Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

(Redirected from Commons:Village pump/mk)

Village pump in other languages:

Shortcut:
COM:VP

Welcome to the Village Pump

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

Please note:

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

Start a new discussion

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

Discussion (index)

Important discussion pages

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

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

1 February 15
- 1.1 Delete image
2 March 5
- 2.1 Template:GFDL-user-en-no-disclaimers
3 April 19
4 April 29
5 April 30
- 5.1 Agriculture or not?
6 May 1
7 May 2
8 May 3
- 8.1 images
- 8.2 DC Comics Image
9 May 4
10 May 5
11 May 6
12 May 7
13 May 8
14 May 9
15 May 10
16 May 11
17 May 12
- 17.1 CC-Zero
18 May 13
- 18.1 Captions in images - keep or crop?
- 18.2 Hidden comments

[edit] February 15

[edit] Delete image

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

[edit] March 5

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

Actual change

GFDL-user-en-no-disclaimers

GFDL-user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] April 19

[edit] Video game console

In Commons:Derivative works "Photographs of copyrighted, non-free two- or three-dimensional works of art must not be uploaded to Commons."

Why images of video game console (such as PlayStation) are free ? The console is copyrighted, right ? Rjclaudio 02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As René Magritte would say, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe.". The photo of a PlayStation is not a copy of the hardware device; it lacks several important key features of the game console (the ability to load and play games, to play DVDs, whatever).

However, the primary key feature of a "two- or three-dimensional work of art" is most likely the visual appearance, of which a significant portion will be repoduced by a photograph.

Now, a photograph of a game scene on the PlayStation is an interesting problem: it reproduces the visuals, but does not provide the interactivity of the game. However, since the graphics may be a key element of the game, screenshots may indeed become a problem. However, I guess that very little is done against use of screenshots; a large nunber is present on the 'net and in magazines and, after all, it's free advertizing! --80.134.17.194 19:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we execute such screenshots without trial. The law is clear about this. The answer to Rjclaudio's question is that a video game console is not a work of art. It's a functional item. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adopt-a-user

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Election Notice - Please translate

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

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

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

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

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

For the election committee,
Philippe Beaudette

[edit] Oxygen icons

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Images forbidding nofollow

The license for Image:Personal trainer assisting and correcting a client during a fitball stretching exercise.jpg is somewhat odd. The license is:

"Online use: ok to use provided www.localfitness.com.au is linked back to via a link that does *not* have the rel='nofollow' attribute (wikipedia excepted). Offline use: the following text must appear under the photo "Photo by: LocalFitness.com.au"

I don't think this fits our criteria, does it? CBM 19:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think so too, this is more than what would be acceptable attribution requirements. Apart from the attribution template, the file was also licensed under GFDL, so technically it should be ok. I don't think this was the authors intention, though. --rimshot^talk 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look ok to me; that's not a requirement we allow. Request, sure, but not a requirement. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What is word use means? Ask this site to use on of Creative Commons license for avoid ambiguity. --EugeneZelenko 14:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This rules out any uses in a file format (dead tree included!) that does not support links with "nofollow" attributes. This restricts re-use to web pages, which makes it non-free. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes it non-free and not-allowed. No exclusive rights for Wiki*edia. Rocket000 19:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

DR filed. Rocket000 19:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 29

[edit] OpenOffice.org file types?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Does commons have a noticeboard of free images that need to be uploaded?

I sometimes find free images with encyclopedic value on flickr or other sources or even take some myself and put them on flickr but can't be bothered to upload them to commons.

Is there a noticeboard where I can place urls to free media that needs to be uploaded/tagged where others who are less lazy could do this? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There are Flickr upload bots: User:Flickr upload bot etc. AnonMoos 16:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand, if I wanted to do this manually I'd write my own bot to do it. What I'm suggesting is a page where I can say "http://xxx.gov/boo has some nice PD images of tanks" or "my flickr page at URI has images of some landmark"". I could add such requests in 20 seconds and not the 20 minutes it would take to construct an upload queue, tag things appropriately and have a bot upload it all. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you find a good source (not just a couple of individual images) you could list it at Commons:Public domain and free image resources. --MichaelMaggs 17:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing

If I upload an image onto commons with a public domain license can someone save that picture and then upload it onto their website and then copyright it, so no-one is allowed to use it and then demand that my original image be removed, because of copyright imfringement? bsrboy 20:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No -- but they could copyright a derived (significantly transformed) version of the image which they made (without prejudice to the public domain status of the original untransformed image)... AnonMoos 21:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fraudulently making false copyright claims regarding a public domain work (without any copyrightable modifications) is a criminal offense under United States Code Title 17, Circular 92, Section 506(c) (and similar laws in other countries). —LX (talk, contribs) 18:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, public domain is not a license, it's a copyright status. There is some doubt over whether copyright can actually be voluntarily relinquished to the public domain. This is why {{PD-self}} says, "In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose [...]". But either way there's no way someone could claim the original infringed copyright. If it's PD, there's no copyright to infringe. If it's copyrighted, you've already licensed it freely and there's no way they can reverse that. Superm401 - Talk 03:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 30

[edit] Agriculture or not?

When I uploaded Image:Life in Manastirea Humorului.jpg and Image:Goose in Manastirea Humorului.jpg, I added the category:Agriculture in Romania, but Olahus has recently deleted this cat from those files, pretending it wasn't agriculture. So I'm spoting this message to ask what other people think. IMO, the first one represents daily life of farmers on a dray plus a cow, and the second one represents goose breeding not far from a farm - since animal breeding is part of agriculture, it's logical to speak about agriculture IMO. Olahus answered me that seeing those animals on those pictures wasn't representative of agriculture, that we don't see the farm on the second picture (well in my memory I think the building WAS a farm but now I have doubts!) and that "we must see the way their are reared"... Well I quite disagree. A picture of a field doesn't always teach anything about how the farmer care about it and it is agriculture. As for the first picture, the farmers on their dray IS a description of how they work. I might be able to accept that the second picture is not really an illustration of agriculture but not the first one. What do you think? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, Farming might be a better cat, but it does not exist for Romania. --Túrelio 06:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say I agree with Olahus. IMHO these pictures don't show agrigulture. The first one shows a street with houses and a cart with horse, a cow and a dog. Even the description doesn't say anything that the guys on the cart are farmers. If you would have only the cart, the horse and the two guys on it with a description lik "two farmers on the way to the field", then it could be classed as agriculture. So however it's just a picture of a rural street. --Mdebets 14:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 1

[edit] Template substitution at Commons:Deletion requests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Crazyaboutlost

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

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

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

[edit] Find dupes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Words In Ancient Greeks

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

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

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

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

[edit] Whoah.

How come every image description page is saying "This file is a duplicate of another file from shared repository"? Apart from the fact that this is grammatically incorrect, the link points to the same page on Commons. Which one of you broke it? Own up now! :P Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it just went away (I'm not going mad; someone else saw it as well). Still, what the shit was that about? :D Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know you're not both mad? Just kidding, of course. It probably has something to do with MediaWiki:Shareduploadconflict. Superm401 - Talk 07:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this popped up on the English Wikipedia for images that have a namesake here, so I'm guessing it's a new feature. Someone probably just forgot to set it so Commons doesn't check if its images "also" exist on Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This was a problem with our Commonsettings.php, and was fixed last night. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2

[edit] Probable copyright violation

I just came accross to this map, uploaded by User:Mattiabonasso that resembles BBC's maps quite uncannily... I can't believe the map is really "self-made" as the user claims. Makes me wonder what the copyright status of the other map uploaded by the same user is. --ざくら木 15:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with that first link: there's not even a question that it's a copyright violation. I tagged it for speedy deletion. As for the second one, that certainly looks handmade. As for whether it was made by the user is something I can't say for sure, but I'm quite confident it wasn't ripped from BBC. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 18:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image template standardization

There is currently a proposal at en Wikipedia to standardize construction and appearance of image page templates using a metatemplate; this may have possible future application here at the Commons. Interested users should see en:Template:Imbox and its associated talk page. Thanks! Kelly 16:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bridgeman v. Corel, 9 years on

http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4872982/ --Historiograf 17:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amin help needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Mozambique copyright law about stamps?

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

[edit] May 3

[edit] images

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

[edit] DC Comics Image

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

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

[edit] May 4

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

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

[edit] Rules about language for image description?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Handbuch der Systematischen Botanik (1924)

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

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

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

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

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

Which translated to English is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Promotional username

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