself until this question is solved. Please, it's very unrespect with my work. Make any derivad version you want, but let the original version in peace. FML IconSP.jpg hi 04:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
You are of course free to argue this (that your file should stay), but when the consensus in a listing is to delete, then you must abide by that. Do you understand? — Erin (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Erin, two votes against isn't consensus, beggining undestand that. You cannot delete only because you "think" is better. FML IconSP.jpg hi 04:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I repeat: you are the only person who wanted to keep the GIF. Everyone either believed it had already been superseded, or that it would be superseded as soon as an SVG with Portuguese labels was uploaded. Since you have now acted in very bad faith and uploaded a redundant copy to PT.WP, there is even less reason to keep the image on Commons. — Erin (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Please, take a look again: [17] me and es:Usuario:Taragui. FML IconSP.jpg hi 05:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

See below. — Erin (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war on Portuguese Wikipedia to delete a image here

User:Erin Silversmith has made on Portuguese Wikipedia a edit war to keep your personal view and get a image deleted here. Please, see http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sistema_lacrimal&action=history, http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:Contributions&target=Erin%26David and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Image:Schematic_diagram_of_the_human_eye.png. 555 04:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

User FML keeps on inserting a deleted image into pt:Sistema lacrimal. I'm just dealing with borderlin vandalism. End of story. — Erin (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
End of what story? You say "end of story" and "all us live happy forever"? No, no... Please, review your concepts. FML IconSP.jpg hi 04:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Erin, you has made a 3RR violation. 555 04:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of pt having a 3RR rule and frankly I don't care or see how it applies. They could have a rule against left-handed editors for all I care. If an image in an article is a red link, it should always be corrected. If some crazy admin on pt blocks me for that, then he's a fool. — Erin (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Beyond disrespecting my work, still you disrespects the serious administrators of our project? Please, you are acting as crazy now. Please, reviews yours concepts. FML IconSP.jpg hi 04:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
And because you don't find anything related to 3RR in Portuguese Wikipedia you has made a edit war? Interesting... Commons have a ArbCom? 555 04:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
What? Let me repeat: if I find red-link images, vandalism, or anything else that indisputably must not be tolerated on any project, then I just correct it immediately, without reading through local policy. Any sensible person does the same. The threats that you have posted on my pt user talk page do not scare me. — Erin (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Red link that exists only because a edit war, remember to fulfill the story. One more time, Commons have a ArbCom or not? 555 04:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it an edit war. An image was deleted by due process, and a rogue user continued to reupload it, forcing an admin to speedy it, as per policy. — Erin (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the point. To obey a commons policy, you has a made a edit war with FML in Portuguese Wikipedia. You has made vandalism acting with good faith in Portuguese Wikipedia and FML has made vandalism here with good faith. You and FML are vandals with good faith... Is possible to request a mediation here in Commons? 555 04:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Erin, when I make the edition, it isn't in a red-link. You delete the image here, but NielsF put the question open again, because you was the "nominator" and the "deletator" too. It's bad, anti-ethic. FML IconSP.jpg hi 04:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You are talking nonsense there. — Erin (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This reply is for me or for FML? 555 05:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
You too Erin. FML IconSP.jpg hi 05:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, at this point I believe you are just getting off on the attention. I'm not going to indulge you any more. The final point is this: behave in line with policy. If you do, we'll have no problems. — Erin (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoth Erik Möller (citing revised Commons policy): "'Obsolete' images should indeed no longer be deleted except where they're orphaned and there's clearly no opposition." (diff) —Lifeisunfair 06:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you got the point, and I would like to underline it there is a clear opposition. Glum 22:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
In general, administrators won't delete free-licensed images if there is any reasonable opposition against deleting them. There's just not any reason to, we're not running out of space. Secondly, we should not dictate what images the Wikimedia projects should use -- Commons is a media repository for Wikimedia projects, not a stand-alone file server.
This is what we're working in accordance with. It has been outlined in all project scopes I've seen. Anyone who doesn't agree, might thus reconsider his/her part in the project. / Fred Chess 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that's silly. Redundant, duplicate and superseded images should go. If there is any reason to keep an old image, the reason should be put forward at the deletion debate, and if the community considers it is valid, then the image stays. Emotional attachment to the old version cannot be considered a valid reason.

"Reconsider his/her part in the project" is just an underhand way of saying "fuck off if you don't agree", and I don't appreciate that sort of attitude. — Erin (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole pt:wikipedia discussion above is useless, behaviour on other projects is the "problem" of other projects. The issue this is about, which I "helped" to create, is that I think that admins shouldn't close their own deletion requests, whether it's silly or not. It's just logical to me that anything that isn't a copyvio or is total gibberish or nonsense at least passes two sets of eyes. That's why I acted in the way I acted yesterday. "Redundant, duplicate and superseded images should go" is a statement which I partially agree to, however if someone disagrees, even if he/she's the original uploader, a bit of care should be used. As most users who upload stuff here are active members of local projects and in good faith try to help making stuff available to other projects, it's not very helpful to dismiss their claims as emotional attachment and just delete their images. The very existence of such a Commons-centred vision is the reason I became more active here to try and diminish that. NielsF 01:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Need I remind you, Erin, that deletion debates are not majority votes? A bunch of people might write, "delete, redundant," but that only means that these individuals don't wish to use the image. Unless and until someone can explain how keeping a "superseded" file harms the project(s), the desire of even one person to use it (provided that there are no quality or copyright concerns) should prevail.
The situation described above (where a conflict spilled over to the Portuguese Wikipedia) is precisely the sort of issue that I warned would manifest if Commons sysops persisted in deleting "superseded" images that sister projects wish to use. As I commented before, if this sort of behavior continues, people will lose all trust in the Commons and resort to storing their important images locally (as FML was forced to do in this instance) instead of uploading them here. —Lifeisunfair 04:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I think Erin should review the rules and goals of the project. I would also like to thank NielsF, Lifeisunfair and Fred Chess for their role as mediators. Mschlindwein 16:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is the lack of rules and goal for this project; I think that you should review that fact. Niels, Lifeisunfair and Fred are mediators? No, they are participants in the discussion. — Erin (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wanted on Commons

Anyone out there with PD versions of Holst's Mercury, Saturn & Neptune from the Planets Suite, could you please upload copies to Category:Gustav_Holst on here? Wikicast would like to include the suite in its broadcasts, but part of it is missing. Regards, Tmalmjursson 12:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiCast : Content Request...

Hi,

WikiCast is a net-radio project with the aim of using 'free' and Wiki content for broadcasting. (WikiCast is very much under development, and is not yet an offical project.)

Alongside material directly produced for WikiCast in [[Category:WikiCast material]], it would be much appreciated if efforts could be made to find other 'free' recordings that might be suitable for broadcast use, for example 'free' recordings of musical works now in the public domain.

The ideas ScratchPad for WikiCast is at : http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/WikiCast, with #WikiCast on Freenode being the IRC disscusion channel.

Feedback (or even content contributions) are welcome.

ShakespeareFan00 62.56.68.159 12:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 20

[edit] Wikialbum - proposal for new project

Hi. Before I submit it at meta, I want do discuss about it here. Commons is a repository of files, but for users better will be project such as Wikialbum, when picters will be bigger and description will be larger (in their language only). So look for example at Częstochowa - a lot of pictures, good work with sections but photos are very small and describtion is week. When I want to look for Jasna Góra monastery, I look for category Category:Jasna Góra. So, without description. I can make new page in main for Jasna Góra only, but it will be something like Częstochowa.

