Commons:Village pump/Archive/6

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


Nazi Symbols and such

We have some images here on the commons that are illegal to use in some countrys. Specifically, Nazi-Symbols such as Image:Flag Germany 1933.png may be used in germany only in the context of art and education, not as a logo, flag or political symbol; The flag of Taiwan is illegal in the PR China, etc. Some images already contain a legal disclaimer stating the limitation. My questions are the following:

  1. Would it make sense to have a template for such images, assigning them to a category? The template could take the region and terms of the limitation as a parameter.
  2. In how far should "similar" images be tagged as "restricted use", for example this one: Image:52-square swastika.ant.png? If this would be considered leagal would probably depend on the context of use and the vim of the judge. Should we have an official pollicy for such cases?

any thoughts? -- Duesentrieb 17:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We are using these images in the context of art and education. I do not like the idea of having "restricted usage templates" - if we do begin, then I'd like to start introducing pornographic images: these are as valid as any other form of image on Commons. A restricted usage template would overcome any related worries about sexually "explicit" or otherwise images. Essentially, we are just worrying about the PRC - alot of Wikimedia content is illegal in PRC already. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 13:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I do not doubt that the use in the wikipedia is legal. I was just suggesting to warn about images to which legal restrictions apply, independently of the copyright status, in case someone wants to use the image in a different context. This is especially true for all official insignia, for which we have Template:Insignia - and it is also true for symbols that are outlawed in some contries. Following your argument, we would have to delete those images, because they are free by copyright, but can't be used for all purposes. I don't think that's a godd idea... -- Duesentrieb 18:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Furthermore, swastika is not only a Nazi symbol, but also an oriental symbol of luck. This doesn't look like the nazi swastika to me. Ausir 15:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. But if you use this image as a logo for a newspaper in Germany, that would be illegal and could bring you quite some prison time (or a slap on the wrist, if the contant of the paper was not fascistic - but still). My point is: shouldn't we warn about that? -- Duesentrieb 18:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Creating categories?

I've uploaded a couple of images, following the First steps guide, and it says to include information about the "category".

What is the process for creating a category, or searching for and linking to ones that already exist?

I couldn't find this information in the help files or elsewhere on the commons, so I just added some to one of my image pages (Elabana_Falls.jpg). Is this correct? Malcolmj 05:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For finding Categories: I usually look for suggestions on the english wiki, and how the articles are categorized there. I then would create a category, e.g. Category:Isamu Noguchi for all things related to w:Isamu Noguchi, and add this to parent categories and so on. You can also add it to the catchall Category:Other, which hopefully will be sorted into proper categories eventually. Also, please note that the whole approach is still under discussion. Should images be added to a separate page about a topic (i.e. Michelangelo) or in a category (i.e. Category:Isamu Noguchi)? For the latter one, the upcoming version of MediaWiki will automatically display the images in categories as thumbnails. Some users prefer the "separate page" approach, some prefer the "Category" approach. -- Chris 73 10:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Chris. I understand the concept of categories, but how do you actually create them? For Elabana_Falls.jpg I guessed what I thought might be appropriate categories and added them to the bottom of the image page - e.g. Category:World Heritage. Does this automatically create that category if it doesn't already exist, and/or automatically add it to an exisiting category? Malcolmj 20:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You add a suitable category to your image, i.e. type [[Category:World Heritage Europe]] on the image page. After saving you'll see a red link if the category does not yet exist. If you click on the red link, you will get to a category page that lists the contained images/articles, and an edit box for the category text. In this edit box you add one or more other categories, i.e. [[Category:World Heritage]]. Repeat for all red links. Blue links are existing categories and need no further editing. With the naming, you may also check if there is already a category name, i.e. use Category:Animals instead of Category:Animalia. I follow the english wiki system if possible. -- Chris 73 23:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Chris. Malcolmj 06:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Categories in Astronomy and Space Travel

