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 11

Rollei 35 s

I came across a rollei 35 s camera still in working order.I was wondering what would be the going price on this camera

Removal of ConvertToSVG template?

There have been some debate between me and Cwbm (commons) (talk · contribs) regarding if {{SVG}} should be used also on unused images. Cwbm (commons) seem to think that the template should be removed from every file that is not in use while I think it should be used on every image better represented in SVG format. Please advice. // Liftarn (talk)

What Liftarn is saying is incorrect. He adds the template to all images in one category although the category already carries the template and although there is already on image converted so that you only hav to change the number. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I add the template to the images that is better represented in SVG format. What Cwbm (commons) so is borderline vandalism. What the "already carries the template" refers to is unclear, but it might be this edit[1], but an entire category can not be replaced by a single image. // Liftarn (talk)

You might also notice that the ConvertToSVG template was removed from many other places where it clearly should remain.[2][3][4] // Liftarn (talk)

I don't see why not to use the template on all images. I just wonder why all this unused garbage is uploaded.--Wickey-nl (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Cwbm, am I correct in understanding that you believe having the ConvertToSVG template on the category page is better than having the template on each image? If this is the case, you are very much incorrect. You have to consider that people may not visit the category, but may reach the image directly, used or unused on projects. It is always preferred to have the template on individual images. If I've misunderstood, my apologies. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell what Cwbm wants is to have the SVG template on images in use only. Look at the edits. Cwbm actually removes the template from all unused images. // Liftarn (talk)

All cleanup tags should be placed on all images to which they apply. If you're trying to find images bearing the tag which are in use, you can use GLAMorous for that. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Liftarn. It should be on every image that would benefit from conversion, "in use" or not, with the exception of those that shouldn't be converted. These exceptions could be for copyright or licensing issues, pending deletions or changes. We should remember that conversion isn't magic - it takes a lot of manual time and effort, so whenever we add one of these tags, we're implicitly dumping work onto someone else. We shouldn't do this carelessly, or when the likelihoood is that conversion of the tagged image will be invalidated by some change in the near future.

Tagging categories might work as an intermediate step, but it breaks 'bot queries for finding those tagged. It might be justifiable for intermediate workflow, tagging the category manually first as the easiest, traversing the category to re-tag those images (we could automate that), then picking up the now tagged images. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

→→ Template talk:Convert to SVG#new parameter ←← --Leyo 08:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The tag removal is continuing even though no consensus has been reached for doing so. I find this quite disruptive as these edits are undoing the work of many editors while not really solving any problems. If I, as one of the editors who actually does bitmap converting, want to prioritize or at very least weed out the unused images, I use the GLAMorous tool (and even better tools can be developed for this purpose). Also, not being in use at the moment does not mean the images could not be used in the future. So, Cwbm, could you please respect the community and cease the tag removal at least until we have some sort of consensus for removing the tags. --Quibik (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that finally somebody who actually converts images says something. Secondly, I would like you to explain to me how you use GLAmorous on Category:Coat of arms images that should use vector graphics. I can give you the answer, you can't. The category is too full. So I wonder is the goal really to clog up categories untill they can't be used anymore? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Glamorous not working on big categories, I created User:Tryphon/Top 200 coat of arms images that should use vector graphics, which lists the 200 most used images in that category (only counting the main namespace of the 20 biggest wikipedias).
More generally, the solution isn't to undo the hard work of hundreds of contributors. You could try splitting those big categories into subcategories, filing a bug report against Glamorous, etc. Try to be more constructive and take into account the opinion of others working on Commons (we're all here to try and improve the place, and doing what you think is best all alone is not the way to go). –Tryphon^☂ 16:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that these lists don't help me find images that are tagged with vva, but there somebody forgot to remove the other template or to find images that are placed in the wrong category. And while all of you publicly declare how important you think it is to tag unused images, nobody of you (understandibly) actually converts them. Go figure. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Finding images in Category:Coat of arms images that should use vector graphics that are tagged with {{Vva}} is not too complicated, is it? -- Common Good (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, if some tools are missing, find someone who can write a bot for this task (or write one yourself if you can). You say no one is working on converting those unused images; but if you remove the tags, there's even less chance that anyone ever will. –Tryphon^☂ 21:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The solution to that would be to make (or ask someone to make) a bot that removes the SVG tag when a VVA tag also exists. AS for converting (or sometimes recreating) images I have done it so there is no need to be rude about that. // Liftarn (talk)

I suggest continuing the discussion here. IMHO creating low priority subcategories (using a parameter in the template) could be a good compromise. --Leyo 23:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better with a high prio parameter (if necessary at all since prio is subjective anyway). Tagging would be easier that way. // Liftarn (talk)

What do you suggest should a high prio parameter that is set, change in the file description page (incl. categorization)? --Leyo 14:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I see it from a practical viewpoint. It is easier to change the existing tag for high priority than to do it for low prio. AS mentioned above I don't really see the need for such a tag. Let people work on converting the images they see fit. // Liftarn (talk)

high priority or low priority tag, it will in any case be usefull.--Wickey-nl (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Create a multi-purpose, multilingual people database

It often happens that we need to add the name of a person, a link to Wikipedia and sometimes a short description of the person. Currently, it is not very easy to do it in an internationalized way. We have a {{Creator}} that works fairly well, but is rather limited in scope (its layout make it virtually impossible to use inline).

The potential uses I see for such a database are: category description, file description, and transclusion in other templates. I have created a small template too see what we could have:

• {{:Person:Mohandas K. Gandhi}} gives:
  Person:Mohandas K. Gandhi

• {{:Person:Mohandas K. Gandhi|extended}} gives:
  Person:Mohandas K. Gandhi

• For Spanish users {{:Person:Mohandas K. Gandhi|extended}} gives:
  Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (2 de octubre de 1869, Porbandar-30 de enero de 1948, Nueva Delhi), Político de la India

• {{portrait of|{{:Person:Mohandas K. Gandhi|extended}}}} gives a multilingual
  Portrait of Person:Mohandas K. Gandhi

Obviously, all this would hardly be doable without bots, but we have exactly what it takes for bots:

• More than 600.000 en.wikipedia articles have persondata templates that provide basic infos about people and too me a dedicated namespace on commons would be at least as logical a place to hold them.
• Most Wikipedia articles have reasonably good interwiki links.
• We have internationalisation templates like {{NationAndOccupation}}

Of course, some things would have to be fixed by hand but I think the benefit/work ratio is fairly good. Would anyone be interested ?--Zolo (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a slight feeling as if Commons is just establishing itself as the future site of Wikidata ;-)

I'm pro!

We should integrate the Creator templates into it. Perhaps something like {{:Person:Mohandas K. Gandhi|creator info}} could render the data in the form of a current Creator template.

And we should also think about whether we should integrate additional data (that is not rendered by default). E.g. having a "height" parameter that is not rendered in any of the default views, but could be accessed via {{:Person:Michael Jordan|height}} in an infobox on the gallery page Michael Jordan (just an example. whether we want to display data like that is independent from the question of whether we want to store the raw data). --Slomox (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I guess we could have many optional fields in the raw data, and create many styles so that choose what we want to display. It seems logical to include creator templates too however creator has some special features:the "option" parameter and hopefully some day the list of works. I am not sure how to include that.

I have already created four styles "infobox", "extended", "wikipedia-linked" and "name" (with no link to wikipedia). It is easy to add more if needed.--Zolo (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

An alternate option could be the category descriptions of the subcategories of Category:People by name. We could import elements from Wikipedia there. With interwiki and some of the templates used at Wikipedia, quite a lot of data is already there.  Docu  at 16:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but to me a people-database could be at least as useful for file descriptions as for categories. Many images used in Wikipedia are not translated, in the local language. And it is fairly long to do it. if we could get people names, wikilinks and multilingual description automatically added that would be a nice first step. For example, if wou want to write "Bust of Aristotle" in many different languages it takes much time, but if we had a template that automatically translated "Aristotle" in the user's language it would be fairly easy to add something like {{Bust of|Aristotle}}--Zolo (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems logical to include creator templates too however creator has some special features:the "option" parameter and hopefully some day the list of works. I am not sure how to include that. If rendering as a creator template is integrated in a Person template, using "option" will still be possible. I don't see any problem with that. The lists of works don't belong into Creator namespace nor into Person namespace. To keep a connection to the Person we could add the name of the list of the works as a parameter in the Person entry. --Slomox (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be easy to use {{Creator}} template to allow {{Creator:John Doe|Inline}} or {{Creator:John Doe|InlineWithDates}} syntax to create requested functionality, using already mentioned "Option" parameter. I can build a test to show that, but I am not sure how often it will be used on Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if InlineWithDates would often be used but beside the current creator template, I see at least two layouts that could really be useful:

1. What I called "extended", ie the same info as in creator rendered as plain text (random possible usage). We could also use a normal creator template but it would be a bit confusing.
2. The person's name. Storing it in a template would allow translations and links to be automatically updated. For example {{person:Stalin|name}} {{int:and}} {{person:Mao Zedong|name}} could get translated into Russian, Chinese, etc. The "name" option is simply to avoid "Stalin, Soviet politician and Mao, Chinese politician".
3. ? Infoboxes perhaps. Actually there are already some on Commons (see Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen for instance).

It would be reckless to try that if we had to start from scratch, but we can use existing creator templates and wikipedia:persondata.--Zolo (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Another case that I think would be useful, especially for famous people, is a {{person|Gandhi|date and age|1895}} that would render in English as "Gandhi in 1895, at the age of 26". I suppose this is technically possible, but I can't understand the syntax of {{ISOdate}} so I can't do it myself.--Zolo (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I made some quick tests at Person:Albert Einstein and Template:Person2 (not a functional template, just some stuff to convince myself that it is technically possible). It seems it works. "{{:Person:Albert Einstein|birthdate}}" returns "Person:Albert Einstein" and "{{:Person:Albert Einstein|date and age|1923-01-01}}" returns "Person:Albert Einstein" (which is incorrect because he was only 43 at that time, I haven't implemented any more detailed computations, but you get the idea). --Slomox (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I modified {{Creator/test}} and Creator:Ignat Bednarik to use it. As a result "{{Creator:Ignat Bednarik|inline extended}}" gives "

Ignat Bednarik  (1882–1963)
Description	Romanian artist and painter
Date of birth/death	8 March 1882	11 March 1963
Location of birth/death	Orșova	Bucharest
Authority file	: Q7482838 VIAF: 65230956 ISNI: 0000000019764802 GND: 13575626X

". Similar changes can be done on the layout level (where translations of various labels are available) which would allow alternative layouts like for example vertical layout used at en:Template:Persondata and Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen. Technically it can all be easily done to display information stored in Category:Creator templates in many different layouts. However I am still not sure how useful it would be, when all this information can only be used at Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The idea - at least _my_ idea - behind it is to make it possible to facilitate the stored data on other wikis too. There is an extension to make cross-wiki transclusion of data possible but so far the developers have refused to consider it for review. I have thought about ways to circumvent the necessity of a dedicated extension, but I have not yet come to a conclusive solution. It's ironic that the most severe obstacle to Wikimedia development are the Wikimedia developers. --Slomox (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I also be much better if Commons was to become a repository of all kinds of resources that would callable from other projects, just as we can call already call images writing File:XX. However, I think a person namespace with a broader scope than creator could be useful even without that. So, we can develop the project and then lobby the developers by showing how great it would be if it was shared by all Wikis.

I am getting a bit off topic but here, but it has been proposed times and again to create a central Wiki for Interwikis. I think it should be done on Commons. It would go in the same direction.--Zolo (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We could add "people" or "Person" as an alias for "Creator" namespace and template, and use that to store information about people which are not "creators". For example I created {{Person}} which is based on {{Creator}} minus some maintenance tags. It would be also easy to modify {{Creator/layout}} template to allow few dozen other layouts for this same data controlled through "Option" field. --Jarekt (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Using Category:People by name

Category:People by name contains now about 83000 entries. In the long run, I believe that it will contain roughly 600000 entries from the en:wikipedia and 600000 entries from other wikipedias. It might be a better idea to populate that category with data from other wikipedias. For categories without media, we could not further categorise them in the first round (a template could signal when they are no longer empty).

