Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Revision as of 22:40, 19 September 2009 by Multichill (talk | contribs) (Link problems: done)

Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
Help desk
Village pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
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.

Please note

  1. 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 a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file see Commons:File renaming.
  4. 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).
  5. 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

Search archives


Cast iron pump with handle dated 1875 in the form of a fluted column with Corinthian capital on a profiled, square stone base [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch


September 2


The file ;-)

We have reached the 5 million media files! Can anybody figure out which is the 5th million file? Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 11:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A bot detected File:Kjøbenhavnsposten 28 nov 1838 side 1.jpg as such, but could have been some other nearly image instead. Platonides (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC) for the medias around it. Esby (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Note: the image was between File:Volto Santo Venetico.jpg and File:Brief von Mutter Theresa.jpg Esby (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
How about File:Sollies Ville - Valp - P1200358.JPG? Main Page should be updated. -- User:Docu at 13:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I would not vote for it since I am its uploader, now I think the paper scan is technically ok as it's an historical document. If someone danish could confirm it does not contains any insanity in it, it would be for the better :D Anyway the file is not important, was is important is to reach the number and go ahead of it. Esby (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I speak Danish and AFAICS it doesn't seem controversial in any way... but then again, it's pretty hard to read! --Metalindustrien (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems that Kjøbenhavnsposten was controversial back then. As Saddhiyama put it in context, I think we should go with that one, even if Yann has already overwritten it. The exact file depends on the method we choose. Luckily it's not a stub icon or a flickr image. -- User:Docu at 15:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, if we do a press release mentioning that file, it is better if we have a good quality file, not an bad orange scan with a poor contrast. If you can get a better color and contrast correction, please do. Yann (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! MartinD (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Great! KaiesTse (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Echo KaiesTse and good work! :) Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 13:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. Doing a recount will give a new result every time we delete or undelete some old file. So we could recount forever. The document has a good theme I think. Like Commons the newspaper brought information to the people. --MGA73 (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I echo MGA73 for the theme. I believe this picture shows the diversity of Commons, which is not about landscapes for wallpapers (though we do have plenty and it is fine, you see my point). Jean-Fred (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
A press release by Wikimedia UK: Milestone: 5 Years, 5 Million Media Files on Wikimedia Commons --Everton137 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is a pretty symbolic 5th million media file. According to the description this is from an oppositional newspaper calling for more democracy in the monarchy of Denmark. That makes a very good comparison to our own goal, bringing democracy and free culture to everyone! Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 21:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a brief announcement to the Main Page. Feel free to suggest improvements on the talk page (or make them yourself if you can). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Commons:5 milionów plików w Wikimedia Commons - press release in Polish - sent ;) Przykuta (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that the 5 millionth media file coincides (almost) with the 5th birthday of Commons (September 7th)? Which is in three days, btw... -- JovanCormac 21:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A little bit late, but here it is a banner that I made for Wiki Commons, congratulations and happy Commons' birthday to all of you!!   ■ MMXXtalk  19:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
What is the wikicode for putting this on my Wikipeida page and linking the image to commons???--Kozuch (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Many images in Commons from the Library of Congress have broken source links.

Apologies if this issue has already been discussed, but I haven't found any such discussion on Commons.

There are lots of images in Commons obtained from the Library of Congress's Prints & Photographs Online Catalog (PPOC) whose source links are broken because the uploader simply used the link from the PPOC search results. Unfortunately, this doesn't work for the PPOC, because its search results use temporary URLs.

The PPOC discusses this on its help page in the section "Downloading and Linking Tips". The subsection "Linking to Particular Records" includes the following:

The display of PPOC catalog records is dynamic. That is, the computer assembles the display in response to your particular request. This poses a challenge for linking and bookmarking since the URL (Uniform Resource Locator or Web address) is temporary; if you bookmark one of these temporary record displays, you will not be able to reach the address later. Do not rely on any address with the word “temp” in it. For most PPOC records, you can get a permanent URL by following the steps below:
Find the URL:
  • Search for the record you wish to link to.
  • Look near the end of the record for the DIGITAL ID: field. If the field contains a URL with the letters "hdl" in it, use that URL as the permanent link (e.g., The inclusion of the "hdl" indicates that the record has been assigned a permanent "handle" that will always bring you back to the most current version of the record.
  • If the record does not have an "hdl" in it, while viewing the record, select "View" on the Web browser menu bar and in the resulting menu, select to view the "Page Source" (or "Document Source" or "Source"--depending on your browser)
    • A new window will open with the Web page's HTML formatting tags. Scroll to the bottom of the page.
    • You will see "The following URL will result in display of this document" and on the next line there will be a URL.
Copy the URL:

Hope this might be helpful to contributors. Perhaps some sort of warning about using proper URLs should be included in the template used for Library of Congress uploads? Sorry, but I have no ideas as to how the large number of existing images with broken source links should be tackled, other than fixing them manually.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

These files should be fixed I guess. We should also look for files from the LOC without one of the templates. Multichill (talk) 07:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually some of those are OK -- the ones using the second form under the LoC "example" above work just fine. The temporary URLs don't... I think they have the word "temp" in them somewhere, so these should be fixed. They often have the id we need buried in there somewhere, so they are not always useless. And obviously for commons, we prefer the use of the {{LOC-image}}, {{LOC-map}}, {{LOC-music}}, {{LOC-American-Memory-Collections}} etc. tags. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I have corrected some of these. Will do more. Yann (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't find the source of the following: (see below)

Yann (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I can find most. I note btw, that we don't have a LoC template for some of the LoC divisions btw. For instance the: Library of Congress, African and Middle Eastern Division, which uses the urls starting with TheDJ (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The only one which I was unable to trace was File:Annie laurie.jpg. TheDJ (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
There is the not-so-well-named {{LOC-calligraphy}} which uses the African and Middle Eastern Division URLs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should rename it ? Or perhaps we should unify all of these LoC templates ? TheDJ (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess it is well-named, but being specific to the calligraphy seems a bit too much special purpose (there must be other stuff from that division which is usable, and having one tag for all of it would seem enough). But it is perfect for the images which we just found here. It may be a good idea to have one underlying utility tag to provide most of the layout, but separate tags for the different division URLs is still probably a good idea. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Found another division that we do not have a template for. Library of Congress, Rare Book and Special Collections Division.
The {{LOC-American-Memory-Collections}} template defaults to that one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

List of unidentified LoC works

Found the Irving Berlin ones. Does not have a normal LoC ID because it is hosted at Duke University, but it does have working URLs still. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Also found the Osnabrock school, but can't find a URL which works with the templates. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Found the Laranjeiras and Cornelius Shea ones. The latter is listed as PD-US, though there is some chance it was an unpublished work for a long time and is still under copyright (as is claimed by the donor). On the other hand, the Library of Congress allows easy access to the higher-res version, which it usually doesn't if they feel there is an issue. BTW, you can use for a search engine which crosses lots of their sites (the checkboxes don't work on the first page, but they do on the results page if the search needs to be narrowed). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You can find most audio samples by entering the first sentence in the sample into the search box. TheDJ (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
And be sure to use the permanent urls located in the source of the images: permanent vs. non-permanent I think both will be supported by LoC, but since one of the forms is explicitly labeled as "permanent". I guess we should check the lcweb2 and lcweb prefixes for that at a later time. A bot might be able to clean those up easily. TheDJ (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The sounds have broken links. Yann (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Added alternative format, and informed the LoC that their new search engine does not support the permanent link format of the Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division TheDJ (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
U.S. Historical, Cultural Collections urls are broken as well in the search engine. Have informed them of this as well. TheDJ (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Found a few more. However, two of them (the Denver barbers and UColorado spittoon one) come from external sources (Denver Public Library via The Library is claiming copyright on them... from looking, it may just be on the "digital versions", which is copyfraud, but if they do own the original negatives, they may legitimately own the copyright, and if those photos were not published until 1995 (which is when the source site seems to have started), then they may really still be under copyright in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
L. C. McClure (the photographer of the barber photo's) died in 1957, so there is a good chance the copyright now lies with the library or with McClure's heirs. TheDJ (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the date of the author's death is relevant -- more rather when it was published. If before 1923, no issue. If after 1989 but before 2002, there could well be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you are right. This is the problem with copyright law sometimes. McClure was a professional photographer. His images were used on postcards for instance. But there is no way to know wether or not an image in his collection was ever used or not. :( TheDJ (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now finished going trough all these temp images and they should now have additional URLs, or be in the list above here. TheDJ (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Great job -- that is a lot of work. I found a few more; just a couple that are stumping me. The website appears to be down; I would think that is where the first one came from. Have not found the other one at all. Is there any we could add a link or abuse filter for that URL pattern ( with temp in it) to warn the user that the URL is broken, and maybe link to instructions such as those above? Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Updating the LOC template

This is some preliminary meta work that I think we should do:

These sandbox templates are all backward compatible. Now the problem is the inconsistency. This is a scheme based primarily on the format of the material... Unfortunately, the actual methodology used by the Library of Congress, is one of Divisions (the section of the library that maintains and conserves a collection) and Collections (a group of "related"-material that goes into the library Chicago Daily News, Sun Newspaper, Van Vechten, Matson, Loeb, etc etc). Especially unfortunate atm, is the total disregard for the collection information, because this often is important in order to determine the license status of the works. Any ideas how we can best redesign this ? TheDJ (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a lot of American-Memory-Collections usages specify the division parameter, so they are not all just for the Rare Books one... that is a change in the template, not necessarily back-compatible. More of a catch-all template I guess. American Memory is an odd one; works findable there seem to cross divisions. And there are works you can only find by searching there, not on the more general searching service (given experiences from trying to find works above). We call the parameter "division" but even inside divisions they can have different URL segments there, so that parameter should probably be overridable on all the top-level templates. The question is what is easier to use -- a template for each type of URL segment, or fewer, more general templates which may take more parameterizing? There is already a lot of them. Overall though, good work :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The division parameter is smart. When you specify a different division, it will use the appropriate text. You can see the current list of supported divisions in {{LOC-meta}}, those that are not supported can be forced with division_name and division_url, or we can add a detection for the cases we don't support. The categorization and the names of the templates are what worry me most. TheDJ (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
That is pretty cool, but given some of the oddities which can occur, maybe not always appropriate. There are many images with loc.award URLs; those are not handled well right now but are OK with the current American-Memories-Collection template. They are oddball ones, but having a generic American Memory collection tag which can span some of those "divisions" is probably necessary. File:BattleOfChantillyMap.jpg uses a loc.ndlpcoop URL but really does seem to be made available under the Geography and Map division; your tag would change the text completely for that even if LOC-map was used (since your tag ignores division_name and division_url if it "knows" what a "division" means. It seems like those should be respected if passed in by a parent tag no matter what, with the "smart" stuff being a fallback, instead of the other way around. Otherwise these look good, except it would be nice to be able to pass down a secondary icon (like the American-Memory-Collections template has). I don't necessarily see a reason to specify the collections -- these are source templates only, so that we can easily find the original page, not licensing templates. The weirder one is the American Memory Collections, which is sort of a meta-collection (or rather collection of collections) which spans works across divisions, but also seems to have its own content too (such as loc.award stuff and maybe others) -- there are things you can find using its search engine which do not come up with the main search page. But, I suppose that is also a reason to override the division_name to something more specific when used. Definitely a hard problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
That specific case would work like this: {{LOC-map|division=ndlpcoop|id=gvhs01.vhs00253}}
US-LibraryOfCongress-BookLogo.svg This map is available from the United States Library of Congress's National Digital Library Program under the digital ID gvhs01.vhs00253.
This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information.

العربية | čeština | Deutsch | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | Türkçe | українська | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--TheDJ (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, it no longer says "Geography and Map Division" like it used to, and the way the source page appears to be. Small detail and it may not be worth sweating, and you can argue it is more accurate. loc.award stuff right now will look messy though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see a better way with the current structure. TheDJ (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The only thing I can think of is to remove the loc.award alias from the meta template, and let that fall to the default. Also let a right-side image be passed as a parameter, and possibly a parameter like "site" or "archive" which can be used as additional text by that one template to mention images published under the w:American Memory banner. Otherwise though, I think what you have is good. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Image option added. Still toying with ideas on how to best deal with collections (collection_id vs. collection_name). Finally figured out what award97 and award stand for. See this form the National Digital Library. TheDJ (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


I have deployed the first sets of these new templates. Basically all the templates that were not protected are now switched. Love to get some feedback. TheDJ (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not heard any complaints. Shall we deploy the remaining LOC templates ? TheDJ (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

