Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index) Commons Help desk Village pump (general discussion) Copyright Proposals Technical Graphics and photography discussion Photography critiques Image improvement Illustration workshop Map workshop Photography workshop Video and sound workshop Categories for discussion Undeletion requests Deletion requests Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests Oversight requests Telegram IRC webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator Welcome to the Village pump This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/06. Please note: 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 probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias. Have you read our FAQ? For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming. 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 (i.e. a lawyer). Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam. Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page: 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: Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs. Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps. Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations. To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop. For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation. For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests. Search archives:       Start a new discussion

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

The last town pump to be in use in Saint Helier, Jersey, until early 20th century [add]

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive How do we organize categories by date (14 May 2024) Proposal to prohibit political restriction templates (5 February 2024) Should PD-CQ Roll Call be used for recent images? (5 January 2024) Technical needs survey (17 December 2023) When does PDART apply to textile works? (15 November 2023) Does this image contain "love hearts"? (17 August 2023) Overhaul of categories by period (5 December 2022) Version of Saudi flag to use (11 July 2022) Concern regarding revocability of KOGL licenses (22 December 2021) Should deleting content from your own talk page be forbidden? (11 November 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021) Change technical name of LRs to license-reviewer from image-reviewer(2 November 2023) Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch

January 2

Advice on improving images

I have a lot off old colour slides, wich I scan and then upload. The problem is that through chemical reactions the original colours of the slides have changed. (30 years) I try to correct this, but the results are not satisfactory. Different parts of the slides discolour differently, so I never can correct everything and I have to make some compromises. Are there some tricks I can use? The standard editing doesnt work. Examples: File:Afvoer NMVB trams.jpg, File:Ligne d'Auteuil 1.jpg (and other images in the categories (1984 rail, 1982 rail, etc)) Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

These are pretty washed out, especially the reds in File:Ligne d'Auteuil 1.jpg. You'd probably do better to bring this question to Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. - Jmabel ! talk 23:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

They are washed out - but that is fine. It might be actually helpful by making it easier to tell historical images from contemporary ones. They are MUCH better than my photographs from the same time (see Category:Funeral of Jerzy Popiełuszko). --Jarekt (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I wil put the question to the workshop. Is there a workplace where I can put the original scan (before editing) so that I dont clutter the normal categories? Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I put two of the cases to the workshop with the original scans. I am curious if they can better it. I leave the originals only in one category. Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are doing dozens of these at a time, I'd say don't worry too much about cluttering categories. Better that everything be in categories and easy to find. - Jmabel ! talk 04:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

January 19

Single block of citation text needed

It seems to me that a bit of SINGLE, TEXT-BASED information needs to be provided on the page with each WikiMedia item so that someone can EASILY CITE everything relevant about the work (i.e., be able to just copy & paste a single block of text to, e.g., paste into a field of the EXIF header of images that are repurposed). For example, instead of the generic "I, the copyright holder...this work...", it should say "I, John Doe (my@email.address), the copyright holder of the work represented at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/Haleakalasilversword.jpg, on 20 January 2010 hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."

At this point (unless I'm missing something [in which case, please, someone, fill me in!), it's very cumbersome to try to collect all the info in order to adequately cite an image(/etc.)--and it seems that this should not be the case.

Any chance this could be addressed...???? -- 19:14, 22 January 2010 User:Philiptdotcom

Similar proposals have been made in the past, but it's somewhat complicated in the general case (such as when several people have successively edited an image, or an image is derivative of another freely-licensed image, etc.). And people wouldn't necessarily always like to have their e-mail address out in plain view (and supplying an e-mail contact address is not actually a requirement in order to upload images to Wikimedia Commons). AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. However complicated it may be, it's an issue that could (and should) be addressed. It's less complicated for whomever is setting up the Wikimedia pages to do ONCE than it is for EVERY USER of Wikimedia to have to figure out how to do it every single time they cite something. Of course, I'm betting that 98%+ of folks just don't even try to correctly cite Wikimedia stuff now, because it's so complicated to do a reasonable job of it. As theoretically interesting as "free media" is, I nearly always simply disregard Wikimedia--because, although I could use/publicize its work DAILY in my line of work, I also care whether I correctly cite things. And it's such a pain in the butt to do it correctly for Wikimedia items that I simply don't do it. (Others probably just use the stuff & don't cite anything, but that's not the way I like to do business.) What I'm hoping for is a way for people who want to do things the right way to do it reasonably easily. Thanks again, 64.75.224.234 02:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"such a pain in the butt to do it correctly for Wikimedia": Citing is a pain regardless of the source. ;) I think you want to post this suggestion at Commons:Usability issues and ideas. Paradoctor (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

January 23

Need to do a mass file move

I'm hoping there is some process for this, as I really don't want to subject an admin to moving this many images, but I need the names changed on about 200 odd images. The reason for this is that the images show an old version of something, and the more recent version should hold that name, whilst the former version should be given a suffix.

The files are at file:Ontario X.svg and should be moved to file:Ontario X jct.svg, where X is anything below 499 (there are few, if any, between ~169 and 499). I used the template process, but it's taking too long and I'm about to just overwrite them with the new version and reupload the old ones (which would remove the credit from User:NE2).

Any help would be really awesome. Truly sorry if this is not the place to post this. - Floydian (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Try Commons:Bots/Work_requests... they should be able to help with this kind of work. J.smith (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Uncategorized featured pictures

A new report lists featured pictures by the number of non-hidden categories they are in. The report is at Commons:Database reports/categorizing FP.

Most featured pictures could easily fit in three or more categories. A few are currently in no topical category!

Thanks to MZMcBride for preparing the report. -- User:Docu at 09:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

New request for CheckUser rights

In accordance with Meta policy this is to inform the community that there is a new request for these rights here. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

file:Europäische_Krankenversicherungskarte_(Rückseite).jpg

Hello,

I recently modified the file file:Europäische_Krankenversicherungskarte_(Rückseite).jpg to blank out the personal informations, as i wanted to use the picture on several article in fr and en wiki, and as the original user signature is something that really should not be showed.

But I see that the thumb versions of the picture have all retained the old apparence. has anyone an idea of what happened, and how to correct this ?

Zeugma fr (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The usual answer is that the thumbnails are cached and it takes a little time for the changes to work through.--ClemRutter (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we'll see if it's ok... thanks a lot Zeugma fr (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Text logos

I found out, that it's possible to have text logos here (Template:PD-textlogo). Now I have following issue:

The company has logo created from letters only. So do the products of such company. However the font used is not publicly available, it has been created only for this company. It actually has been reverse process, since the logo was first hand drawn, then the font has been created so it could be used on other places as well.

So the question is: Is the PD-textlogo applicable in such case?

Thanks.

