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/2024/05. 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.

Thatched water pump at Aylsham, Norfolk [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) User talk:湯崩正海#Image Tagging File:青島ビール放尿動画事件.jpgとUser talk:湯崩正海#File:青島ビール放尿動画事件.jpgで議論しています。皆様のご意見を募集しています。是非、ご参加ください。(2 November 2023) Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch

November 27

LIFE Photo Archive

On November 18, 2008, Time Inc. announced that the legendary photo collection of the defunct LIFE magazine (which includes over 10 million images) would be digitized in partnership with Google and hosted on Google Image Search. This is a great opportunity for Commons. Thousands of very valuable images can be potentially uploaded here (some have already been). Time has indicated that 97% of the images have never been published before. Therefore, most of them should use the {{PD-US-unpublished}} tag if appropriate. All images created before 1904 and those whose author died before 1954 can be hosted on Commons using this tag without any problem since they are currently in the public domain in the US. The status of other images should be checked separately.

I have done all the preliminary work in terms of category and template creation. Therefore, contributors are welcome to start uploading images!! Just use the {{LIFE}} source template. If Google indicates a location and/or a year for the image, you can include them in the template by using the "location" and "year" parameters. Images will be automatically categorized accordingly. Google's image descriptions are in English, so hopefully this means that many contributors will participate in the uploading process!! Regards. --BomBom (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey nice work with the templates BomBom. Why isn't the naming scheme "Life, xxx, ID" ? Like in the images from the modern Egypt website?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The older date should be 1897, not 1889. A 1997 law expanded that period from 100 to 120 years but was not retroactive. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• The wording should be shortened in the template-box {{LIFE}}, which would also simplify translations. In general, use digits for "97%" rather than "ninety-seven percent". Perhaps shorten the box by simply moving the extra details to the template-doc section, outside the box. Many other template-boxes are WAY TOO BIG (such as {{PD-old}}), so beware copying the style of other boxes, most of which are designed-by-committee ultra-wordified-redundant-complexifications. Keep it simple. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, new short wording looks great with link to template-doc. -Wikid77

Regarding the naming scheme, I agree with you Diaa that it should "Life, xxx, ID". The problem is that I did not upload any of these images. Most of them were already there before I started organizing them through categorization and template use. They should probably be renamed. I suggest that images uploaded from now on follow such a naming scheme.

As for Carl, are you sure about the 1897 date? This page says 1889. Could you please provide the relevant legislation? With regard to the template-box, I have greatly shortened the text within it and removed it to the template-doc section as suggested by Wikid77.

The en:Copyright Term Extension Act (effective starting October 1998) changed that term from 100 to 120. See the "Amendments" section at the bottom of the 17 U.S.C. 302 notes. It was not retroactive, so works under that criteria created before 1898 would have been public domain by then, and remain that way. I sent them a note; maybe they will update their chart. Note that you can't use that date if the author is known (unless the date of death is unknown to the Copyright Office; you need an actual letter from them in order to use that criteria), and also that "unknown" is not the same thing as "anonymous", which is usually very difficult to prove. It is most usable for unpublished works for hire. However, note that LIFE magazine did not exist back then, and so would have needed to obtain such works from other sources, which strongly suggests they were published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Argh, sorry, I was wrong about that -- while the term was extended, the 1976 Copyright Act (effective starting 1978) guaranteed 25 years of protection for those unpublished works, so none of them started to expire before 2003 -- meaning they were all still under copyright when the term was extended. So, 1889 is the correct date, and will advance one each year, so your current tag is correct. But the caveats I mentioned still apply -- and also that LIFE may have obtained some of these older images from non-U.S. sources, so terms in those countries may also need to be taken into account. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Finally, is there a way we can centralize efforts to upload images? I think several users could combine efforts and upload batches of photos based on date/location. Uploading from the Memory of Modern Egypt Digital Archive was slow because there are very few active Arabic speakers. However, in the case of LIFE images, everything is in English, so it would be far easier. All suggestions are welcome. Regards. --BomBom (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Modern Egypt I could help a lot, but I was discouraged when my uploads were deleted because of the naming scheme. Plus the site of Modern Egypt is very difficult. You can't just download an image and you can't copy any text because it's all in Javascript. I would support having projects to upload certain batches of Images. Maybe something like Commons:The Batchers which would have its own bot to fetch batches when images are released in the public domain or CC-by or CC-by-sa. Having just a project for Life is very short sighted because after all images are uploaded the project would be dead. I would however still help out in a project for Life or Modern Egypt. Specially in a project for modern Egypt. Barnstars for these projects would encourage more people to contribute. Competitions would also encourage more people. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of batches lately, often from sites that make it quite difficult to do so. I'm happy to help out in any batch retrieval, license filtering, and upload effort of public domain images. I prefer to work on high-resolution images, though - the low-resolution ones are not as valuable and far more numerous. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have done some research into LIFE images about various subjects. It appears that they claim a copyright over anything, even if it is more than 150 years old... This is a shame. I found quite a lot of interesting images for Commons. Examples: India, Thoreau, Ruskin, Tolstoy, Gandhi, etc. Images from India are public domain 60 years after publication even if the author is known. So I think that these images are safe if the photograper is Indian or unknown. If the photographer is not Indian, they were probably first published outside India, so not OK. How to request a mass upload by a bot? Yann (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly another flagrant example of copyfraud. Images from the 20th century where the photographer's name is known are clearly works made for hire whose copyright is undisputably held by Time Inc. in its capacity as owner of the defunt LIFE magazine. Therefore, the copyright notice for these images makes sense and has legal value. However, by what right does Time allow itself to claim copyright over this artistic painting, for instance, whose author Jacques-Louis David died in 1825?! Obvious copyfraud. They simply aren't coherent with themselves: on the one hand, they claim 97% of the collection is unpublished, yet on the other hand they totally ignore the US copyright rules defining the status of unpublished works. US law, on which {{PD-US-unpublished}} is based, is pretty clear on this: an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work or a work made for hire created more than 120 years ago is PD.Therefore, I think it's pretty safe to upload pre-1889 photographs, and most of them do not contain a copyright notice anyway.

A mass upload by a bot would be of great help: the bot would simply need to "detect" the year in the "Date take" parameter, and if it's pre-1889, then this would mean it is OK to upload it on Commons. I have no idea how bots work, and do not have the technical abilities to do this. However, if someone could come up with such a bot, it would be truly appreciated. There are hundreds of photographs taken before 1889 which are very valuable and which would be great for Commons. A manual upload of all these would be truly fastidious. Who has the technical abilities to come up with such a bot? Regards. --BomBom (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of fetching these images for mass upload, but the license situation just gets fuzzier and fuzzier to me. Above it's suggested that {{PD-US-unpublished}} is appropriate for pre-1889 images. But at Commons_talk:Licensing#Google_LIFE_images, User:Carl Lindberg says "LIFE did not start until 1936, so none of their "unpublished" material is public domain." The natural conclusion is that most of the images old enough to be PD were published close to the time they were created. I can begin uploading as soon as I figure out the license situation, so please supply your input at Commons_talk:Licensing#Google_LIFE_images. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been moved to Commons:Batch uploading.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

April 5

PikiWiki Israel

In File:PikiWiki Israel 2176 Kibutz Gan-Shmuel sk12- 201 גן-שמואל-נטיעת פרדס 1949-50.jpg, no direct link to the source file is provided, as is usually done in the case of Files coming from Flickr, for example.

I feel uncomfortable with these uploads, because we have no possibility to check the profile of the original uploader and see if his profile is consistent with his uploads.

If we stick to our rules, an OTRS confirmation Email should be required for every file, because the uploader uploading on Wikimedia Commons and the copyright holder are two different people. Teofilo (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Why add "Pikiwiki Israel" in the file name ? When a file is uploaded from Flickr, we usually do not add "Flickr" in the file name. Teofilo (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the source should point to the image page on that site. Otherwise, there is no way to verify any licenses. The one you mention has a bogus license -- it can not be cc-by, as it is PD-Israel. If the author is unknown, Creative Commons and GFDL licenses can never apply. PikiWiki in the filename is somewhat annoying, but not really a problem (unless they want to require it or something; that would be too much -- they can be renamed if there is a good reason). Overall I agree though -- there is no way to verify these licenses; we really should be able to see if users on that site habitually upload copyright violations there since otherwise it could be a form of flickrwashing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

While they lack a photographer's name, some of the pictures I checked have a collector's name, who, I guess, believes he has some sort of copyright ownership, but some clarification is needed, perhaps by way of an OTRS ticket. Teofilo (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Pikiwiki project has nothing to do with Flickr or similar projects. Please forget about Flickr when we discuss the Pikiwiki project, it works in a totally different method. Pikiwiki is a first initiative and it is still somewhat experimental, so please be patient about problems that occur, and you are more than welcome to suggest solutions in case you see a problem which the organizers didn't think about. Pikiwiki is an initiative of Wikimedia Israel and other Israeli free-content adhering organizations. It is in basically an alternative fully-localized interface to the Commons'. Image contributors can use a Hebrew-language interface and handle all the "paper-work" in Hebrew and in a way which is adapted to the Israeli law. The Pikiwiki site upload the images directly to the Commons, but keeps some extra information about the images, the kind of information which is probably relevant to the Israeli users. The management of the project keeps the users' statements in which they waive their copyrights in a special archive. In case of doubt, such a statement can be easily located by contacting the management directly, or Wikimedia Israel (which is the Israeli Wikimedia chapter). The prefix and number attached to each uploaded image meant to allow the localized interface trace the image. This is how Israeli users can browse these images through a Hebrew interface which also present extra information relevant to the Israeli users. If this project turns out to be successful, we hope other Wikimedia chapters in other countries organize similar project, which will make the Commons richer and more accessible. Drork (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"It is in basically an alternative fully-localized interface to the Commons" --> Unless a consensus is reached, building an alternative interface is, I am afraid,

a) possibly a way of hiding from the scrutiny of reviewers

b) possibly a way of undermining the rules which are enforced on Commons with the support of the Wikimedia foundation

Your idea of "fully localizing" the interface probably shows that you do not understand the Commons project. Commons is about inviting people from different language areas to work together and share their files. You are doing the opposite : you are building a wall between some hebrew speakers and the rest of the world. If you look at Category:Road signs in Israel you can see that most of them are written in 3 languages. But your pikiwiki site is written in only 1 language.

"Pikiwiki is an initiative of Wikimedia Israel and other Israeli free-content adhering organizations." So it should be considered as an independent website, and be dealt with, here on Commons, with the same rules and practices we use when dealing with all kinds of source websites. This is why I think the comparison with Flickr is relevant.

Wikimedia chapters are not democratic bodies because they do not organize elections to elect user's representatives as members of the board of trustees as is the case within the Wikimedia Foundation. I trust the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't trust Wikimedia chapters. Teofilo (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

April 8

Help editing Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request

I am trying to add the date parameters in the "delete" template as follows , but I don't manage. Can please somebody help ?

I would like to add the following :

{{delete|Images of [[User:XYZ]] are suspected copyvios|Images of XYZ|Images of XYZ|day=21|month=May|year=2024}}

Teofilo (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Undisputed addition, regular usage if the template and not more work while opening a MDR with copy & paste. You added one Images of XYZ to much, I would also add the parameters names reason= and subpage=. --Martin H. (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Added it, the to much Images of.. was copied from the helppage, but it was useless. --Martin H. (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Teofilo (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, thank you for finding a possible improvement of Category:Deletion requests, there are still many images inside not listed on any log. --Martin H. (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

These same date parameters should be added at the end of the following sentence of the instruction text on Template:Delete :

''please make a mass request by manually adding {{delete|reason|group_name''

Teofilo (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be added at the end of the following sentences on Commons:Deletion requests/listing a request manually :

A)If you are nominating many images in a series, write {{delete|reason|subpage

B)(the note at the bottom of the page) For example, add {{delete|All photos of User:Mike are suspected copyvios|Images of Mike

C) ''{{delete|REASON FOR DELETION'' .