Those categories could then contain the needed data structures. That would avoid double work, especially when renaming is to be done. Keeping consistency between creator and caegory names is already a major job. After all, Commons is the central point for all wikipedias, but for maintaining a database of more than a million entries, we better think twice. In addition, past experience shows that images that are uploaded find much easier a category that fits well than that a specific category is created. --Foroa (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. It is true that naming consistency could be a challenge and I agree we should probably not provide a metadata page for people who do not have a category on Commons, at least not until the system is really well tried. However the metadata should be callable from other pages. If we put them into categories, many categories will probably need a substantial "no include" with the non-meta data. It may be a bit confusing.

If it appears technically manageable, I would think merging creator and person (templates and namespaces) is the most attractive solution. Would it be conceivable to have a bot or anything else to automatically rename the "creator/person" page according to the category-or ther other way round ?--Zolo (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Naming consistency is a big issue many names have multiple commonly used versions, especially for names which in native version do not use English alphabet. For example, German and English languages use very different versions of Russian names. Also if we increase number of names stored we will have issues with disambiguation, since many people share the same name. We probably should use years of birth/death in the category names to make them more language independent. I do not think it would be a good idea for a bot to be renaming categories or creator pages, since it is not clear which is "more correct". However we do not have many mismatches there - Category:Creator templates with non-matching home categories has only 230 pages (out of 5800 creator pages), but those should be synchronized by hand --Jarekt (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm in favor of extending the use of subcategories of Category:People by name. There is already quite an extensive collection and it's already interlinked with the various Wikipedia. To make the description easily transcludable, fixing Bugzilla:26113 might be sufficient.  Docu  at 14:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It may cause some troubles. For example: there should be a noinclude part. If we add categories through hotcat, they may get in the "included" part. ::Could I suggest to use people by name in a somewhat different way ?

To me it is quite confusing that "people by name" is a simple hiddencat. The first time I saw it in a file, I thought it was a mistake, because the category first did not appear to make much sense in the light of what I knew of categorization rules. I am not even sure that I did not remove it. Had it been added through a template, I would not have been so confused. A {{Person by name}} could work this way:

1. When the person metadata page exists, the template displays it - possibly in the form of an infobox.
2. When the metadata do not exist, we could have something like "click here to create metadata", and get a prefilled template similar to that in creator:XX

The page with the metadata could be called either "person:XX" or "category:XX/metadata" (XX being the category name)and would be renamed automatically when we change the name of the category. Chances to have a bad category name would stay the same as now. It would take some work to adapt the current creator templates, but when it is done, it should not be complicated.--Zolo (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I (and probably Foroa as well) are referring to the subcategories of Category:People by name, not the category itself.

The subcategories are all named after a specific person. Currently there are about 80,000.

BTW, the bug refers to "<onlyinclude>", not "<includeonly>". Everything that is outside "<onlyinclude></onlyinclude>" has "<noinclude>" status.  Docu  at 16:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the subcategories of people by name as well).

Oh yes onlyinclude... It may well work. To me a special namespace would be clearer, but if it is much simpler to use existing categories, I have no definitive argument against it -btw same thing goes for categories for artworks vs artwork namespace. --Zolo (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually thinking about it and discovering "includeonly", I tend to think that you were right about putting it in the category. It would probably be simpler and it would avoid to create too many namespaces if we add new type of metadata later. --Zolo (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather have it only in a template that is used in the category description and it would only activate once the category description is transcluded. This doesn't work yet though.  Docu  at 22:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure to see what you have in mind. Could we for instance write infos about Einstein in a {{Person info}} in category:Albert Einstein and display them in a "creator" format by writing {{creator2|Albert Einstein}} ?--Zolo (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Something like {{category:Albert Einstein}}, maybe even with Person: as an alias for Category:.  Docu  at 09:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is currently not possible to transclude the <onlyinclude> (and making them trasncladable may cause problems because where would it stop?) However, if we put the template inside "onlyincludes", I it works perfectly well (see category:Cheng Hao and file:Cheng Hao.jpg), and it leaves more flexibility on how to use the template in other pages. If we make the need for "onlyinclude" conspicuous in documentation and in copy paste versions of the template, would that be okay ?

Actually, it took me until now to realize that the main problem with using categories is that it would make it would not be simple to use the content in other templates. For example, I think {{people image|Zhou Enlai|Xiao Jinguang|place=Qingdao|date=1957}} gives a fine result, but try to do it with Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Barack Obama ! I can't think of any simple way to solve it.--Zolo (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Misidentification of image

It has come to my knowledge that "File:Graf-von-mirabeau_1.jpg" has been misidentified as that of André Boniface Louis Riqueti de Mirabeau. It appears the said painting actually depicts Jean Baptiste Kléber. Could this image be renamed to fix the attribution error? Thanks in advance. Président (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide better evidence that the image is not of André Boniface Louis Riquetti de Mirabeau? At the moment, all I see is another editor's opinion on the matter. I note that AllPosters.com identifies the portrait as one of Jean Baptiste Kléber by Jean Guerin, but I don't think this is a terribly reliable source. You can post the information here for further discussion. Once you have found this evidence, please add "{{rename|[evidence for the mistake]}}" to the image and a filemover will rename it for you. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just did that. However, for some reason, my grounds for renaming the file fail to display properly. Président (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, looks good. Just wanted to check one more thing: is the portrait by Guerin, or is the artist still unknown? Also, do we have a better source than "Web"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That you would have to ask Luestling who did the original upload on the German wikipedia. He appears to have a rather checkered past in terms of providing the sources with his uploads though. I saw the picture on this site but I am told it is a mirror of Wikipedia, in which case it is just compounding the error by duplicating it. Président (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bug in Use this file on the web

The list of available sizes ranges from 0.0625 pixels up to 1 pixel. Not very useful. Btw, would it be possible to get Blogger formatted code as well? // Liftarn (talk)

Seem to work not (the fist anyway). // Liftarn (talk)

CommonSense error

Link http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CommonSense.php?u=en&i=&kw=&p=_20&cl=&uncategorized=Random+Orphan&w=en&v=0 give this error: A database error has occurred Query: SELECT I.page_title as title FROM page AS I USE INDEX(page_random) LEFT JOIN categorylinks AS L ON (I.page_id = L.cl_from AND L.cl_to NOT IN ('GFDL', 'GPL', 'LGPL', 'Public_domain', 'PD', 'PD-self', 'PD-user', 'PD_Old', 'PD_Art', 'PD_US', 'PD_US_Government', 'PD_NASA', 'PD_US_Military', 'Patents', 'Russian_official_symbols', 'PD_Soviet', 'CC-BY-SA-2.5', 'CC-BY-SA-2.1', 'CC-BY-SA-2.0', 'CC-BY-SA-1.0', 'CC-SA-1.0', 'CC-BY-1.0', 'CC-BY-2.0', 'CC-BY-2.5', 'BSD_images', 'Copyrighted_free_use', 'Copyrighted_free_use_provided_that', 'Self-published_work', 'Unknown', 'Own_work', 'Incomplete_license', 'Unknown')) LEFT JOIN ( imagelinks AS P JOIN page as A ON A.page_id = P.il_from AND A.page_namespace = 0 ) ON I.page_title = P.il_to WHERE I.page_namespace = 6 AND L.cl_from IS NULL AND P.il_to IS NULL AND I.page_random > 0.9358626478053 ORDER BY I.page_random LIMIT 1 Function: randomImage Error: 1176 Key 'page_random' doesn't exist in table 'page' (sql-s4) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.93.151.70 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Heads-up: Upload wizard will go live on Tuesday, November 30th

Greetings. I wanted to let you know the "upload wizard" will be enabled in beta version on Commons next Tuesday (November 30th). I'm still preparing the official announcement and updating the Questions & Answers page to reflect its current state, but I wanted to give you a heads-up first.

A few quick pieces of information:

• There are bugs and missing features. It's still in beta phase, and far from perfect. But we think it's "good enough" to benefit users who want to use it.
• We plan to add a link to the wizard from the current upload page (most probably only for own works) offering the beta version as an alternative.
• The upload wizard will not replace the default upload form until further development is done to provide a satisfying (and hopefully improved) coverage of the current use cases.

My availability will be limited over the next few weeks (Thanksgiving week-end, then I'll move to another country) but I'll do my best to answer the questions and concerns you might have. Guillaume Paumier 23:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Guillaume! Please stick to "who want to use it" and do not switch it on by default until it's finished software and not early beta. :) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I just prepared the link I was talking about earlier. It will be uncommented tomorrow when the feature is launched (and a link will be added to the announcement blog post). guillom 22:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll rather use the the current form then the new beta upload wizard. Will the old one be kept as well? Also will the basic upload page remain? Bidgee (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Right now the wizard is just an option, it still has lots of known issues we're working through. We are hoping to default to it eventually, but even then we'll probably not take away the old forms.--Eloquence (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It has a bug. See the File:RehmanTestUpload.jpg which I uploaded via Special:UploadWizard. Also, please see #Uploading a new file, and proceeding updates below. Thanks! Rehman 13:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Images using {{Watermark}} become marked as public domain!

Adding the { {watermark} } template to any image appears to add metadata tags that incorrectly mark the image as public domain! This means anyone wanting to use the image on a web page will be told they do not have to attribute it, regardless of the actual license. I'm not technical enough to establish why. I added full details at Template_talk:Watermark

The template has had one edit in the past year, and that was a minor edit which wouldn't have changed the licencing. The example you gave is not PD licenced. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The behaviour the OP suggested on Template talk:Watermark may be due to a bug in the "Use this file on the web" script, but I could not reproduce it. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, see if you can reproduce it using these steps:

1. Open the image description for the image in a new tab

2. Edit the page and check for license templates in the markup. The only one I see is {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}. The {{Watermark}} template is present too. The photo is pulled from flickr at [[5]] and is definitely NOT public domain licensed.

3. Cancel editing and click "Use this file on the web". In the "Attribution" field of the popup box I see "CC-BY-SA-2.0 or Public domain" and under it, "Attribution not legally required". Someone relying on this information would actually violate the CC license.

4. View the HTML source of the page and search for "Public domain". I see a machine readable license tag for public domain.

5. Edit the page again, delete the {{Watermark}} template, click show preview, view the HTML source of the preview page, and search for "Public domain" again. I don't find it this time.

My conclusion: the presence of the {{Watermark}} template in the markup is causing a machine readable "public domain" license tag to be added to the image description page. This is confusing at least one tool running on Commons (the one that shows the popup) causing it to give dangerously wrong information, and perhaps any number of other tools, not to mention humans!!

Let me know whether or not this works for you. If it doesn't work I'll have to investigate more.... I wonder if it could be to do with the image embedded in the {{Watermark}} template itself, which is in fact marked as public domain.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.12.172.254 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Watermark/layout iswas using pd-layout, that shouldnt be. --Martin H. (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed it, im not an expert so check if I not have broken it. We need a 'maintenance-layout' template or something like that, there are various layouts in Category:Maintenance templates and Category:Marker templates - thats no problem as long as no license template layout (CC, GFDL or PD-layout) is used. --Martin H. (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, very fast work -- the steps above no longer reproduce the problem for me. But I'm definitely not expert enough to say you haven't broken it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.12.172.254 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:PD-Layout contains the license information licensetpl_short/long that the MediaWiki:Stockphoto.js - thats the script producing the reuse links - is relying upon. Im however also a User tech-0, so this was just luck. The problem is that the license layout templates are maybe used on other such maintenance templates and can (will) cause the same problem. --Martin H. (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Same problem with Template:Convert to SVG (here), Template:Convert to PNG (here), Template:Convert to international (here), and Template:Attribution metadata from licensed image (here). /Ö 10:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

We need a uniform layout template for maintenance templates. --Martin H. (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I created {{Restriction-Layout}} back then when standardising restriction tags. Could be renamed to make its scope broader. Jean-Fred (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the PD-Layout from a few other templates and used your replacement for the moment. --Martin H. (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views again

Resolved

- Jmabel ! talk 17:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand that for the images from the Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views we try to preserve their titles, but should we do so even when they are simply wrong? For example, File:Dr. Tyng's Church, New York, from Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views 2.jpg is clearly misnamed: it's an image of St. George's Episcopal Church (Manhattan), not Holy Trinity Episcopal (New York City) (Dr. Tyng's Church). Should it be renamed? I've already indicated the discrepancy in the description. - Jmabel ! talk 07:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say rename it for accuracy, and make a note of the original wrongful attribution in the description. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditto.--KTo288 (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed... I've fixed some of these already. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Are all of these photographs of murals non-free?