But look here: User:Przykuta/Album:Jasna Góra. Black background, large description, only in pl (good for pl users), big photos, only good quality... (not all at that example are Quality Images, but I think exactly about QI. We can use these images (QI) to make Wikialbum - as a new page space in commons or as a new Wikimedia Foundation project). With regards Przykuta 11:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Indywidual preferences - background (white, black or other), text - normal or italic... Przykuta 11:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This over laps wikipedia articles, but some form of wikialbum where the images are the subject of the article is an interesting idea. --Gnangarra 13:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to say I don't see why this can't be part of Commons. Can we not host pages like this as well as more traditional galleries? pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we need a new project. How about any of the following:
  1. If you want the polish version, you could use mediawiki.org's language template and place a polish version on Category:Jasna Góra/pl.
  2. If you want a subalbum, you could propose subalbums in the <language-code>.wikimedia.org domain, which in your case would be http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Kategoria:Jasna_Góra.
  3. If you want the format changed (black background) you may only have to convince the polish community at whereever you place your album. As far as I'm concerned, if you guys want the background black that's fine, as long as non-Icelandic speakers won't meedle when we Icelanders deceide to make ours pink and neon-green. ;-)
--Swift 17:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ad 1 & 2. Yes, I think about it, but not about category - rather about main Jasna Góra/pl Ad. 3 not only for pl community (this is global problem) and my POV maybe, but I think, that black background is better for galleries of photos. So, it's secondary problem.

More important problem is composition of galleries. Code <gallery> give galleries with small boxes only. When I ilustrate articles, I choise always 200-250px, but for albums/galleries made for watching images I think about big photos 400-600 px.

Gnangarra - heh, sometimes Wikipedia laps Commons, but some users don't want large galleries in wiki, cause encyclopedia is not an album...

I think about animal atlas, plain atlas, historical atlas, cities, minerals, food... or animal album... (I don't know wchich name is better). Maybe Wikialbum/Wikiatlas is better idea as Wikibook's project? Przykuta 21:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the album concept doesn't fit into the commons article concept - we have plenty of articles that categorise and explain pictures better than merely using categories. While many of them use gallery tags - so still small images, they give more info and there is no reason why articles have to use galleries as opposed to larger formatted thumbnails.--AYArktos 22:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

So. look for w:Bear - link to commons and in commons Category:Ursidae with accidental pictures without descriptions. But look for ru:Москва link to commons and Москва - desriptions only in en or in ru or none, cause nobody care about it. Desriptions in not very good - I, as a user want to watch and read about it, what I watch. What is it Dormition Cathedral, Ivan the Great Bell Tower, Lenin's Tomb. Yes, I can do link to Wikipedia (ru Wikipedia, en Wikipedia?, all Wikipedias). Even, when I will make Москва/ru, it give effect - large description in small boxes (bad to read - breaking of text line). Links to Wikipedia give effect, that I must enjoy surfing :) Commons is only repository for other projects and we can't demand good, large desriptions from other users.
Rhetorical question: Do you like wikigalleries in articles in Wikipedia or big pictures with large descriptions? No offence, but what do you think about it: pl:Kraków - album ? Przykuta 05:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit ambivalent - or rather, I like the idea but can't really fit it in. I believe we have enough trouble with the gallery vs. category issue - adding another form factor would only make this worse. Also, I'd discurage language-specific pages on commons - they require a lot of rendundant work to maintain. A selection of the best pictures could always be shown in the wikipedia article - but there, images shouldn't be that big, and are generally sourounded by text, which distracts from the images themselves.

For an extensive collection of images, like an atlas or a "coffee-table book", a wikibook would be the right thing, IMHO. But i'm not sure what the best place for ad hoc collections of a dozent or so images would be... perhaps commons after all? -- Duesentrieb(?!) 09:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] COM:AN

Commons now has an administrators' noticeboard. Please post notices about vandalism, and requests for admin intervention, at this noticeboard instead of the Village pump. Requests for help that don't require admin intervention can, as usual, be posted at the COM:HD Help desk. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

I'm the author of these image and i want to delete because of mistakes in the numbers. Omar86 20:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC) [18]

Why not upload a new version with the correct numbers? pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
A bad name. --Juiced lemon 08:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war continues

The edit war mentioned two weeks ago in Commons:Village_pump#Pointless_edit_war was halted due to a lock on both categories. After the one week cooling off period, one of the opposing parties declines to discuss the matter, enter into arbitration, and persists in creating a split category

  • I am one of the parties involved, and will accept any process and outcome for resolving this problem.
  • Already there have been notes from confused users who cannot find Commons materials due to the split.
  • The solution could be as simple as a lock after restoration of the unsplit status. I am willing to move all materials to whichever category is judged the correct one. Details and links to the controversy may be found in the Topic cited above
  • Any admin care to wade into this dispute?

-Mak 23:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There will be no more edit war. Congratulations to all apple-polishers. I will not spend any more work here because its unsure when the next decision taken in en:WP will pop up on commons and destroy all the work spent here. Farewell and thanks for the fish. --Huebi 06:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why you are bailing out. No one has taken any sides on this issue so there is no reason to assume that you would not prevail with whatever arguements you might have. Also it is not clear to me what you asserting is being destroyed, or what grave uncertainty this introduces. This is just a lousy category name, big deal. After all, a rose by any other name still has the same beauty. All the pictures and articles of the Anasazi are there, anyone linking to the category Anasazi will get to the new location.... The only difference is the particular ascii characters you favour are not on the page heading. If this was such a big disruption to your work at commons, it is unfortunate that you never mentioned what the nature of that disruption was. Finally, I think you utterly misunderstand what I was proposing for the process on this sort of issue. If this had to do with a French ethnic group then the EN:WP would be irrelevant, and the appropriate venue would be the FR:WP. This has nothing to do with the temporary hegemony of one particular language- I am sure we shall all be complaining about Chinese in not too many years. In any case, my proposal is not the policy of commons, nor in fact do I know of anyone who supports this particular proposal other than a few that agree that Commons not the best place to settle such disputes. -Mak 07:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 21

[edit] Automated video uploads

My company develops video editing and publishing tools, and we are adding Ogg video output format for compatibility with Wikimedia Commons. The current system hosts the published video, which plays back cross platform in a Java player without needing any installation or configuration or upload of the material after publishing, and I would appreciate the same level of simplicity here. Does anyone know of a simple way to automatically upload published videos directly from Forbidden's servers to the servers here without having to download to a local machine and then upload over a slow internet uplink? Stephen B Streater 12:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In a nutshell - no. Sorry.
BTW does your company produce open-source software? pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
We contribute free software from time to time. I'm more interested in helping people create new free video content at the moment. The proliferation of camera phones means that Wikimedia has a great opportunity to attract free content before all the rights get signed away. Stephen B Streater 12:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
For a set of trusted sites, a direct upload could be written. It would be necessary to have trusted information about authors and license of each file in a machin readable format. If there is a repository with a substantial amount of free video content, and people there are interested in collaboration with commons, this would be excellent - in that case, this should be discussed in more depth on one of the appropriate mailing lists (see http://mail.wikimedia.org). -- Duesentrieb(?!) 00:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I've joined one list (WikiEN-l). I'm too busy with work to read all of them! Stephen B Streater 12:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artistic interpretation of copyrighted coins

The design of British coins are the copyright of the Royal Mint (Crown copyright is 50 years) (see Category:Coins of the United Kingdom), however this photo is not a straight capture of the coin design — it is an artistic interpretation... Would other editors agree with my interpretation of this, and agree [[:

Thanks in advance/wangi 13:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The act of non-artistic ("mechanical") reproduction of a non-copyrighted work is insufficient, per Bridgeman, to create copyright in the US. Specificially, the act of creating a mechanical reproduction affords no copyright - but the underlying copyright from which the new item is derivative is not cancelled out by this action. This means that mechanical reproductions of PD images are still PD, but mechanical reproductions of any random image is of the same copyright as the underlying, base item. Note, BTW, that this particular (and perculiar) facet of US copyright law is very much not the case pretty much anywhere else on Earth - certainly, not in the EU, nor in any other "Western" country, to my knowledge.
In this case, yes, there is a very good argument that, had the image been created in the United States, the image's creation was in and of itself a copyright-worthy act. However, that does not mean that it ceases to be a derivate work of the original, which is under Crown Copyright. Also, the image was almost certainly created in the UK, so the Bridgeman ruling is of, erm, unsure status w.r.t. Berne. ;-)
In sum: sadly, it (and all like it) will have to go. There can be no free images of the 2 Pound Sterling coin for another 45 or so years, I'm afraid. One would have to upload it under Fair Use... but I doubt that there is an applicable reasoning line there.
James F. (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it Bridgeman only applies to two-dimensional images. However, this photo is still a derivative work—that it is an "artistic interpretation" does not change that (in fact, my non-legal understanding of copyright law is that a non-artistic interpretation would be considered a copy and not a derivative work, as a derivative work requires some creativity on the part of the person making it). So, per Commons:Derivative works the original Crown copyright still applies. —JeremyA 19:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
However, some Commons users would support the image, since it does not infringe any copyrighted item per se. The copyrighted item is the front and back design of the coin, which cannot be seen -- a coin per se cannot be copyrighted. / Fred Chess 09:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I need to go back over that IP course I done in Uni! Fred, I see your point — the actual design of the coin isn't obvious in the photo. Thanks/wangi 16:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo collection from a national park

I have been recently taking photos at New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park and have an almost complete collection of photos of each of the information stands found in the park. These are permanently installed stands that are owned by the National Park Service and contain tons of information on them about the park and the history of the city. I was wondering whether or not I was allowed to upload all of these photos, despite the fact that they are not all likely to be used in articles about the park and the city. Also, I have many other photos of the city and would like to know if they can also be uploaded despite the likelihood that they may be used as supliments to the articles (through a link to the appropriate categories) rather than part of them. -- LGagnon 23:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

About these stands... I guess your photos are cropped to just show the info display, not the stand itself, right? If so, they may or may not be copyrighted, depending on who exactly they were produced by. There are copyright exemptions for works produced by some US federal departments, as I understand it.
Copyright aside, how do you foresee them being useful? Why not keep them yourself and convert them into brilliant prose for the corresponding article(s)?
For other topics, yes it is OK to upload pictures here even though you think they will probably not (all) be used on articles. Just use your better judgement; generally, upload the best single photo of each significant thing - not every photo you took that day. I suggest you put them in a gallery and write nice captions, thus justifying their existence more explicitly. Perhaps in the future there might be a wikibook or similar focused on attractions in your city. Then that would be fine. Photos of your neighbour's fence, not so much. Think you've got it? --pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The photos of the stands are not cropped; they show most of the stand, only omitting the very bottom of the legs. Each is a high resolution photo in which you can read them clearly. Each has a note in the upper right-hand corner saying "National Park Service - US Department of the Interior". Some mention photo sources, most (if not all) of which are places found within the park itself which are owned by the government (the city library, the national park's museum, etc). There are no copyright warnings whatsoever.
I would rather upload the photos than retype the writing, as they each contain pictures that help illustrate their points. Many of these pictures are very old photos and paintings which are very likely to be in the public domain (much of the content involves history from over 100 years ago). Those that are in the public domain (which, as far as I can tell, is all of them) should become part of this project, if only through these stands. The info should go into the articles too, though I'm not sure how to cite an info-stand from a national park as a source.
The other photos are mostly landmarks (statues, historic buildings, memorials, etc). I have some photos of long-time staple businesses in the city too, though I don't know if those belong or not. -- LGagnon 02:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 22

[edit] How can I update the "Links" section for my images?

Almost all my images are listed as "orphan!". When I run Duesentrieb's "Checkusage" it performs as expected, and list all the articles using the images. However - nothing is updated. The images are still listed as "Orphan!" after running this program. How do I get the usage status updated? - Gisle 13:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Orphan means orphan on Commons. Please add the images to categories and/or galleries, so that other Commons users will be able to find them. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand. When I review my gallery at Commons, all images except "Georg johannesen gh.jpg" is listed as "Orphan!". However, the image named "Pc-connector gh.jpg" is used in the Wikipedia article on flash synchronization. So why is it tagged as an "Orphan!"? Basically, what I want is to have the "Links" section in the gallery updated so that there is links to all articles my images appear in. How do I do this? - Gisle 17:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The tool you are using to check for orphans only counts the usage here at Commons. It isn't going to tell you if that image is used at other projects; use CheckUsage for that. Image:Pc-connector gh.jpg is not an orphan, as it is used in Photography. Jkelly 18:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The tool I use is CheckUsage, and it tells me it is not an orphan. I know it is not an orphan. But my gallery page says that it is an orphan. I want the "Links" section on the image page and the "Usage" column on my gallery page to reflect its actual usage status. How do I do this? - Gisle 18:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Take note of the text in red on that page - the information isn't off the "live" database – it's over an hour (just now) out-of-date. So since you added the image to Photography less than an hour ago it's still listed as an orphan. Thanks/wangi 18:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


Gisle, it's a godd thing that your images are being used in X wikipedia. But if i am seeking a image like yours for Y wikipedia, i search in commons... And i don't find, as i'd need to go through all the wikis until find an article limnking to yours... :S {{Please link images}} Platonides 17:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hannover Reincarnation Parade

I spent a lovely weekend in Hannover, and got back to Bremen with hundreds of photos and video clips from the reincarnation parade. But I am not sure if these photos are suitable for commons;

  1. People faces are recognizable, specially people dancing in the trucks.
  2. Some people were really young (less than 18 yrs,....I guess less than 16)

Is it OK to upload such images . --Tarawneh 20:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Tarawneh, what is the reincarnation parade? If it's a simple fête, I wouldn't have any hesitation about allowing your images—we don't have any specific model release rules at the Commons as far as I know. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 00:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I would not call it a fête. It is a mini version of Berlin love parade. sample1, sample2, Website. Some are clearly younger that 18. I do not have images for young people in specific, but you would expect to find them between the crowds. --Tarawneh 00:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Woo! I wanna go! Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 02:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL, hard luck, maybe next year. Just in case I will try to skip the photos that contain nudity, or possible illegal age. Still, am I allowed to post images of other people participating. --Tarawneh 02:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Photos of people participating in a public parade are allowable by US law, I don't know EU. -- Infrogmation 04:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

What is the use of any of the pictures in Category:Reincarnation Parade 2006. Is this just abusing WikiCommons as a personal web album? Rmhermen 21:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

:) It is a major event that takes place in Hannover every year. People come from all over Europe to see it and be a part of it. Some performers came from Japan and the states. We are not talking about a private backyard barbeque party here. We are providing free images of an event that costs a lot of money, and months of preparations. People spends lots of money just to fly to Hannover and see it.--Tarawneh 21:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand, but aren't there rather a lot of pictures of this single event now on Commons? I would think that for encyclopedial purposes just a handful would suffice. How does the Hannover event differ from comparable ones in Berlin, Zuerich, Rotterdam, etcetera? I would thing that this is a case of "des Guten zuviel" (hope my German is roughly correct). MartinD 11:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Your German is better than mine; I can understand it a bit, but sadly not much. Back to the photos. How much is a lot? 10 , 100, 1000? Thanks to the 9.99 euro 1GB SDs; I have more than 2300 photos from that event. My understanding of commons is a wiki not serving the needs of other wikis but a stand alone encyclopedia that serves the need of people to comprehend and understand events, items and objects, by means of free images that explain these items. Take a dancer for example, the more shots you give the more the people understand the dance it self, not just the fact that there was a dancer. I have uploaded 21 images for a 40 by 30 cm plate; this plate is one of a 20 (40 by 30 cm) plates on one of the doors in one of the churches in Bremen. Is that a lot? I feel that the more images you have the better the feeling you get. Some times when I see an image, I say to my self: Why isn't there a shot taken from another angle. If we have a space shortage on commons then I would reduce the number of images I am uploading, but we did not get to that point, ( I think ). There is no policy on the number of images for a certain object or event. There is always the RfD for any image ( I would not mind really ) . I uploaded most of the 91 images of Category:Weser in Bremen, and I feel it needs more to show people the weser. I have uploaded 89 images for Category:Rathaus-Hamburg, is that too much? Every photo gives a different angle, different part or section of the rathaus. I have more than 1800 images in my Hamburg-Rathaus collection, I did not put them all ;) --Tarawneh 04:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 23

[edit] Does Wikicommons host avi animation files?