— Danny B. (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Usually the main thing to worry about is whether each letter in the logo is individually and separately customized. AnonMoos (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if the letters are just letters (no graphic part), then it doesn't matter how "customized" the font is; under U.S. law (and most likely others), it isn't eligible for copyright.
Danny B., maybe you can provide us with a link to this company's website, so we can give you a more specific answer. –Tryphon^☂ 16:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If I may chime in here, I'm wondering the same thing as the OP. The Evanescence logo is created entirely from a specially-made font and doesn't employ any graphical parts. Would this also fall under PD-text or PD-textlogo? — Huntster (t @ c) 00:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not expert, but I'd guess that was stylized enough to be considered art, and only incidentally typography. Similarly to an elaborate graffiti-style tag, in that respect. - Jmabel ! talk 03:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That was my initial interpretation as well, but given that this particular font is in wide use by the band and within the Evanescence community, I'm not as certain as I once was. I would consider it art if it was a one-off usage, but when it begins seeing many variations, I wonder if the "utilitarian" aspect of the clause doesn't kick in. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not copyrightable in my opinion. It's a custom font, but the characters are still very recognizable as text, and there is no graphical element original enough to attract copyright. –Tryphon^☂ 08:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If we are talking US law, then ""...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring ... [are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection ]"[1] We have taken this to mean that things like signatures and and text logos, even if written with a very ornate font, or hand drawn, are still not eligible for copyright in the United States. Since this is the Commons, the copyright status in the original country or origin may also come into the discussion.-Andrew c (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My only hesitation is on the cross and partial circle; it's possible those (or the arrangement with respect to the other letters) could be held copyrightable. I don't think the letters themselves are, as that is just typographic ornamentation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that as well. Those are more than typographical elements, but as the template states "This image, or text depicted in it, only consists of simple geometric shapes and text." I guess the question is "Are A cross and a circle simple geometric shapes?"-Andrew c (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Individually, no, I don't think they are copyrightable (so yes, they are simple shapes). But, a creative arrangement of non-copyrightable elements can be copyrighted. This seems to be right around that borderline for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The cross and circle elements can easily be removed and not impact the overall logo. If that's what is necessary to render PD, then so be it. (By the way, I really do appreciate everyone providing their views here.) — Huntster (t @ c) 22:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not in category (Mayflower Search)

Mayflower Search used to have the possibility to search for images that are not in a given category.

As Mayflower is gone, I filed a bug to request the same for Commons search: Bugzilla:22269. Maybe this interests others. -- User:Docu at 20:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

January 26

Copyright status of collections in German museums

Please read this and comment if possible, it might affect a whole lot of images on Commons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Diplodocus#image_copyrights FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because some museum employee says it is so doesn't make it so. Someone who is experienced with German copyright law and independent of the museum should comment before we do anything at all. --Aqwis (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Carefull not to scatter this issue on various places. Funk Monk created Commons_talk:Licensing#Copyright_status_of_collections_in_German_museums for this. --Martin H. (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wanted to give it more exposure, since editors in the know who have that page on their watchlist might not necessarily have this one too. FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion should also be announced on the German-language Village pump. --11:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new way for media donations

Suggestion (special wiki media donation project): a new highly efficient way for world public to donate images and video to wikipedia/wikimedia/commons etc.

• There should a link on every wiki family project page saying "DONATE AN IMAGE OR VIDEO". Anyone should be able to click on it and make/upload a media donation easily, SPECIALLY SELF CREATED WORK with the profusion of relatively cheap personal devices available now in the NEW AGE.
• In the donation form there should be all related disclosures and and Licenses that the donater can choose regarding donating a particular work.
• There should be place where Donater has to fill all related information related to media being donated like location, subject, time, basic info about self, etc. and details if from other source.
• People should be able to send copyrighted/unusable images to make suggestion of what we are missing and which we can put out on a list of required media, this list may be easily available to public view and/or ciculated.
• There should be an email address to where images/video/media can be emailed, clearly stating that the donater has read the various disclosures and licenses (on our website or our news release requesting media donations) and he is donating under which license. Once a media donation email is received to a special mail account: 1) once an email media donation is received from the donater and automatic (from wikipedia/media/commons etc.) email should go out to their address from our no-reply email address reminding them to read, in mail, provided disclousers and provide appropriate license and info for use again. Donater should be asked to email back the reply keeping the same address line explaining preference will be given to media donations which have been replied to, hence making them more usable earlier. 2) It should be available in an online archive for mining by users looking for images for articles they are working on and the public at large.
• Replied email donations with disclosures read and licences provided and direct media donations by clicking on link should be at all times available to our users and world public at large and journalists etc. There should be a warning to them to make sure BY THEMSELVES that they check (what could be our mostly unsupervised database) out if the donation has been made properly and if donater has read disclosures and provided consent and chosen the license properly. Users should be provided a basic guideline on how to make sure if the image/media is good.
• Proper donations should ask for keywords that should activate various tags for easy mining of donated database.
• The whole online media donation/uploading process should be VERY SIMPLIFIED with users asked to click/select choices with one click only from various choices after reading all. Short Disclosers should be page wise only, advancable by clicking NEXT so that all get read. Licenses should be chosen by a simple click from a choice. Media Info should be requested by filling blank by blank advancable software, including location, subject, time, DATE, donator info etc.
• This Media donation project should be centralized in commons with centralized email for donations. Project should be accessible from all wiki family projects from all their pages at all times by clicking.
• There should be a special option/Tags setting alerts for media donations regarding HAPPENING EVENTS and that should make news where world journalists/News companies can find Important or Immediate topics to pursue and other agencies like Aid agencies etc. to find places and subjects to assist. A media related to citizen reporting a historical national monument in bad shape should have the potential to trigger positive action to conserve. Potentially database mining should be able to facilitate new discoveries and affirmative action in right direction and build a tremendous world resource to record history/historical period datewise over the decades.
• Anyone mining the database should be able to setup warnings with a simple click about offending/sexually explicit/illegal images and special users with experience and extra powers should be able to either remove the image or make it invisible where in doubt.
• Should an option be provided where users of this donated media like journalists/new companies can provide citation like: Donated media from wikicommons server by ..(name of original donator).
• Donators should be able to choose their nonconflicting wiki User name, and make it a Tag, so that by clicking on name tag all images donated by the users can lineup in a online gallery for public and for donator to promote himself in other/outside professional media fields, if he chooses to provide link to this online portfolio.
• There should be a clear warning that there is no monetary compensation by wikicommons for media donation of any kind, it is a DONATION.
• Wikicommons software should be able to mine technical info of media if possible and provide the same online for researchers, sometimes it may include type of camera used, aperture, date, time of day and in the near future models, the GPS position/coordinates of where the media was made. If needed donator should be asked to give consent to publish this info.
• Public/Users should be requested to make media for donation with no recognizable faces/adertising/brand names as that may trigger having to take permission from people etc. shown in media made or fuzzing their faces/advertising/brand names etc.

Please forward to concerned persons/department for brainstorming and fine tuning.

I got the above idea while creating the article on Karvi shrub which only flowers once in eight years before dying.

Thanks

User:Atulsnischal (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Pasting from wikipedia [2], [3].

Posted on - Talk:Proposals for new projects; From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki - at: [4]

Posted on - Wikipedia talk:Creation and usage of media files - at: [5]

Posted on wikimedia commons at Commons:Usability issues and ideas: [6]

atulsnischal (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Building a “media donation culture” and a “world media archive” from donated media – help enlisted from volunteers to “visually document the world” for an ongoing visual world historical record.

This is in continuation of my last post, posted at the following locations: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]

Building a “media donation culture” and a “world media archive” from donated media – help enlisted from volunteers to “visually document the world” for an ongoing visual world historical record.