Teofilo (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

By the same token, date parameters must be added on Commons:Deletion requests/box. Teofilo (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Check usage for all contributions

Hi, scrolled through lots of help pages but couldn´t find advice: Is there any tool apart from CheckUsage to check the usage of numerous or all own contribution at once ? Thanks for a hint... --Detectandpreserve (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Use catscan or similar to produce a list of images (most tools have a CSV option). Copy paste it in Checkusage after hitting the "bulk mode" switch. Works probably with up to 1000 images at once. --Foroa (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Great hint, worked perfectly - thanks a lot ! --Detectandpreserve (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

UserMessages

Am I the only one experiencing issues (recently) with the UserMessages gadget? Like, templates not autotranslated anymore and missing headings? --Eusebius (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, they totally broke it trying to auto-translate them (it was partially broke before because of the lack of subst'ing). I hardly ever use that script or those templates anymore. Rocket000 (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I guess many people do, since it's provided as a gadget... Apparently most templates now work, but I still miss a title for "end of copyvios" (and language is forced to /en). I'm not very good at templates/javascript so I'm not sure how to solve that. --Eusebius (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody tell what should be done to solve the problem, or point me to a working version of the gadget? It's getting really annoying. --Eusebius (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. If I was good at javascript, I would work on it. I'll look at the templates. Rocket000 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if they stop forcing the /en, it would solve some problems. With autotranslation, you don't use the subpages directly. The whole script needs to be rewritten. There shouldn't even be any language options for autotranslated templates. One or the other needs to change and I don't think undoing the autotranslation is what people want. Rocket000 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, and sorry for sounding bitter. Actually the gadget works for most messages (when not using the language option, of course). I just cannot tell why there's a problem with "end of copyvios". Maybe it's the template, maybe it's the JS, I just don't know. I agree that the language choice points should be removed. I will do it, some day. --Eusebius (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't apologize, I meant I was sorry that you were annoyed. :) Anyway, I looked at {{End of copyvios}} and the template seems fine. It's just that /en part that's messing it up. The script inserts "{{End of copyvios/en}} ~~~~" when it should insert "{{subst:end of copyvios}} ~~~~". Rocket000 (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Try it now. Rocket000 (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It now works (for this template), but it's because I've found what to change in the JS. The /en is forced from there, I've removed it but only for "end of copyvio". Now that I'm more clever (well, I'm not sure JS makes people clever, but you got me), I should have a look at the rest. --Eusebius (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The gadget now relies on autotranslating rather than forcing /en, for all templates. What remains to be done (by me later, or by someone else in the meantime):

• Remove the "lang?" prompts; Done --Eusebius (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Autotranslate Template:Derivativenote, Template:Inappropriate username, Template:Imposter, Template:Sockpuppet;

  I'm not a specialist, please someone, check that I haven't done anything nasty in autotranslating {{Derivativenote}}. --Eusebius (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Give a heading (if needed) to Template:Blocked user, Template:Imposter, Template:Sockpuppet;
• Ask (through Javascript) for the parameters of {{Blocked user}};
• Decide which templates should be removed from the gadget. It seems to me that some of them are not obviously backed by a policy ("do not remove warnings" etc), and that some of them might be redundant (like "unfree" and "speedy warn", maybe). --Eusebius (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What we really need is a complete "user message" reform. Pick 9 or 10 real important ones, standardize those, push for complete translations (as represented here), and then make the script to match. Most of those messages are pretty ugly too. Maybe I'll start working on this again. Rocket000 (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Rocket: Please do! And both of you, thanks for working on this. Finn Rindahl (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, we probably need an "out of scope notice" message, useful when a picture gets deleted on this ground. --Eusebius (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean Template:Project scope? Or a more redish scary warning? –Tryphon^☂ 10:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to scare :-) This template is useful because it explains the reasons, but it does not point out a picture. I think we need, in addition to this template, a mere notification that a picture has been deleted on this basis ({{Speedywhat}} could be adapted, but it is very vague, I think it is not useful anymore). Something like {{Copyvionote}}, maybe less scary... --Eusebius (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, suggested modifications to the list of message templates available from the gadget, please react:

• {{Copyvionote}}, {{Derivativenote}}, {{No fair use}}, {{End of copyvios}}:  Keep Very useful, unfortunately.
• {{Dont recreate}}:  Keep Quite useful.
• {{Blocked user}}:  Keep Definitely useful, but needs to be adapted (headline and parameters should be added).
• {{Dont overwrite}}:  Keep Rarely used, but relevant.
• {{Dont remove delete}}, {{Dont remove nsd or nld}}, {{Dont remove speedy}}:  Keep Useful.
• {{Project scope}}:  Keep Very useful, but needs something like {{Out of scope notice}} (see above).

• {{Test}}, {{Test2}}, {{Test3}}, {{Test4}}: I have no clear opinion. Less useful than on Wikipedia, I never use them, but they probably should be available here.
• {{Please describe images}}, {{Please link images}}, {{Please name images}}, {{Please tag images}}, {{No re-uploading}}: I have no clear opinion, I never use them, but I could.

• {{Be civil}}, {{Be civil final}}, {{Off topic}}:  Delete Definitely less useful than on Wikipedia. I'd leave them out, they can be added by hand when needed.
• {{Imposter}},{{Inappropriate username}}, {{Sockpuppet}}, {{Attackimage}}, {{Attackpage}}:  Delete Rarely used. I'd tend to think that the users needing them would know where to find them.
• {{Dont remove warnings}}:  Delete Where is the policy backing this template? I say remove it, and maybe nominate it for deletion. Admins can rely on page logs.
• {{Provide better quality}}:  Delete I'd leave it out.
• {{Welcome}}:  Delete It's mainly done by bots, no?
• {{Speedywhat}}, {{Unfree}}:  Delete I think these two are superseded by more specific templates.

Update: {{Unfree}} may be useful in the case of NC/ND restrictions. --Eusebius (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is based on my own usage and my own vision of what this gadget should be. Again, please react! --Eusebius (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I like {{Unfree}}, it points out what free means. Many, many people dont know this. --Martin H. (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

April 10

Why has the Gallery policy been abandoned?

Commons:Galleries was proposed a long time ago. I think it should be made as an active Guideline. There should be something about Galleries in Commons! --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's been abandoned, it's just that guidelines/policies tend to stay "proposed" until someone's bold enough to change the header. Normally, I would be, but I started that one. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah we can't properly abandon it like everything else until it's official. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Depreciate Help: namespace

There is no specification on when to use Help: and Commons: namespaces. I have a big problem with that because when I want to know about something I don't know which one to use. More namespaces make it problematic to find what you want. Please remove the Help: namespace and keep only Commons: for any guidelines (which are in the end Help). When one looks at Category:Commons_help, one will find most in the Commons namespace. Also most links found on Help:Contents are in the commons: namespace. So why confuse everyone with having two namespaces. This is really counter intuitive and is no "Help" at all.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me. Looking at [1] it seems we have very few help pages and most of them are redirects. Completely deprecating it should be easy. --Slomox (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Our help sucks. Deleting the namespace won't solve the problem. Multichill (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not about how bad our help is, it's about the unnecessary Help namespace. If I want to know something about Bots I would have to think about whether to type Help: or Commons:. In which case it's actually Commons:bots . If I want help about Fan Art I would type Help:Fan art where it actually is Commons:Fan art. The two Namespaces make it really confusing, I'm therefore asking for Help to be removed and replaced everywhere by Commons. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We want our help files to be easy to find. It doesn't really matter where the page is located, as long as anyone looking for it can find it easily. Deleting the Help namespace won't make anything easier: there will always be new users coming from Wikipedia and expecting the pages to be in the Help: namespace. Instead, we should create redirects. I'll do this straight away for Help:Bots and Help:Fan art. If possible, we could also make "Help:" an alias of "Commons:", so that redirection happens automagically, but I'm guessing that there are technical issues preventing this. Pruneau^talk 18:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Than there should be no more Help: Titles and all should be Commons: with Help: redirected to them. There should be some guideline or specifications on which basis we create Help: namespace. Else there should only be Commons: and Help: would redirect in all cases to it.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's get rid of it. Move anything worth keeping to the Commons namespace. General wiki help should be on Meta or MediaWiki.org anyway (do will really need to soft redirect a whole namespace?). Commons-specific help is pretty much all in the Commons namespace all ready. Rocket000 (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Should I post this on mediawiki? Should I start moving all help namespaces to commons namespaces?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

copyright policy with regards to "adult images"

Commons has adequate amounts of pictures of human genitalia and female breasts in general. This being the case we can afford to impose certain standards. In particular the number of drive by uploads is something of a copyright problem. Therefore I propose that images of human genitalia, human female bare breasts only be accepted in the following cases:

• Uploads long standing users
• With clear and solid OTRS permission
• Very clearly PD due to age.
• Very Clear PD due to the likes of US federal goverment or crown copyright expired.

Furthermore I suggest that medium term we should begin removing such images that don't meet these standards.

This is not an attempt at censorship against such images. Things like the suicide girl pics which I understand have a solid release will be unaffected. It's simply an area where historicaly there have been a lot of copyright problems and still are a lot of potenial copyvios.Geni (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of difficult to objectively identify "long standing users." Also, to add another category, I think we should also retain images of breasts that are significantly different from existing images; for example breasts affected in appearance by disease or malnutrition frequently fall into this category. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's already told at the project scope that nudity images must be realistic useful for educative purposes, and that we won't hold just any new photo of sexual organs for mere porn purposes. It's enough with that. Such redundant images can be considered for deletion on those grounds (and they are), and copyvios are speedily deleted no matter the topic of the image.

"Long standing users" as uploaders is not a good rationale: the reasons to keep or delete a file must always be related with the image itself, not with the uploader. I may be one of such "long standing users", but I will never provide such content for Commons. The only one who will ever see my sexual parts is my girlfriend (and perhaps a doctor if I have problems someday), and browsing the web seeking sexual content is boring and a minefield full of spywares, virus, pishing, google bombing, pop-ups and all the evil things from internet at every corner. So, if a new user can provide such files that are of big quality and educative interest, then by all means let him do so. Belgrano (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Would the above considerations also apply to the images in, say, Category:Felis silvestris catus? There are some large sets of photos of people's pets that are very similar to each other, for example in Category:White cats. It seems to me that if we are concerned about duplication in images of women's bodies, we should be equally concerned about having dozens of photos of nonencyclopedic white cats. However, I don't think we need to be concerned about this. People upload pictures of things they find interesting - if they upload a few more pictures than we need for all the Wikipedias, that is fine as long as the freedom to upload lots of pictures keeps people uploading. Since we don't pay people money for uploading pictures, the only thing we have to offer is a bit of psychological reward for their efforts. If someone else is not interested in looking at pictures of people's pets, or pictures of nude women, it is very easy to not look at them. This is distinct from the issue of copyright, of course, which applies regardless of the subject. --Teratornis (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that a picture of a cat does not have the associated complications of personality rights and privacy, as well as the apparently disproportionate amount of copyvio that occurs with images involving nudity. At least, I haven't heard that pictures of white cats are a focal point of copyright problems, though I've probably seen weirder things on the wiki. I think Geni's supposition is that, if a class of images is gets more than its share of problems and are subject to a special set of restrictions, then it's reasonable to give that class of images scrutiny proportionate to the problems it gives us. The argument seems fairly reasonable to me, though the proposed restrictions feel overly strict for an initial pass.