• Category:Murals in Derry
• Project:Freedom of Panorama#United Kingdom

Uncle G (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• This issue has come up before. I think the answer is that the murals are not free (freedom of panorama in the UK does not extend to two-dimensional works), but so far no one feels inclined to initiate a mass deletion of them. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Has it come up before for these particular images? Or just in general? If the former, where did it come up? Uncle G (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It was in connection with murals on buildings in Belfast. I'm afraid you'll have to search the archives of this page and possibly of "Commons talk:Licensing" as well. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's generally considered that murals are copyvios, but graffiti is not, although I find this distinction rather vile as it essentially boils down to "we can get away with graffiti images because the artists will never enforce their copyright". -mattbuck (Talk) 12:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Question over OTRS release

File:ElvisCostello09TIFF.jpg is derivative from an "all rights reserved" image on Flickr, the permission is listed as:

This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page. The Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by a Volunteer Response Team (VRT) member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2008111310002081. If you have questions about the archived correspondence, please use the VRT noticeboard. Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2008111310002081 Find other files from the same ticket:

Having checked the OTRS ticket, it is a forwarded email that says "Wikipedia has permission to use this". That is not a free license, and the email does not itself originate from the photographer but is at one remove. I think this should be reviewed carefully as we cannot take "Wikipedia can use this" as being a Creative Commons derivatives allowed release. Guy 15:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be an OTRS volunteer since you have access to the ticket. Well, if the release is insufficient, go ahead and nominate the image for deletion. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks legit to me. The ticket contains an email from gdcgraphics (the rights holder) saying "I agree to release the images in the set(s) TIFF08, TIFF07, and TIFF06 under the Creative Commons Attribution license." Then a later email says "...As before, you can use what you find helpful and I will move the ones you pick to a new folder called TIFF09. Wikipedia has permission to use TIFF09 the same as TIFF08, TIFF07 and TIFF06." That implies to me that the TIFF09 images are also Creative Commons Attribution, although the wording isn't as clear as for the others. Any 2nd opinions? Kaldari (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've sent an email to the rights-holder asking for clarification. Kaldari (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The rights holder has responded with an unambiguous statement that all images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdcgraphics/sets/72157622546781229 (the TIFF09 set) are released under a Creative Commons Attribution license. Kaldari (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

November 28

Template:WSTMtag

Does anyone know anything much about Template:WSTMtag, used in a description field? It seems, among other things, to add categories to an image; in this case it added a now-redundant category. - Jmabel ! talk 09:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's part of Wikis Takes Manhattan. That project still needs a lot of cleaning up. Multichill (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Is someone working on this? Is there a plan of action? - Jmabel ! talk 02:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

November 29

Download button code

On an image description page, where is it pulling the license information for the download button from? On File:Virginia Tech Hokies block punt vs Duke.jpg, which I created, the "Download" button falsely claims that this image is public domain and falsely claims that attribution is not legally required. --UserB (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

See above. {{Trademarked}} made incorrect use of {{PD-Layout}}, which led the tool to believe the image was public domain. Clear your cache to see a difference.

Thanks --UserB (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, what is the purpose of {{GFDL-1.2-en}} ? Don't we already have {{GFDL-1.2}}?

Jean-Fred (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's part of the disclaimer problems ("Subject to disclaimers"). Multichill (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

About re-uploading

One of my friends User:Northia uploaded some pictures of his own on Flickr in an earlier time but these pictures were soon deleted for the reason of copyright. He says he might have had incorrect setting of his Flickr account and this resulted in copyright problems. It is now not permitted for him to re-upload it despite that he can provide sufficient evidence to prove these pictures' copyright. How to solve this problem? AlexHe34 (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

We can't really answer any questions about Flickr's policies and user accounts here. Your friend should contact Flickr about this. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Uhn..I mean, now, even I attempt to upload the same picture not via Flickr and use a different file name, the system will block me. AlexHe34 (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you mean you are helping Northia to upload the images to the Commons. Can you describe exactly the error message you are getting? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

When I upload the same picture as what has been deleted before, the system notifies that an earlier-deleted file is identical and I always get stuck in the "Upload" page. Like this:

A file identical to this file (File:琴台路.jpg) has previously been deleted. You should check that file's deletion history before proceeding to re-upload it.Please modify the file description below and try again.

Note: I have select GFDL and CC-BY-SA option. I guess the server has a system to identify whether two files are the same no matter what their names are. AlexHe34 (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I know what needs to be done. But before I explain this to you, I would suggest that it should be Northia who uploads the files because he is the copyright holder. If you do it on Northia's behalf, then you will have to get Northia to send an e-mail to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org to confirm that he is the copyright holder of the images and agrees to release them into the public domain or to license to them to the Commons under a free licence such as CC-BY-3.0. If this step is not done, then there is a possibility that the images will be deleted again because there will be insufficient evidence that you were authorized by Northia to license the images to the Commons.

Assuming that Northia will be uploading the images again by himself or has sent an e-mail as described above to OTRS, the way to successfully upload the images is to click the "Ignore all warnings" box before the uploading is done. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact I know what OTRS is but I just cannot manage to upload it before telling him to send OTRS message. OK, I will try the "ignore all warnings" button. Thanks for your advice and direction! AlexHe34 (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Something for your Watchlist

There are some pages on a project that active community members should have on their watchlist. For anyone who is interested in the development of this project this is the selection of editors with access to restricted technical features - Administrators, Checkusers, Oversights and Bureaucrats. On Commons the votings to give someone 'the tools' take place on Commons:Requests and votes, that page is not linked much and maybe not anyone knows it. Also the page has the shortcoming that you will not see it on your watchlist if a new request is added. So to get a little more participation in this requests I ask you to please put the following pages on your watchlists:

• Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests watch
• Commons:Oversighters/Requests watch
• Commons:Checkusers/Requests watch
• Commons:Administrators/Requests watch

Thanks, --Martin H. (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

License clarification

I'm working with User:TimSample to get his headshot properly uploaded and tagged. He's going to send me the file to upload. Assuming that he says that I'm correct in my understanding that Nina Fuller is the photographer, Sample is the rights-holder, and Sample licenses the image under GFDL/CC-BY-SA, what are the most appropriate tags for me to put on the file? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I got it. File:Tim Sample headshot.jpg‎ Thanks anyway. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please email permissions-commons(at)wikimedia.org to get an OTRS ticket verifying the release. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, and OTRS-tagged. Thanks again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Image caption

Hi! Could someone native English speaker take a look at the image caption at file:Dieselpump Preem Avesta.jpg and modify what's have to be modified, so it won't look silly when it's time for it to show as POTD? Best regards --V-wolf (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. - Jmabel ! talk 04:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you was in after the nicely done edit by Docu.--V-wolf (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

November 30

Is this simple enough?

At http://www.houstonisd.org/HISDConnectDS/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=3e5608ae6b8fc010VgnVCM10000052147fa6RCRD

Is the logo of the Houston ISD at the upper left hand corner of the page (with the simple star) simple enough to qualify as a PD image? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say yes, definitely. See Threshold of originality for some examples. –Tryphon^☂ 07:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I will upload both the English and Spanish versions WhisperToMe (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

File:HoustonISDEnglishlogo.PNG

File:HoustonISDSpanishlogo.PNG

File:HoustonISDVietnameseLogo.PNG

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that you do not need to use {{PD-reason}}, we have a specific license template for that: {{PD-textlogo}}. –Tryphon^☂ 07:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

How do I (or should I) notify photographer when I've used his/her photo?

If I use a photo that I found on Wikimedia Commons, should I notify the photographer? If yes, how do I do that?

On Flickr, there's a comment area under every photo where I can write a note of thanks and a link to the web page where I published the picture. But I don't see where I can do that on Wikimedia Commons. Going to the Discussion tab at the top of the page doesn't seem to be the right place to say "thanks, here's a link." Is it not expected (or even possible) to notify the photographer when his/her work has been used?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnotherSource (talk • contribs) 15:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You can thank the uploader by leaving a message on his or her talk page, but of course the uploader may not be the photographer. It really depends on whether the photographer provided any means of contact. Some Commons users who create and upload their own content specifically provide contact information such as e-mail addresses. Also, if the photograph was originally sourced from Flickr, you could visit the original Flickr page and leave a comment there. You can also place a {{Published}} banner on the talk page of the Commons image description page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

talk page is ok to leave such messages, if you have confirmed your email address ypu can goto the uploaders userpage then the tool box on the left hand side of the screen has an email this user option where you can send a message to uploader by email. Gnangarra 08:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Leaving a message on the uploader's talk page would be sufficient, I think. If applicable, one could ask the uploader to forard the message to the photographer. BTW, I'm sure that people would appreciate such a message very much! Best regards, MartinD (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. ˜˜˜˜

How to notify photographer when using his/her material?

I have used some photos I found on Wikimedia Commons on my website. I'm wondering how I should notify the artist, or even if I should notify the artist? On Flickr, there is the comment section below each photo where you can thank the photographer and post a link to the page his/her photo appears on. But I don't see anything like that on Wikimedia Commons.

Is it common practice, then, to simply use the material found here and not tell the photographer? Seems like the author/artist deserves the courtesy of some kind of notice. But how would I do that? Simply send a private email?

Thank you.

AnotherSource (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Many of your questions may be answered at Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. Photographers generally welcome comments. You can leave messages on their talk pages or send E-mail, if enabled, using the link in the left column. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, AnotherSource, not sure why you have asked the same question twice ... — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@Walter: Thank you. I read through that page before I posted my question, but I didn't see anything about how (or whether) to notify photographers when using their images. @Jacklee: Oops. Sorry about that. I'm new to all this. I couldn't find my original question this morning, so I thought I had closed my window last night without clicking on the "save page" button. ˜˜˜˜

You're welcome. Also, please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ("~~~~") after them, or clicking on the appropriate button in the box under the "Save page" button. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes to UK Crown Copyright

At the GLAM Wiki conference last weekend in London the presentation from Creative Commons mentioned that the terms of Crown Copyright have been ammended so this material is available under the Open Government Licence which is apparently wikimedia compatible. I have added a paragraph about this to Commons:Licensing#Crown_copyright but it should probably be checked by someone else.

Poking round I found this "(The National archive) license a wide range of Crown copyright and Crown database right information through the Open Government Licence and the UK Government Licensing Framework" [6]

Vandal report

I would like to report image vandalism by User:Kissurluckystars. He has uploaded a single image of someone he/she dislikes, given a wrong category Category:Gelechiidae (which I have now removed) and linked it to the article Tila on en:WP. Can he be blocked?

Also, File:Tilaisgreat.jpg needs to be deleted.

AshLin (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You can nominate images for deletion by going to the image page, then clicking the "Nominate for deletion" link in the "Toolbox" section on the left side of the screen. If you are having problems with another editor, leave a message at "Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Help cropping?

Could someone crop File:Bridesmaid and junior bridesmaid.jpg to show less ceiling? I'd like to use it at en:Bridesmaid, and I think it would look better if the junior bridesmaid were more centrally placed. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

like this? or do you mean a closer crop? Btw, here is the right place to ask for something like this. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 19:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC) 

Using images from sales brochures in articles

If I scanned an image of a car that is not commonly found that can be photographed, how would I properly add the necessary information so that the image doesn't get deleted for copyright violation? I have a large collection of car sales brochures from different countries and would like to scan them into the Wiki-world. The images are of items that are extremely rare to find and can not be photographed under "own work" license agreements. (Regushee (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC))

You can not upload the scanned photographs unless the copyright holder gave a written permission to a free license. Arguments that no free equivalent could reasonably be obtained is part of a non-free fair use rational on some Wikipedia projects, on Commons fair use is not allowed. The photographic work must be public domain due to copyright expiration or published under a free license, see Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Motd - thumbtime

Using the thumbtime template of Motd results in no changes of the thumbnail for me. What am I doing wrong? --Pristurus (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Rename...