I have ~2.8MB avi animation file that I would like to access at Wikiversity for a lesson. Does Wikicommons host avi files? If not is there a list of acceptable animation file formats somewhere and/or free tools to do the conversion to the required file format? Wikiversity v:user:mirwin

See Commons:File types and Commons:Software. Is AVI a free (open) format? If so, we could ask for it to be added to the list of acceptable file types. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Forget about AVI- it is a container format that could could contain streams in any number of unfree formats.
I suggest you use en:VLC media player to convert the file to an Ogg file containing a Theora video stream. That is supported by Commons. -Mak 06:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I have downloaded the player, it plays well but how can i use it to convert a movie? TeunSpaans 07:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
See Help:Converting video, and if anyone has any tips or suggestions not listed on that page, please add them.pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
TeunSpaans, VLC is actually much more than a player. Besides transcodes, it can also be used as a server for streaming video. Pretty cool, so I usually suggest it over more specialized trancoding tools many of which are also very good at what they do. Anyhow, Transcoding using VLC article has a pointer to the VLC manual that describes the details of what you need to know. Regardless whether you use VLC or not to do your transcode from AVI to Ogg, if you have an animation that requires perfect synchronization of audio, you might be unlucky and run into some odd problems. The set of the most common issues have nothing to do with Ogg/Theora and more to do with the way that PCs (linux, Mac and Windoze) can all be misconfigured in ways that subtly affect transcodes. There is a huge number of things that can make converting video extremely problematic for civilians to manipulate, and defy concise description in a guide such as the help on converting video. Others are lucky on their machines and wonder what the fuss is about. Many such problems are platform dependent and extremely odd glitches- eg- installing certain games on Windoze platforms can introduce subtle timing differences that throw off the Synq. If VLC doesn't do what you want right away, I would take a look at the set of tools that Pfctdayelise pointed you to and choose one that fits your platform, and has a support community where you can get questions for you platform answerred. Good luck with your animation.-Mak 04:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Pancras Station Concourse

Does anyone know when the longest champagne bar in Europe opens on St Pancras Station concourse? --Clairew 08:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC) --Clairew 08:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Seattle flag.png

This image appears with two totally different licenses:

-Commons: Image:Seattle flag.png → ({{PD-USGov}})
-en.wiki: en:Image:Seattle flag.png & en:Image:Flag of Seattle.svg → {{Symbol}}, copyrighted.

Is it acceptable? --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 10:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for noticing. I tagged it with no source tag. The PD-tag is wrong. / Fred Chess 17:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I think source is [19] & this gif. A call for the flag was made July 16, 1990. I doubt it to be on PD. Platonides 17:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language Tagalog

We need a shortcut for descriptions with the language Tagalog. If i used the short syntax tl (the same as in the interwiki) then it was interpreted as a template.

Example:

{{tl|Si '''Arnold Franz Walter Schoenberg''', (ginawang anyong Ingles ang Schönberg—Schoenberg nang naging opisyal na mamamayang Amerikano siya) (Setyembre 13, 1874 – Hulyo 13, 1951) ay isang Austriyano-Amerikanong kompositor.}}

Result:

{{[[Template:Si Arnold Franz Walter Schoenberg, (ginawang anyong Ingles ang Schönberg—Schoenberg nang naging opisyal na mamamayang Amerikano siya) (Setyembre 13, 1874 – Hulyo 13, 1951) ay isang Austriyano-Amerikanong kompositor.|Si Arnold Franz Walter Schoenberg, (ginawang anyong Ingles ang Schönberg—Schoenberg nang naging opisyal na mamamayang Amerikano siya) (Setyembre 13, 1874 – Hulyo 13, 1951) ay isang Austriyano-Amerikanong kompositor.]]}}

--GeorgHH 20:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realised this some time ago. Do this: {{description|tl|text goes here}}. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for help. But for the future and other users we should install a normal working shortcut as {{de|...}} or {{en|...}}. --GeorgHH 11:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
But we precisely can't, because "tl" is being used as a template link. It's a very established usage on all wikis I know of and to change it would require thousands of bot edits and unnecessarily confuse all other users who came here expecting to use it that way.
You can create one called {{tagalog}} if you like, though. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] spam ?

Turkish speakers? Please look at this: Category:Gazeteler and article Erciyes Gazetesi. i think it´s spam, but i have a turkish level of 0.--GeorgHH 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 24

[edit] Peer review

Is there anything like Wikipedia's Peer Review process for Commons? I'd like thoughts on Image:Music Map of the United States.png. It's a start at a more detailed replacement for Image:USmusicmap.png. I have a couple questions:

  1. Where did that gray grid come from? I converted it to png from xcf because Commons:Image formats seems to recommend it. But the png on my computer is totally messed up - the uploaded version is better, but has that gray grid. I uploaded the xcf original at Image:Music_Map_of_the_United_States.xcf.
  2. I know it's somewhat messy at the moment. I wanted to get feedback before I put a lot of work into cleaning it up (or finishing it) so I'd know what direction to take it. I will be cleaning up the colored areas (e.g. Utah) so that the county lines aren't visible. Also, I think I'll move the captions (e.g. explaining what each dot means) off the image itself and put it on the image page. (like Image:Map of USA showing Latin music.png does now)
  3. Does anybody know of a free blank county map? I couldn't find one, but I did find a free county map showing counties with high Icelandic populations. This was only a few counties, so I colored them white... I was hoping this would be covered up by the map's content. It may be when I'm done, but a nice blank map would be best. (I need a county map because it makes it much easier to color in distinct areas)
  4. Is it too noisy and difficult to understand? Keep in mind that there will be at least triple the information in the final version.
  5. Any suggestions on how to decide what to include? For example, "hardcore punk" is clearly notable in association with DC and (somewhat debateably) a few other cities, but I placed a "hardcore punk dot" anywhere a source describes the local scene as important. This makes for a lot of little dots, which has its benefits, but also its drawbacks. Should I cite sources on the image page? If you express an opinion on this issue, please also consider how to apply that opinion to something like Native American music (I could add tribal names in the appropriate spot, but that would be a lot of clutter with little value. Maybe color in reservations only, but NA music is important off rez too, and much of modern Native America has the same musical tastes as non-Natives, so coloring in reservations may not be so informative and could be perceived as biased; still Native American traditions are an important part of US music, and shouldn't be ignored)
  6. As you can see, my initial goal to create a nice music map of the US has grown more complicated. I could use other thoughts, even if you don't have a firm conclusion. Tuf-Kat 02:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Image:Music Map of the United States.png renders properly for me. I don't see a "grey grid", unless you mean a kind of streakiness in Canada. Image:Music_Map_of_the_United_States.xcf is practically unreadable due to a checkboard pattern that does not look like it belongs to the image. Commons:Quality Images is probably the closest analogy to en:Wikipedia:Peer review. Jkelly 02:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The "grey grid" on Image:Music Map of the United States.png shows you which bits are transparent, rather than white (rather too much, at the moment). And I see weird streaky lines in Canada. The image is not readable even at the large size! There's no point having text if you can't read it.
What you want to include really depends on how you intend to use the map. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. The streakiness in Canada was in the original (presumably for a reason, but it's lost on me), but I think I can make it go away.
Commons:Quality Images is interesting, I'll leave a note on the that talk page about this.
So, is converting to png a good thing in this case or not? The png on my computer is totally messed up (large swaths of it are black, for example), but uploading it to the commons made all those problems go away, replacing it with the gray grid. You (Jkelly) note that the xcf file has a checkboard pattern, which I don't see... That's rather infuriating! It sounds like maybe what I see on the png. Why isn't the xcf version visible on the image page?
It is readable for me at large size, with some difficulty (maybe because I already know what the words say). I was hoping that the large size would be larger - the file I used is quite readable with more zooming than the Commons allows. It's very frustrating that the image on the Commons is not the same as the image I uploaded.
The point of the image was to illustrate musics that have had a regionally important role in American culture. Maybe that's too broad, but I'm not sure of a better aim.
Tuf-Kat 01:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should use this map as a base: Image:Map of USA with county outlines.png. It's very clear, and a good size too.
XCF is the file type for the GIMP, right? It won't show automatically because browsers don't support that file type.
I don't know why you'd want to upload the XCF... unless you think a lot of other users will want to edit the image. I doubt it.
Also, it would be a good idea to keep the key/legend out of the image, and put it in the caption/description page. Then the text will always be readable. It is easy to make the colours match up using a simple table if you use RGB-defined colours. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Arrgh! Image:Map of USA with county outlines.png is exactly what I was looking for. It was hiding from me! I'll take all this into consideration and see if I can come up with something better. Tuf-Kat 00:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use WP reloads