The development and use of {{Nopenis}} and the more recent {{Nobreasts}} indicates that a significant number of editors feel that the unregulated uploading of these types of images has imposed a downside on Commons. I figure it should be just a matter of time before this gets codified. If we're going to add exceptions for usefulness, can we add one for images of people of color? One would think only white people have genitalia or breasts from the English Wikipedia pages on those topics... - BanyanTree 09:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

{{Nobreasts}} contains this bizarre sentence:

• This message is not intended to be taken personally or as an attempt of censorship.
  • The passive voice with missing actor ("is not intended" (by whom?)) is classic weasel wording.
  • Whoever wrote that sentence may not have intended this clear attempt at censorship "to be taken" as such (presumably by the victim of the censorship attempt), but can any reasonable third party imagine the victim of this censorship will see herself as anything but?

I understand every Web site has to censor some content, but is there any need to jog on the euphemism treadmill here? When we censor content, we should be honest about what we are doing. Sometimes telling lies may be expedient, but for lies to work they must be believable. When we censor people, and they know we are censoring them, we aren't fooling anybody when we lie about what we are doing. --Teratornis (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed that part. Rocket000 (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Longstanding is probably me going a bit far. Probably better phrased something like "users with a non-trivial upload history". It's mostly meant to target images like File:Christinas.jpg and File:Gotta stand up.jpg where that is the user's only upload or cases where there are only a handful of uploads and edits either on commons or on other wikimedia projects.Geni (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

So you propose we put up fences for uploads that show nudity. How do we select the "better images" (can we vote?) ? Also lets not forget that basically, we will enforce "uniformity" on such images in the languages of ALL wikipedia's that way. There might be good reasons to show different breasts in the breasts article of every single language version. That would kinda stifle the freedom of a lot of authors. I mean, the "proof of age" argument I can understand, but the others (why PD for heavens sake?) are basically pointless, unenforceable and unusable in practice. And let's not forget that proof of age likely will already keep out 99% of such uploads... TheDJ (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with my proposal?Geni (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify Geni's proposal a bit on his behalf, his conditions are intended to be a disjunction (at least one of them applies) rather than a conjunction (they all apply). In other words, he feels that PD-old or PD-government images are generally of sufficient nonredundant value (e.g. historical or significance value) that there is no other need to justify their inclusion. He doesn't actually mention age verification as a condition, which I agree would be unduly onerous.

I'm skeptical about claims of this area being a copyright minefield though. My impression was that people generally upload pictures of their own genitals, which is certainly in line with our copyright policy. Can someone point to evidence here? Dcoetzee (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it means that all naked people (if their face is not shown) tend to be all similar, and by seeing 4 or 5 naked women or men you have seen them all (why did you thought I said porn was boring?). Under those conditions, it's hard to tell if PD-Self images are truly own works or images taken from some random porn site Belgrano (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

challenge basic premise; i disagree with the assertion that "Commons has adequate amounts of pictures of human genitalia and female breasts in general". the quantity of material present is not greater than in any other common-subject category, it is in fact somewhat less than in most other common-subject cats. there are just more people who object to media that they find "controversial", or "objectionable". i have not problem with imposing quality standards, as long as they are fair & applies equally, across the board, to all categories, not just used as an excuse to censor material that some people don't like. however, there are clearly established wmc criteria for inclusion/exclusion of media. the quality standard needs improvement/clarification. but there is no policy limiting quantity of media, providing that the media meets wmc criteria for inclusion. this is a media archive, it is meant to serve as a stockpile of media "raw materials" for use. look @ the stuff we are getting from those 2 large german photoarchives; there is massive duplication of subject-content. (& we don't generally have this kind of discussion, on a serious level, about "non-controversial" categories of subject matter) Lx 121 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

follow-up on further reflection, i disagree with another key point the original post raised. There is no basis to assert that such images are more (or less) problematic than other material on wmc. certainly not moreso than any other images, or self-images, of people. the kind of restrictions being talked about here fall far outside wikimedia policy/scope, are clearly obstructionary & intended as censorship, & some of them borderline absurd.

would be be treating this proposal at all seriously, if the subject-category under discussion was "non-controversial"?

the real issue here is that some people don't like this kind of subject matter, & want to restrict it on WMC, for personal/religious/whatever reasons. commons is not censored. i'm sorry, nothing personal against Geni, but this is an excuse to censor, not a real "problem".

Lx 121 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree with you, except to the extent that images in these categories may require more review and oversight because of the need to enforce Commons:Photographs of identifiable persons. I've recently been working in the area of portraits, where even two slightly different copies of the same portrait - or sometimes two different photos of the same portrait - are kept because either may continue information the other does not that may be useful in later restoration. How can we anticipate to what use our media may be put? What if some researcher decides to do statistical research on images of naked people? We are not just a media repository for Wikipedia. And the argument that these are more susceptible to copyvio is a red herring that has not been demonstrated - frankly, I think copyvios in the area of celebrity photos is a much bigger issue. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

April 11

"Hot cat" and category redirects

Resolved

When one uses hotcats (the tool in My_preferences/Gadgets), categories marked with {{Category redirect}} show up as legitimate category names.

Do you know a way to solve that ?

Do you think categories tagged with {{Category redirect}} are really necessary ? Why not delete them all ?

Do you know who developped the Hot Cat software ? Do you know any software developper who might be willing to improve the Hot Cat software in order to solve this issue ?

Have you ever used "Cat-a-lot" ? Is it a useful alternative as far as this problem is concerned ?

Teofilo (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's ok if you're using HotCat. It will change it automatically to the right category when it saves. But yes, we try to keep them to a minimum because they do cause problems. Rocket000 (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this answer. I did not realize that it would change automatically. There is no worry, then. Teofilo (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Category redirects are most useful for cases where he alternative names are very different from the names of the real categories - for example when they're in a different language. In some cases if we didn't have redirects, we'd end up with two categories anyway that would later have to be merged. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And when you have many redirected hotcats stating "people from xxx", people create their own "people from yyy" while the "people of yyy" category exists. (Or American, French xxx ...) So redirected cats with bad syntax, capitalisation errors, in/of/from errors cause bad training and redundant category names. --Foroa (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And the people I see doing the most category cleanup work would know best ;) Rocket000 (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

image garbled, need help

Can someone please have a look at File:China-Yunnan.png, it somehow looks garbled. Purging did not help. The thumbnail seems to be ok. Thanks --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Both thumbnail and full image work fine for me. Perhaps you should try it again, and possibly with a different browser. --Davidt8 (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

April 12

Wiki icons/favicons

I found a mention of Wiki favicons at Category talk:Icons but I don't know if anything ever happened to the idea of having a collection of favicons for the various Wiki web sites. I like to have the appropriate favicon on my desktop, but sometimes the only way to get one is to do a screen capture followed by various kinds of editing. Is there such a collection, or maybe a category?--Davidt8 (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it would be within the scope of the project. There are various website providing favicon repositories, if that is what you're looking for. --Eusebius (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I am looking for icons specific to the various Wikipedia websites, not computer icons in general. There would be the objection that the .ico format is not one accepted by Wikimedia Commons, but other formats would be fine by me, since Irfanview software can do the conversion easily. Why do you say it might not be within the scope of the Wikimedia Commons project?--Davidt8 (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Coats deleted

Hi community, the user:Maxim deleted:

• File:Coat of arms of Benin.png
• File:Coat of arms of Botswana.png
• File:Coat of arms of Burkina Faso.png
• File:Coat of arms of Chad.png
• File:Coat of arms of Kenya.png

... and others suspect

This is like delete flag of countries. And not delete consulting for this images. And this user should be know that before delete images very used, have delinker wiht bot, this deletes and not delinker this affects to Spanish Wikipedia and others. Please consider some administrator restore it, and see case for case that is copyright statusShooke ^{(Talk me in spanish, english or italian)} 21:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

All where missing essential licensing information (see ) Maxim_(talk) 21:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that is corresponding to {{PD-ineligible}}, for example Coat of en:Kenya, the coat part is part of flag, so many flag will be deleted, so i believe that is better a consulting of delete, is much this? Shooke ^{(Talk me in spanish, english or italian)} 22:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The description of the coat of arms (the blazon) is public, but its representation, as an interpretation of the blazon, can be copyrighted. Please see Commons:Coat of Arms. --Eusebius (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, in the kenya case, is posible upload the coa in the flag ? Shooke ^{(Talk me in spanish, english or italian)} 22:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want the shield and spears extracted from a file like this one, yes, it is possible and non-problematic, but it wouldn't look much like the coat of arms depicted here (which is missing a proper source and could be deleted, by the way). If that's what you want anyway, just ask me. --Eusebius (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this, sometime i will extract shield and spears from flag of Kenya, regards Shooke ^{(Talk me in spanish, english or italian)} 17:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Flag of Kenya (shield).svg --Eusebius (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

respectfully disagree with Eusebius. this is not general, artistic heraldry. we are talking about standardized national designs that see widespread public usage. unless it can be demonstrated that a particular depiction varies in some significant, copyrightable way from a country's "standard design", there is no credible basis to assume copyvio issues here. even then, the basic design would still belong to the country, not to the artist; at best their creation could be considered as a kind of derivative work. the onus would be on the copyright "holder" to claim some unique copyrightable property/ies in their variation of the national coat of arms design. if there is no ability to assert such design distinction(s), there is no possible claim for copyright, at all.Lx 121 (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think your argument about the variation of the design is interesting, but may apply only to specific examples. I admit that I'm thinking of heraldry from an Old World and somewhat historical point of view and that I'm trying to adapt this POV to the more recent pieces of heraldry (or anything that could resemble it). In the case of most "standard" CoAs, the actual depiction may vary a lot and artistic creativity is really relevant. For instance, the blazon of the city of Lyon (France) includes a lion rampant which is a very common piece of heraldry. But how do you represent a lion? You will admit that there are a lot of ways, and that it needs a certain artistic sense. And indeed, most pieces of heraldry have many different representations which certainly pass the threshold of originality and to which copyright should be attached, independently of a PD blazon. On the other hand, many recent coats of arms/seals/logos resembling crests/whatever are not attached to a litteral blazoning and are primarily described by their official pictural representation. Quite often, they include au naturel figures (sorry but I don't know the English heraldic terms), non-standard heraldic figures like the almost-realistic representation of an event, a building, a person, a landscape... In those cases, if one wanted to re-create an independent representation of the crest, one's artistic liberty would indeed be somewhat limited to copying, but only for this part of the crest. This is why I think that when such a symbol must considered PD because of the law or because of its age, the PD thing should apply only to the blazon (litteral description) and to the representations made by the official bodies represented by the symbol. I really think that any other representation, made by a Commons user or by another artist, attracts copyright on its own. --Eusebius (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

follow-up i read thru the cited article Commons:Coat of Arms. it talks about civic (private/personal/family) coats of arms, not national (or any government) emblems. i don't think the policy stated there applies in this case... Lx 121 (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no such restriction, but I'm not a native English speaker. Isn't the national Welsh flag national enough as an example? --Eusebius (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The case is same with non-civic Coats. See a example: Coat of South Africa, the Coat is non free. If not source, we can't know the license, like other media without sources, should be deleted any coat that not source can determined. If not, go to fair use, and this site is not place for this. Shooke ^{(Talk me in spanish, english or italian)} 00:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

---

In traditional European heraldry each coat of arms is based on a textual description, or "blazon", and many different artistic renderings based on the blazon might be considered acceptable as a version of the arms. In such situations, the general principle is that if you make a new visual rendering of the coat of arms based on the textual blazon, then you own the copyright to your particular rendering, and are perfectly free to release it under a suitable license to Wikimedia Commons if you choose to do so. However, other people's artistic renderings of the arms may be under non-free copyright, depending on the usual factors of the date when they were made, etc.