COM:SCOPE totally undermined

COM:SCOPE is totally undermined by the following decision : Commons:Deletion requests/File:DSC07483-Freedom.jpg which validates any kind of self-created artwork made by the uploader. Teofilo (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't totally undermined a bit of a strong word? You win some, you lose some, and sometimes the results of deletion requests anywhere in Wikimedia will leave you wondering WTF? I see no reason for stressing about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) COM:SCOPE#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose does say that "by custom the uploading of small numbers of images [...] for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed." I don't think the closure of that nomination should be taken to prevent a future renomination if and when the image is no longer used. Also, it is at least conceivable that the image might have other uses, e.g. to illustrate the techniques used to create it (apparently, it's some kind of a digitally created faux-mosaic), although finding such a use would be much more likely if the uploader had actually bothered to describe the technique. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
What this deletion request means is that if you are an artist and you are seeking recognition or notoriety for your work, you can go to Wikimedia Commons and insert your work in the same categories as those used for already recognised artist. You can insert your own version of David next to that of Michelangelo. You can insert your own version of Liberty next to that of Frédéric Bartholdi. Teofilo (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone already did: File:Mcdonalds anemi.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, the first thing that should be done is that the issue should be taken to the closing admin, if it is to be taken anywhere.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Teofilo (a rare event actually) that this image should have been out of scope, but I do not see it as a precedence totally undermining COM:SCOPE. I noticed that many out-of-scope (in my book) deletion requests are being kept, since I guess there is no pressing need to delete them. It makes no difference if we keep them or not, since (as I understand it) that hard disk space can not be recovered anyway. By the way, anybody want to comment on Commons:Deletion requests/Out of scope images by Joymaster? --Jarekt (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Some users out the images they uploaded in a user gallery. That way the images will always be used and in scope. That was never meant to be I think. I see an other problem with this picture. It says own work. But is that the photo or the mosaik? --MGA73 (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no mosaic and there is no photo of a mosaic. It is computer art, see User:Nevit/Digital workshop. But it is possible that this is a derivative work of graphic art. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

File:TerraformedMarsGlobeRealistic.jpg is another example of private artwork, very non-encyclopedic. But is was selected as a featured image and it is even chosen as the Picture of the Day later this month. However, it is in use, so it is supposed to be in scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on the file in question, but anyone concerned with out-of-scope files might spare a thought for the contents of Category:Penis self-pictures. There's little here that could be considered "realistically useful for an educational purpose." Bonus points: this is a subcat of Category:Exhibitionism, and I suppose what makes the category applicable is not so much the creation of the files as their uploading to the Commons. And the category, besides being useless, is also badly-named: I'm guessing it's typically their owners who take the pictures: the appendages themselves, as far as I'm aware, have no especially noteworthy flair for photography. Rrburke (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Frequent logouts

Is there a way to set in preferences that you do not want to be automatically logged out. I seem to need to log in sometimes few times in a day. I had cases when my bot user:JarektBot was logged out while running. Yesterday I was logged out in the middle of upload of several files using commonist (see here) and as a result most of the uploads failed. What is causing those frequent log-outs? --Jarekt (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

When logging in, are you checking the "keep me logged in for 30 days" button?-Andrew c (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I have never seen that button before, and I just checked to make sure but I still do not see it on the log in screen. --Jarekt (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It should be right below your password field and it's called "Remember my login on this computer". Are you sure you're not seeing it? Try checking the HTML source of the page. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Technical problem with Categories

Can someone please explain to me why...
[[Category:Wikipedia Loves Art by The Mexican Villians]], but...
[[Category:Wikipedia Loves Art by The Mexican Villains]]
...doesn't??? i.e. it won't show up as a category on any page.

The following also work:
[[Category:Wikipedia Loves Art The Mexican Villains]]
[[Category:Wikipedia Loves Art by The Mexican]]

The following doesn't:
[[Category:Wikipedia Loves Art by The_Mexican_Villains]]

What the heck is going on here? Kaldari (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia Loves Art by The Mexican Villains is a hidden category so it is not visible in image description pages if you have set your preferences to display hidden categories. (The standard syntax for adding categories is [[Category:...]], so there is no need to use this template.) /Ö 19:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah thanks. Wonder why Multichill made it a hidden category. Weird. Kaldari (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Because it's not a topic category. It's just a vanity source category. Why not just one category? Multichill (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a contest. It's all about vanity. If you can't say "Look how many pictures my team uploaded" what's the point of joining the contest? Kaldari (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
That makes it useful to Mexican Villains and no one else. If everybody was to take the view that they are entitled to create vanity categories to trumpet their contributions then files would be overloaded with such cats to the detriment of other users.KTo288 (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
We do have contributor specific (generally hidden) categories. Personally I find these helpful. Some even have one or several subcategories. -- User:Docu at 18:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture of the Day - October - too many same type of pictures