File:Drawing.svg, clumsy mistake. I'm adding the image to an article and there is a Drawing.svg stored on the wiki locally, so I need it changed now... --Beao 23:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the proposed rename; we have millions of files here, names like Drawing.svg and Taka.svg are a little terse to be optimal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

December 1

How does one rename a category?

A German-speaking user created a category called Category:Parachute technics containing pictures of parachuting equipment. To be correct in this English language Commons, the category really ought to be renamed Parachuting equipment. I don't know how to perform a renaming page move in the Commons for a Category page. I would appreciate advice, or if someone did it for me. Thank you. Odea (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Try attatching"{{move|Parachuting equipment|2=English spelling|3=2010-12-01}}" to the page and eventually the category will be moved by an admin. It takes ages though, which can be annoying as there are several relating to the Isle of Wight I would really like to get re-named properly, it's just taking a very long time to do it. Hope that helps. Editor5807^speak 01:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll try that and see what happens. Odea (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-controversial renaming requests (capitalization and spelling errors, and changes for consistency with other categories, for example) can be listed at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands". It is not instantaneous, though, because like everything else here at the Commons such requests are managed by volunteers. {{Move}} is only needed if the renaming is likely to be controversial. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What you say is incorrect Jack. Only very uncontroversial requests like spelling mistakes can be listed at the delinker page. {{Move}} is for normal requests like this one. For controversial requests we have Commons:Categories for discussion. Multichill (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised, because that is not my experience concerning the sorts of categories that are listed for renaming at CommonsDelinker/commands. Personally, I consider a request to rename "Category:Parachute technics" to "Category:Parachuting equipment" uncontroversial because there is no such word as technics in English – there is a patent error in the category name. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Language updates to "Template:Published"

Editors are invited to add translations of the English text to {{Published}} and {{Published/core}}. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The template code looks awful, you might want to change that first before you invite users to edit it. Multichill (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I am partly responsible for the code. I split it into two parts, which may not be very clear, but this a it is a bit less lengthy and I think it is quicker to update. Also, I managed to fix layout problems this way while I could not find when all was on one page. There is certainly a cleaner way to do it, but I did not find it.--Zolo (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Possibly a {{Published/layout}} would help.--Zolo (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Multichill, perhaps you can be more specific about why you feel the template code looks "awful". I think Zolo has done a pretty good job, and has managed to solve some coding issues that I had problems with. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Pruneau has done the French translations. Thanks! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Location

Please join the discussion Template talk:Information#Location about relation between {{Location}} and {{Information}} templates. --ŠJů (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Uploading a new file, and proceeding updates

Currently, when we upload a new file, the page data shows something like this:

== Summary ==

{{Information
|Description=
|Source=
|Author=
|Date=
|Permission=
|other_versions=
}}

== Licensing ==

{{LICENCE}}

Many changes are usually done after this (which couldn't be done before), such as internationalization, etc. Could we not change the upload content to reflect this automatically. For example, something like:

== {{int:filedesc}} ==

{{Information
|Description    = 
|Source         = 
|Date           = 
|Author         = 
|Permission     = 
|Other_versions = 
}}

== {{int:license}} ==

{{LICENCE}}

Comments? Rehman 02:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Support 100%. It just makes sense, and it gets rather old having to tidy up after the upload form. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes! I think the aligned equal signs make the template much neater and easier to read (though I'd suggest an additional space between "Other_versions" and the equal sign, and "Other" instead of "other" to match the remaining parameters), and the categories really should be below the licence section. Perhaps we should use "{{int:license-header}}" instead of "{{int:license}}"? Also, it is possible to line up the equal signs in the sample template at {{Information}}? The documentation uses {{TemplateBox}}, which makes it difficult to edit. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see Commons:FAQ#Why_is_the_text_of_my_new_uploads_corrected_soon_after_upload.3F and the one after. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone knows where to make the change? The change at {{Information}} can be done with the help of any admin, but where to edit to change the default uploading contents? Rehman 09:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Judging from the link Jean-Fred provided, it looks like a change to Mediawiki is required so unfortunately it doesn't look like something we can fix at our end. Since the matter has been discussed before, presumably a bug has already been filed on the matter. Does anyone know if the bot that goes around changing "== Summary ==" to "== {{int:filedesc}} ==" and so on is still operating? In any case, in my view we should definitely update {{Information}} to try and align the equal signs. However, I think that this may require a change to {{TemplateBox}}. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

With my very limited knowledge on MediaWiki, I think editing MediaWiki:Filedesc and MediaWiki:License would deal with the headers. As for the {{Information}}, I fully agree with you on the changes that needs to be done there. But no clue on how exactly to "embed" that into the uploader stuff. Or does it simply substitutes the current version? Rehman 10:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, considering the age of the previous discussion, I think that attempt to change, has stalled. Rehman 10:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Updating the sample template at {{Information}} would not embed it into the uploading process, but would allow users who copy and paste the template from the template description page to have a version with the equal signs neatly aligned. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I've informed here on the {{Information}} changes. Do you know where (or who) exactly to contact regarding the upload form? Rehman 10:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The {{Information}} part is in MediaWiki:UploadForm.js. You can request a change on the talk page. The headings however are hardcoded in the Mediawiki sourcecode. You can try your luck and file a request to change it at Bugzilla:.

I don't know about the new Special:UploadWizard. It may handle things differently and need additional changes. --Slomox (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

UploadWizard already uses internationalized strings in its headers. For instance, here's a file someone uploaded with UploadWizard: in English and in in German. (There's an issue that the deployed UploadWizard uses a string which doesn't exist in live Commons, (int:otherinfo) -- already noted as a bug.) NeilK (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the headers in the normal upload in r77623 Platonides (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've commented on the UploadWizard section above, hopefully someone from there will look into this (if not, I'll send someone a message in a day or two). For the current uploader, I have linked this to MediaWiki talk:UploadForm.js. Rehman 14:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm a fan of having <!-- Categories --> above the category list (as shown above). Railwayfan2005 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the purpose of that? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that has always seemed redundant since each line contains "Category:". — Huntster (t @ c) 04:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Other changes

I'd like to propose that the licence tag me put inside the Permissions information by default, along with PR if relevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer that to happen only if it is a Public Domain dedication (by the author, due to age etc.) and not if it is a clear license. Kameraad Pjotr 12:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe not by default. Permission is basically used for text do describe the permission/licence further; different from the licence section. Rehman 13:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

IMHO only OTRS tags should be placed inside the information template, but not license tags. --Leyo 13:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

IMHO too. A separated licensing section 1) allows section linking 2) creates a helpful sectionedit 3) disburden the meta information and makes it readable 4) gives people from wikipedia the opportunity to edit the files description without having to think about what this strange templates in the permission field mean 5) similar to 3 - its a layout question, pressing all information boxes in one box does not realy look like an intelligent sollution. This was improved since the /lang templates have vanished, so some license tags are not sooo terrible long anymore, but it still looks unbalanced. This are all very nice thinks the files with both sections have, while an image without sections does not allow for quick editing from Wikipedia in anyway and a file with only one section offers to edit something (the license) that not requires any editing. Out of this considerations I changed my own editing behaviour 180° from what mattbuck may suggest to a structured image description page. --Martin H. (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2

Backlog notice at "Category:Media requiring renaming"

Anyone know how {{Backlog}} works? It was recently added to "Category:Media requiring renaming" and the message on it states that it will pop up when there are ten or more images in the category that require processing, but it seems to remain visible even if there are less than ten images (such as now). Clicking the "recount" link seems to make no difference. Is this because subcategories are counted as well? Not a biggie, but perhaps a knowledgeable person would like to have a look at the template. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Subcategories are counted. But is that a bug in the rename template or did realy someone worked through all the renames? Awesome, good work. --Martin H. (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks. Actually, there hasn't been much of a backlog at "Media requiring renaming" for some weeks now. A bunch of us (myself included) have been popping by from time to time to clear files there. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

December 3

Localization for anonymous users

Hi everyone, user:mdale and I just hacked up something to show Commons in the local language for anonymous users coming from one of the other projects (like Wikipedia). See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=fr&withJS=MediaWiki:PersistentUselang.js for an example. This will only work on a single page for now. We want to enable it for all anonymous users soon. Multichill (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. We enabled it, but only for Dutch and French for now. If the servers don't explode we will enable it for more languages. Feel free to test in Dutch and French. Don't forget to log out first! Multichill (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

More a question: This will only work on a single page for now - If I have german interface in german Wikipedia and go to today mainpage picture with my de.wp settings - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Kai_Kai_Western_Arrernte.jpg?uselang=de - the link "-> Zur Beschreibungsseite auf Commons" has the uselang=de piece. Isnt that the same? --Martin H. (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: The "uselang" is now persistent (so once set, it will stick when browsing to other pages at Commons). This will only work for Dutch (nl) and French (fr) for now. Try logging out and open http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hoofdpagina?uselang=nl . Click around at Commons and see what happens. Multichill (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats an real improvement. It not works if you use the search function. I however still suggest that the de.projects sollution - which includes templates like de:Template:Commonscat with some uselang={{INT:Lang}} in it - is an alternative without using scripts on Commons. Logged out I will be forced to see dutch interface in nl.wp, spanish interface in es.wp and german interface in de.wp. So it will not matter if the localization comes from a script that afterwards checks from what language version I come or if the interface/templates of the language version of Wikipedia directly point me to the right language on Commons. The script is using resources, the correct link in the template not, or? Thats however my mere question, is it equal or is there a difference. --Martin H. (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is a template link to a given uselang the script will use that and keep that language selected as the users clicks around in the commons site. Without the script only the landing page has the uslang parameter. Mdale (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that you are setting uselang on all pages for all visitors of Commons? (Not to mention the initial page reload.) Which means the caching goes completely down the toilet? OK, let’s see how long it takes before getting killed by a developer. (Or maybe not, I don’t know; it just does not look like a good idea to me.) --Mormegil (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, something like that. Let's see what happens :-) Multichill (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Multichill (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

Two questions/ideas:

• What about localizing according to language preferences set in browser (anonymous and logged in users)?
• What about presetting the language according to the home wiki instead of English for everyone (SUL users)?

--Leyo 16:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Browser preference is used when uselang is not set and there is not suitable referer, see MediaWiki:PersistentUselang.js for the exact code. We probably have a bug open for the second suggestion. If that's not the case, please file one at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/. Multichill (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not find anything and therefore posted it on bugzilla:26221. Matt (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Leyo 20:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Someone found the original bug: bugzilla:23335. Multichill (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

GFDL-1.2 only

We need to purge the Commons of these files if the copyright holders continue to refuse to migrate to a free license. GFDL-1.2-only is being used as a loophole to the clearly stated policy that "Commercial use of the work must be allowed." To take an example, an article on the German Wikipedia of current German Minister of Defence uses a photo for which the license explicitly says "You may not use this work for commercial purposes" and "You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work." When I pointed out on this article's Talk page that these restrictions were inconsistent with Wikimedia policy, it was argued that the file also had a GFDL-1.2-only license by the same person who ironically demonstrated how GFDL-1.2-only files are effectively non-free by elsewhere arguing that GFDL-1.2-only files are "ungültig" (invalid) as part of a request to have files so licensed deleted. This issue came up before in a Commons discussion of copyright tags and as part of the discussion concerning the license migration, but I believe the fact that we have these cases where the same person who uses a GFDL_1.2-only license in one case to justify a keep in another circumstance alludes to the same license in order to justify a delete suggests GFDL 1.2-only is being abused as a loophole.