However, if an emblem is tied to one particular official rendering only, and no artistic variations are acceptable, then this is a lot more like a corporate logo than traditional heraldry, and the copyright situation might be different. AnonMoos (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with shunting an Image ans adding a english description

I and an Ip tried to ad a english description to File:Kleinbus Linz Linien.jpg. It doesnt work. Dont ask me why. I didnt know the bus type when uploading the image, so I have choosen a more common name, but after identifying the bus I think the correct name should be "File:Auwärter Sprinter Citystar Linz Linien". I cant find the "rename"-function. Does anyone know how these problems can be solved? --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no active rename-function on Commons. Renames may be requested by placing the template {{rename|Auwärter Sprinter Citystar Linz Linien.jpg|reason}} on the image description page. The rename is then eventually performed by a bot.--Túrelio (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The description didn't show up because of a typo: you typed l instead of 1. I fixed it and it displays fine now. Pruneau^talk 22:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

April 13

Cormac McCarthy

Please help. I've just translated the article of the writer Cormac McCarthy from en.wiki for hu.wiki, but his photo with the file name: Carthy_mccarthy_promo.jpg doesn't come through (the one that's in the en.wiki). I searched Commons , but only his book The Road is there, and a picture of the musician by the same name. Not trace of the writer's photo. I'd appreciate your help. Thank you, --71.221.98.225 03:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk"

That image is not a free image, and is only used on the English Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use. I do not have any information on hu wiki's non-free content policy, but if they don't allow this type of image then you simply cannot use it. Additionally, the English Wikipedia version is not properly in compliance with their policy, being high resolution - I am downscaling it. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, all right, thank you for your advice anyway. Now I know. Best wishes,--71.221.98.225 05:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing w sister wikipedia logo

Hi all,

I was wondering if someone could answer a question for me, please. On the Manx wikipedia project the logo for the project reads:

Wikipedia
Yn kicklipaid seyr

Is it possible to have this changed to:

Wikipedia
Y chicklipaid heyr

The grammar of the language dictates that the k in kicklipaid is lenited following a definite article (in this case yn) when the word is feminine. The same rule applies to the adjective seyr which should be rendered heyr in this case. As for yn - this form is only used between vowels or between a vowel and a consonant. If it is a phrase-initial definite article followed by a consonant then it must be rendered as y. We on the Manx project would appreciate it if someone could change it for us, or guide us to someone who can help us with the problem. Thanking you in advance, MacTire02 ec Wikipedia Gaelgagh / MacTire02 (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Each wiki maintains its own logo. Yours is at gv:File:Wiki.png. Maybe you can ask the original uploader to change it? You should probably protect that and add some WMF copyright information, BTW. Rocket000 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Checkusage error

Resolved

"Database Error: Host 'wolfsbane.toolserver.org' is blocked because of many connection errors; unblock with 'mysqladmin flush-hosts' (sql) on sql/toolserver - failed to connect to WikiList database "

Teofilo (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am getting the same error on both Check usage link and gallery link..--Ltshears (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be OK now. Teofilo (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Uploading images not PD in the US

See Commons_talk:Licensing#Uploading_images_not_PD_in_the_US

Search not updating

I have only just opened an account on this site, so a complete novice - I have uploaded some pictures of Pocahontas, I tried a search for 'Pocahontas' but the images did not appear, the file names are POCAHONTAS 01.jpg, POCAHONTAS 02.jpg, POCAHONTAS 03.jpg and in my description it has the word Pocahontas - why do the pictures not appear when I search for them?

The search index takes time to update. Wait for a while. Meanwhile you need the exact name to access your files. You can check your upload log. Additionally, when uploading photographs of statues, please take care to read our Commons:Freedom of panorama policy. In many countries, a derivative work of a non-free copyrighted statue is itself non-free and so not permitted on Commons. In this case, since the statue is situated in the UK, I believe you're fine, but use the {{FoP-UK}} tag on your images. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

April 14

Tracking Use of Media

Subject intended for open discussion & development:

There needs to be better tracking of media file usage, both on & off wikimedia, but ESPECIALLY tracking off-WM usage of WMC files.

improving this would allow us to get a MUCH bettr idea of who well WMC is working & where we need improvement.

Lx 121 (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We have {{Published}} for files used by media organizations. But of course, the whole point of Commons is that people can reuse our files. We can't impose any kind of tracking on reusers, since that would go against the freeness of the files. Pruneau^talk 01:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

didn't mean tracking in that sense, but it would be nice to get an idea of how we're doing. what about using something via google/google image(/media) searches? it should be possible to write an app that can search out uses of our files, especially if (big if) the users honour the fine print details of CC (attribution, etc.). we could do that & openly study useage of WMC files, without restricting anybody's freedom of use. Lx 121 (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see that as a priority for Commons and thus will not work on it. However, if you're able to design a similarity engine better than tineye's, in order to make automatic Google images queries possible, nice. It's not a trivial problem, I'm afraid. --Eusebius (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Luckily, some people are tracking re-use in newspapers and similar. For results see: Category:Commons as a media source.--Túrelio (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

LIMITS ON WIKIMEDIA COMMONS: QUANTITY LIMIT?

I'm starting this as an open discussion on a point of commons policy that i feel has not been properly addressed:

SHOULD THERE BE A COM:POLICY RE: QUANTITY-LIMIT ON MEDIA FILES OF A GIVEN SUBJECT?

(when those files meet ALL other WMC criteria for inclusion; i.e.: 1. legal (copyright & other considerations) 2. media quality standards (image resolution, focus, audio clarity, etc.) 3. potential use as educational/informative, as per WMC policy definitions)

Right now, this issue IS NOT clearly defined in commons policy/scope.

there are a few vaguely worded references to the subject, but they do not set out a definite set of parameters; the wording that is there right now is subjective, borderline pointy, & open to interpretation as a justification for removing files that some users may find objectionable.

it IS being abused, & it IS being used as justification for censorship, when NO other legitimate rational can be applied.

we do not have serious discussion about WMC having "too many" files on non-controversial subjects, nor do we routinely delete such files, on that basis.

this quasi-policy is ONLY being applied to files that some WMC editors find objectionable, i.e.: nudity/sexual content. in such cases, it is typically being applied in the absence of any other credible reason for deletion of the files.

it is not being cited as a reason to delete pictures of trains, planes, busses, automobiles, houses, trees, birds, etc., etc., etc.

there are clearly defined reasons for deleting files, which we can at least hope are being applied even handedly, but quantity limits are ONLY being cited in cases of controversial subject matter, & usually in the absence of other, more legitimate reasons to delete.

right now, WMC policy on quantity limits is UNDEFINED & IT IS BEING APPLIED UNFAIRLY & UNEQUALLY.

either we have a policy limiting quantities, or we do not.

i don't think we should, WMC is a MEDIA ARCHIVE, & the purpose is to stockpile material for potential use.

BUT

if we are going to have a quantity-limit policy, then it needs to be:

1. CLEARLY DEFINED

2. OPENLY DISCUSSED & VOTED ON (etc. )

3. APPLIED EQUALLY, TO ALL TOPICS

right now this is not happening, & that needs to be fixed.

Lx 121 (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't SHOUT, it isn't nice. Your comments are pretty vague and general, but it's quite clear that you in fact object to a specific deletion (or set of deletions). Could you maybe link to the deletion which you think should be overturned, so that we know what you're talking about? Generally speaking, Commons has a scope which states that Commons does more than "stockpile": we only host files which are potentially useful for educational purposes. Some files are uploaded but are not realistically usable for educational purposes and therefore get deleted; amongst others, this is true of images of nudity where numerous better quality photographs of similar subjects already exist on Commons. Cheers, Pruneau^talk 01:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, in fact i do not object to any specific deletion or deletions, i object to a vaguely worded quasi-policy that is being applied unequally & used for the purpose of censoring commons. I don't really think my post was "vaguely worded" but i can have another go at it:

there are clearly defined criteria for inclusion of media on WMC, i don't have a problem with that. but there is no clearly defined quantity-limit policy for files that would otherwise qualify & the current vague wording in "scope" is being abused to justify the removal of files that would otherwise meet all WMC criteria, simply because some people object to the content of certain files for personal reasons.

1. if there is going to be a commons policy limiting the quantity of media allowed on a given subject, then that policy needs to be clearly stated & discussed.

2. if there is going to be a quantity-limit policy, it should be applied equally.

3. right now, there is no such policy on commons, just some vague weasel-wording in scope, that is being used to justify deletion of media that some people find objectionable, but can provide no other justification for the removal of. this rationale is not being cited in serious debates about media quantity of non-controversial subjects.

4. the current situation is unacceptable; it makes a joke of wikimedia is not censored. either we have a quantity-limit policy that is clearly stated & applied equally to all topics & all media, or we admit that we are are censoring based on subject-content, independent of whether the media files in question meet all other WMC criteria or not.

i hope this is clearer now?

Lx 121 (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I almost started to read that. All cap titles are one of the biggest turn-offs. It's just not fun to read. You should try writing like how you see others do. Thank you for not shouting the second time, but please do use some capital letters, i.e. start sentences with them. Don't use so many line breaks. Write in paragraphs. Use italics for emphasis, but don't overdo it. Let your words speak for themselves. Use #s to create numbered lists. Sorry to be giving you writing lesson (further reading), but the way you write directly effects the type of reason you'll get. Ok, now I'll try to read what you wrote. Rocket000 (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now my response: There is no COM:NPOV policy here either. There's obviously a consensus for what that template has been used for. Yes, it's true we don't apply that "we have enough" excuse to other subjects, but that's our choice. There is no "wikimedia is not censored", there is a "Wikipedia is not censored" and a "Commons is not censored". If you want to get technical, then both are a joke and always have been. We censor all the time. That's admins' #1 job - deleting crap. We censor "out of scope" pages like articles. We censor test pages. We censor vandalism. We censor non-free material. No, that's not what we mean by "censor". Removing material where there's a consensus to do so is not censoring. As far as a written down policy goes, I suggest you read COM:SCOPE. Rocket000 (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny, it's to some extent the same issue that I've brought up a few times... I was told that there is (currently) no danger of lack of storage space on Commons. But would it be an idea to institute a policy that it's OK to check whether an image is used on a Wikipedia project (other than a page or user page on Commons) and if it isn't to ask the uploader whether he intends to do so, and if this doesn't happen within a given time, to delete the image as it is apparently not required? Also -a bit of a hobby horse of mine, I admit- since the quality of images tends to improve over time, would it be an idea to encourage the use of better-quality images, and later deleting the ones that are no longer needed? See, as an example, Image:ING House Amsterdam.JPG, which I think is of a far less quality than Image:INGHouse1.jpg. MartinD (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please no. We're an image archive. Multichill (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons is imho a database or archive where a wikipedia user can find additional pictures on an article, which can be very helpful - this is why the wikipedia articles have links to the corresponding commons page/category . You can't put all good pictures into one article. Furthermore Commons is also source for other purposes not just wikipedia or related projects. So please don't start deleting unused files. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

@ rocketship000; i'm sorry, but what you are describing is censorship, right from the textbook definition. it is censorship here & now just as much as when the national socialists were claiming their "consensus", or iran, or afghanistan, or soviet russia, prd china, n korean, etc.. "freedom" does not mean "only what the majority feels is acceptable". the application of policy which you describe is censorship, & violates wm principles at the most basic, fundamental level. there are clear criteria for inclusion/exclusion of files @ wmc. those criteria do not include a quantity limit, or the restriction/censorship of material (which is legally correct, in order re: copyright, & meets the wmc standards of quality & potential educational use) simply because it is "controversial", or might offend some people on a personal level. Lx 121 (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

@lxship121; Not when the majority also defines the word and writes the textbooks. No seriously, like I said it is censorship. We were never not censored. Wikipedia was never not censored. What you say is nothing new. We knew. We know. So what? Rocket000 (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What this is actually about

@Diti, how dare you even suggest that. We were worshiped as gods - some time ago. CAT
• No. There's only one god. Your father

Lx121's comments are in reference to Template:Nopenis (which was recently kept), in case anyone was wondering. As I've said before, there's nothing obliging us to keep every single one of hundreds of similar images of random guys who shot low-quality photos of their penises with their cell-phones and then uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons, and if we decide to prune some images which are low-quality, redundant with respect to numerous previously-uploaded images, or lacking in any legitimate quasi-educational use, then this not "censorship" in any particularly meaningful or relevant sense. AnonMoos (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't delete the images outside Commons' scope equally. I'm sure you could notice it by browsing, for example, Category:Domestic cat. →Diti the penguin — 07:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this and similar categories should be cleaned. --Jarekt (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that is NOT what this is actually about

Please do not put words in my mouth Anonmoos or presume to speak for me; especially when we are on opposing sides of an issue; i would not treat you in such a discourteous manner.

i find the template objectionable on a number of grounds & i do feel that the deletion debate was closed prematurely & improperly, after less than 12 hours. (AnonMoos & i were on different sides of the issue, not surprisingly)

However the template is symptomatic of a larger problem. commons does not have a clear policy on limiting the quantity of media allowed on a given topic. but "we have too much of this stuff already" is being used selectively as a rationale to delete files that would otherwise meet all WMC criteria for inclusion.

the arguement of excess quantity is not used seriously in deletion debates re: non-controversial subject matter.

only when the subject is something that a person or group of people find objectionable. then, in the abcense of any other legitimate criteria for deletion, the arguement "well, we have too much of this stuff already" is dragged out. there are some vague weasel words in "scope" that are cited, & the offending media is quickly & (usually) quietly removed.