Some images up for deletion are there because they are not totally free, but use by non commercial entities are permitted without restriction.


Are there tags on other WPs for reloading such images. Fair use is way wrong- there is no need to degrade them or restrict them solely to articles that discuss the specific content of the images. Is there a page with notes about such tags on the various WPs?

-Mak 19:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

People sell WP on DVD, lots of random commercial websites are picking up WP content, and I keep getting calls from people wanting to use my pictures in published books, so we're already "commercial". So the "non-commercial only" bit isn't going to work anymore. Stan Shebs 13:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
{{non-commercial}} on en.wp has already been depreciated, and probably in other wikis too. So it's basically free or fair use, they're your only choices. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Mac is referring to the deleted images from Vigeland Sculpture Park. I would find it interesting to investigate, if these images are really copyright protected worldwide? / Fred Chess 20:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If they are fitting for German Panorama freedom (works at public places) they are not protected in Germany (and Austria and Switzerland) --Historiograf 21:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 25

[edit] August 26

[edit] Quality of smaller versions of images

There have probably been more discussions about the quality of the smaller version(s) of photos that the wikipedia software creates from the large uploaded version. If you don't know what I am talking about, then compare these two version 375x500 versions of the same uploaded larger photo.

The point is that the smaller versions are used in articles.

Questions:

  1. Is there a place where this has been discussed before (where)?
  2. Is there something I can do (except for writing software) to improve the quality of the images as shown in articles?
  3. Are there plans to improve the wikipedia software?

Taka 11:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the thumbnails are sometimes suboptimal because of the quality setting we send to the thumbnailer (whether that's Imagemagick or the php graphics library). So we could improve the quality today, just by changing that quality parameter; the reason the devs don't is that higher quality thumbnails require disproportionately more processor time to generate. -- Finlay McWalter 11:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Making the thumbnail look a little nicer also makes the file a lot bigger - loading thumbnails make up an considerable amount of the bandwidth used by wikipedia, changing the setting just a little may cause bandwidth use to jump up by 20 or 30% from one minute to the next. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
That is not completely true. Using the original of the Usnea photo I use as an example above, I resized the original with Irfanview to 375x500 pixels, and the result is 50k, just like the wikipedia thumbnail, but it looks considerably better. After using the "sharpen" function of irfanview, the size increased from 50k to 54k, but that gave another considerable increase in quality. The size of the image does not have to be an issue. Taka 12:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I know what you mean (compare this smaller version with the original). In my case, there are strange compression artifacts. I'd like to know if a pattern in the original pictures causes this effect in the smaller ones. Jastrow 11:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a partial solution, in that you can write this: [[Image:Hi-res file.jpg|thumb=Good quality thumb.jpg]] if the auto-generated thumb is particularly bad, you can upload a better one and manually specify it. This would also be good for super-hi res maps and the like, where the thumb could be a "zoomed in" section. pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EXIF inaccuracies

In the section Telephone_booth#Sweden one of the images is taken in the winter with snow. This makes me wonder if we should have categories for seasons or kinds of weather, in addition to categories for place and kinds of objects, but at least the seasons and time of day could be automatically extracted from the timestamp of the photo, not when it was uploaded but from the EXIF data embedded in the JPEG image. However, in the case of this image, the upload comment says it was shot in November 2004 (yes, snow in Stockholm is likely) but the EXIF infobox says August 2006 (when snow in Stockholm very unlikely). It is possible that the internal clock in this camera was wrong. Should we try to "edit" the EXIF data of such images? Should we identify other images from the same camera to see if the error is systematic? --LA2 19:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The graphics editors can also edit EXIF data or add it. You can't know is camera or some program added or removed or edit it. So your idea is good, but I think it's impossible. You show to yourself examples how and why. :) – linnea (talk 20:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
You can manually put such images in Category:Winter or one of its subcategories if you wish, but I definitely wouldn't do it automatically. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I put some EXIF statistics on my user page. --LA2 02:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This Flickr image of Credit River has GPS latitude and longitude in the EXIF data, and when the same image gets uploaded to Wikimedia Commons GPSLatitudeRef (North or South) and GPSLongitudeRef (East or West) are stored in the img_metadata field in the database, but not GPSLatitude and GPSLongitude. That's sad. Imagine we could have automatic geocoding here when Flickr users have done the job. --LA2 03:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably those fields were unknown to the dev which made it. Feel free to fill a bug - Platonides 17:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 27

[edit] Blank maps of the USA

I know there are thousands of maps highlighting individual counties in the US. However, is there a blank map of the US showing all the counties (without highlighting). Svg preferably...--Nilfanion 13:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this what you're looking for? It is a png, though. Jkelly 04:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
That should be OK for testing things out. However, I'd really like an svg version, anyone? Reason is I would like to be able to combine these FEMA images showing disaster declarations after Katrina: LA, MS, AL and FL; and for many other disaster declarations (it would be useful to have a blank from which we can label individual counties). Using the png produces this, an svg base map would clearly be advantageous.--Nilfanion 10:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Using photos of people shot in public places

Comments, please I've read here (in archive 33, Voyeur photos) about Jimbo's statement that it will be better when all people on photos gave their confirmation for putting their photos on Wikipedia.

Can anybody give me a link where were these Jimbo's words? --Jaroslavleff 18:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 29

[edit] How to categorize series

Hi all. I've created Template:Series which allows users to squentially browse a series of numerically indexed files more easily. I added a feature that automatically categorizes the files into [[Category:Files in the xyz series]], but what I can't figure out is what the parent category would be for that new category. Would it be somewhere in Category:Commons? It's not really maintenance, but it doesn't fall nicely into the other categories.