• We need to strive for creating a “media donation culture” where donating pictures and documentary videos, shot on people’s personal devices is thought of as a worthwhile activity / community service and a scholarly voluntary work which goes a long way in visually documenting the world we live in, in present times. An ongoing visual historical record available free for present researchers/authors to supplement their work with and for future generations to come, to look back upon. Gradually we should hope this will catch on as modern popular culture/fad, will also empower citizens and assist them in making citizen reports. Hopefully a time will come when if someone is taking a vacation then he will remember and friends will remind them not to forget making some documentary pictures/video for donating about the places they will visit during vacation. All this can be done easily now as there is a profusion of cheaper and cheaper personal devices available now incorporating embedded Still & Video camera technology.

• This is about Campaigning and Requesting for “100 percent Media Donation” for “documenting the world” in a “copyright free world archive” to serve in the future as a world historical visual documentation. This could be an “uploading + emailing project” by itself and donated pictures/video/media can be freely usable in all wikis and similar projects or commercial publications/productions etc.. Commercial entities could be encouraged to develop an informal “best practice” where they “donate funds” to upkeep this world archive, especially if they use anything from here and if they can afford it now or in future.

• There should be a link (“Donate an Image or Video”) to upload and donate media on every wiki family project page including on every page of various wikipedias in different languages and it should be centralized in one place like wiki commons in a world media archive. As and when possible over the decades viewers should be able to see/read this archive in their own language through translation software etc.

• All media donations to be uploaded/stored in “high resolution” to be more usable to future generations. Most searches in the archive should only display a decent low resolution image where the user should have the option to call for higher/highest resolution version.

• There should be a centralized Email address for media donation, and where ever it is publicized it should give all disclosures that this is in regards to 100 percent media donation.

• The above media donation link and email address should be well publicized in newspapers, magazines, and press releases and media requests; with all related disclosures that media sent will be treated as 100 percent donation and the act of uploading/emailing means that donator has read all disclosures which are provided and well publicized here and elsewhere.

• It should be preferred that media donation should be made by “original media creators” by themselves mainly as someone under normal circumstances can not donate someone else’s property.

• It should be made very clear in simple straight forward language at the very beginning before uploading donated files that one is making a 100 percent media donation, “100 percent Media Donation” means there will be no copyright, no royalties, no monetary compensation or any compensation in any kind paid in return for the media donation by the wiki family or any secondary users and the world public to the original media donator/creator. One’s donation can be used, reused, modified, broken up and made into anything else by anybody in the world and that too without having to give any sort of credit to the original media donator. There will be no legal requirement to give credit; and all these rules to apply world over. Though some sort of voluntary “best practice” should be encouraged to emerge where secondary users of the donated media, i.e. the world public including journalists, newspapers, magazines, books, businesses, government institutions the world over, who use donated media to supplement their work, could be encouraged to develop a popular culture of crediting the media to wiki’s media donation campaign/world archive and have a reference/courtesy credit to the original donator. Voluntary citation could sound like: Wiki common’s media donation server, original media donated by…. Commercial businesses/institutions who use donated media could be educated by a regular campaign that if affordable monetary donations can be made to wiki for help in maintaining wiki’s media archives. This donation can be made in any country and wiki could set up a local body in major countries so that tax break forms can be given in regards to monetary donations.

Now the question remains what absolutely free but worthwhile perceived benefit could a media donator receive in regards to donated media. Can a $5 per piece ad hoc acknowledgement tax break form be sent automatically to the media donators in regards to media donations, at the time I guess not. A popular culture should be created where the biggest perceived benefit that the donator should receive is the satisfaction of having participated in historically documenting the world in a particular time. The only other major satisfaction that they could receive is that they are able to click on a tag by their name/username and their lifelong contributions are lined up in an online gallery of the donated media. This gallery they can show proudly to everyone and in many cases receive some other benefits from elsewhere or use it as a scholarly portfolio while pursuing arts and related professions. Some sort of awards be given out to media donators who have done exceptional work.

• Professionals might want to earn money from their media but after money is made they can donate what they didn’t use or plan to use, that which they think is not as good etc.. Instead of deleting images/video footage they can donate.

• The whole idea is to attract the help of amateurs around the world who can now create media with the extremely cheap good quality profusion of computerized personal devices incorporating cameras/video etc. Who already earn a living doing some other work and who are not dependent on income through media making. Amateurs are casually making media and enjoying the process and the results but most of the results are enjoyed for immediate gratification only. Anywhere upto 95 percent or even more, of the media casually created usually gets deleted as it is of no perceived use to the creator in the long run over the remaining decades of their life. Any media creation takes lot of work and expenses but Casual media creation is perceived as no work and the process is enjoyed by casual media creators, it is perceived as totally free in the mind of the creator hence unfortunately majority of the casually created media is deleted, “This is the targeted media that we must campaign to save, the one that is being deleted”. All over the world the common man/world public should be educated from now on that they can donate this media before deleting it from their personal devices and they could be educated how to create usable documentary media for donation. Additionally there should be links to special “Tutorials” on how to create “usable” media for donation which can be used by secondary users (researchers, authors etc.) in various ways including research on what was captured and illustrating articles etc.. Usable media should avoid brand names, advertising and recognizable faces, specially of friends and family etc.. as then it may trigger having to take permission from people shown in the media for it to be usable now. Educational courses and institutions teaching Media creating; and personal device manufactures who incorporate media making functionality in their devices could one day carry these tutorials and educate public the world over that media can be donated to remain forever in a world archive. Like we see Warnings!!! in Cigarette Packs: If you smoke cigarettes you could get cancer; similar principal may one day be used by personal device manufacturers educating the buying public in the device manual and brochures that the media you create with this device can be donated to assist in documenting the world in present times so that it remains in a world archive for present and the future generations as a worthwhile historical media artifact documenting a particular location at a particular date and time from a particular angle etc. or documenting any other subject or human or animal behavior etc. All major networking sites around the world in local languages should carry links to these tutorials and media donation links in time with the development of media donation world culture.

• A lot of seemingly repetitive media will be created around famous subjects/locations but this should not be discouraged as no 2 media/pictures are exactly the same, they are created in different time, days, weeks, decades etc. and from different angles and magnifications, subject focus etc. this continuous record will be invaluable to researchers in time centuries later and could also be packed off with future unmanned space explorers to educate aliens who may receive these capsules in the chance that they exist.

It looks like in the near future GPS will be embedded in all personal devices. And if GPS data along with date & time is mined from media donations then in the future special software could be developed that would make it possible to play-out/ lay-out the donated media in various requested sequences. For example Taj Mahal is a famous tourist site; maybe pictures are created here every second of the day. Lets say over a century later a researcher having mined GPS data available to him from pictures donated of Taj-Mahal, could request the computer software to lay out a sequence where pictures are laid out in a movie type flow encircling the Taj from 150 meters (using pictures taken at every foot in the circle identifiable by the GPS coordinates imbedded in the donated media), starting from the year 2000 and the circle completes 100 years later in the year 2100. In this requested computer output sequence, mined information from donated pictures of the Taj including time and date along with GPS coordinates available in that (as it is evident that most personal devices will soon have inbuilt GPS) would assist the computer in arranging the sequence in such a manner that the camera would travel from the front of the Taj, all the way around clockwise and come back to the front from the other side. The future computer software would make minor adjustments in magnifications for the Taj to appear the same size in all the pictures. If over time the historical site deteriorates, researchers can see how it took place over time requesting daily or weekly pictures to play-out in a movie, from a particular angel and particular distance etc.. Many more applications like this may be available with future software. In the example above about the Taj mahal, it could be seen every year, month, week, day, time of day etc. and from many different angles/magnifications etc. with the assistance of GPS coordinates. All this will be possible if data is mined from the donated media and properly electronically catalogued along with the image. And if donators are requested to fill in various detailed tags about each image that they donate through the designated upload link where they will also see various disclosures that they are indeed donating the media 100 percent and foregoing all their rights. “Emailed” donated images/media could be sent an auto-email-reply with a form to fill in creating all the various Tags that could apply to the donated picture/media and the auto-reply should contain the disclosure that the donator is indeed making 100 percent media donation and foregoing all rights.