That is Censorship.

also, for the record: if you compare the number of images in the category of "penis", with the number of images in the category of "hands", "faces", "rosa", or any number of other common categories, there is not an excessive number of images in the penis cat; the categories listed all have greater numbers of media files, some of them have "many times" as many.

yet, no-one is seriously claiming that these other categories are "too full" & further uploads should be deleted as a general rule.

either commons has a policy on limiting quantity of media allowed on a given topic, or it does not (personally, i don't think it should; wmc is a media archive).

either commons is censored, or it is not

with current practice here, we are pretending one thing, & doing the other.

that needs to be addressed.

(i like the cat pic btw; but does stuff like that & lolcats, really meet the test of "educational"? ;P )

Lx 121 (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Lx121 -- I said what I did because your rambling disquisitions seemed to have been triggered by the response to your Template:Nopenis deletion proposal, but for some reason you carefully avoided directly mentioning Template:Nopenis in any way (leading to the somewhat vague and abstract nature of your comments, as previously pointed out by Pruneau above). In any case, no one is advocating quantitative limits such as "Wikimedia Commons can have at most only 500 pictures of penises" (that's certainly not what I'm advocating). What people are in fact saying is that when many redundant low-quality images which have very little usefulness for Wikimedia Commons' main purposes accumulate, then it's time to do some pruning and cleaning -- and that preventive action can also be undertaken to avoid the build-up of many redundant low-quality images which have very little usefulness for Wikimedia Commons' main purposes... AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Lolcats do as we have an en.wp article on them. Thus they are used educationally as a picture for that article.

As for penises... meh. I reckon it's a useful template because most penis pictures are rubbish self-photos by people who for some reason get off on knowing there penis is here. If it's a good photo of a penis, keep it, otherwise get rid of it. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyway, as it happens, I feel that Commons probably does have enough lolcats to more than satisfy the needs of any Wikimedia project, and that we don't really need any more unless they are of exceptional quality or unless they meet some specific need that similar existing images don't (even if it's just "I'd like to have this particular picture on my user page"). That said, I personally feel no need to go looking for unused or low-quality lolcats to nominate for deletion, and I doubt anyone else does either: beyond the overriding principles of the project (no illegal or unfree content, yes files that are in active use), a lot of content on Commons lives in such a limbo of "might be useful, nobody wants it gone". A few random lolcats here and there are unlikely to bother anyone, but that doesn't mean our mission includes being a lolcat repository, any more than it includes being a porn collection: if we kept getting more and more lolcats daily, eventually someone might indeed start asking if we really need them all. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

i have no problem with removing media that legitimately fail the basic wmc criteria for inclusion, but that's not what is happening here. "controversial/objectionable subject-matter" files are being deleted on a far more arbitrary, & more restrictive set of standards than non-controversial subject-matter files; demonstrably so. the rationale for deletion often does not even come close to accepted wmc policy, as it is applied to other files. if such weak rationales for deletion were applied in other subject-categories, it would not be considered acceptable. the quantity of material in the subject-category of penises (for example) isn't greater than the quantity in other, simillarly common (but non-controversial) subject-categories; if anything, the quantity is somewhat less. yet there is no serious applied practice of limiting uploads in those other categories, on the basis of "we already have too much, so we don't want anymore!". either we should change wmc policy to declare in favour of censorship, or we should change policy to impose quantity limits, or we should stop this practice, & apply the wmc criteria for inclusion/exclusion fairly, to all files, in all subject-categories. for the record, i am an inclusionist. wmc is a media archive; it is supposed to be a large collection of media raw materials. also, i have nothing against lolcats XD Lx 121 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what it comes down to systemic bias. People enforce our scope restrictions in the areas they care about, that either attract their attention or their interest. The criteria will never be applied fairly, because no one is being paid to go through all sorts of categories looking for out of scope images. This is an essential limitation on a volunteer project. On the plus side, an orphaned out-of-scope image sitting around that hasn't been identified yet does very little damage - all it costs us is a small maintenance cost. I do personally believe that we should be quite permissive in allowing many very similar images of genitals and breasts, but whatever the standard, it will be applied unevenly, and that's okay. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That was pretty much my point too. We have rules that apply to both penises and lolcats, saying that files with no realistic educational use may be deleted. The difference is that people rarely bother to spend much time enforcing them on lolcats, because, honestly, who cares? Yet some people do, for various reasons better and worse, find it worth their time to ensure that Commons does not accumulate large amounts of uneducational pictures of genitalia, so the rules get enforced more consistently in that area. Arguing that this constitutes censorship seems a bit like arguing that laws against disturbing the peace are unfair because they're only enforced if somebody bothers to complain. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not duplicates

There are a huge lot of images at Category:Duplicate, but not all of them are truly duplicated images. A great number of images I checked have wrongly placed templates, that talk about a duplicate file that does not exist (not because of being deleted, I checked the logs). Is it possible to prepare a bot for removing such templates in those cases? Belgrano (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

it probably isn't just "mistakes". some people are very enthusiastic about deletions on here. you might find you have more issues to deal with, than just getting somebody to write a 'bot. can you give some examples, or make a cat/list? Lx 121 (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would be very silly to do, as admins are humans, no bots, and no human user would be so dumb as to delete a "duplicate" of a file that does not exist. I removed some of such templates, but when I realized it was a plague, I thought a bot would be better for that, so that the category can be cleaned of false duplicates and admins can deal with real cases of possible duplicated files. For examples, I can mention File:950629 STS71 Atlantis from MIR.jpg, File:Antares on the Frau Mauro Highlands.jpg, or File:Arthur Godfrey - George Cooper - Smith de France.jpg. Not hard to find: of the first 4 files in the category (when I'm writing this), 3 are good examples of such misplaced templates. Belgrano (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The dupes-Tool does not show us those images marked as duplicate where the other file is missing (which is usually just a mistake by the one who put it there: either typo or the user meant 'rename'), so we can't delete them accidently anyway. Those images where the template is not correctly filled out will be left after all the others have been deleted. They it is manual work to check why they are still left. I would not suggest to let a bot remove them. It should be some error control. Also as a human it is easier to figure out where the problem was. If it was just a typo we can correct them immediately. If the user meant rename, we can fix that too. A bot is not that good at recognizing a reason. -- Cecil (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is the problem?

• [2] clearly a dupe
• [3] clearly a dupe
• [4] clearly a dupe
• [5] clearly a dupe
• [6] same pixel size but the smaller file size suggest lower quality. So I tagged it as dupe.

-- Common Good (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

sometimes people do silly things; on pretty much ALL the wikimedia projects, there is a division between deletionists & inclusionists. also, different people have different ideas of what constitutes "duplication". i agree with you on this, & if you do get somebody to write your bot, please let me kno who; i have a list of things that could/should be botted on here, but nobody to write the code (not my specialty) Lx 121 (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have found the problem: it is in the usage of the template. Most of the duplicates appear with red links because the template requires to introduce files with the "File:" prefix (without it, instead of File:Example.jpg it links Example.jpg). However, it seems that it is needed to mark them without the prefix for Commonsdelinker to work correctly. I guess that then it is the template itself what needs to be redesigned, to add the "File:" prefix to the parameter when showing the thumbnail at the right. However, being a highly used template, the change should be analyzed before implementing it. And perhaps a bot would be needed anyway: if we prepare the template to receive "Example.jpg" as parameter and show a thumbnail of "File:Example.jpg", then images that included the whole name as parameter would link to "File:File:Example.jpg" images Belgrano (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Could be fixed with the #ifexist parser function probably. Prepend a "File:" if it doesn't exist. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

hm; well i am glad you tracked down the problem, & thank-you for putting in the effort @ Belgrano! how did such an obvious defect get missed tho, for something in mass-use? & do we need to backtrace deletion records here & see what might have gotten removed by mistake? Lx 121 (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The log is here, much work to track it ;) --Martin H. (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Non free pictures of contemporary artists works ?

hello,

I am not a specialist in art, but for me, all the contributions from this user are not free and should be deleted. What do you think ? Okki (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends, where the fotos were made. If it is UK or Austria, then FOP can also appliy indoor for permanent applications/art if this 'indoors' is a public place like a museum. But those images I checked of the contribs where made in France, so they definitely have to go. -- Cecil (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Update Commons File types

Could someone who knows why tiff is better than png and why it should be used and which one to use, update the commons file types on Commons:File types please? I would do it myself but I don't see the big difference.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

TIFF is a lossless format (as PNG) which is intended to be used with photographs needing it (restorations for example). Its differences with PNG are:

• the MediaWiki software cannot render thumbnails of PNG files bigger than 12.5 Mpx (bug #9497);
• unlike PNG files, TIFF's can have EXIF metadata.