How would we categorize series of files? Is this even an appropriate categorization scheme? ~MDD4696 05:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

They should be categorized by topic. We could have an additional category just for serieses, but i don't see how that would be useful. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 08:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be a way to quickly view thumbnails of all of the files in a series. If an uploader does not manually categorize a series of images, and does not create a gallery page for that series of images, there is no way to view a page of thumbnails of all those images at once. A category is an automatic method of providing this capability. Gallery pages might be more useful, but they also require more work. ~MDD4696 21:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
you misunderstood - i think a category per series is quite ok. But that category should be categorized by topic, not just as "a series category". I.e. a series about wooden shoes should be under, well, shoes i guess. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought it worked on the basis of the filenames, why does it need a category at all? pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I presume Mdd4696 suggested a category so that users could find such tours easily.
  1. I would suggest having a jumping off article, and categorizing just that page. EG, page="Tourist sights of Barcelona", with some highlights of the Trail eg Sagrada Familia
  2. There are other such browse sequences/ aka Vannevar Bush "Trails"("mesh of associative trails running through [pages]")/ aka "web rings"- so it need not be constrained to users of this particular Template and naming convention. EG: 30 cal Browning is one of my stabs at a browse sequence. BTW- Series and Browse sequences/ lists are technically correct, but I suppose a more user friendly term is something like "Tours".
  3. My intention is to generate these by evaluating editor created category set expressions, extracting the list, and generating the wikitext for each page. EG. Editor declares they want a browse list on the page which is of the set of images that are tagged as Category:Battleships and Category: World War I ships. Catscan might be used in concert with a bot to do such a thing, although my inclination is not to walk up the category tree in a first version.
  4. It would be really nice to be able to declare a list in one place and be able to switch between them using your internet browser, but the user would have to install some code on the client side to enable doing that sort of thing.
  5. The problem of multiple browse sequences could be solved using the above template, but it would be kind of ugly. Each tour would require a new set of pages with redirects to the real image. That's a heck of a lot of nearly empty pages per each browse sequence.
  6. Technically, it is possible to search a list from a Template, but it is nasty- depending on Template:For. The really cool thing is that it is dynamically updated- when a new image is added to the list, or an image is deleted, it can automatically adjust. The really lame thing is that is is dynamically updated when a new image is added- every time you touch the list, the server has to toil away updating all the pages using that list. Also, if the list is long, the For loop can easily time out on the server. I have had that happen on some fairly modest sets of tasks.
  7. At this point, I am sticking with statically generated lists with wikitext hardcoded onto each page. The downside is that they have to be updated by Bot. The upside is that they can be composed of arbitrarily named files, and if one of the files becomes missing for any reason, the bot can regenerate the sequence periodically. eg. the file after Image:050529 Barcelona 047.jpg is missing, so the next button is greyed. No problem, you can jump ahead by two then back up, but you know if we are going totally pro, such maintenance issues have to be addressed.
-Mak 22:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I understand now Duesentrieb :). pfctdayelise, the template does work by filename, but I thought it would be useful to have a category with all of the files in that particular series. I'm thinking now that it would be good to have a maintenance category of all series, so that editors like myself can easily find the all of the series if something technical needs to be changed. However, as Duesentrieb said, the series category should also be placed in a topical category, so people looking for content can find the series. Thanks guys!
Mak, you've got some good ideas, but we have to be careful we don't overdo it! Perhaps the "jumping off" page could be the category I was discussing? ~MDD4696 16:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Bush wrote "as we may think" in the 40's. 60 years later, we are still waiting. Let's get a little more bold. Here is a stab at a Category of jumping off locations for such tours. Category:Tours. This illustrates what I was thinking of in terms of jumping off pages and the category that references them. -Mak 23:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corrupt thumbnails?

I'd appreciate if somebody could have a look at my recent image uploads and tell me a) if they are also seeing some images as having no or corrupt thumbnails and b) what the problem is if there is any and how to solve it. --Melanom 22:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some of the previews/thumbnails were missing. Sometimes this happens with the Mediawiki/ImageMagick software, although I'm not sure why. To fix the problem, click the "Edit" tab and change the url action to be "purge" instead of edit. For example, to purge the image description page and all thumbnails for Image:O-mikoshi_197152715_97ad5f8823_o.jpg, you would go to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:O-mikoshi_197152715_97ad5f8823_o.jpg&action=purge. This would force all of the thumbnails to be regenerated. You might have to do this more than once. Make sure you force a refresh of your browsers cache as well. ~MDD4696 23:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I think I have run into this several times. Good to know it's probably just a cache problem. --Melanom 07:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Insignia license references

The template "Military Insignia" states "International law requires for combatant identification and copyrighting rank insignias violates international law, hence this image cannot be copyrighted and belongs to public domain. This applies worldwide". Does anyone knows where can I find the reference/source for this statement? Thanks. Borgx 05:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did some basic Google searches and the first thing I came up with was someone asking User:Cool Cat about it. He didn't really give a specific response, but the Geneva Convention he referenced might've been the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 - Sect 15. I'm not sure that it says anything about copyright. Another search turned up a rather random link to Cameroon's copyright law, which states that "coats of arms, decorations, currency marks and other official insignia" may not be copyrighted.
Also, there is apparently a U.S. Army Institute of Heraldry which does a lot with insignias. I didn't turn up much there, but I did find the section of the U.S. code which deals with insignias. Mostly it seems to deal with people using the insignias to mislead or deceive.
I dunno... this is complicated. It's too bad that the guy who created the template in the first place is no longer around on enwiki, and never answered a question about the template. ~MDD4696 06:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
D'oh! I should've just gone to the Heraldry Institute's website in the first place! It says:
"PLEASE NOTE: The images of all badges, insignia, decorations and medals on this web site are protected by Title 18, United States Code, Section 704 and the Code of Federal Regulations (32 CFR, Part 507). Permission to use these images for commercial purposes must be obtained from The Institute of Heraldry prior to their use."
So... does that apply to any image of the insignia, or just the images on the website? ~MDD4696 06:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey- the law is written in english, and it is on the net. Who knows- maybe the text is intelligible, so why not take a twirl and figure it out. What does the cited law (Title18, Section 704 say)? -Mak 20:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 30

[edit] Picture of the day and Flickr

The current picture of the day is awesome. But once again the license on Commons isn't the same as that on Flickr. Maybe the uploader made a mistake or maybe the author changed the license, who knows?

What on earth can we do about this?

  • Delete images on Commons assuming that it's always uploaders who make mistakes (except when they use FlickrLickr)?
  • Set up a confirmation system where the licenses are checked by more than one person when an image is from Flickr?
  • Ask Flickr to create some kind of diff history of license changes?
  • Keep images on Commons assuming that Flickr users act chage licenses?
  • Toss the coin?

-Samulili 12:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I remember somebody (User:Dbenbenn?) tried to contact Flickr and ask them to make license irrevocable (as it must be), so change in licensing should affect new images only. I think we should contact Flickr again. Is any person with good legal/licensing background available? --EugeneZelenko 14:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
IMO the picute is horrible HDR kytch, but that's not the question :)
What would solve it and generally would be great function: if FlickrLickr had interface for requests for robotic transfer. It would be convinient also, as filing the info by hand is annoying. --Wikimol 16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Flickr users undoubtedly change licenses, the foo's, but Commons users also make mistakes. Until Flickr introduces a 'history' tab on the license, I think we have no choice but the first - delete the images. User:Rtc has some violent disagreement about allowing copyright holders to change their mind, and it is true that they have no legal right to do so. But unless it's FlickrLickr, we simply cannot know the truth. When in [legal] doubt, delete. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Note, I did move October 2's picture to its place. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 03:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a short note for those who want to read further: [20], [21] --Überraschungsbilder 23:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed with uploading some pictures

Anyone wants to help me with uploading pictures related to Columbine High School shooting from this address: [22] and puting them in nice order here Diagrams of events at Columbine High School