For other examples of the use of GFDL-1.2-only in order to upload non-free imagery:

- User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim uses it in conjunction with the statement "For... a commercial license, contact me", something that the user evidently does not take lightly given that he has asked the English Wikipedia community for advice on how to sue, saying "Having recently invested quite a lot in photographic gear, I am reluctant to give away my images for free." The real truth of the matter is further confirmed by the fact that elsewhere this user has placed restrictions on the same images that leave absolutely no doubt that they are not free (e.g. this Commons image is anything but free on IStockphoto)

- User:Fir0002 used it in conjunction with a license that states that persons desiring "a less restrictive" license should "email me to negotiate terms," and furthermore for "some of my images... I can't give permission to use due to personality and copyrights."

Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director Erik Möller has said "for all Wikimedia wikis... GFDL 1.2 content that cannot be migrated [to CC-BY-SA]... we will simply remove as we would remove any other problematic copyrighted content." It is time to either get on with this called-for removal of non-migrated material and deprecate this license OR give the green light to files with "no commercial" use restrictions. At present we give lip service to saying we use only free material and so reject such restrictions while in practice we continue to tolerate a loophole. In my view it's a matter of being straightforward versus being dodgy. When a user says, "I am reluctant to give away my images for free," tell that person that that is what is required here instead of continuing to offer a GFDL-1.2-only license.--Bdell555 (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is off-topic, but your first example (the photo of the German Minister of Defence) is at least also available under the Free Art License, which seems (based on my quick skim through it) to allow commercial use in a freer manner than the GFDL. It requires re-users to link to or otherwise describe how to access the original version of the photo and the license, but does not require that an actual copy of the license be attached (as does the GFDL). --Avenue (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• In your call for a "purge", you might be confusing GFDL content at Wikipedia and GFDL files at Commons.  Docu  at 03:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but this discussion area is for policy on the Commons.--Bdell555 (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• The quote from Möller seems to refer to GFDL content at Wikipedia rather than GFDL files at Commons. New GFDL content at Wikipedia isn't possible.  Docu  at 04:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"New GFDL content at Wikipedia isn't possible" is meaningless if one can just upload to Commons first and then display on Wikipedia, no? If Commons can host but Wikipedia can't display then why isn't there a disclaimer calling attention to that in the GFDL-1.2-only template that is hosted on Commons?--Bdell555 (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It means that you can't import GFDL texts into Wikipedia any more.  Docu  at 06:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Möller doesn't say "GFDL 1.2 text... we will simply remove" he says "GFDL 1.2 content... we will simply remove"--Bdell555 (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have long said that we should at least disallow future 1.2only uploads. GFDL1.2-only is among the least useful licenses for media files currently allowed on Commons. The license is only used by a few people, mostly to make commercial use as hard as possible while still being able to use them in Wikipedia articles. --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• While I notice that you prefer CC-0, please don't expect everybody else to use that. People who decide to use a free license may expect re-users to stick to that license. I think we should refrain from criticizing uploaders over the fact they actually expect reusers to stick to the license.  Docu  at 04:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In my own mind "free" means "free" but this is not about revisiting the definition of free or where the cut-off point should be drawn betseen free and non-free. It's about enforcing the definition or standard that the Foundation and the community has agreed to. And that agreement is that GFDL-1.2-only is not free. The fact that people who use GFDL-1.2-only complain that using another standard amounts to "giv[ing] away my images for free" just affirms that the correct decision has been made. If the decision is to be respected, then we need a policy like "all uploads after January 1, 2011 that are GFDL-1.2-only will be automatically ported to CC-BY-3.0 and exercising an "opt out" option with regard to this port means opting out of having the work hosted on the Commons."--Bdell555 (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd support disallowing future GFDL-only uploads. It's too burdensome for printing, and too easily encumbered by invariant sections, to be suitable here on its own. --Avenue (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(Struck following further discussion below.) --Avenue (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You cannot force a change of licence like that. If we change a GFDL-1.2 licenced image to anything else without their permission, then we are violating the granted licence ourselves. Users would have to opt-in and explicitly accept the change, sending the image to say the no permissions queue would be acceptable.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We had this discussion different times, I understand some of the arguments, although I use GFDL and think it is a free license, but I hate to be accused to use the license with commercial ideas. That is nothing but a lie. --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

GFDL 1.2only und free art licence sind gültige freie Lizenzen auf Commons. Man kann zusätzlich jederzeit auch unfreie Lizenzen hinzufügen (cc-by-nc-nd). Als ich hier angefangen habe, gab es noch kein Commons, da wurde offiziell empfohlen, Bilder mit 800x600 und 100 kB hochzuladen. Das reicht ja vollkommen für die Bebilderung der Enzyklopädie. Wollen wir dahin zurück? Wer schreit hier eigentlich am lautesten nach Freiheit? @Bdell555, wieviele eigene Fotos hast du eigentlich schon zum Projekt beigetragen? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd point out one change from when users started using {{GFDL-1.2}} is that there is GFDL v 1.3 exists now. At that time, there was also the following (reasonable) justification for using the licence: "I'm only going to agree to licence my work under terms I know, I'm not going to agree to a use a potential future licence I may not agree with." Not all images licensed with 1.2 were done to restrict commercial viability. Users are also always at liberty to invite organisations to contact them for alternative terms, a publisher may prefer explicit permission from a real name to a CC licensed image by a pseudonym, saying "if you want to use this file please contact me" is not necessarily 'malicious' either.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The GFDL-1.2-only license is already deprecated on the English and German wikis (due to it's use as a non-free loophole license). I would support it being deprecated on Commons as well. Kaldari (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A major factor in the deprecation on en.wiki was the continued acceptance of it (as a free licence) on Commons, as all GFDL-1.2 content could simply be moved over to here. I would not consider how the local projects act as a precedent for how we go forward, but their views here are informative. I'd personally strongly discourage GFDL-1.2 only too.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A much more important point here: The issue is not {{GFDL-1.2}}, the problem is the GFDL itself. Any new uploads that use {{GFDL}} or {{GFDL-1.3}} exclusively have pretty much identical licences, and equivalent restrictions. The migration clause is no longer operative. The question is if we should allow GFDL-only licensing not just GFDL-1.2 only.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nilfanion already gave the reason which motivates me to use GFDL: "I'm only going to agree to licence my work under terms I know, I'm not going to agree to a use a potential future licence I may not agree with." For me a contract which can be changed from the other side without asking me as the donator is absolutly untrustworthy and not acceptable. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and I see how it would lead you to prefer GFDL 1.2 over GFDL 1.3. I don't see why it would lead you to choose GFDL only, though. --Avenue (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Und GFDL 1.4 wird dann CC-0? Nein! ich stimme keiner Lizenz zu, die ich nicht kenne. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

@avenue The big license migrations interpreted my other licenses as changeable without asking me as the author. If I didn't want to accept this I would have to look over thousands of my pictures. There was not even a simple chance to opt out for all of my pictures. Secondly the whole procedure was not fair concerning authors who do not even know that their pictures are on the commons. Example: Photos from Flickr and other portals, uploaded here, licenses changed, author never informed.

Concerning the financial interests: It is absolutely OK if someone donates a 1024 x 768 version of his photo, which may help wikipedia to illustrate an article, and sells the full size version or the raw on other places. Free software doesn't mean that it is impossible to create ways to earn money with it. Thousands of companies earn money with free software, e.g. by managing linux-installations, by installing CMS-systems or by publishing our free pictures. Nothing speaks against it. (I'm in the comfortable situation to have a good job and never took a cent for my commons-pictures.)

The illusion that all our pictures must be printable: 99% are not, too small, too bad. If somebody for instance like to publish a printed versionof a wikipedia-article has to check the pictures anyway.

Illusions about free licenses: Some people here seem to think that "free" means CC-O, no restrictions at all. For me the purpose of free licenses is not only to distribute free content but to keep this content free. The best way to guarantie this is to force users of free content to publish the license of the files. Some say that this is difficult for printed versions of GFDL 1.2 fotos, but it is not. Many of my pictures here are used in commercial contexts.

Many of the slashers of GFDL work with innuendoes against the users of this licenses. For me wikipedia is a hobby and I bring in a lot of work and a lot of money. The photographers I know like me often drive many miles to take a picture to illustrate articles, buy lenses, cameras and software to ameliorate their contributions here and like me don't earn a cent with this activities. This project is important for me, I like the idea of free software and content, but there are limits: Sentences like "with regard to this port means opting out of having the work hosted on the Commons." by user Bdell555 treat the problem in such an aggressive way that it is not acceptable for me. His statement shows a lack of knowledge, too, because many of our pictures are here without knowledge of the authors and many authors left the project and can not be asked. --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I'm not familiar with the details of the license migration; sounds like some of it wasn't handled well. Clearly there are still strong feelings about it. I'm not so sure about things now, and have struck my earlier comment. --Avenue (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree. I don't take pictures, but I put hours and hours into writing free software and maintaining projects. Do you have any idea how many times free software is being ripped off by commercial services ? You could hire a full time lawyer, that could easily work 40 hours a week on that problem, for my works alone. The thing is, plastering a license all over it, won't change that behavior. It's not why I nor anyone else should ever produce Free works. If I wanted to make money of that software, I wouldn't have released it as Free. As a matter of fact, the software I develop as my day job is actually commercial and non-Free. This GFDL-1.2 interpretation that people have been giving to their images is not compatible with the core idea behind the project. It has become a loophole to protect against commercial usage, and an unintended consequence of our earlier use of GFDL for text and our lack of knowledge about licenses in the early days of the project. Facebook, Amazon, ask.com and PediaPress profit from Wikipedia content, the same concept should apply to the image database. The options for those who want to profit of their photo prints are clear

- Don't upload here, use flickr, stockphoto or gettyimages

- Only upload low res images, unsuited for print and accept the slack you will get from Featured images over it.

- Believe in the kindness of people (someone might hire you after seeing your online portfolio) and ignore (or sue) the people who rip you off.

I say we should no longer allow any new uploads using GFDL. TheDJ (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Es ist auch mit der kompliziertesten freien Lizenz möglich Bilder kommerziell zu nutzen (und in D sehen Gerichte Kommerzialität schnell gegeben), niedrigaufgelöste Bilder schließen sich solche Verwendungen weitgehend aus. Ich stelle mittlerweile fast alle Bilder unter freie Lizenzen und bin auch gewillt die Lizenzbedingungen durchzusetzen. Ob du einen Rechtsanwalt mit der Durchsetzung deiner Rechte beauftragst, ist dein Problem und nicht Thema in dieser Diskussion. Wobei du ja nicht PD verwendest, was nicht auf altruistische Motive hindeutet. Ich verwenden freie Lizenzen nicht um jedem der es will die Gelegenheit zu bieten sich ohne sich auch nur einen Augenblick mit Bild und Lizenz zu beschäftigen, möglichst viel Geld zu verdienen. Mir geht es also keineswegs um die Aufhebung der Urheberrechte, sondern ganz im Gegenteil. Mir geht es darum eben jene zu wahren. In Bilder fließt viel Arbeit und Geld. Die Entfernung von Spandau zu z.B. einem beliebigen Harzteich beträgt mindestens 6 Stunden Fahrzeit und eine Tankfüllung. Es ist nicht einsichtig, daß sich jeder auf möglichst einfache Weise daran bereichert. Wer kommerziell Bilder verwenden möchte, von dem kann verlangt werden sich mit der Lizenz zu beschäftigen und die Bedingungen einzuhalten. Und ja, der Lizenztext gehört zwingend dazu und ist dem Verständnis von freien Lizenzen förderlich. Der Verzicht bedeutet für den Verwender eine Gleichsetzung mit dem Fehlen von Rechten. Daher ist es auch absurd Lizenzen in frei und nicht frei genug zu unterscheiden. Die GFDL ermöglicht jegliche, auch kommerzielle, Verwendung (ja, ich wüßte Beispiele für Verwendung im Printbereich). Wem die Einhaltung der Lizenz zu kompliziert ist, zahlt Geld, sucht was anderes oder hat Glück wenn er nett fragt. Problematisch ist bestenfalls die fehlende Lokalisierung (hat aber eh nur CC und FAL).