→Diti the penguin — 10:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK TIFF thumbnails cannot be rendered at all ATM. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What about the compression and layers and when to use png or tiffs. I mean should all images of the Library of Congress be converted to png before uploading?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, it was added as a courtesy to any archives that wish to donate material, since most scanner software can scan into TIFF, but not directly into PNG. PNG generally has 1/3rd the filesize, and should be preferred for almost all options not involving batch upload.Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

On partial restorations being uploaded as TIFF: It may be convenient to allow it, but I don't see any reason not to convert all such TIFFs to PNG and update the links. The smaller file sizes will be extremely appreciated by any restorationists not using extremely fast connections. Mind, it would be much easier if we simply insisted that ten seconds were spent converting TIFF to PNG in the first place: We are not looking at good practice here, and the longer we let it go on, the worse it's going to get. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Since TIFF is a more widely used archival format, accepting TIFFs positions us to accept large donations like the Bundesarchiv and Dresden University donations in uncompressed format. In the long run that becomes a very powerful option as more libraries and museums donate material. The larger picture is this: large institutions that decide to release their collections to the public are choosing between WMF Commons and Flickr. Probably within the next year, either we or Flickr will become the principal outlet for this material. Obviously the best solution is for that to come directly here to Commons, rather than appointing Flickr reviewers to scavenge the crumbs from a commercial site. Yes, PNG has its advantages. No one suggests getting rid of PNG. More options is good, and including TIFF in our range of options is going to reap major benefits over the next three to five years. Thumbnailing support hasn't been implemented yet; we're looking to add that as soon as feasible. Best regards, Durova (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And regarding partial restorations and TIFF formatting: current projects are in use as demonstrations to decision makers at these larger archives. Having the uncompressed files available in a format these managers understand means one less element that needs to be explained as our volunteers negotiate with them. Anyone who prefers to upload in PNG is welcome to do so, but having interim TIFFS among our presentations gets us one step closer to very important 'yes' decisions. Durova (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, regarding thumbnailing, as long as we're implementing this change I'd like to see PNG thumbnails of JPEGs (for very small thumbnails), and JPEG thumbnails of PNGs (for lossless uploads of raw photos and scans). This has long annoyed me - I'd like to do away with redundant uploads of alternate formats. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

404 error on image

I'm trying to download the old version of File:Belize-CIA WFB Map.png (the one uploaded in 2005), but I'm getting a 404 error—does anyone have any idea why? The image was only replaced last year, so it doesn't predate image undeletion. --Spangineer^en ws (háblame) 15:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The original image has probably been physically deleted on the server. I know that there was a massive image loss due to a bug last year, maybe it's releated. --Eusebius (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hrm... well that's not too comforting. I managed to find the old file on another website; hopefully I'll be able to do that for any other missing CIA maps. Thanks for your help! --Spangineer^en ws (háblame) 15:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine has it here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured sound -> Featured Media

I propose to move Commons:Featured sounds to Commons:Featured Media. Featured sound hasn't received any attention and through a bigger scope people might post and review featured sound, video and animation. Featured Pictures should revoke video files and only accept 2-D images. This is just a general proposal that I think might make commons a better place.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a difficult problem because sounds are obviously evaluated according to an entirely different set of criteria than images that require different experience and expertise to evaluate. On the other hand, it's clear there just aren't enough interested users around to drive it. To be honest, I think the best thing to do is simply abandon this project. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Creator template need your help

We have been struggling at the creator template to make it display the birth and death year next to the name of the photographer. Could someone help out in this? The feature is explained here: Template_talk:Creator#Proposed_change:_dates_of_death.2Fbirth and the changes should be done to Template:Creator/layout. Your help is really appreciated. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

April 15

Category:Steamships by name

Is it a good idea to integrate these names in Category:Ships by alphabet? --Stunteltje (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes.

• In ships by name, you integrate either one type of ships or all types of ships.
• For most people, a ship is completely defined by the following keywords (in order of importance): water, ship, its name, motive power (wind or engine), purpose (fun or work), size (man size, river size, sea size), ... so the name is the most important disambiguation factor we have to try to capture and categorise.
• This should coexist with Category:Steamships by name --Foroa (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Improvement of Commons:Upload aimed at already published own work

I would like to suggest adding one more item on the Commons:Upload main page :

A) Replace "It is entirely my own work" by "It is entirely my own work, as yet unpublished"

B) Below, add a new item, with the following title : "It is entirely my own work, already published somewhere else" / or "It is entirely my own work, but I have already published it on my website or blog"

C) On the guideline page for this new item, we should tell people to either add a credit to themselves (under the same name or nickname used as user name on Commons) and a free license notice below the picture on their website, or to send an E-mail to COM:OTRS, revealing that they are both that website's owner and the person who created the uploading user account on Wikimedia Commons.

Teofilo (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Valencia station and FEVE/FGV trains

A long time ago, I took some pictures off the FEVE trains in the regional Valencia station. I dont know the name of it. The station no longer exist, except for the station building wich remains. Does anyone know the name? I catorized the pics under FEVE rail and FGV (Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana). At the time (1981 - 1987) the trains where stil run by the FEVE and later by FGV. Should the pics also be classified under FGV? (More generally should we classify trains historicaly under the running compagnies, or by region? Or a seperate sub-category?)

example: File:FEVE Valencia 4.jpg

Greetings, Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Low quality Images with Watermarks

It seems to me that we have a large number of images waiting to watermark removal in Category:Images with watermarks which are of either very low quality, with very little encyclopedic value. Sometimes those watermarks are very hard to remove and there it is a waste of time if the image is not worth it. I would like to nominate them for deletion on the basis of Replacebility + Quality + Watermark, without having to argue about scope or license. Can we agree that that is good enough reason? --Jarekt (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Some examples:

• 
• 
• 
• 

Images like File:Bellows.JPG could be definitely marked as no permission. If images lacking EXIF and small resolution (likely to be taken from Web), you could also add no source.

We have more then enough images of domesticated cats and dogs, I think we should use regular deletion request.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Arguments in a DR could be about scope inclusion: if the file is of low quality, with a prominent watermark, and can be replaced with benefit, then it somehow lacks educational value. It is also true that many watermarked images (or images with borders) are unspotted copyvios. --Eusebius (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Usually when removing watermarks I target images that aren't orphaned first, since they presumably have more immediate educational value. But yes, copyvios are quite frequent in that cat and sometimes I miss them. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So assuming it is not copyvio I assume I can mark pictures of pets, babies and body parts as DR with "Scope + Watermark" reason. How about File:Azrou Maroc.jpg file? It is a advertising billboard for a blog, but it probably is within scope and the license looks OK. Can we argue that the watermark makes it useless for any project so it is out of scope? --Jarekt (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep it, unless we can find a similar point of view on the town to replace the picture (it is used). --Eusebius (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, such watermarks can be removed relatively easily, believe it or not. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

How? Is it something you can explain easily? --Eusebius (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think these images can be deleted with "Scope + Watermark" reason. Yann (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Me too. As long as they're so bad that no one would use them. But if any are in use, they're excused. Rocket000 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

These images (except the obvious copyvio) shouldn't be nominated for deletion, let alone be nominated for speedy deletion. Deletion images because Category:Images with watermarks is somewhat full is bad. Multichill (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not because it's full, because they'll never be used. Of course, consensus is needed, so no speeding. Quality is too subjective. Rocket000 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dcoetzee that a lot of those watermarks can be easily removed but they usually are not removed and they sit for years in the watermark category. So the way I read the above advice: the unused watermarked images of poor quality and/or marginal scope or which are easily replaceable can be nominated for a regular deletion (no speedy).--Jarekt (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I roughly agree with Jarekt's conclusion. Any image which is educational and not redundant should be kept, and the watermark can be removed if and when someone actually wants to use it. It's not difficult using standard tools like clone brushes, and even automated procedures like infilling are beginning to become widely available. Translucent watermarks can be removed as well, as I did with the LIFE logo. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Cascading protection broken?

See User:Zzyzx11/En main page which is fully protected with cascade protection enabled. Two images are on this page: File:Josh Blue by Bryce Boyer.jpg and File:Darnley stage 3.jpg. Neither of the image pages shows that they are being used on this user subpage, and consequently, neither image is protected. Anyone know what's the deal here? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's because the templates on that page are using ParserFunctions to show different images depending on the date. The link tables are only updated when the page is saved, so any changes to the way it renders after that will not be properly recorded. It's essentially the same issue as bugzilla:14404, only depending on time instead of user language. The fundamental problem is that MediaWiki's link tracking assumes pages won't change unless they (or templates used on them) are edited, which is an assumption ParserFunctions can break. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so User:Zzyzx11/En main page needs to be touched every day then or something? howcheng {chat} 17:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that should do it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Licence tag deletion request?

I have recently seen an image por speedy deletion with those reasons. They seem solid enough, but more expert views should be involved (wich would mean it should be turned into a deletion request). However, such reasons go beyond that particular file and may apply for the {{PD-FLGov}} licence tag itself and all the images using it; so the deletion request should be about it instead.

Problem is, I'm not sure of how to do such thing. Do questionable license tags go through regular deletion requests, or is there another system? And, being a template, how do I start a deletion request without messing the images that use the template?

Note: This thread is only about the technical issue of how to manage this kind of discussion. Opinions about the topic itself, keeping or deleting the PD-FLGov licence tag, should be done at the correct place when it's open. Belgrano (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You can open a DR for the license template. It's been done before, see [7] for precedents. howcheng {chat} 22:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The deletion request is located at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-FLGov. If anyone reading this has someting to say about the licence tag, please do it there, not here Belgrano (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Tag image sources for completeness

I was just viewing the Category:Images from the Library of Congress and found multiple collections. The problem is I didn't know what images are missing. Could u please in the future say how comprehensive each specific collection on commons is? This could be easily visualised with a progress bar at the top of a category like using {{Progress bar|42}} Which would result in:

42% completed (estimate)

   

Anyone could just go to the LOC page and see the specific collection and add the template.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we want to clone the Library of Congress site here. Picking useful images is great, but they have way, way too many images (and actually, most of their collections aren't even complete on their site; they are continually adding stuff, so their content keeps changing too). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Deviantart

I don't know if this was alread taked about, but do you guys know that Deviantart have many good images under CC license? I alrready uploaded 2 good images from Deviantart, File:Little mermaid statue.jpg, File:Mega leaves by erdmute.jpg. I think this host site can be so useful as Flickr is. Especially if this proposal be accepted, cause Ddeviantart have many great fan arts. What do you guys think about making a tool to upload files from Deviantart directly to Commons, like Flinfo and so on? Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Fan art is now active and the proposal has been accepted. Images from there would be really helpful. Maybe you can post for a batch upload on Commons:Batch uploading. However many images are non derivative and non commercial, which is against our policy. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Have a care: "Commons:Fan art" has been accepted, right, but the cases when fan art is not acepted is the vast majority of fan art in internet, even if explained briefly in the page comparing with other issues. Most of the accepted things (mere allusions or general ideas, fan art of literary books, etc) are exceptional things. In the internet, outside Commons and it's educative aims, when we talk about fan art, in 98% of the cases we talk about someone drawing his own superman or wolverine. Belgrano (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If we do do this, maybe we should extend the Flickr review system to cover any site of this sort containing CC licensed images with the ability to change licensing. ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A Deviant review would be nice. I'd upload more images but I got lazy =P. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• From a look at deviantART, I think it has even more problems than flickr with people posting images under CC licenses when they have no right at all to do so. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's right! That's why I think we should start thinking about a DeviantArt review. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Rollback

Dear fellow Wikimedians, the rollback feature has been activated on Commons. All contributors interested in the tools may apply on Commons:Rollback/Requests. Regards, →Nagy 17:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

April 16

Unknown streets in Manhattan, NY

Hello, Please help me identifying these streets in Manhattan, New York. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• File:Unknown street in Manhattan 3.jpg

Thanks Ö, Yann (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeated error message

This wiki has a problem Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties. Try waiting a few minutes and reloading.

(Cannot contact the database server: No working slave server: Unknown error (10.0.2.160))

i keep getting this error message when trying to edit pages and categorize photos, is anyone else getting this message.. I got this message several times while trying to post this.. lol --Ltshears (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The servers are having problems today. Sorry for the inconvenience. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok Peter. thank you.. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't just me.. --Ltshears (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Nope, not just you. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong license - my fault...

Sorry, but I need to delete this file - it's incorrectly licensed. Not O.K. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please tag such files with {{Speedy}} next time :-) --Kjetil_r 21:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for deletion, and also for useful template. I apologize. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Model consent forms

(Excuse the cross-posting, but I realized after posting my question to Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people#Where to upload consent forms with possibly sentitive address information? this is probably a more watched location.)

For Wiktionary, I worked with an ASL teacher to get photographs of his students producing signs they learned in that class. Each images thus clearly qualifies as a photograph of an identifiable person, so I also created consent forms which they all signed, except for the minors, whose forms are being sent to their parents/guardians for an additional signature. Now I want to upload the consent forms somewhere, but I'm concerned about the address field on the form. Presumably, the students wouldn't want their addresses made so public. Should I block out the address on the scanned copy, upload the altered copy to commons, and just keep the physical copies on file in case consent is later challenged? Or is there a more secure upload scenario for storing the unaltered consent forms, where the general public would not have access? Rodasmith (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at Commons:OTRS. That's probably what you are looking for. Multichill (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Multichill. Rodasmith (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal license templates

Let me give you a short introduction into a recent case on de.wp: User:Martina Nolte uploaded images on the German Wikipedia and added a user-specific license statement to each of them, that said, that she requests that her name must be provided in the image caption whenever her images are used/re-used. Inclusions of the images on Wikipedia pages were exempted from that. When some third party re-users of Wikipedia articles displayed her images in those articles, she wrote them cease and desist letters (connected with a fixed fee of 1400 Euro). Subsequently there was a big discussion on de.wp, whether this was correct - morally and legally (see e.g. Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen/Angebliche Abmahnfalle).