They are all FBI diagrams and therefore public domain

I have done the first 20 but this is such a tedious job I decided I need some help... :) --Robek 16:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say the diagrams were prepared by the FBI? I could not find the source/copyright status mentioned anywhere. I also looked on the FBI's website... couldn't find the diagrams there. As far as I can tell, that entire site was prepared by the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, not the FBI, and would not necessarily be considered public domain. ~MDD4696 17:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't say anywhere on the website that it was made by JCSO either ;) Website is hosted on cnn server but does it mean that those diagrams were prepered by cnn? They are also avalible on a website put together by New Criminologist http://www.newcriminologist.co.uk/restricted.asp?id=101222555 and they don't seem to be the authors... on the other hand FBI's website http://www.fbi.gov//hq/lab/org/ipgu.htm explicitly say that Investigative and Prosecutive Graphic Unit provides charts, maps, diagrams, link-analyses, flow and check kite chartings, time lines, and technical renderings. and among samples of their work shows one of the diagrams in question http://www.fbi.gov//hq/lab/org/images/chs.jpg and a close up http://www.fbi.gov//hq/lab/org/images/chslibry.jpg.
Sketches provided by FBI were used not only by JCSO investigators but also in releted investigations in El Paso http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/columbine/columbine41702shrfrpt.pdf.
If you would like to get them in better quality they are avalible JCSO as their website says: FBI Crime Scene Processing Team reports and sketches (Released September 5, 2001). Contact Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office, Records Section, 200 Jefferson County Parkway, Golden, CO 80439. Make checks payable to Jefferson County for $25. Additional shipping cost: $2.50. Complete and enclose Application for Criminal Justice Records (.PDF file). --Robek 21:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Nicer quality images would be nice... but I'm not paying :)! ~MDD4696 01:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table of Contents showing up in Convert to SVG template

I'm not sure why this is happening or how to fix it, but I wanted to point out that the page for Image:1 Ceres (0).png renders with a table of contents in the middle of the Convert to SVG template. Weird. --Starwiz 04:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Caused by vandalism at Template:Convert to SVG/lang. Fixed. — Erin (talk) (FAQ) 05:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussions for user blockades

Is there any page where I can request a user to be blocked? Best regards, --Flominator 06:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Here will do. Whom did you have in mind? — Erin (talk) (FAQ) 07:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Or you can visit the newly created Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. / Fred Chess 08:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Martina Nolte for this. (suggested by Historiograf)--Flominator 08:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see, we are talking in that case about only 16 images, and (again, as far as I see) Ms. Nolte has behaved exemplary once she had understood her error. A block (an an indefinite one, as Histo had called for) is IMO not warranted at all. Unrepenting copyright violators should be blocked, but not someone who even tries to get his own error corrected. That's completely out of proportion. Lupo 10:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you please tell him? We still have to place to discuss the blockades. --Flominator 12:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If we take no hard position it would be a sport for photographers saying Ooops I didn't know that I have given rights I cannot give. They have the promotion of WP/Commons but not the duties. There is a large financial risk for all who want to use such pictures assuming in good faith the validity of the CC licenses. Ms Nolte has agreed that the blocking would be appropriate. I think a simple copyvio in a few cases is less dangerous than Ms. Nolte's behaviour. --Historiograf 23:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

But she won't make the same mistake again, I would think. At least on en:, there is the norm that blocks should not be punitive. You block to prevent harm, not as a punishment. (As any norm, there may be exceptions to this one, too :-) The harm's already been done and is being corrected, and she knows the problem now and is not likely to cause more harm. Therefore, a block would be simply unnecessary. Furthermore, her photos were good. If she had other pictures on which she had not given away the economic rights (i.e., granted an exclusive license to someone else) and wanted to upload those, she would be most welcome to do so. Or am I missing something? Lupo 06:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no way for her to give pictures for free - except she is abandoning the contract with the Verwertungsgesellschaft Bild-Kunst and thus reducing her income. What she - I am sure - definitively not will do. The Wahrnehmungsberechtigungsvertrag (sorry for not knowing the English words) is referring to all works she creates. There are discussions between CC and the Verwertungsgesellschaften to allow artists CC licenses. --Historiograf 17:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello!
First I must say that I am very surprised to find here, just by coincidence (a google search on a totally different matter), an official banning discussion about me without being informed by anyone.
I was and still am ashamed because I caused so much trouble and work to others. But nevertheless I want to say some words to Historiografs arguments against my person.
it would be a sport for photographers saying "Ooops I didn't know" ... They have the promotion of WP/Commons... -- I don't know where the sense of this "sport" should be for a photographer or where a promotion advantage should be, when the photos are then deleted. May I remind you, Historiograf, that the whole deletion discussion was initiated by myself. I "admitted" the copyvio as soon as Rtc had given me on my german user page some general informations (Merkblatt) about possible licence conflicts. There I found, for the first time, a quite short hint on VG Bild-Kunst and so the story took its way until deletion.
In the upload instructions on German Wikipedia and on Commons this conflict with VG Bild-Kunst isn't mentioned at all.
My first two photos on Commons were moved here from German Wikipedia by de-User and (as I know) admin Factumquintus. After deletion I became a link from Paddy to Commons:Village_pump and found out in the archive here, that my photos also had not been allowed on Commons because they all contained a copyright watermark in the exifs. Even Factumquintus obviously didn't realize this conflict in my photos. This second conflict was also not realized by the licence specialists that were involved in the deletion discussion. I give this not as an excuse for my mistakes but as an example about how clear and obvious Wikimedia upload rules are (or not).
I suggest, for future uploaders, to put at least one sentence about copyright conflicts with Verwertungsgesellschaften (VG Bild-Kunst) in the upload instructions, like Rtc is spreading it in his Merkblatt linked above.
Historiograf is partly right in one point: I will not give up my contract with the VG Bild-Kunst just like this and mainly: without having more informations. As, in the beginning, I wasn't aware of this licence conflict at all and, still now, nobody could explane me ALL consequences of this contract regarding Wikimedia and Wikipedia projects, I will try to get further informations (does the VG already charge Wikipedia projects as "secondary usage"? would they charge only usages which I announce them or do they act independently? which usage exactly would be charged? would I have the right to outtake WM and WPs and other non-commercial usages?) by the VG itself, before I ever upload pictures on Commons again. In this point I learned my lessons well now.
Ms Nolte has agreed that the blocking would be appropriate. -- This is shortened. In the deletion discussion (now here) I first rejected your accusation as not beeing appropriate and wrote exactly: "But under the given conditions (VG Bild-Kunst) I cannot upload photos here any more, so that here on Commons I would agree being banned." If now negotiations with "VG Bild-Kunst" really lead to allowing CC licences on Wikimedia projects we'll see further. Greetings -- Martina Nolte17:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal free license

I am thinking of releasing my non-derivative work on the Wikimedia Commons under the following license, which I wrote myself:

This work may be used for any purpose provided that:
  1. Attribution must be given to me. If the work is a derivative, an exact copy of the original or a link thereto must be included.
  2. This work cannot be used for advertising.
  3. This work cannot be included in any product to which Digital Rights Management technology is applied.
  4. If a derivative of this work is published, it must be released under a license that does not forbid any use, other than advertising, that would not be forbidden by any version of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License, GNU Free Documentation License or GNU General Public License.
  5. The conditions in this list numbered 2, 4 and 5 (the latter having "enough of this work" changed to either "enough of the work located at [original URL]" or "enough of this work and/or the work located at [original URL]", and the text in these parentheses removed in the former case) must be imposed on any derivative works that contain enough of this work to be covered by the same copyright. The condition in this list numbered 3 must be applied to all derivatives that descend from this work.

The penultimate point is an attempt at a flexible copyleft. The idea behind the last is that if, through a long series of derivatives, my work is completely eliminated from a descendant, then the descendant doesn't have to be copyleft or suffer the advertising restriction if the intervening authors don't want it to. (I'm not allowing the DRM clause to disappear in the same way because I so hate DRM's legal protection under the DMCA.