I just tried to get an overview for these areas - categorization in astronomy is a total mess and for space travel not really existing. I have created an snapshot of the momentary situation and a quick proposal for a better systematic. If someone is interested in these areas, what do you think about it? -- Srbauer 20:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I created most of these categories, simply by copying the system on the english wiki. And yes, they need some cleanup. I also did not copy the complete system, only the categories needed to sort some images all the way up to Category:Fundamental. I am not sure how much discussion went into this system on the english wiki, but I can live with it either way. Three suggestions: (1) A category can exist even without articles/images as long as the cat has a subcat. (2) In case of doubt, keep a category or category link. (3) If possible have the same system on the english wiki as on the commons. Any work on the category system is very welcome. -- Chris 73 23:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
At first: in my opinion the categories are an instrument to help the user to find an image. In contrary to a wiki based on articles in an image-wiki the search facility is not very useful, but categorization is a chance. But by using a category scheme for searching it is necessary to keep it as simple as possible.
  • at 1: full ack
  • at 2: don't know, what you mean
  • at 3: if the structure is useful for image categorization, why not - but I had no look at the en-scheme yet. But we should also keep in mind that there are more wikis than en, and most likely with different structures in each. If the scheme is to finegrained, the result will be lots of small or even empty cats - not very useful for searching. The main principle should be: what images will we get most likely, and offer a plausible scheme - as simple as possible. If we realize later, that more subcats are needed, it's no problem to create them when needed.
At last, the scheme should be available as a tree structure to get a quick overview - maybe located on the talk pages for the categories. -- Srbauer 09:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Srbauer here (and disagree with Chris), the function of a Category system is to have people who are looking for an image of something get to it as easy (and fast) as possible. This is much better done by his proposed scheme than by the one added already. I see no advantage in following the system on the English Wikipedia. The first and foremost goal should be to have a clear and simple system. - Andre Engels 23:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dont get me wrong. I like Srbauer's categories better than the english wiki, and I was thinking if the english wiki needs some updating. Please go ahead and implement the system. -- Chris 73 01:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did we just switch to Mediawiki 1.4?

See also: Commons talk:MediaWiki 1.4 upgrade

Did we just switch to Mediawiki 1.4? Categories with images now show up as thumbnails (see: Category:Japanese knives). Also, the image displayed have a small bug that they do not show the image, but only a link to the higher resolution image. Well, I definitely like the thumbed categories! -- Chris 73 03:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes! See Commons:MediaWiki 1.4 upgrade. The images look ok to me though. Can you link to one that's showing the problem? (We're sorting out an intermittent database permissions bug in the meantime...) --Brion VIBBER 03:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
e.g. Image:DebaBocho.Cleaver.Japan.jpg -- Chris 73 03:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes!!!! Yippee!!! And with this I immediately get converted to the group wanting the images on categories rather than normal pages. - Andre Engels 10:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image Preview

Ok, I think with this feature working its time for a general agreement about categorization of images - create articles or just use the category system? In my opinion the main advantage of articles is, that it is possible to group related images for a topic and keep the category scheme lean and simple. What do you think? -- Srbauer 11:22, 6 Dez 2004 (UTC)

I'm not really sure yet how the "categories" work, but it seems strange to me to have to create articles in Wikimedia Commons for images. The images I have donated are to uploaded to illustrate articles that already exist in Wikipedia, and I see the Commons as a simple storage place for that image. To create another article in the Commons seems like a duplication of the information that's already in Wikipedia.
If I was searching for a piece of media for an article, I'd like to be able to search the Commons by keyword. Which of the options would be closest to that feature? Malcolmj 11:55, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am all for category schemes. They are much easier to handle. However, to be perfect three things are missing: (1) Piped category links, i.e. to include an image Image:Kaastekoop.jpg as [[Category:Cheese|Cheese in the supermarket]], showing the text instead of the image name. (2) Working category redirects (3) Category watchlist, showing images added to the cat. -- Chris 73 12:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I may add, that it would also be necessary to have a way to assign special captions to the displayed thumbnails. Now there is only the filename which is neither very descriptive nor every time in english. Though there can be a lot of information stored in the category tree, not everything is sensible to be stored there. There has to be some "atomic" information for each image preview. If these criteria are met, I am all for abandoning articles and gallery pages.
I am not so sure about piped categories - those pages could become HUGE. -- Petwoe 13:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

@Chris: (1) changing the displayed names may be useful here in commons, but in other wikipedias I prefer seeing the correct title (and pipe only used as a sorting criterium); (2) I don't see an advantage for category redirects - in my opinion things would get more complicated; (3) yes, that's definitly a must have - and I'm missing it since cats are possible.

As Petwoe mentioned already there are some information useful for searching that aren't implemented so far - and may be implement never. Should we cross fingers and hope for the next software version - or should we try to make the best of the existing features?

In my opinion the best would be using the possiblities of categorization to get an overview of the topics - and using the gallery feature (in gallery articles) for grouping images and providing essential information.