• Should inappropriate media be censored and deleted completely by administrators? Well, I think not. The media donated with brand names visible, copyrighted material, too many friends and family visible, sexually explicit material should be temporally removed from public’s view and should not be available to search in the present times. This material could be sent/dumped in an unsearchable database where it could lie for a few centuries and for a few generations to pass and after that when no one remembers who these people were the material could again be provided to public as a historical record from a previous time assisting researchers in human/historical studies and studies in human behaviors etc.. It may be noted here that even uploading unusable media requires effort and this effort may prove useful to researchers centuries later. The copyrighted material will be usable again then as copyright would have expired long time ago and in most cases the original work may have also been destroyed without a trace as most originals like books, paintings, newspapers etc. are made up of biodegradable material which perishes if it is not stored in museum like conditions.

• There should be various TAGs that should be chosen and created in respect to each donated media so that they may assist the public at a later time to pull images/media from the archive. Various appropriate Tags should be created by original media donator who should be first provided with list of short Tags he could choose from that were created by others and were eventually standardized, additionally when he starts typing, to reduce effort, other types of tags may be suggested from the ones that were created by other users elsewhere. Some standard tags could be name/user name of donator, Subject/Location, magnification/seen from what distance, angle, Date, Time, context, normal view or description of “special event captured” (Like rioter throwing stones on police, people fighting, people shopping, building on fire, reading, praying, neglect, human rights violation etc.), atmosphere tags like, sunlit, sunshine, sunset, sunrise, raining, overcast/cloudy etc.. If news-making event is captured then NEWS-making Tag should be chosen and donator should be requested for little extra notes/comments why he thinks the media has captured news worthy event and be asked to describe the event in greater detail. The news-making tags could be patrolled by actual news companies etc. and could provide them/journalists/authors potential leads as to what stories that they can pursue now or at a later date in the pipeline; additionally news making tag could provide government agencies the opportunity to take positive corrective actions and for aid agencies to find people/projects to assist. Original donators should create tags and then on a later stage when the archive is being viewed by researchers and secondary users they should be also in a position to quickly add/create some more appropriate additional tags to assist future searchers. For example someone casually shoots a picture of an unknown butterfly sitting on an unknown flower, a zoologist/botanist viewing the picture in future could add butterfly name and flower name and scientific names etc. and create tags or/and notes/comments to go with the image. Some sort of “voluntary acknowledgement tags” could be created for secondary users who actually use the image in a wiki or outside publication, they can leave a tag/info/comment if they used the particular archived image and where, could leave a citation like detail of their article/publication, where the donated media was used by them. There should be tags to rate the donated image or video so that researching public can rate donated media on quality scale and could also leave additional educational comments in case they know more about the subject captured in the media which future researchers could follow up.

Computer software should supplement the above created/chosen tags with mined embedded technical information that is available embedded in today’s electronic media files, like camera used, aperture used, lens used, date and time of day; and very soon most personal media creating devises will have embedded GPS coordinates about where the media was made. All the above will help in Citizen reporting & Citizen documenting of the world in a particular, soon to be, historical time i.e. Citizen documenting of history, especially visual world history as it happens. There could be a Tutorial on how to make and use tags effectively, also showing how to view translated tags/event-description in a particular language. As an article is written or improved on a wiki or elsewhere, tags can help authors search for appropriate media/images/video etc. that can be used to supplement their work.

A Tag-search could give an output of a list of appropriate media that could by it-self be used as an online gallery; or best chosen images could be lined up in a gallery. Donators should be able to line up their lifelong media donations by clicking on the tag of their name, there should be a link here (and elsewhere too) to a “tutorial” on how to make their donated media more useful as searchable historical documents where donators could be taught how to go back in and improve each media piece already donated by them and already listed in the world archive; basically most possible improvements should relate around creating extra and much more effective tags for fairing better in searches and writing researched notes with references in the comment space under their listed archived media about what was captured in a particular picture/video donated by them, where, when and in what context etc.. (Once a media piece is donated and listed in the world archive, it should be possible to go in there and create more tags to supplements those already created for the piece, rate the piece on a quality scale, write comments about the piece in spaces provided. There should be tutorials to show how to do all this better)

• As this is about building what will undoubtedly be a world archive, the scope is world wide and immense and lot of funding will be required to build and maintain such a resource. Lot of worldwide large scale funding drives will have to be organized targeting large donors annually. United Nations could be a good platform to request help from as this project is about the world as a whole. If someone provides funding from another country then we should set up a local office in that country so that tax-break forms can be issued to the donator so that they can get an income tax-break/incentive against donated funds which is valid in their particular country.

• Huge Archive hence Limited & More Accurate Searches to Save Energy: As overtime a huge archive will come into existence it will take lot of electronic energy to make a search in the entire archive so some of the material could be deemed to be almost duplicate by volunteers and boxed together; and time periods could be boxed together etc. and when some one wants to search the archives first these boxes should show up and only if researchers want to search a particular box then only that box can be searched. In this way searches can be made more particular and electronic energy saved by making smaller/limited searches. Additionally media should be tagged properly and accurately along with research notes/comments on what was captured so that it can be located easily when needed. If required lot of un-usable or copyrighted or duplicate media could be boxed off in unsearchable boxes for the time being and could be made to surface again years, decades, centuries later when it is deemed to be usable again as copyright would have expired, persons shown are not living etc..

• Digital Archival Storage Economy: It is hoped that this huge digital archive of high resolution images and video (as donators will be requested to upload in high resolution) will need smaller and smaller digital storage space as technology advances with time and most storage when not being searched will need no or little electrical energy; and very soon most electricity will be produced with cleaner technology hence building and searching this archive will be a relatively smaller drain on energy/world resources and wont be as harmful to the environment.

• Archival Strategy: Strategically it might become necessary to have 2 or 3 copies of this world archive with only one that is connected for searches. All copies of the world archive should be located in the Free-World which is free from dictatorships and meddling by medieval religious institutions and regimes. Physical locations of all the copies of the world archives should be located in secret underground tunnels/caves away from earthquake zones where they will remain safe from bombings during future wars or/and purposely targeted sabotage. Obviously in the future when man does colonize other planets then copies could be located there in addition to the archives they will build about themselves.

Please forward this to concerned persons/departments for brain storming and fine tuning.

atulsnischal (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of your suggestions work already here in some way, some are planned.