Es geht um die Möglichkeit der kommerziellen Verwendung. Ginge es darum es möglichst einfach zu machen, wäre alles außer PD/cc-Zero (vielleicht noch CC-by) zu verbannen. Es ist nicht Ziel jedem, ohne einen Finger krumm zu machen, zu ermöglichen möglichst viel Geld zu verdienen. Deshalb ist die GFDL (auch 1.2 only) völlig korrekt.--Sarkana _{frag den ℑ Vampir} 20:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The proposal "Only upload low res images, unsuited for print" is really destructive. "I don't take pictures" is typical for the slahers of GFDL. You complain about commercial use of your software, we allow it explicitly. --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

We use the definition of free from http://freedomdefined.org/Definition . Which one of the 4 freedoms is not possible? Reuse might be a pain, but it's still possible. Multichill (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Toolserver down

Resolved

Some tools at Toolserver currently don't work. Please see the mailing list for further information. It should be fixed later today.  Docu  at 04:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's back (see Template:Toolserver).  Docu  at 09:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternate storage for file namespace: parsing information templates into separate table?

Reuse and editing might be easier, if MediaWiki would systematically save the contents of file descriptions into an additional database table, with separate columns for each field of {{Information}} or {{Artwork}}.

While it's possible to do this parsing on toolserver, I think it would be preferable if this was done directly in Mediawiki itself.  Docu  at 05:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested many times before, but no one seems to want to actually write the code to get it done. As of recently even has a bugticket bugzilla:25624. TheDJ (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Custom user license tags

In the above discussion concerning GFDL-1.2-only, in the examples I noted of uploaders who used GFDL-1.2-only, they did not use this license alone but added additional wording suggesting further restrictions. The problem of misleading license disclosure is in fact the real problem such that the use of GFDL-1.2-only is typically just such a symptom. To take an example, David Iliff's custom license tag is carefully worded to sound as restrictive as possible while still technically being CC-BY-SA. There is no description of what the terms of a CC-BY license are, and there is not even a link to those terms, despite the license's own demand that "any reproduction of this image, in any medium, must appear with a copy of, or full URL of the license." Readers are told to "review the full license requirement" without being provided any opportunity to do such a review by the custom user template. Readers are told to contact the uploader to "negotiate less restrictive commercial licensing" despite the fact that a CC-BY-SA license does not have commercial restrictions. It exploits reader ignorance of what CC-BY-SA means. And it works: Iliff's English Wikipedia Talk page has all sorts of people asking to "negotiate." I know from my own experience that even when a license is public domain, someone will occasionally contact me and offer money for re-use. I simply repeat what the license says. By deliberately obscuring what the license says and inviting readers to contact the uploader, the number of cash offers is increased. Were it not for their use on Wiki projects, the works would not be as widely seen and there wouldn't be as many of these offers from people who don't know any better. Note that it is not the big corporations who pay (they are sophisticated enough to know what CC-BY-SA means). In my view, using Wiki projects in this way is unfair competition with professional photographers who solicit their offers from sites designed for that purpose (like IStockPhoto, Gettys Images, etc). A commentator above says it is not unreasonable to "expect reusers to stick to the license". Of course. But by the same token people on the other side should also be expected to "stick to the license". That means a policy of reserving "licensing" to explicit, unmanipulated, undistorted generally accepted licenses. If uploaders want more, it should go in "Other" or some place besides "Permission" or "Licensing" so that it is clear that the request is not legally binding and not a further condition on the license. There is lots of scope for custom user widgets without having them substitute for formal licenses.--Bdell555 (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL: "unfair competition with professional photographers who solicit their offers from [..] Gettys Images".

You could just invite all those to upload their files here too.

By adding "Use this file" links, recently we tried to remedy the problem that re-use of the images hosted at Commons isn't exactly easy and made sometimes in violation of the license uploaders decided to grant. --  Docu  at 05:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You think it laughable to propose that photographers should not be able to have it both ways: soliciting commercial re-use compensation AND having Wiki projects essentially provide free advertising for their work? I continue to believe that it is fundamentally unfair because payment offers can only be solicited on a Wiki project by misleading people into thinking that such a payment is necessary for attributed works. Photographers who refuse to stoop to this dodgy marketing ploy should not be competitively disadvantaged. In fact photographers CAN have it "both ways" in a fair way by making some of their work free and some not, but this means being keeping it above the table by designating what's free clearly free and what is reserved for profit reserved for profit. Photographers can troll for payments (you excluded "using Wiki projects in this way" in your quote) on the external sites designed for that purpose. If a potential user likes what is free, he or she can take the initiative to look off-Commons for the rest of the artist's portfolio and "negotiate" with the photographer for use of desired works that is not free. That means being clear with potential users by not allowing shell games like custom user license tags.--Bdell555 (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing really wrong with Diliff's summary. When it appears on an image description page, the applicable licenses follow in the Licensing section below, including a link to the full license wording, so that is not being hidden. CC-BY-SA does impose strong restrictions on re-use; perhaps the most important for commercial re-use is that the resulting work must be offered under the same or similar license. For example, a textbook author would probably find it difficult to charge hundreds of dollars a copy if their textbook was under CC-BY-SA. --Avenue (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing automatically/necessarily follows (the issue here is permitting custom user license tags in general as opposed to a particular example template). Even in this particular case, the custom user license tag neither incorporates a CC-BY-SA template, links to a CC-BY-SA url, nor directs readers to where else on an image description page they can find the wording of a CC-BY-SA license. The custom tag furthermore appears separately from the "Licensing" area on its own under "Permissions". If the custom license and CC-BY-SA are one and the same, no more and no less, why aren't they presented as such? If there are two different licenses, why aren't readers notified that they can choose either license (such that they can choose CC-BY-SA without any further restrictions)? Most importantly, where does it say in CC-BY-SA that "any reproduction of this image, in any medium, must appear with a copy of, or full URL of the license"? The same language is used in other custom templates like this one where the user evidently assumed the precedent for demanding additional restrictions was permissible. This is the same language used by User:Fir0002 until Fir0002, to his credit, stopped trying to "have it both ways" and elected to not upload to Commons rather than upload non-free images. What is the point of this custom template if not to add a GFDL-1.2-only sort of restriction (even if attributed, one can still only use "with a copy of the license in any medium"?) and invite readers to "negotiate" a "commercial" fee for avoiding this restriction? If it is true that CC-BY-SA imposes "strong restrictions" on "commercial re-use" as you claim here, my response would be in that case CC-BY-SA is not a free license.--Bdell555 (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of full copy/URL of the license with any reproduction of the image is a requirement of CC-BY/CC-BY-SA licenses: "You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform." (CC-BY 3.0) Trycatch (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not say "full copy" in what you link to and even if it did, the legal code is being misrepresented if the terms that may be of utility to the other party are not being acknowledged. It says "reasonable to the medium... to the extent reasonably practicable, the URL..." The "in any medium" requirement in the custom license at hand here is entirely additional. The full legal code also says "[t]he credit required... may be implemented in any reasonable manner..." whereas in this case the custom license declares that attribution "is required in a prominent location near to the image" with no allowance for whether that is reasonable or not. The fact that a consideration of this one example becomes an argument over legalese constitutes a strong argument for prohibiting custom license tags because it implies that potentially every upload to the Commons that adds such a custom license to a generally accepted license has to be reviewed for whether the custom license renders the upload non-free or not. I might add that in cases like those I identified in the discussion concerning GFDL-1.2-old, these custom licenses are not even attached to generally accepted licenses. Even if I can legally repeat parts of the CC-BY-SA legalese without providing the full context or the additional restrictions or expansions, and then boldface or highlight or what have you in order to maximize the impression that the work is not, in fact, free (and then conveniently mention that I can be contacted to "negotiate" a "commercial" contract) the question arises as to whether I should. When the community has decided that GFDL-1.2-old is not really free because of how onerous the requirement to include the copy of the license agreement is, I don't see how it can be said that the case at hand is not an attempt to evade this community decision and turn back the clock to a GFDL-1.2-old license in terms of practical effect. Let's get right to the point: is the custom tag entirely legally redundant with CC-BY-SA? Yes? Then why is it presented as if it has legal force when it has no legal force? Why is it permitted under the title "Licensing" or "Permissions"?--Bdell555 (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You bring up the issue of my requiring attribution "in a prominent location near to the image"... I don't see how that is incompatible with the license. The license says attribution should be "reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing". Now, of course there will be situations where 'near to the image' is not possible or relevant to the use, but I think my requirement is far more 'down to earth' and intelligible to the average re-user, and not imposing unnecessary restrictions. It seems to me that you just wish the license were less restrictive so you're acting on the gut feeling of the word 'free' rather than with any real respect for the terms of the license. That's your perogative, but I'll keep mine, thank you very much. Diliff (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Your license is not satisfied with just providing attribution in the way you demand, it has further demands that apply "in any medium" without acknowledging any of the exceptions that are in the license. Would you be willing change the 'careful' reading your custom license demands to allow a 'down to earth' reading of "the full license requirements" you choose to demand or is the right to paraphrase and embellish yours alone? What strikes me is the irony of the fact that the same people who demand absolute fidelity to the rigors of a CC-BY-SA license cannot, themselves, leave it unmolested. If you don't have a problem with the CC-BY-SA license then USE THE LICENSE. This discussion is titled CUSTOM license tags NOT CC-BA-SA license tags. "Real respect for the terms of the license" means presenting those terms in whole, not in part, and if presenting in part then either quoting directly or, better, using a presentation of the license that has been acknowledged by the community/policy as a fair representation. This isn't about MY perogative or YOUR perogative it is about the project's perogative. Yes I admit that I do believe that free means unbound. But it is the Wikimedia Foundation and the community that decides what exactly free means in terms of what constitutes permissible licensing, not you or I. If uploaders are entitled to the "perogative" of deciding that the definition of "free" is whatever they happen to think it is, it makes a mockery of the idea of having consensus determined policy.--Bdell555 (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's get something straight here. It's not me that's making demands about how to use the images - it's the license that does that. You could possibly argue that 'in any medium' is not explicitly mentioned in the license, and I'd happily look into that, but it's clear that your problem is much greater than minor issues with wording. Like I said, it sounds like you wish the license terms were less restrictive, but they're not. And you're making bad faith claims after bad faith claims. I'm not going to take you seriously unless you get off your high horse. Diliff (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If you'll allow me to move the argument from accusations about which horse I'm riding back to the issue at hand, "commercial" is not "explicitly mentioned in the license" either. One only finds a commercial restriction in a CC-BY-SA license implicitly just as low resolution implies a commercial restriction; if it looks unprofessional it looks unprofessional regardless of the legal status of the looker or the presenter. This is to say, it's not a legal restriction and accordingly such language does not belong in either "Permissions" or "Licensing." If there were a legal restriction, it would contradict explicit, unambiguous, and unqualified Wikimedia policy: "Commercial use of the work must be allowed."--Bdell555 (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Listen, this is a fundamental problem with your line of thinking. You have assumed from word go that my intentions are to trick people into purchasing my photos. This is not the case. If you don't believe me, I'm not going to bother explaining myself again and again. If you can move beyond that base assumption, you might find it easier to understand the reason for using the word commercial in the text. It is because a large number of the requests to use my images are commercial in nature, and those that are commercial in nature are far less likely to want to adhere to the terms of CC-BY-SA. Some non-commercial re-users might also not want to adhere to the terms either, but it's always going to be more likely that a commercial re-user would want to present the image in a professional manner. As such, I've referred to this particular kind of re-use ("less restrictive commercial licensing") by name so that I can then suggest a particular path that may satisfy the re-user - namely to contact to discuss the release of the image under less restrictive conditions. I don't see how this is adding any legal restriction that doesn't already exist in the license. Diliff (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If a legal response to "the requests... that are commercial in nature [being] far less likely to want to adhere to the terms" is necessary then why isn't such a response in the license? I'm not necessarily saying you haven't identified something that needs to be addressed. I'm saying that if there is a problem a multilateral solution is in order not a unilateral or "custom" one.--Bdell555 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, maybe it is something that does need to be addressed in the license template. But it's not really going to change anything even then. In order to cater for these commercial re-users, the template would still have to suggest that they contact the copyright author to negotiate use outside of the bounds of CC-BY-SA. The template cannot grant any extra permissions that the license itself doesn't provide for. Only the author can do it. Diliff (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the implications of bad faith are uncalled for. Bdell555, you clearly feel strongly about these issues, and you have every right to express your feelings, as long as you respect the work and feelings of other contributors too. Getting people's backs up does not help your cause. --Avenue (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