My questions are:

  • Will the advertising restriction make the license unfree by generally accepted standards? (This does not prevent commercial use altogether; the work can still be put in a product that is sold.)
  • Is this license actually forward-compatible with GFDL, GPL and cc-by-sa? Seahen 13:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Your terms of use are not compatible with Commons:Licensing and {{GFDL}}, {{GPL}}, {{cc-by-sa}}. Please change your mind or don't upload your images on Commons. --EugeneZelenko 14:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
What in the licensing policy, and in the terms of the other licenses, makes them incompatible? Seahen 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Forbidding advertise is against the Commons spirit of All material on the Commons must be licensed under a free license that allows anyone to use the material for any purpose (Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses first line). The against DRM clause may also collide as i remember there was some discussion on an anti-DRM license.
Seeing your intentions, i'd recomend you to license under the GFDL:
  1. It's a well-known license. It's been legally strong. Your home-made license could have legal faults or contradictions.
  2. It allows your work to be combined with a lot more GFDL works already available (the sharealike stuff).
  3. Having to print the three pages text license will scary any advertiser ;)
  4. If it were combined with other DRM protected work, all of them would (need to) be GFDL. While DRM could be applied to your work, a DRM free copy must be available so adding DRM would be quite pointless.
Platonides 21:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 31

[edit] Broken 'File history' links in wikipedia

When looking at an image description page on wikipedia, for an image which is actually hosted here in commons. There is a broken link at the top of the page. The 'file history' link (in the bar at the top). It tries to jump you down to a #filehistory section which (in the case of commons images) is not there on the page. A wikipedia bug? -- Harry Wood 15:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please file bug report on bugzilla:. --EugeneZelenko 15:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
If you do not know how to do it, just let me know. I can file it for you if you like. ~MDD4696 16:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
OK I created bugzilla bug 7190 -- Harry Wood 13:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portals, WikiProjects, etc.

How can I find discussion boards, WikiProjects, Portals, or the like on the Commons? I know this seems like a really newbie sort of question, but I really do not see the answer anywhere. Thank you. LordAmeth 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

See Category:Commons projects. --EugeneZelenko 15:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I am astonished to not see any Commons projects devoted to periods, styles, or types of art. I suppose I shall have to start one...
One more question. What is the standard regarding names? I have noticed many Japanese artists listed in Western name order "givenname surname". Worse, I have noticed many being listed as "givenname, surname". For example, Katsukawa Shunsho is listed as "Shunsho Katsukawa". Should it be "Katsukawa Shunsho", or "Katsukawa, Shunsho"? Shunsho Katsukawa and "Shunsho, Katsukawa" are both definitively wrong. I know these naming discussions can get complex, what with repeating the same thing many times just in different orders. I hope you follow my meaning. LordAmeth 16:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Um...Galleries should be at the Japanese name, with English RDRs (you can make as many as you can think of). Categories, I guess, should follow en.wp convention. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy criteria

I'm not talking about media here, but everything else. Commons:Deletion guidelines does give some criteria for them, but it seems substantially shorter than the en.wp CSD. That isn't just because of non-relevant ones (CSD I9) but some potentially useful ones, CSD G7 "Author requests deletion" for example, have no apparent analogy on Commons. Now that could be oversight on Commons or a deliberate community decision, how is anyone supposed to know? This makes me think Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion should exist so admins familiar with one projects speedy rules are less likely to speedy something which is a valid speedy on their "home" project but should go through the full deletion process on Commons. Also as an additional benefit "CSD I1 copyvio" would be more useful in the deletion log than just "copyvio", as it gives a link to the relevant policy and would make more sense to non-English speakers.--Nilfanion 23:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course author-requested mistakes are still speedyable, we just don't have a formal category for them. People can certainly put {{speedy|made a mistake, misspelling}} on whatever they want. More detailed guidelines might be appropriate. But I'm probably not the only one would would discourage names like "CSD I1" to develop. These are convenient for admins but frustratingly obtuse for everyone else. Especially because it would soon just be "CSD I1", not "CSD I1 copyvio", in the deletion logs. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah true on the logs. Just don't want to make mistakes with process :P--Nilfanion 07:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kolor Klash!!!

Hi all.

For the folks who enjoied in the brutal fight about the italian flag colors a few weeks ago, we have a sequel!

What is the color of that damn'd AZURE jersey?

Coming soon: edit war about the color of Napoleon's white horse! --Jollyroger 23:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Can't wait for the one on the invisible pink unicorn, or perhaps 4′33″? pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qualification of commercial use

Forgive me if this has been already discussed and point me to the discussions. I understand that the creative commons license without the addition of the non-commercial use only was done along the lines of the OSS/GNU/Linux evolution with the primary purpose of allowing the creation of services and product offerings. If this was the primary aim, would it not be possible to qualify the commercial use to specifics where the commercial activity is not on the contribution in itself but in the way it is being delivered or the added value alone.

When it comes to images I find that most people read the idea of allowing use for 'any purposes including commercial ones' as one in which they see their image as being sold by someone. I think this is what prevents a lot of contributors and there would be considerably greater participation if there was a specific qualification of the commercial use to allow only fair usage.

Perhaps there is a possibility of adding a few other licensing options that would enrich the media at least for usage on wikipedia.

Shyamal 03:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Commons talk:Licensing/Explaining why Derivative Work and Commercial Use must be allowed. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I think this pretty much covers my understanding of why commercial use is allowed. But can this be qualified. Can the margins be legally specified rather than allowing 'competition' and free-market rules to decide on what a reasonable commercial value is ? I still believe that there should be a finer definition of what would be allowed commercial use. Shyamal 06:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
No, it can't be qualified. This is how free we are and how free we've always been. It's a self-imposed restriction that we, as a community/organisation choose to live with. Did you know you could print out a Wikipedia article and sell it? Or any Wikimedia project's work? If you are willing to accept these terms, we welcome your contributions. If you can't, then please don't.
If you want to restrict the likelihood that in all reality, anyone would want to sell your work, license solely under the GFDL. It requires that a copy of the license accompany each copy of the work. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That is pretty thin wishful thinking I am afraid. The practicalities are that the GFDL is useless if you don't have the money to defend your rights. So if you are working on software, chances are that the linux community will find the cash to hunt down violators. The case is much different for the individual semi-pro photographer uploading his work. Publishers know this, and look for information they can shovel on disks and cheaply printed books from sources unlikely to enforce restrictions. I am not just talking about big publishers of content in China. If you take a look on Ebay, there are tons of CD of compilations of photos and historical documents. Even if you knew the names of these individual producers you would have to file countless suits in countless jurisdictions for what? A settlement of $100 here and $50 there? It is insane- it is exceptionally difficult to find these violations, much less be able to get legal redress because it would cost a fortune. The fact is that in practical terms, once you upload your image in any form on the internet, you effectively have given it away no matter how restrictive you have made your copyright notices. For individuals, these restrictions are a fig leaf.
Reduction in the economic value of copyrighted material due to the wide availability of free material undercuts the contribution that so called "green" information economies can make. At a national scale, this means that those whose economies excel at the production of extremely inexpensive physical publications (books and CDs) are at a greater advantage because the raw materials to fill up those publications are free. And those particular economies are not exactly exemplars of excellent environmental, child labor, and work safety policies.
Counterbalancing this phenomenon, the reduction in the friction of dissemination of information has a much higher, overriding value. In my opinion, dispelling ignorance is fundamental to addressing these other downstream issues. It does mean that Western economies suffer, but in the grand scheme of things, we in the West have had it pretty good and we can afford to tighten our belts a bit. So yes Virginia, there is no such thing as a free lunch, but knowing these hidden costs of "free" information, we still embrace the movement. -Mak 16:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/35"