At last don't forget people with low bandwidth internet access - they may want a feature to disable image preview in categories to get an faster overview. -- Srbauer 18:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Redirects to categories are useful, as if we categorize all images instead of adding them to articles, It'd be useful, for example (especially for searches) to make Cat (and other language equivalents) redirect to Category:Cat. Ausir 23:34, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Upload log and deletion log

Hi! I've uploaded some images to commons and linked to them from various wikipedias, but now I can't find all of them; Image:Norway flag large.png to be more specific. Is there an upload log and a deletion log here, or can I find the history of the image some other way? --Eddi 00:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You could look at your contributions, or Special:Log. -- Chris 73 00:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. Unfortunately the logs I found aren't old enough, and deleted files are not mentioned in contributions. --Eddi 00:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Speaking as a sysop: The image seems to have been deleted with the argument that it's redundant with Image:Flag of Norway.png. It's not clear who did the deletion, but Duesentrieb was the one who nominated it to be deleted. - Andre Engels 00:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try not to shoot you since you're just the messenger, but here is what I think.
Obviously I should visit commons more often and not just when images disappear from wikipedia articles. However, isn't there any guideline on replacing image links in wikipedia articles before deleting the linked images? The image may or may not have been redundant (and I think not), but at least as long as it was linked from articles it served a purpose. Commons is not an independent being, it is a humble servant. --Eddi 00:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Come to think of it, it was me who deleted it because of its redundancy. The problem is, currently I don't know of any way to check which wikipedia projects use an image, except for checking all 30+ wikipedia projects individually. This is still a major problem here when a file is supposed to be deleted. Anybody has a solution or ideas? -- Chris 73 02:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Leaving a message on the user's talk page (in this case it points to en) would be a good start. Anthony 05:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You are right: you should have been notified. On the other hand, as with deletion requests in the 'pedias, one usually expects the author to have the image/article on the watchlist and note the request for deletion. Redundant images are a real problem, especially on the commons where people put images from different projects, named in different languages. As you can see in National insignia, the image you want is still here, just under a different name. It would make no sense to keep several copies of the same flag...
I would however greatly appreciate if the software could tell me on which wikis the image is used - that way, one could change the approriate links before deletion. So I see your point, but i'm affraid it can't really be mended. I'll however try to notify the uploading user in future. -- Duesentrieb 23:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think I should have been notified, because I would have got the message via my watchlist – if I had just been here more often. But it would probably be helpful if there was an easy way for admins to check links. Could this be a case for wikitech-l? --Eddi 00:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is Wikimedia the right place for open collaborative projects, or just for media to support other wikis (wikipedia, wiktionary, etc)

I'm working on a collaborative cc-by-sa childrens book. After learning about Wikimedia, I have set up a page here to facilitate work on the project and collaboration between members. Uploading pieces of the project was easy and worked well, but I don't see many other projects like this on the commons. Do I have the right idea in using WikiMedia for the purpose of growing this open project, or is the commons strictly a place for open images relating to existing things (people, places, etc)? *Ardvark the Aardvark -- Eric Skiff 22:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As i understand it, the commons is the free image and file archive for the wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, Wikibooks, etc. I don't think the commons is for such projects itself, or for other creative commons projects. My worry is that we end up as free webhosting for other projects. Maybe you could move your project to Wikibooks? Nice graphics by the way. -- Chris 73 23:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wikibooks would be the right place, i think. But the images should still got to the commons, and cou can also have a galery (page or category) here. But for everything else, like project coordination, chapers, descriptions, story, etc, Wikibooks would be the right place. -- Duesentrieb 23:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Though Commons serves other Wikimedia projects - it is also an independent media archive. The suitability of you work depends largely upon it's usability by anything beyond your specific project. --Oldak Quill 00:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well first of all, thanks for the heads up about wikibooks - I was unaware of anything beyond wikipedia up until a week ago, so I'm still getting up to speed. As for whether the project is suitable for wikimedia, all of the work (story, design, art) is cc-by-sa, and so is free to be used in anything from logos to derivative books. Would I be most correct to leave the art here and move the story and central pages to wikibooks? Will I still be able to use the image and thumb tags as I do here? -- Eric Skiff 3:57, 8 Dec 2004 UTC
On Wikipedia, the link to a commons image is the same as the link to a Wiki image, [[Image:NAME.jpg]]. If the image is on the Wiki itself, the image is accessed directly, if the image is not on the wiki, the wiki tries to retrieve the commons image. I believe this should be the same for Wikibooks. Give it a try. -- Chris 73 05:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/6"
Personal tools