• "DONATE AN IMAGE OR VIDEO": On every wiki, there's a "Upload file" or "Upload" link which you can click to upload files. On this form, you can add all the information about the file.
• List of required media: Media can be requested at Commons:Image requests.
• For your e-mail address, we have the OTRS, to which files can be sent (though I don't know anything about their internal procedures).
• Tags: We currently have categories, though many people don't like them and would also prefer tags over them.
• I'm not sure it should be too oversimplified. While I can see the advantages of an easy upload form, if it's too easy, then more idiotic uploads will come. It's already like this currently that people simply choose a random license and usually don't even know what they're doing. Licenses are something important, especially those on Commons, because they mean that your media may be used by anyone in the world, for whatever purpose they want to. With a checkbox, yet more people won't get it. Simpleness also has their downsides.
• The media donations are centralized on Commons already. This is the project where you upload your pictures to make then accessible for all >700 Wikimedia projects.
• A place of recent media would certainly be good. AFAIK, it doesn't exist.
• I agree about the thing that Commons should be censorable if people want that. At the moment, administrators are able to remove an image from public sight.
• I believe that an option where people can see how to reuse images is long overdue. It should be similar to Special:Cite (which is just plain useless here on Commons). For that purpose, some users have created specific tags and some use a {{Credit line}}.
• The donators must have a username, and if you go to one's userpage, you'll see a tab named "gallery" which contains all media uploads under this username.
• The Commons software can mime technical info of a photograph (except the GPS data, but this is soon to be added as well).
• Watermarking is discouraged already by consensus.
• So, as you see, a lot of your ideas aren't something new to Commons. However, I'd recommand you to rather post your ideas at Commons:Usability issues and ideas. There's currently a team working on improving the Commons and multimedia in general, so your comments might get more attention there. Nevertheless, thanks for your ideas; we can need every help. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And another advice, which doesn't only apply here on Commons, but anywhere in the Internet: Don't overuse Capslock, use it with caution. It's like yelling in the real world. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice timing: Multimedia Usability Project Underway. Note that this project will focus mostly on core (less visible) issues that will make much of the above easier to implement (for our volunteers). TheDJ (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Contributions by Stan Spanker

I think that the files uploaded by user:Stan Spanker are of such a nature that we should invite him to look for another type of website. I am sure there are many sites where his contributions will be greatly appreciated. What do you think? Best regards, MartinD (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 Support. --Túrelio (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 Info There was a discussion on a similar topic recently. It's archived here. -- User:Docu at 12:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to my taste, but they are technically good photos, and if we mean what we say about the Commons not being censored, it's hard to imagine we will get significantly better photos of such subject matter. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jmabel, although I've not looked through all of the images in any real detail due NSFW. Adambro (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

{{PD-Hubble}}

Currently, this license template categorizes images in Category:Hubble images. Unfortunately, not all images to which this license applies are in fact taken by Hubble (see File:Close-up of Sirius.jpg for example). And with the current implementation, there is no way to remove this misleading categorization from just a few images. So I'd like to suggest that we remove this category from the template, but before doing that, it would be best to run a bot to add Category:Hubble images on all the file pages bearing this template; then the category can be manually removed where not appropriate.
Does this suggestion make sense? Or is there a better way that I didn't see? Any volunteers to implement and run the bot? –Tryphon^☂ 14:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How many of the images that use {{PD-Hubble}} aren't categorized in Category:Hubble images? The few I spot-checked are. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This I don't know. Personally, I always add the category even though I know it is already there through the template; and since the categorization is not documented on the template, I guess a lot of people add the category simply because they don't know it's redundant. I just thought running a bot would be a good idea, just to be on the safe side; there are only 996 images in Category:Hubble images, so it shouldn't take too long. –Tryphon^☂ 15:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've counted 219 images which didn't have the category explicitly set, out of 998 images in Category:Hubble images. So I think I'll go ahead and put a request on Commons:Bots/Work requests and implement my initial suggestion. –Tryphon^☂ 10:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, one would create a hidden category that groups all images using a given license template. For such a category, the name "Hubble images" might not be ideal.

The topical category of images, e.g. made through the telescope shouldn't be hidden nor assigned through the template.

If the difference is just one or two images, it might not be worth going through all the troubles of creating two ;) -- User:Docu at 14:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The template also adds the hidden Category:PD NASA, which is fine. And again, I don't have numbers, but it's definitely more than a couple of images (and many more not uploaded on Commons yet, such as ground-based DSS2 images which can be found on http://hubblesite.org or http://www.spacetelescope.org). –Tryphon^☂ 15:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly it could use a more specific subcategory than PD NASA. If you sort out the category names, you could then make a request at Commons:Bots/Work requests or try CommonsDelinker to add the topical category to all files with the template based one. Some manual cleanup might be needed afterwards. -- User:Docu at 15:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the hints. I'm not sure a more specific category is needed at this time, and it's quite trivial to change if the need arises. –Tryphon^☂ 15:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is a relatively few images which use the template, then you could implement a "nocat=true" argument on the template, as documented in w:WP:CATSUP, then use it on just those few. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, good idea, I hadn't thought of it. The only problem with this solution is that HotCat would still fail to remove the category, and probably most users wouldn't know about this option. I'm still in favor of removing the topic category from the license template entirely, but if (as it seems) no one thinks it's such a big deal, I might just do what you suggested. –Tryphon^☂ 18:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't {{PD-Hubble}} the wrong license for that image anyway? According to their copyright page, images from spacetelescope.org are normally {{Cc-by-3.0}}, not PD. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that is the ESA status (explicit cc-by-3.0). The NASA status is: http://hubblesite.org/about_us/copyright.php This basically means that because ESA is not 100% sure if they can claim copyright in non-USA regions, they have explicitly chosen to release the imagery under cc-by-3.0. Yeah, international copyright. TheDJ (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it used to be public domain on spacetelescope.org too, but they changed that to cc-by-3.0 at some point (unfortunately, I don't know exactly when, but for an image uploaded in 2007 I think it was still PD). Now we have two license tags for Hubble images: {{PD-Hubble}} for images found on hubblesite.org, and {{Cc-Hubble}} for images found on spacetelescope.org; if an image is present on both sites, {{PD-Hubble}} is preferred. –Tryphon^☂ 12:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Question of accuracy in opening paragraph of "When to use the PD-Art tag" Policy

The discussion here seems to have gotten a bit stale. Would anyone spare the time to give an opinion? 9carney (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Dokdo poster.JPG

A question to common regulation regarding speedy deleting: File:Dokdo poster.JPG was tagged {{speedy|}} by an user and retagged by me with {{delete|}} in order to start a discussion here. Now another user tried to change template back to speedy delete several times ([12], [13]) so I'm not sure anymore if he is right or not. Question: Is marking that file as an file for speedy deletion in this case (after discussion already began) appropriate? Thank you and greetings --Valentim (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Once a file is up for Deletion Requests, you can't remove that and put a speedy tag on it. If necessary, an admin can promptly delete it, but that can be done with the deletion request on the page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your immediate answer. Greetings --Valentim (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

January 27

Multimedia Usability Project Underway

Interesting news at http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/01/26/multimedia-usability-project-underway/

Just a note for those that didn't notice it being mentioned a few lines above (thanks DJ). -- User:Docu at 10:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Multichill

Hi everyone, I did a request for bureacratship at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Multichill. Not a lot of people seem to have noticed this and it was suggested to post it here. So here we go! Please vote, comment and ask questions over there. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Relicensing to more permissive license

As the copyright holder and uploader of some photos on Commons which have been licensed by me for some time as CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL (see example), I'd want to relicense some of them to CC-BY 3.0 and GFDL (basically, I want to drop the -SA requirement in some cases).