@Bdell555: "Free" is a word with many meanings. CC-BY-SA is a copyleft-style license, due to the "share-alike" part, much like the GPL in the field of software. Maybe this is not as free as you'd like, but these licenses have laid the foundation for some quite successful projects, Wikipedia among them. (English Wikipedia text is contributed under CC-BY-SA and GFDL.) IANAL, so my views on commercial re-use should be taken with a grain of salt, but I know companies have got into trouble by violating the requirements of the GPL at least. --Avenue (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I take it you agree with me then that CC-BY-SA (or a freer license) should be good enough for uploaders without being manipulated or misrepresented with additional or replacement "custom" licensing.--Bdell555 (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

While I do not think the definition of "Free" is an issue here (it's been decided that anything more restrictive than CC-BY-SA is non-free, and accordingly this custom use license issue is a question of enforcement, not a question of re-hashing project policy on what's free) I do confess to having an "ideological" problem if you will with custom license tags that reflects my vision of the project as communal property. Communal property means we can't zone an area for our private use and take offence when somebody tells us to take down our "Private Property! No Trespassing!" signs. Watermarking images is not approved by policy yet these custom license tags are essentially a watermark on the description page. They are arguably even worse, because watermarks are typically just attributions and these custom license tags demand more than just attribution. This means that if all the work here is stripped down to STANDARDIZED CC-BY-CA licenses OR FREER, anyone complaining should reminded this is "the Commons". You want to retain and protect the appearance of your images and image description pages because they are "yours"? Then this is not the place to upload.--Bdell555 (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that we should prohibit any summary of the license, details of how the licensor wishes to be credited, or provision of contact details for the licensor. The summary of CC-BY-SA we present in {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} says "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor", and adding a statement that specifies how to attribute the work seems completely in accord with this. But nor do I think that anything goes when it comes to such statements. The community has every right to decide what we will accept and host, and to make changes to such statements where this is in accord with the license offered. I think we have some common ground there. Of course, what one person sees as misleading misrepresentation, another may see as helpful clarification, so establishing some consensus is important. Do we need some guidelines on what is acceptable here? For instance, should such statements always include a link to the relevant license(s), or is this redundant? And what sorts of attribution requirements are reasonable? --Avenue (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Avenue on this. You seem to wish, based on your 'ideological vision', that we relinquish any control of our images once they are submitted to Wikipedia. Your vision is no more valid than mine. But the difference is, I'm not trying to impose my vision on you. In any case, the images are not communal property. They are the property of the copyright holder. The copyright holders choose to release the image under specific conditions (the CC-BY-SA license), and they have every right to enforce those conditions. They don't have the right to create additional restrictions beyond the bounds of the license, but apart from very minor issues of semantics, I don't think you've shown that it's been happening. Diliff (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If the ideological vision of "free" is precisely that then the only acceptable license should be PD, but thats no going to happen is it. Photographs are the property of author/copyright holder they do have the right to choose how they license their images, under cc-by/cc-by-sa they have the right to attribution as specified providing the author imposes no restriction beyond the terms of the license. The author/copyright holder is the only person who can change the license. There is no difference between the photographer having a custom license that specifies attribution requirements to that of a Flickr, Powerhouse museum, Institution:British Museum and host of other templates for works from other sources. If you aim is to stop advertising then these custom templates should be addresssed first, instead we've started creating a whole new class of template just to aid in advertising these places. Gnangarra 14:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

To say it simple: Diliff is one of our best photographers and Bdell555 should be able to treat his work respectfully. We need Diliffs pictures not men on missions.... The sentence of Bdell555 "unfair competition with professional photographers who solicit their offers from [..] Gettys Images" is really funny and shows a fundamental lack of knowledge. --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

So l was lying when I told Dliff that "your work is outstanding" because, according to your "knowledge," I am unable "to treat his work respectfully." If you are going to call me a liar I suggest you provide some supporting evidence instead of just relying on assumptions about me and my intentions. It doesn't matter how good the work is if the creator is not willing to release it under a CC-BY-SA license or freer. re adding to a CC-BY-SA tag "details of how the licensor wishes to be credited, or provision of contact details for the licensor," as suggested by User:Avenue above, I have no objection if the opportunity to make such additions is extended to all uploaders by integrating it into the standard, community developed uploading tools. In other words, I do not see these suggestions as constituting an argument for supporting custom, user developed license tags.--Bdell555 (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. Just beacuse you've said one token nice thing about my work, it doesn't mean you've been respectful in your dealings with me and others. Almost every point you have made, you've made as if it is fact rather than your opinion. You've made claims about my intentions as if you know them intimately (you describe my notice as "carefully worded to sound as restrictive as possible"). You've used inflamatory and rude langauge to describe my actions ("exploits reader ignorance"). You've acted as if you're the supreme arbiter of Commons. It must be such a nuisance that your minions aren't toeing your line... Diliff (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Those seeking to undermine a given free use standard get a private benefit that those demanding fidelity to the standard don't. This description of the politics of the debate may construed as disrespectful, inflammatory, rude, arrogant, or an assumption of bad faith but that doesn't change the reality that the fact participants in the "Commons Village" are overwhelmingly contributors as opposed to users means there is no natural constituency for supporting rigorous enforcement of a free use standard. See the Tragedy of the commons.--Bdell555 (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain your first sentence a little better, I can't make heads or tails of it. You're right though, your disrespectful, inflammatory, rude, arrogant etc comments don't change the reality that we're contributors here, but nor does it change the fact that they're still disrespectful, inflammatory, rude and arrogant regardless of who you're aiming them at. The fact that we're more likely to have a particular bias has absolutely nothing to do with the way you approach the issue. Also, I don't see the Tragedy of the Commons theory as analogous to this at all. We're not competing for shared resources here. Diliff (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Restricting the use of the common resources here is analogous to depleting them. If your "custom" license has the stamp of approval, more and more uploaders of their own work who are aware of it will use it such that it will eventually become the new definition of the cut-off point between free and non-free. This process is well underway, in fact. I don't apologize for obstinately standing in the way of this de facto license migration because is not occurring under the full scrutiny of the Foundation or the Wiki and Creative Commons communities. The incentive remains for someone to come up with an even more restrictive "custom" license, which will in turn mean yet another debate unless this innovation is officially discouraged.--Bdell555 (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like I need to add 'conspiracy theorist' to the charges laid against you! And it's still a poor analogy. I'm not restricting the resources, the license is, and the license is used by everyone equally. Neither am I adding a custom license - I'm adding a custom notice which clarifies some of the terms of the existing CC-BY-SA license in my own words, and suggests that re-users contact me if they don't want to use CC-BY-SA. And you make a really misleading claim when you say that the process of more and more uploaders using a custom template is well underway, and then cite my original custom template. That doesn't prove anything other than that I use it. You provide no evidence that it's 'well underway'. And I still absolutely deny that we're discussing a license migration. My custom notice is fully compatible with CC-BY-SA IMO. Diliff (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I said "more and more uploaders of their own work who are aware of" "your 'custom' license" "will use it" and in support of my claim that this process is underway I linked to where I note at least half a dozen cases where uploaders have created templates that are essentially copies of yours. The more copies that are made and used, the more your custom license becomes the new standard.--Bdell555 (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm receiving now and then requests from re-users by email. Most of them, neither privates nor professionals, simply do not understand all this complicated licence foo found at commons. So the notice which I added to the licence templates is a service for re-users, not a restriction. -- smial (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"By deliberately obscuring what the license says and inviting readers to contact the uploader, the number of cash offers is increased."

"using Wiki projects in this way is unfair competition with professional photographers"

"reserving "licensing" to explicit, unmanipulated, undistorted generally accepted licenses"

Unfair, manipulating, distortion of licenses are allegations which stand in contrast to my understanding of respect. You try to imply that the users of GFDL 1.2 are using the commons as a promotion tool to run a dirty and unfair kind of business and that's what I call rude, not fair.

Diliff donated many of our best pictures and invested a lot of time and money for the project. Your engagement for the commons is not comparable, so the way you attack Diliff is not acceptable. If I had the choice to do without your or Diliffs contributions the decision would be very easy... --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion that the legitimacy of a view expressed here is a function of the uploads of own work by the speaker just proves my point about how creators who do their own uploading receive a fuller hearing here than users. For what it is worth, I have edited Commons pages to give what I thought was better or fuller attribution to the creator when their work was uploaded by others, especially for high demand and hard to get photos like those of celebrities, including adding links to the creator's off-wiki portfolios, encouraged Wikipedia users to write thank you notes to creators, etc. There is a natural incentive for ensuring that uploads of own work are fully attributed that does not exist when uploading third party work.--Bdell555 (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. But before we keep on discussing complicated license issues, are you really the expert in such questions you pretend to be? You uploaded e.g. the File:Model of proposed development Qidong.JPG as PD-self. Are you really shure this is free material? You present yourself as the author although there must be somebody who built that model. FOP indoor? Interesting. Another example can be found here where you refer to a map as a "a traffic sign" and therfore release it into public domain. Strange idea. Your favourite license seems to be PD, sometimes for material which you did not create yourself.

You are welcome to help us on the commons but stop to annoy some of our best photographers and stop to demand the deletion of hundreds of our QI and FPI pictures! --Mbdortmund (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm "demanding" deletion of these "custom" license templates, not "hundreds of our QI and FPI pictures." If these pictures are truly CC-BY-SA then deprecating their licenses down to a community recognized CC-BY-SA license is not going to require the deletion of any of them. Uploaders can already use the Credit line template for specifying how they want to be attributed and the Author or Source line for linking to the rest of their online portfolios and/or providing their contact information. I've been to 76 countries since 2004 and there is a fair chance that some of the photos I've taken in some jurisdictions are panorama violations and/or would be considered derivative under a particular country's rules, especially when, as here, they are uploads I made years ago as a newbie. While I may express an opinion I ultimately defer to the judgment of the community and the great many who are more expert than I. If I'm on some sort of mission to disrespect the rights of content creators why would I call for respecting a restriction request from perhaps the biggest creator of quality free content of all (the United States government)? Why would I be adding "disputed" templates to images that I suspect violate creator rights? In any case, I don't thinking attacking my credibility or contributions advances your argument (or the discussion, for that matter) anyway because poisoning the well is a logical fallacy.--Bdell555 (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems as if one person gives the ghost driver. :-) If copyright holders specify the main points and their understanding of the licence this might be helpful for re-users (in my experience it is helpful for re-users). If re-users do not want to read these short explanations they can read the full licence text to find out which conditons CC-by-sa has in detail. Btw, whatever is not clearly stated in the licence falls under custom law and current practice. Regarding credit this is in most cases "near at the image". --Martina Nolte (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

@Bdell555: Compare your statement: "I'm "demanding" deletion of these "custom" license templates, not "hundreds of our QI and FPI pictures."

with your former statements:

"We need to purge the Commons of these files ..."

attacked photographers: Muhammad Mahdi Karim, Fir0002

You quote consentingly: ""GFDL 1.2 content... we will simply remove"", manipulating the context of the quote.

"all uploads after January 1, 2011 that are GFDL-1.2-only will be automatically ported to CC-BY-3.0 and exercising an "opt out" option with regard to this port means opting out of having the work hosted on the Commons." What means in other words: Don't care to much about the license you give to your pictures, we will change it to CC-0, if Bdell likes it. Do you know the words: "pacta sunt servanda"? Your proposal is exactly the mentality that led me to GFDL 1.2, because some people here believe that they can change contracts without asking the authors.