The problem in this case basically was, that User:Martina Nolte allowed Wikipedia to use her images without her name in the image caption, while the same was not granted to third party users. A perfect mirror with all image description pages present would still have been a violation of the license.

In the end all her images were deleted.

This as some preliminary information.

On Commons many users use user-specific license templates (see Category:User custom license tags for a selection [there are many more]). Any of them can contain additional conditions. It's almost impossible to make sure, that those templates don't contain problematic conditions or are altered in problematic ways (like retrospectively changing a PD-self release into a more restrictive license). Those templates are hardly ever on any watchlists except of the creator's one.

For example I just came across a template, that says CC-by-2.5 + where the image is stored/displayed electronically original metadata must be retained and be included with further copies. That's a limitation on derivative works and would mean, that the images tagged with this template are not free enough for Commons, doesn't it?

My opinion is, that we should avoid personal license templates. Every user should provide one of the accepted licenses under "permission". But no "home-brew" licenses. --Slomox (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Slomox, most of what you write and what is written in detail on de-WP and in suspicious German blogs about my "case" is not prooved by anyone yelling there and I cannot understand why you spread this mudbath from de-WP to Commons while discussions are going on there. "In the end all her images were deleted." - it's not ended; we still have discussions if these deletions were and are allowed. So STOP defaming me; it's enough now. --Martina Nolte (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is not about you at all. Und zum Thema "mudbath" sag ich nur: Wer Wind sät... --Slomox (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, then its only hard to understand why you spend half of your contribution on this "case". (...muss am Schlammbaden und Fischen im Trüben teilnehmen?) --Martina Nolte (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There's two problems. First, where do you draw the line? There's custom licenses that are basically a standard one but tweaked to included the user name or something trivial like that. Saying no custom licenses at all might deter valuable contributors who were perfectly within policy. And the second issue is on the other end. What constitutes as legally binding? What template they slap on the image page, or what they say? There's be multiple cases where an image has a standard license like {{Cc-by-3.0}}, but in the permission field they write "For Wikipedia use only". When these images get nominated for deletion, we always go by what the user says and not the license. This is why we can't control it simply by controling the templates. They don't matter. Rocket000 (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose setting up something preventively anyway. →Diti the penguin — 00:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

preventively?. Stuff like that is everywhere here. Rocket000 (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What I meant is Slomox want us to “[preventively] avoid personal license templates” so that we wouldn't come across such issues any more in the future. I don't think it's a nice idea. →Diti the penguin — 00:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, then nevermind. :) Rocket000 (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But wait, just one more example: [8]. Heh, they always find a way. Rocket000 (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

 Comment CC-by-sa explicitly allows ([9] section 4c) copyright owner to specifiy some details of attribution: Use name/pseudonym, optinally "sponsor institute", title of work, etc. Regardless of CC, these moral rights would be guaranteed by law in many jurisdictions anyway. I think it would be too restrictive to forbid adding these informations in some manner. When using templates for providing these informations, there is a danger of a later change of terms. Instead of forbidding personal templates, wouldn't it be more reasonable to make it policy to subst those templates - effectively removing the dynamic factor? I have used a custom template myself (Template:Christoph Münch Creative Commons photos, and I'll consider substing those soon. Nillerdk (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest that we require that every image has one (or more) of the standard licensing tags, and that personalized tags only consist of a credit line («please attribute John Smith»), a link to a home page («see www.myphotohomepage.org for more of my photos») and similar things. --Kjetil_r 08:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• I dunno. I think personal templates including licenses are okay as long as they're not modified to remove the license. Lots of people use the same license for all their images. We don't protect image description pages to prevent license changes. Would it help if we either 1. protected user license templates or 2. required the use of subst? Dcoetzee (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• I use a personalise template for licensing and have two prior versions, I disagree with a subst requirement because people can change what they request as the attribution this doesnt alter the license. Also CC-by-3.0 is compatable with cc-by-2.5 a user is able to update to the new license, even the GNU/GDFL license can be changed to CC-by-3.0, the Foundation is considering/wanting this change. Even still if a user template was to be changed and the person then attempted to take action against a third party the page history is there to show that the image had a different license and when, unlike flickr where there is no history retained of alterations and a person can change it at will thats why we have to run a bot to ensure the license at the time of upload was an appropriate free license. Under pinning all of this is the fact that there are very few people with oversight access that can exsponge a page history so such scenarios are not an issue, even then there would be a record of it occuring.
  I can see merit in having a requirement that custom license templates be protected and even some minor advantage in having a reviewing process for them. Gnangarra 15:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• • I can see where personal license templates can be useful is when it goes into more detail (Not complex but rather giving more detail in how the licensed image should be used and what happens if it's breached) but not too much (sort of summarising it otherwise it just becomes to long). I'm not far off making a personal license template as I've had too many images being used against the licensing conditions. Latest site to use my image without any attribution and have just sent a final notice (Sent emails before but have gone unnoticed or ignored) but if not acted on I will send a take down notice. In doing all that it takes up my time and I rather not get lawers involved (or it becomes too costly). By having a personal license template it could save me all the time and effort in trying to get sites who may not understand the licensing conditions and also stop those from say that they don't understand the licensing since it would be in plain text (which I hope to have in all languages). Bidgee (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No personal template will stop people not understanding our current standard license templates. If the standard templates are hard to understand, we should improve their wording instead of creating clarifications in personal templates from which only few people will benefit.

Adding any additional requirements (like "don't change metadata" or "I want to be attributed in a more visible way") weakens your licensing. GFDL and CC are legally defined licenses and very clear. Every "personal" alterations to these licenses "disturbs" the clearness of the licensing. They may make your license more easily attackable or could make your license completely invalid, which could lead to deletion (or to loosing a lawsuit). So they are dangerous for Commons and for the creator too.

About "attribution lines" like Nillerdk and Kjetil_r mention them: the standard CC templates have an "author" parameter, that should be used to include information like that. Additionally the "author" parameter of the information template can contain that information.

Substing is no solution cause my main problem is with users making statements that invalidate or contradict the license information. We should educate users to use plain standard licenses. GFDL, CC etc. were invented with a purpose: It would easily be possible to release works with "use it for whatever, but name me". Basically the same as CC-by. But CC-by is a legally defined text worked out by lawyers, when "use it for whatever, but name me" is very vague when it comes to a lawsuit. The standard license gives the creator better legal security. The standard licenses are in the interest of the author. --Slomox (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have had some sites state (small sites that don't have a great deal on knowledge on licensing) that they don't understand the CC licensing and a lot of the time they don't look at the CC website. Take CC-BY-3.0 for example which has "In short: you are free to distribute and modify the file as long as you attribute its author(s) or licensor(s)", It states nothing about publishing (Even thought I know thats what distribute means but someone without any knowledge may not).

I do see your point and agree that there are some personal template licensing templates what go against the files license but there are some valid personal template licenses and if they have greater detail without going against the license then I see no issues and it should be up the the uploader and we should support them. I do think there should be a policy or guidelines for personal template licenses so that it doesn't risk Commons and the uploader from being sued or any other law suits. Bidgee (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

there are some valid personal template licenses Please give examples for valid reasons for personal templates. The only reason I can think of is convenience. It's easier to type "{{Slolic}}" (short for "Slomox' personal license template") than typing for example "{{GFDL-user|Slomox}}{{cc-by-sa}}{{0}}". But if you note down the licenses on your user page and copy'n'paste them when you want to upload something, that should be no problem.

Most of the personal license templates I looked at, were just convenience tools. Just a wrapper for a set of different standard templates. But with the additional disadvantage, that often the text was copied instead of included per template, and so not localized. Most of the rest were templates with "problematic" provisions. Only some few were templates, that had valid points for which no standard template exists. Like "would be nice, if you send me an e-mail, if you use the file somewhere". But that could better and more easily be covered by an additional standard (non-license) template for "e-mail please" too. --Slomox (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Not long ago, someone suggested that we should have a procedure for accepting license templates. I think that the proposition was accepted but I wonder if such a page has been set up? When it comes to personalized license templates, I think we have two options:

• either we make the templates go through the same procedure as other templates
• or we create a policy on what we demand from personalized license templates.

Samulili (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

April 17

File:Escudogordinhos.JPG

This seems to be own work derived from copyrighted material such as a Southpark character. I'm not very experienced here so I would like to read your opinions on what to do. Malafaya (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)  DoneClear infringement of copyright. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Diffusion of The Library of Congress Category

Category:Images from the Library of Congress has over 11,000 images. I think it's time for it to be diffused into subcategories. It would be best to categorize according to collection, which can be easily done with AWB through the skip function (I'll take care of diffusion). However the LOC category is embedded into the LOC template and can't be removed unless we change the templates behavior. Does anyone have an opinion on that? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There is already a mixup with the subcategories: The HABS/HALS/HAER and the PD categories are license categories and should not be in the LOC category, which is a source category. --Martin H. (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I view this category as a maintenance category and large number of images there does not bother me, just like thousands of images in Category:PD-ScottForesman etc. However if we want to split it I would propose adding an extra attribute to LOC template that defines collection, (or year, location, author or some other good splitting criteria) and use it to auto-categorize those files. --Jarekt (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, please don't diffuse it. This is a good source category. And please don't mix it with topic categories. Multichill (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with multichill. Good source category, no need to diffuse it. TheDJ (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If it can be done with minimal effort (maybe like Jarekt's suggestion), it would be good to divide them up into the Bain collection, the Matson collection, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

April 18

Commons Weekly

I've just created a general news page called commons weekly on Commons:Commons Weekly. Feel free to edit it, read it and have fun with it. The page is still a general draft, any changes are welcome.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I made a few minor tweaks. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page, considering the slow pace of Commons I think a monthly newspaper would be more reasonable. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Extended discussion as the discussion wasn't closed after 14 days already

For your information: User Ibn Battutta extended the discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Ships by IMO number now under a new header: Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/04/Category:Brig (ship) --Stunteltje (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Add a "collapse" or "skip" link on the top of Special:Search (MediaWiki:Searchresulttext) and other search form improvements

A) The search box in Special:Search is presently being sunk down to the lower decks of the reader's internet browser by heavy boxes above it :

• 1) the "sitenotice" : " Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2009 are now open. Apply now!"

• 2) "the "Rollback is now activated on Commons, you may file a request here." message

• 3) the "Browse" and "Search" menus (taking as many as 6 or 7 lines on my computer screen) :

Help Phrases in double quotes: For example, "holly dolly" returns very few results as opposed to holly dolly. Exclusion: Terms can be excluded with -, for example windows -system (note there is no space between "-" and the excluded term). Wildcard search: Wildcards (symbols representing unknown text) can be prefixed and suffixed, for example, the search *stan will produce results like Kazakhstan and Afghanistan. For more details, including fuzzy search, Boolean operators, and keywords intitle:, incategory: and prefix:, see Search Help on English Wikipedia.

The first two are collapsable. The "Browse" and "Search" menus are not collapsable, as far as I know.

Is it possible either to provide a "collapse/uncollapse" button for these boxes, or a "skip" link, like {{Skip to talk}} on the top of Commons:Categories for discussion ?

My concern is that in order to fully use the AJAX capabilities, I need a bit of space below the search box, and I thought it would convenient if I had a way of quickly moving the search box to the top of the computer screen without needing to use the vertical scroll bar of my browser.