It is my understanding that, being CC-BY more permissive than CC-BY-SA, that's well within my rights, and I should be able to just update the license template on the individual files (i.e. replacing {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0}} with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0}}, but I wonder if there could be objections to that. Of course, I still have to keep GFDL. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That shouldn't be a problem. Multichill (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Large File with errors?

Hi, someone got an ida what's wrong with File:Grandcanyon skywalk hd.jpg? It can't be displayed, neither here nor as a thumb in the articles. Resetting it to a former version that worked did surprisingly not help. Hope someone can fix it. TIA --h-stt !? 21:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Works just fine for me, did you purge? Paradoctor (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I did, twice. Now, half an hour later it works for me again. Who ever did what ever, thanks *g*. --h-stt !? 21:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably connected to the image server being migrated. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The error was noticed first several days ago on de-WP. Well, right now it looks fine. --h-stt !? 22:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

January 28

Unknown insect, Katni, MP, India

unknown insect, Katni, MP, India, around 5 cm long

Please help me identifying this insect (around 5 cm long, attracted by light at night). Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Try leaving a message at the talk page of WikiProject Insects. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

At WP:RBIO/B on de.wp, an IP user suggested an Army ant, possibly of the genera Aenictus or Dorylus. Regards --Rosenzweig δ 00:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: Having wings, I suppose it would have to be a queen or a male. At least if what's normal in the ants I know applies to those ants as well. --Rosenzweig δ 00:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

PPS: This IP is a well known expert for insects on de.wp. So, his determination of the insect as an Army ant was no suggestion and should be treated as a fact. However, he made indeed a suggestion regarding the genus, so it's probably Dorylus or Aenictus. Yours, --Accipiter (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

two duplicating categories: genetic disorders and genetic diseases

They seem to overlap, or maybe I dont catch the difference as a non-native speaker. Anyway, I thought to make you aware; I only upload images and dont know how to fix this issue. --CopperKettle (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Images in "Category:Genetic diseases" have been transferred to "Category:Genetic disorders". You can list uncontroversial requests for categories to be renamed at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Image of painting replaced with higher-resolution version with (three-dimensional) frame included

This concerns File:Charles Boit, Queen Anne and Prince George.jpg.

I intentionally removed the frame from this image, as the photograph of the frame would not be that of a two-dimensional object (thus being more doubtful from a copyright point-of-view). Another user has now uploaded a higher-resolution copy with the frame, and re-uploaded the frameless low-resolution version as a file of its own, File:Charles Boit, Queen Anne and Prince George crop.jpg.

For reasons that will be obvious from the NPG threats against a Wikipedia user, I would prefer not to have my user account connected with a higher-resolution copy (as currently viewed or, for that matter, in the history of the image page). The lower-resolution image suffices for the purpose of illustrating the article on the painter and is less likely to get the Royal Collection to consider sending legal threats.

I can see how someone else may feel differently about this, and if they want to upload a high-resolution version, I am not going to object, as the legal issues are obviously far from clear. I would just hope that, as a matter of courtesy, my wishes could be respected and the high-resolution copy moved to its own page (titled File:Charles Boit, Queen Anne and Prince George high-resolution.jpg or something), not uploaded on top of the lower-resolution image I uploaded.

Is there a precedent for cases such as this one? Can I ask an administrator to delete the higher-resolution version from the history of the File:Charles Boit, Queen Anne and Prince George.jpg? --Hegvald (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not just delete File:Charles Boit, Queen Anne and Prince George.jpg as a scaled-down duplicate of File:Charles Boit, Queen Anne and Prince George crop.jpg, after having replaced all uses? Then your account name would not be associated to the high-resolution version, but it could still be used illustrate the article about the painter. –Tryphon^☂ 13:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that we move the high-res on top of the low-res. Then high-res would be used in the articles and your version would still be in the file history. --MGA73 (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

All uses have been transferred and the low res version (which include the frame version) has been deleted, as requested. Kaldari (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That works for me. --Hegvald (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In this case the image should have been cropped, not reverted - the three-dimensional frame is not okay, but higher resolution is good. Really someone should do a batch job for the Royal Collection. However, I don't blame you for being wary, considering the aggressive copyright position of the Royal Collection. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Britain Loves Wikipedia

Britain Loves Wikipedia, a free photography competition / scavenger hunt, launches this Sunday at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, and then runs in 21 museums across the UK throughout February! Full details are on the WMUK blog, and http://www.britainloveswikipedia.org/ . Any questions, please let me know. Hopefully we can get lots of great photos from British museums uploaded here over the next month and a bit... :-) Mike Peel (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

January 29

How do I edit an SVG file on wikimedia commons?

To be specific, I want to update File:NFPA_704.svg to replace the original XML:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-20010904/DTD/svg10.dtd">
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.0" width="600" height="600">
  <rect x="0" y="0" width="425" height="425" transform="translate(0 300) rotate(-45)" />
  <rect x="0" y="0" width="200" height="200" transform="translate(159 153) rotate(-45)" fill="red" />
  <rect x="0" y="0" width="200" height="200" transform="translate(12 300) rotate(-45)" fill="#0040FF" />
  <rect x="0" y="0" width="200" height="200" transform="translate(306 300) rotate(-45)" fill="#FFE000" />
  <rect x="0" y="0" width="200" height="200" transform="translate(159 447) rotate(-45)" fill="white" />
</svg>

with the more compact form that wraps up the rotate(45) in a <g> element:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-20010904/DTD/svg10.dtd">
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.0" width="600" height="600">
 <g transform="translate(300,300) rotate(45)">
  <rect x="-212" y="-212" width="424" height="424" />
  <rect x="-204" y="-204" width="200" height="200" fill="red" />
  <rect x="-204" y="4" width="200" height="200" fill="#0040FF" />
  <rect x="4" y="-204" width="200" height="200" fill="#FFE000" />
  <rect x="4" y="4" width="200" height="200" fill="white" />
 </g>
</svg>

This is all {{PD-shape}}, so no copyright worries. But I can't figure out how to get the XML into an editor... Any advice? Can someone do it for me? Thanks! 71.41.210.146 09:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this may be my Alzheimer, but how can you post a message like this without pasting in the XML from some editor?!? Paradoctor (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess you mean you can't find an editor on Commons? The way to update a file is to create the new version on your computer, then click "Upload a new version of this file" on the file description page. You can't edit the file directly online. You'll also need to login or create an account. Pruneau^talk 10:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yes, I meant that I couldn't find an on-line editor like http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:NFPA_704.svg&action=edit provides for wikitext. I guess it hides the "Upload a new version of the file" link, as I didn't see it. Anyway, as I don't have an account and don't want one, I guess I've done all I can; commons doesn't seem to have a {{editsemiprotected}} template. If someone else wants to make the change, be my guest. 71.41.210.146 11:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I updated the image. As explained above, there is no way to edit SVG files from the web interface directly. You have to write the file locally on your hard drive, and then uploaded exactly like you would with a bitmap image (through the Upload a new version of this file link under the file history on the image page, not the edit page). –Tryphon^☂ 12:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, there is {{editprotected}}, but as this page isn't protected it is not really the intended use. Killiondude (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Snes9x images - possible copyright violations?