Disk: Custom user license tags

attacked photographer: Diliff

"photographers should not be able to have it both ways: soliciting commercial re-use compensation AND having Wiki projects essentially provide free advertising for their work"

"Fir0002, to his credit, stopped trying to "have it both ways" and elected to not upload to Commons" (great!)

"Then this is not the place to upload."

My conclusion: Your "vision of the project as communal property" turns into the demand of deletion of hundreds of our best files and into aggressive behaviour against our best photographers. You're not trying to convince them, you are not presenting your opinion as a personal point of view but present it as a decision of the community. It is obvious that you are glad that Fir left the project. Great.

I'm sorry, but I don't like crusades of any kind. --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

When Fir left the project, this was a real, REAL great loss. And the reason were men on the mission, not any real licencing problem. I do not want to see another campaign oft this kind. -- smial (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Anything that drives people away from commons is a concern, when its result of unnecessary actions its a disaster. Our mission is to build a repository of freely licensed images, nothing in those customs licenses goes against that. We need to respect the rights of all authors, we need to respect the people who make Commons unique, we need to remain civil in the way in which we discuss issues, we dont need to attack individuals nor do we want to have people celebrating the loss of our contributors all of which causes disruption. Bdell555 you made your point in a very pointy way and everyone understands your point of view, the deliverance of the message has been disruptive I suggest that its time you took a step back and accept that the community has a differing perspective on the matter. Gnangarra 14:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Mbdortmund's claim above that I was "glad" or in your words "celebrat[ed]" the departure of a contributor unreasonably presumes bad faith with respect to my intentions. In my view Fir0002 left for the simple reason that the project wouldn't green light NC licenses and he wasn't inclined to continue to upload under his custom license even though he could have done so had he absolutely insisted upon it given that others continue to upload under similar custom licenses. As I've said elsewhere "Fir0002 was a great contributor" and his departure "is unfortunate." When I say Fir0002 deserves credit for respecting both the letter and spirit of the project rules it simply does not follow that it is anything but tragic that he did decided to not upload at all rather than upload under a standard CC-BY-SA license. In any case, I accept the community perspective (even if the "community" here is not representative of all stakeholders as I have explained) and will step away from the discussion. I nonetheless believe that even if there isn't a problem with these custom licenses today, there will be in the future as they continue to proliferate.--Bdell555 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't have anywhere near the opinion of the community here. If you start loudly and aggressively attacking anyone with a certain opinion, it's not surprising that the people who don't want to get attacked don't respond and you get a one-sided result.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is quite annoying that the parting of one single contributor who uploaded only severely downscaled images of a only a small region of this planet is used in an attempt to silence discussion about licensing and commercial interests. Anyhow, that being said this discussion is going nowhere and contains many misconceptions and misguided attacks. Commercial exploitation of images is completely acceptable. Adding explanatory notes to licenses is completely acceptable as long as they are within the spirit of the license. Offering additional licensing terms is completely acceptable. It seems to me that a few people here do not realize the realities of commercial image use. Contributors here are sometimes contacted by people who would prefer not to abide to the restrictions of free licenses (attribution, share alike, etc). It is up to the photographer whether he allows that. It actually is none of anybody else's business. The photographers still own the rights to their images. Release under a free license does not preclude release under non-free licenses. And if monetary compensation is offered then that is fine as well. What I personally detest (and that is only my very own opinion) are any shenanigans that make free reuse harder than necessary. This includes upload of only downscaled teaser images, using licenses with absurd additional requirements (such as reproduction of the entire license text). It makes me angry when people take advantage of Wikipedia as a promotional tool, when they limit what they contribute because of commercial interests. As long as the commercial side has no negative impact on the contributions nobody loses. The really dumb part about all that is the obsession some photographers have about unauthorized reuse. It will happen. Using GFDL-1.2 licenses or uploading downscaled images will not help. It is useless and stupid. I get plenty of commercial licensing request without doing those things. --Dschwen (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. Particularly the last one - initially, my gut feeling was that restricting what I put on Wikipedia might help with minimising unauthorised use, but I've come to realise that it doesn't really make a difference. Those who respect the license do the right thing and either confirm the conditions or contact the author to negotiate less restrictive conditions. Those who don't respect the license will probably use it even if it is 'only' 1000px wide, and if it is too low-res for their needs, they probably won't be interested in paying for the high-res copy elsewhere anyway (assuming they could even find it). I completely agree that it is Commons that suffers as a result. Diliff (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Weblinks, to shops in particular

Although I am contributing quite a lot and am trying to keep up to date with the policies here, I am not sure how to deal with the following. Two days ago User:Guitarpop added a weblink to the description of File:Jamaaladeen Tacuma Vienna2008.jpg that leads to the producer of the bass guitar visible in the picture - to a page where this instrument can be ordered/bought. I removed the weblink, because it appeared to me to be misusing Commons for marketing purposes.
After adding the weblink once more and me removing it again, now he added it to Category:DiPinto Belvedere Deluxe Bass (commenting the creation of the category with "create category for individual model to avoid claim from some uncooperative user" - which is targeted at me, obviously). I still do not believe that such links to shops are welcome here and descriptions of images or categories should rather link to Wikipedia articles. What is the current policy on this? --Tsui (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The description "using a xy guitar" would be appropriate, a link to some website shop can be seen as spam or unecessary promotion, I assume that the user added it for identification, thats someting he can do in the edit summary. The edit summary in Category:DiPinto Belvedere Deluxe Bass is strange, your photographic work allowed that user to see an image of that guitar on Commons and to categorize it, so without your work his work equals zero. So much for the "uncooperative user". --Martin H. (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I do not have a problem with adding the bass guitars name in the image description at all. Guitarpop added it there in the meantime without the weblink and it is a useful bit of information for interested viewers.

But I still doubt that such weblinks are welcome here. So what about the categories description? The only purpose of creating it seems to have been to add a weblink to this shop. --Tsui (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say: a weblink reference is better than none. If I would write an article about a guitar brand, I would start of making a collection of pictures (with a possible link to a webshop), then a category (moving the weblink higher up) and finally writing the article in one or more wikipedia's. --Foroa (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. So long as the link isn't blatant advertising, and it doesn't seem to be presented in that way, I don't see much of a difference between that and an "official website" link on any given Wikipedia article. If the link was to some random online retailer I would feel differently, but this seems to be the primary manufacturer, and thus would be a primary, or "official" if you will, source of information. That said, the current description seems excessive, with the link formatted as a reference. Would there be any objection to reformatting it as simply:

• Media for the DiPinto Belvedere Deluxe Bass model of guitar. See further information at DiPintoGuitars.com.

or

• Media for the DiPinto Belvedere Deluxe Bass model of guitar.

Alternatively, get rid of this daughter category and switch to just the parent Category:DiPinto (which may be more appropriate, since there's only one image). — Huntster (t @ c) 04:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Update

I have created a {{Update}} for adding to graphs, diagrams, maps etc. Alan Liefting (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Currently it's used on File:NZTerritorialAuthorities.png. In general, one would upload a separate image with the new borders rather than update the original image.  Docu  at 11:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Docu. It should maybe be specified in the template. The new file names can contain the year it was updated. ZooFari 17:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

December 4

Status

Would you like a feature where you could update your status (Online, Offline, or even Custom) so that other editor may see? And how about doing that without clogging your contributions?

For general comments, you may respond here. For comments that would directly effect the feature's deployment, please join the discussion, or participate directly at Bugzilla:26246. Thanks! Rehman 00:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Why ask the question if you dont wait for responses before posting a bugzilla request. I'd be opposed to such a tool as an invasion of my privacy, if I'm online thats my business not everyones elses. What protections will be put in place on how any such information will used. What policies and protection will Commons Admin need to address potential abuses and conflicts arising from editors being hounded when ever they login. Gnangarra 04:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see the reply to your comment at Meta. Also, per proposal (b) and (c), users could set whether they are online or not; it is not fully automated. Rehman 04:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

List of illustrators c.1810s

In File:Views in Suffolk, Norfolk, and Northamptonshire.djvu the book refers to a couple of English illustrators of the time of the publication (1818) as Cowper and Burns. Anyone aware of any good reference material/sites that may have information to help track down these people? Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

CC PD mark

Hi everyone, I did a first implementation of the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0 here at Commons. Some templates now contain this line: "This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.". Only English now, but I expect translations later this week. The marked files can be found in Category:CC-PD-Mark, not complete yet, but already well over a million files. Multichill (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Invisible subcategories.

I don't like it when subcategories are invisible in cat pages that have more than one page, like here. I would like to have the {{categorytree}} template on every cat page with a subpage, like here. Can this been done automatically?--Wickey-nl (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support -mattbuck (Talk) 19:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Should be done with a gadget. Multichill (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem with link

Please have a look at File:Amper,St. Magdalena (Fürstenfeldbruck).jpg and try to copy the link or to make a tinyurl. Results are defect: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amper,St._Magdalena_F%C3%BCrstenfeldbruck_.jpg#04128472490163215359 resp.

"TinyURL was created!
The following URL:
   http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amper,St._Magdalena_%20F%C3%BCrstenfeldbruck%20.jpg#6401689646405722950
has a length of 110 characters and resulted in the following TinyURL which has a length of 26 characters:
   http://tinyxxx.com/2b27mlz

Noscript console:

[NoScript XSS] Eine verdächtige Anfrage wurde bereinigt. 
Original-URL http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amper,St._Magdalena_%28F%C3%BCrstenfeldbruck%29.jpg
angefordert von [chrome://browser/content/browser.xul]. 
Bereinigte URL: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amper,St._Magdalena_%20F%C3%BCrstenfeldbruck%20.jpg#251606181391230593.

What is happening here? Problem exists with both FireFox 3.5.15 and IE 8. -- smial (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"File:Amper,St. Magdalena (Fürstenfeldbruck).jpg" is not the same as "File:Amper,St. Magdalena Fürstenfeldbruck .jpg". The parentheses are missing in the second filename, and there is a space between "Fürstenfeldbruck" and ".jpg". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. But this is not the problem. Please compare a copy&paste with the link of File:Amper,St. Magdalena (Fürstenfeldbruck).jpg and File:Amper,St. Magdalena (Fürstenfeldbruck)a.jpg, which is a derivative work of first. One works, one not. -- smial (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't reproduce the error with Firefox 3.6.12. I can access the URLs of both files without any problem. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

XSS protection of noscript sometimes creates false positives. If you copy the broken link to IE it will not work. Try to use IE to go to the commons main page, then search for the file (Amper Magdalena) and click on the file. Should work then. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

December 5

Cars by license plates

Hello.

I have recently noticed that while there is a Category:Aircraft by registration there doesn't seem to be a Category:Cars by license plates or anything similar.

My question is simple: Is there a reason why such a category doesn't exist? Was it, for example, at some point decided in discussion that such a category should not be created?

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I Have Noticed That To — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambowiki (talk • contribs) 02:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There are far fewer aircraft than cars in the world, which makes it more feasible to identify aircraft (and ships) than cars according to their registration numbers. What sort of images do you envisage placing in "Category:Cars by license plates"? Why do you think that categorizing cars by their license plate numbers is useful? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure cars by plate is useful. The broader "motor vehicles by plate" may be. For example a category such as Category:UK vehicle YK05 CDU could replace most of the categories on the images File:Arriva Kent & Sussex YK05 CDU rear.JPG and File:Arriva Kent & Sussex YK05 CDU.JPG.

There are two additional concerns, which relate to cars especially: Firstly, the potential for privacy issues. Secondly, in some jurisdictions (eg the UK) a vehicle will have normally 1 plate number for its lifetime, in some (the US) it can have multiple plates. The fact the same car could have multiple numbers means it may not be useful for identification.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hidden catalog removes Uncategorized message

I found that when an hidden catalog as Category:Taken with Nikon D100 is added to an image that is marked with the template as {{Uncategorized|year=2010|month=August|day=11}}, the marking is removed. I prefer that this Uncategorized marking stays because the added category is not very relevant for the image in my opinion. The category should at least tell something about WHAT you see or WHERE the image was taken. Is it possible that removing the uncategorized comment does not occur when an hidden category is added? Wouter (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)