More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
Tip: Categorizing images
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
- [[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
- [[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.
- Image:Frezzeria.jpg was uncategorized on 18 November 2009 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ah - then I find out a little more about you :) This user is not SUL but was on the same IP as a number of other accounts. Regards --Herby talk thyme 14:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Eh, come gli dice male all'amico di Lucera... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Ripulito e avvisato. Anche se ho l'impressione che questa sia un'utenza a zero valore aggiunto. Se poi su it.wiki qualcuno potesse fare qualcosa per farmi uscire dalla situazione grottesca della quale sono vittima... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure you really want to go around making edits like this?
- And this edit at English Wiktionary is especially bad. I've been contributing to English Wiktionary for several years now. It is not considered appropriate to fill up entries with images, and especially not images like this. As far as I know, the removal has support (at least one editor thanked me). What you're doing isn't relevant to article improvement, but is against me personally.
- Peter Isotalo 10:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Good! Now we're discussing the actual matter. Let's stick to that.
- Maybe you have a guideline or established at Italian Wikipedia that says anything kept on Commons can't be removed from an article for any reason. I've never seen anything like it before, though. The contents of articles is up to the individual projects to decide. That means those who edit them, and the policies that are written by them. This is relevan to both text and images. There are obvious limits on the number and type of images that can be included, though this varies greatly depending on the situation, and perhaps according to project. If you know of a policy or guideline that effectively says "not deleted on Commons = can't be removed from an article", please quote it. Otherwise I'll assume you're no more neutral than I am.
- Now, I don't dislike this image per se. I just don't see it as very useful. It's high-quality, unique and highly amusing picture, but it has severe limitations as an encyclopedic illustration, especially when it comes to the animal species. And selfies to a great degree (not representative in any way). I think it's a wonderful photograph, but I am strongly opposed to more or less automatic inclusion anywhere we can. Cramming it into image galleries conveys no useful information and using it as the main (or even only) image in an article about the black crested macaque is simply not justifiable; it shows almost nothing of the animal and what it shows is extremely rare behavior. On top of this, I am opposed to overuse because of the copyright dispute. In my view, the argument for being restrictive outweighs to include a high-profile pic that happens to be in the media right now. And that just happens to concern Wikimedia. It's very obviously self-referential. None of these reasons, either seperate or in combination, mean that I want to exclude any of the selfies altogether. But the overall case for restrictiveness is much stronger for me, especially in articles that are mere stubs.
- Peter Isotalo 15:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)