A number of icons from the video game console emulator Snes9x have been uploaded to Commons, located here. Although its source code is publicly available, Snes9x is not free software. It is freeware, since it prohibits commercial use without permission.

The source code clearly states the following, with my emphasis in bold:

Permission to use, copy, modify and/or distribute Snes9x in both binary and source form, for non-commercial purposes, is hereby granted without fee, providing that this license information and copyright notice appear with all copies and any derived work.

I have no way of telling whether the uploader is the copyright holder of these images, or whether they received permission to upload them. Should these icons be nominated for deletion? --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll ask the uploader to provide proof of being the copyright holder or confirm that they had permission to upload the icons, or they will be marked for deletion otherwise. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

January 30

Bundesarchiv categorization

When will this matter be resolved? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010Jan#Bundesarchiv_categorization Last comment was: "I don't understand. An incredibly useful archives of photographs is now going to sit in the database in a state of near uselessness because someone thinks that assigning it into useful categories is "vandalism"? Is that what I just read? I mean, despite a consensus of editors/users who agreed that the by year templates would be a very handy thing to have indeed?" But no answer was given.68.144.162.78 00:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

An overhasty start was already made, see e.g. Category:Images from the German Federal Archive from 1906. Overhasty becaue for 99% of the images in that example category the date is simply wrong. Your help is appreciated to correct the date according to the archive description (most cases: between 1906 and 1918) and move the image to an appropriate content category such as Category:1906 to replace the temporary categorization permanently. You can also go to Category:Images from the German Federal Archive and search for subjects or years in the special search form there and add appropriate content categories. Go and make yourself usefull, thats an extremly time intensive work. We already made great advances in Category:Cities in Germany by decade, enjoy it. --Martin H. (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe the last thing I heard was Multichill offer to rebuild the structure he dismantled through some semi-automatic means. I am not sure what he means so I was waiting to see what he is planning to do. Otherwise if we have consensus we can easily either revert the changes to the template and recreate the structure, or run a bot for a few days and add the categories to all 82k images. The template approach is easier but I dislike autocategorization if there is other way. But either way is fine with me. Also Martin H., the discussion here is not about any "temporary" structure but about a permanent "by collection by year" structure some of us find more useful than categories like Category:1906. I am a little confused why 99% of images in Category:Images from the German Federal Archive from 1906 are wrong: they are from Bundesarchiv and they are all clearly marked as from 1906. If you think the date is incorrect may be you can correct it? My bot was not a mind-reader and was only sorting images into categories based by date specified in the information template. --Jarekt (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The date derived from BArch was only the first year, the correct date was not transfered. It is a terrible mess and an boring work to remove all the categories again, to correct the date (which must be done by a bot who can read the original archival description - or in my case by hand because I have not the technical knowledge to create such a bot or script). In this case of the 1906 photos the photos are all from Walther Dobbertin, a photographer in German East Africa, sorting them into a category tree of German Colonialism as a periode of time is satisfying, for most images a better by date categorization is not possible or not yet known. Categorization includes categorization by Date or time periode (German colonialism, pre WWI), location if possible, subject like animals, special buildings, ethnic groups,... In fact the subject categorization is poor for this images but the by date categorization for this images was already done! The addition of a new by date category takes all efforts done so far for a ride or is some kind of job creation program. And again: Temporary categorization is a good idea to finally include the images to the date categories. The date categorization was "catalyzed" by the BArch images, it was something we not did before this upload so consequently. But a permanent source category tree is unwanted. This is Wikimedia Commons, we have our own category tree, this is not the Bundesarchiv database or a mirror of it. --Martin H. (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Martin, I will be happy to help with some bot edits. If there is a need we could create some page coordinating those. However my AWB bot would not be able to access BArch database. --Jarekt (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I prefer autocategorized for categorizing collections (most collection category are template based). If Multichill finds another way, I'd be interested in seeing it implemented. That corrections are needed isn't really an argument against it.

IMHO, suggesting people use search instead or discourage them to work on categorizing images aren't arguments relevant to the discussion. -- User:Docu at 08:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear IP could you explain why the BA-images are something special and should thus not be mixed with imgaes from other sources? Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

They are special because it's a collection of 100,000 photos! It's not easy to sort through 100,000 photos without some sort of internal categorization, especially since it is not possible on Commons to view intersections of categories. This dogmatic insistence that certain types of intersection categories are simply not allowed on Commons is ridiculous, and Multichill's insistance on enforcing this "regulation" is draconian and against consensus. I had the same issue with Wikipedia Loves Art. We needed internal categorization to sort the 5,000 photos into groups by museum. Even though everyone agreed this was necessary, at least until they could be hand-sorted into museum-specific categories like "Sculptures at the Metropolitan Museum of Art", Multichill insisted on deleting the categories so that no one could figure out which photos were related to which museums without going through 5,000 photos by hand. For extremely large collections of photographs, intersection categories should be allowed, at least until hand-sorting is completed. Kaldari (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not call it a collection, but still, why do files have to be treated different if they come from a specific source? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

@Cwbm - Nobody here insists on not "not mixing with images from other sources" that is still the key goal. The discussion is about categories allowing you to brouse a single collection of images often in order to organize it better. --Jarekt (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

But why then you want to mix the files don't you add regular year categories? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What is special about images from different sources is that they are all different. Templates are different, subject is different, time period is different, problems with descriptions are different. That is why it is easier to categorize them separately and this is why people like to browse them separatly --Jarekt (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Isn't it possible to do categorization work on a private wiki? Paradoctor (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Since cat:s such as Category:19th century European art in the Honolulu Academy of Arts seem uncontroversial, I don't see why some resist cat:ting Bundesarchiv images by date. In any case, I had understood that the principle had been generally accepted - the question was how best technically to achieve the categorisation. Man vyi (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

So lets talk about how to add Bundesarchiv images by date. As I already mentioned above I see only 2 ways, but there might be other approaches. Please add your comments next to each:

1) By template - just undo parts of this edit and we are done.

 Support although, I and other people do not like using autocategorization for non-maintenance categories, on the other hand this approach would be fast and easy to maintain. --Jarekt (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

2) By adding regular category to each image

 Support I (or someone else) would run a bot for a couple days and add the categories to all 82k images. I thought that what we agree to in one of the frequent discussions on the subject; however when I started adding categories I was blocked for "Vandalism" --Jarekt (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

3) Is there third way?

--Jarekt (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer if you could answer my question. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the solution I would like to see implemented:

1. Revert Multichill's edit to the template so that all of the Bundesarchiv images are auto-assigned to categories like "Category:Images from the German Federal Archive, year 1943". Make all of these categories hidden. This way you can use the categories to find things within the collection, but it won't intrude on the "official" categorization.
2. Run a bot to manually assign year categories to all the Bundesarchiv images, so that each image belongs to a category like "Category:1943".