B) After finding the right spelling with AJAX, I wish I could go directly to the gallery or category under that name. However, Special:Search does not provide a [Go] button, like you have in the left margin. Would it be possible to add a [Go] button there, so that people can enjoy together the large size search box, the AJAX spelling check facility, and a quick way to go to the sought page ? If this is not possible, why not design an entirely new tool which could be called Special:Go ? Another possibility, which would require much more software design, would be to provide the user with a button near the left margin's search box, which would make the search box instantly increase its size in a popup covering the main part of the page. Or why not have the search box's size increase automatically when the user types more letters in it ? (the "Enlarge Searchbar on first strike" function seen on this page looks interesting)

C) An other and smaller problem is that when you click on "search" in the left margin, without typing anything in the box, you are taken to the "Advanced search" which is very very low at the bottom of the page, so that when you want to go to Special:Search in order to use the large search box there with AJAX, the best is to type a random unused word in the search box before going there, and perform a dummy search with that word, which is not 100% convenient. You might want to know why I don't want to perform my searches from the box in the left margin : the reason is that it is very short, and when I look for a category, its name more often than not exceeds the size of the box, while I need to check my spelling with AJAX.

D) My fingers are getting tired with typing "C-a-t-e-g-o-r-y-:" whenever I need to search a category. Would it be possible to add an "autotype category:" button somewhere near the search box ? Perhaps as a gadget tool in Special:preferences ?

Teofilo (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

USFWS logo - breach of copyright

The USFWS logo, is, according to the USFWS:

The Service logo is our official "trademark." Its use is reserved for official publications or other products of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Use of the Service logo without prior written approval is prohibited. Restrictions on use of the Service logo were published in the Federal Register on February 13, 1984 (Vol. 49, No. 30, page 5387), and 18 USC 701 provides for enforcement.

They also say:

Please use alternative images if you need a graphic.

Seems to me that this is the same restriction as applies to the NASA logo, which we don't use on Commons. I'd suggest that File:US-FishAndWildlifeService-Logo.svg be deleted, and replaced by one of the alternatives they offer. "Icon A" looks the most suitable. - MPF (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And same for the ARS logo File:US-AgriculturalResearchService-50thLogoAlt.svg, and maybe others too - I fear the whole lot need to be checked - MPF (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's just a trademark-esque restriction. Most US government works are public domain, but some are governed by other restrictions. ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree the quote above is more about trademark restrictions. However, I'm not sure the logo can be considered a work of an U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties. –Tryphon^☂ 16:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

For these kind of restrictions we have {{Trademarked}}. Multichill (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I think {{Insignia}} is a bit more appropriate. Also, most works of the US Government are PD. Period. ViperSnake151 (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it is not a breach of copyright. They are works of the federal government and thus public domain (copyright-wise) without question. There are other laws which give some protection to federal insignia (usually fraud-related), and in some cases agencies have gone and registered trademarks for their logos (though not the Fish & Wildlife Service from what I can tell), but all of these have nothing to do with copyright. They are what the {{Insignia}} tag is for. See Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. I don't think there is any reason we should avoid using the NASA insignia either -- there is a special law protecting that one in particular (14 CFR 1221), but it allows use on NASA publications, which is what the license tag is used for (many of their images have a footer area which already has the insignia, which uploaders often crop off). You could even argue that using the other image in the NASA license tag is against the wishes of 14 C.F.R. § 1221.101(a). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

{{OTRS}} templates

(Posting here as the template pages may not be heavily-watched)
I keep coming across images using the template {{OTRS}} or {{PermissionOTRS}} without any parameter. In both cases the text defaults to saying that "permission for use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system", but gives no further detail. Almost always, searching OTRS finds nothing of relevance, which is not surprising since had the tag been added by an OTRS volunteer after verification the ticket number would have been included. We have {{OTRSPending}} for use when an email has been sent that needs checking. Use of these other templates without a parameter simply causes confusion and makes work for OTRS volunteers who have to check in each case if fact some permission has been lodged (even though it virtually never has been).

Could these two template be modified to display an error message if used without a parameter? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad description of the image in the filename

Hello!

I think it is not possible to "rename" an image once it has been uploaded. File:Alexius I Comnenus.jpg has a bad filename: according to the summary and to this (french) talk page, the person portrayed is not Alexius I, but Prince Alexios. As I am not accustomed to the procedures here, would someone please do... whatever is necessary to do in order to correct this (download, upload with a new filemane, merging histories, deleting the image with the bad filemane... I don't know). Thank you! GillesC (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So the summary is correct, but the file name is incorrect? You are right, the file name cannot be renamed, at least not by the ordinary editor/contributor here. I suppose the file can be downloaded and uploaded with a different file name, but I will leave further help/progress to the more advanced people here. --Davidt8 (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I started process of renaming the file to . --Jarekt (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Internationalization and Localization of Commons Pages

Hi,

I used to be really active (Administrator, contributor, translator) on the Commons two-three years ago, and have recently returned, wanting to help out. I have a couple of suggestions and if agreed upon, I'll gladly make these changes myself. Never propose something unless you're willing to do the work :)

1. There is no predictable way to get to a localized Commons page. Pages like COM:POTD forward to the English version, but COM:POTD/de or COM:POTD/fr don't exist, one must either visit the English page and click on the corresponding link to the language or know the localized titles already. I believe it would be reasonable to create pages like COM:pagename/isocode that forward to the appropriate page.
2. I used to maintain this page for curiosity: User:UED77/Lang templates. The naming of the templates shows little consistency with the naming of the associated pages. This means more copy-pasting from the English page during translation, and lack of predictablity, like my previous point.
3. It is already an agreed policy that categories will be in English. Commons-namespace pages, however, are localized into many languages. However, whenever the English page changes, the other-language pages get out of sync, which might be considered "outdated", depending on the significance of the change. This not only generates more work for translators, but also reflects badly on the Commons' localization efforts. Therefore, would it be possible to create a modular system, where a master template would include various section templates? This would result in a unified layout between language versions (master template), and when the Commons community decides to rewrite a section of a page, only the corresponding section would need to be translated again. This would be especially helpful for pages like COM:FS and COM:COWN.
4. The translation coordination page COM:TCC is sadly out of date with the pages that we now have. Better coordination of the creation of new English help pages would result in quicker translations. I can help, but it will take me a while to familiarize myself with the new pages.

—UED77 (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, please take a look at Commons:Template i18n. Maybe Commons namespace is next. Multichill (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will definitely begin translating those into Hungarian, and looking into what other templates/pages can be included in this effort. —UED77 (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Category scheme Commons maintenance (mainly Category:Commons maintenance content) needs a complete make over. It needed it before, but now with autotranslate, it really needs it. We don't need pages of category descriptions anymore. We can do it just like how templates are done with /lang subpages. Rocket000 (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

COM:POTD could be something like

#redirect [[{{#switch: {{int:Lang}}
|de=Commons:Bild des Tages
|fr=Commons:Image du jour
|#default=Commons:Picture of the day
}}]]

That would make it redirect to the appropiate page. --Slomox (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make shortcuts redirect dynamically. One sometimes wants to go to a page in a certain language and not to the page in the interface language. We should rather have localized shortcuts like COM:BDT for "Bild das Tages", COM:IDJ for "Image du jour" or similar. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to go to Commons:Bild des Tages directly just link Commons:Bild des Tages. I don't see the problem with that. Why is that an argument against shortcut redirects? --Slomox (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

When I want to go to Commons:Picture of the day, I type COM:POTD into my browser. I don't want to be redirected to the German page. Why can't we have a different shortcut for that? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

upload - coat of arms

May I upload coat of arms which fall under PD regardless their authors are unknown? - Xbspiro (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears the question is not trivial. See above. --Eusebius (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you uploading versions made by yourself, based on the original textual blazon, or are you uploading the versions of the arms you found in a book or on a website? AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally, whoever draws a specific version of a coat owns the copyright to that version -- it is a work of art like any other, though obviously different versions will have lots of similarities, and are not necessarily derivative of each other (though that is still possible). Some countries apparently prohibit copyright protection on such emblems -- countries who were part of the old Soviet Union seem to have tags like this -- but I'm not sure that many do. Coat of arms are (usually) defined as written words, and that description is certainly PD, but each realization of that design may have its own copyright. There is a {{PD-Coa-Hungary}}, but I don't know any of the legal arguments around that one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, they are on a webpage (www.nemzetijelkepek.hu) owned by the Prime Minister's Office of Hungary. Most of the coat of arms uploaded there are lacking information about their author(s), therefore I cannot provide such a data when I would upload them to Commons. I have read in Commons:Coat of Arms that blazons are identical from reprezentations from the view of copyright, however it seems to be that under Hungarian law if a blazon (made by a municipality) exists which covers a reprezentation then such a reprenzentation doesn't enjoy protection by copyright law. I don't know about any legal arguments about {{PD-Coa-Hungary}}. - Xbspiro (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If it comes from the PM's Office, I'd say it is reasonable to assume that it is an "official [...]document issued by an authority or other official organ", and thus can be uploaded with {{PD-Coa-Hungary}}. Be sure to credit the source properly, though. It wouldn't have been the same if it came from some private website. --Eusebius (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

April 19

I have purchased a collection of oriental art. I am curious to know about all the pieces. May I upload them to this site to see if there is someone somewhere that can help me find out where they are from and their age and if they are valuable. They range from a nearly 4 foot Celadon Guanyin to a nearly 2 foot porcelain Guanyin surrounded by the entire collection of the 18 Buddhas. I also have 18 individual celadon buddhas all hand painted, robes are of the celadon glaze each in perfect condition hand painted with three dimensional faces open hollow mouths with teeth and tongues. You can even see the tips of their fingernails beyond the tips of their fingers. I also bought a 6'x 3' framed in the oriental style with wood pegs holding the art piece in the frame. It is an amazing piece with dragons some 5 toed and some 4 toed painted and etched into a slab of some type of pottery material. Very heavy! 5 ivory 4 inch statues and many other beautiful staues, horses and Giant foo dogs, garden seat plus more. This is my first time to come to your site. I find it fascinating how you do all of this. I am not very computer savvy, but I will sure try my best. Thank you Miss Martinez

It's only possible to upload them, if you are sure, that they are very old. So old, that the creator is dead for at least 70 years and copyright has expired. --Slomox (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Chage name

I have made a mistake with the name of two pictures files: Tlacuache01.jpg and Tlacuache02.jpg, is it possible to change the name of the files to coati01.jpg and coati02.jpg? Regards, --Cvmontuy (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hi. You tag the files with {{rename| new name | reason }}, but I just did it on both files. Thanks! —UED77 (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Gif thumbnails

When a gallery contains gif files, like Category:Ancient Greek architecture, my computer nearly freezes, requiring something like 5 minutes to open the page, so that it is easier to close the tab (if possible) or to turn my computer off and on again. It is completely unrealistic for me to work on such categories.

The origin of the problem is that Gif files are not shown with thumbnails, but they are given in their original file size, leaving Firefox to compute the resizing by itself. This resizing of gif files by Firefox seems to be a too heavy burden for the computing capacities of my computer.

So why not provide jpg thumbnails for gif files, to make gif-including categories easier to watch ?

Teofilo (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a known technical issue. The short answer is that the tools they currently use don't deal well with this type of conversion. As a workaround we may choose to simply exclude all GIFs over a certain size from being visible as thumbnails in categories, but that would also require code changes. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Final of the Commons Picture of the Year competition 2008. Voting is now open

The finalists have been selected! Vote in the 2008 Commons Picture of the Year competition.
The final voting round to select the 2008 Picture of the Year is open now. Voting closes 23:59 UTC 30 April (Thursday).

čeština | Deutsch | English | français | हिन्दी | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Bahasa Melayu | русский | +/−