This should satisfy both goals. Kaldari (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. It might not work for the 68.144.162.78 who might have to get an account to see hidden categories ;) --Jarekt (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

files of User:Albertbayona and user:Bob Charmury

This user has uploaded several files that will be out of scope (in my opinion), PDF-Files with a mixture of photos and text, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Albertbayona - perhaps someone can tell him, how his contributions can be of any value to the project. Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

next case: "Bob Charmbury" uploaded several files (Gallery [14]) with a strange logic of the use of prayers, I think all are unused. Hope this is the right place to talk about it Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Argh duplicate batch upload

I decided today to upload ~60 images from http://www.birdseyeviews.org just to discover after I finished that someone else got the idea first and they were all duplicates and had to be deleted (with the exception of ~5 or so where my versions were technically superior). I didn't stumble across these until I went to add the images into articles. In retrospect I could've caught this if I'd just looked a little bit harder - e.g. a Google site search for the URL would have turned it up, or if I looked at some of the articles of the cities depicted on En. Server-side dup detection for JPEGs of the same image would be nice, although I realise this is nontrivial. I guess all I'm saying here is we've gotten to the point where you can no longer assume nobody else has done that batch upload you're thinking of, so be careful! Dcoetzee (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Rocket000 once requested to simply technically forbid the uploading of duplicates. I can't find the bug at the moment, but I believe that this is long overdue. --The Evil Public Computer (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the bug either. Are you sure it exists? Kaldari (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Always do dupe checking in your batch uploads. Calculate the SHA1 hash of the image you want to upload and ask the api if it already exists. BTW, please update your projects at Commons:Batch uploading. Multichill (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

To save others reading this the search: mw:API:Query - Lists#allimages / ai. Paradoctor (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hash checking is insufficient for a case like this, because different users use different tools to do a Zoomify rip, resulting in visually similar but distinct files. Like I said, dup checking of JPEGs is a nontrivial problem... we'd need new technology like the database algorithms used by Tineye. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What happened to artlibre?

Is this a temporary problem? http://artlibre.org/ is down? -- smial (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like they most likely exceeded their monthly traffic quota. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Are those pictures really free?

Hi everyone. There's a Flickr user called Shine 2010 - 2010 World Cup good news (apparently linked to shine2010.co.za website) who offers many CC-BY pictures of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. But I am a bit skeptikal since it's written "Photo by 2010 FIFA World Cup Organising Committee South Africa" under each picture and I really doubt the FIFA would authorize such a non-lucrative use of those pictures. What do you think? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad flickr user. E.g. http://www.flickr.com/photos/shine2010/4294359825/ is credited to FIFA World Cup Organising Committee South Africa (OC), in fact it is simply take from http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/newsid=1162958.html#maradona+i+will+experiment where it is credited to Getty images. First idea: This flickr stream only collection images from the OC with wrong credit to them instead of the original source and without beeing able to license the content themself or getting a licensing from the OC becaue per the terms of Getty etc they have licenses for theire use but they are not able to transfer this license or sublicense the content. --Martin H. (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Shine 2010 tread licensing very "liberally". From 69 images with compatible CC license in the photostream most credited with FIFA, and other part are Adidas balls that can be fount all over the web [15] --Justass (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote them. --Martin H. (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And a note: Im unsure about File:Moses Mabhida Durban Stadium.jpg. But if this is not from somewhere else it wouldnt be possible for another flickr user (who is also not the creator) to upload the same image 2 weeks before. So the doubt applies to all images from shine2010. --Martin H. (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Who in fact is the creator / photographer? -- smial (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I not found out so far, just try to determine if everything from this flickr account is bad or only some parts. --Martin H. (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you inform me if you have the confirmation that it's OK? Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

File:The Olsen twins.jpg

The description says "Mary-kate and Ashley Olsen posing nearby their star at Hollywood". Shouldn't it be "Fans posing nearby Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen's star at Hollywood"? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Either press the move button or tag for renaming. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think non-sysops can move files yet. Last I heard. :-) Killiondude (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed the description and tagged the picture. I suppose it's OK now. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Picasa

Hi all, I'd like to raise some questions about images taken from Picasa.

Thanks to FIST, I've be somehow able to find for free images from Picasa. I've noticed that there was no category for images from Picasa (so I did create Category:Files from Picasa). I'd like to know your opinion about the necessity of proceeding in a similar way to Flickr, specifically with regard to the way we "certify" the assurance of the original license (that is, by using {{Flickrreview}} by administrators or trusted users). Do you think it's necessary? Should a similar template be created? Many thanks in advance --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 21:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we'd need similar processes as for Flickr also for Picasa, panoramio, and other repositories. Ideally bot-assisted, like in the Flickr case. There is already {{LicenseReview}} which can be used to manually certify images from these repositories, but we don't have bot assistance yet. Lupo 22:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

January 31

Page move

Oh, could someone move iterative.ogg to en-uk-iterative.ogg please? My mistake. It will be broken on Wiktionary until that move is performed, and I don't seem to have any move command available. Xonique (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. cheers –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Help support a missing person search

On Wikiversity a group is trying to develop a new search plan for a missing teenager.[16] We have access to maps but could use help finding or generating area maps under license terms suitable for Wikiversity. --Una Smith (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Try using http://www.openstreetmap.org/, where all content available under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 --Justass (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been doing that, but am having a hard time climbing the learning curve there. I am hoping someone here, who already knows how to use OpenStreetMap, will lend a hand. I have used the Census Tiger Map tool in past, but right now it appears to be broken, since it is unable to locate place names. --Una Smith (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Geograph upload

Geograph image

Hi everyone, you might have noticed the recent increase of images (we passed the 6 million marker this afternoon), this is because I'm uploading almost 250.000 images from http://www.geograph.co.uk. This should significantly increase our coverage of the British Isles (United Kingdom, Ireland and the Isle of Man). Every image contains the location. The images are categorized by a bot based on this location. Each image at Geograph contains a topic. This topic is used to find correct categories here. Location and topic are combined to find even better categories. This worked for most images, I just have to recheck some images which got categorized into a main category (categories on this list, probably because the location tool was down). More information at Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph. How can you help?

• Help check the categories at yesterdays and todays uploads.
• A lot of categories were created prior to this upload. Help populate these categories
• Help diffuse crowded categories to it's subcategories (for example Category:England).
• Use the images at Wikipedia!

Multichill (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

a WikiProject for requesting copyright permissions?

A while ago, I proposed a WikiProject on the English Wikipedia for requesting copyright holders to release their non-free content under a free license. However, the idea never took off there, presumably due to the lack of supporters. Therefore, I'm bringing up this proposal here. Could Wikimedia Commons benefit from such a project? --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

February 1

People renaming categories of cities in Basque country

Some contributors want to rename some categories which concern cities in the French part of the Basque country. See for instance the discussion 'here about renaming Category:Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port into Category:Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port / Donibane Garazi for Basque is spoken by a part of the city inhabitants. I add a topic on this village pump, since I think there is no reason to treat Basque language differently from any other language. In my opinion, the rules must be the same for all. Allowing this would be like renaming "New Orleans" into "New Orleans / La Nouvelle-Orléans" knowing that some people speak French there... Peter17 (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Category names are generally supposed to be in English, so preferably it would be the same title as the English wikipedia. It would be nice to have better multilingual support for them, but there are large technical hurdles. Remember people have to enter these names as categories when they upload pictures, so the names shouldn't be longer than really necessary. Currently, we just try to make sure that the description area has translations in different languages. *Galleries* don't have to be named in English, but even there redirects are better than dual naming I would think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)