Hello. Does anyone know who selected the pictures for this month? There are four butterfly pics closely following each other, and two of them are from the same species even. Apparently someone butterfly-aholic must have done such an order. This is utterly boring, butterflies all the time... If we try to change it, it gets reverted I hear from colleagues on huwiki. Is it possible to get the order changed at least? So that these butterflies wouldn't come daily? Thank you for your reply in advance --Teemeah (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Picture_of_the_day/Instructions or Commons:A nap képe. I entirely agree with you, but you cannot prevent this from happening with the current process. The best place to discuss this is probably not here but there: Commons talk:Picture of the day. -- H005 (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Teemeah, not really sure what you are basing your statements on; are you sure you are thinking of the Commons POTD? If you look at the picture of the day schedule, here, you will see that the last POTD butterfly was on the 4th of this month, and before that there was a butterfly on the 5 August, and there are no other butterflies scheduled for the rest of this month.
In any case, pictures of arthropods make up the majority of Commons featured pictures, which is the pool that the the POTD is chosen from. So it stands to reason that they would pop up on the main page more frequently than other topics.
Anyone can help out at POTD, so maybe you'd like to become involved there? Any of the featured pictures that haven't yet been on the main page are eligible. Find empty slots in the schedule and put what you think is best there, :-) Maedin\talk 19:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
How can File:TerraformedMarsGlobeRealistic.jpg be a featured picture and a picture-of-the-day? It is completely non-encyclopedic! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Because this isn't an encyclopaedia; Commons is a media repository. Maedin\talk 20:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, it's a media repository for media of educational value, see COM:SCOPE. But regardless of this I believe there is a lot of educational value in that terraformed Mars image. -- H005 (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
My poor wording, although, while it's true that Commons has a defined scope, we don't often seem to act on it. We have categories filled with crap and inferior images that are clearly done better by others, but we hang on to them relentlessly. However, I do agree that the image referred to has value and certainly belongs! Maedin\talk 20:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, here I agree to every word of your statement. I think we sooner or later will need a process of throwing out images that are clearly inferior to others. -- H005 (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
What! Delete a free image from Commons! That's heresy! ;) Kaldari (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, it is. Prepare my stake and lay the kindling! Maedin\talk 06:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed (not about the heresy, but about the need for a process to weed out duplicates and inferior images). -- JovanCormac 06:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Besides, it seems like a perfectly good and encyclopedic illustration for w:Terraforming of Mars to me. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on science fictional concepts, projects still in the planning stage, predictions of possible future events and all sorts of other things that don't exist or haven't happened yet (and possibly never will). That doesn't make them any less encyclopedic, if the possibility of them existing or happening in the future has been the subject of serious and verifiable discussion. And they need illustration just as much as any other article. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, do I ever agree with you! The "bug invasion" is a problem at FPC, but an even larger problem at POTD, because those are the pictures we show to the world on the front page. I think we need a "quota" for POTDs, limiting the number of pictures per month coming from any one category. -- JovanCormac 06:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

New template {{Credit line}}

Based on past Village pump discussion and some new discussions on Commons talk:Credit line I created a new {{Credit line}} template which is meant to be used to add credit line / attribution line to {{Information}} template. See template documentation and many of my photographs (for example this one) for an example of how to use it. The template was written with CC licenses in mind, but could be easily used for attribution required by other licenses. I imagine that this template would be used by photographers who would like to exercise right (granted by the CC license) to specify how their images are credited, and to help reusers to use our images properly. I would like to ask for comments and suggestions about the template before it is more widely used. See also Commons:Credit line --Jarekt (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That’s good work Jarekt. I personally would prefer the template field to read ‘credit line’ instead of ‘attribution’ as I think more people might understand this term more readily. Also, would it be worth having this as the first field (at the top of the information box) because this piece of information is what we want a prospective user of the image to take most notice of. The Commons:Credit line page appears to have covered all the options, and lays it out clearly. However, I have looked at this credit line issue for too long now. So I too would appreciate fresh eyes commenting on this. --P.g.champion (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Short answer to few issues:
  1. I personally like both credit line and attribution as a name of this field, about equally. Someone suggested the change of the field name to attribution (here) so I changed it, but credit line is fine with me too. Other opinions?
  2. My proposal to add credit line field to Information template failed (see here). As a result I had to use the other fields field of the information template which always puts extra field at the end. So credit line field has to be the last field.
Also I should add that the template is localized using {{LangSwitch}} and could use some more translations--Jarekt (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I prefer "attribution", as it fits better. Moreover, I believe many people from various languages of European origin who are not quite familiar with English might connotate "credit" with money/loans, because that's the primary meaning this word has in French, German, Italian, Spanish, ... -- H005 (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
But to those people "attribution" means nothing. "To give credit" has been known to me long before I understood the word "attribution" (I know Danish, English and German). I prefer "credit line". Nillerdk (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The is plenty of room, so how about a belt and braces approach to make it doubly clear and title it "Attribution or Credit Line". We can then wait and see if anyone comes up with a good reason to remove one or the other. We could find ourselves waiting for a very long time :-) --P.g.champion (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Good idea, but what about Credit Line/Attribution? Nillerdk (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I agree for the inclusion of this within the information template. The information template is for objective and verifiable information about the file. This credit line is a subjective propaganda message from some copyright holders who want to impose the style through which they want to advertise themselves. It should be part of the license template, or close to the license template, and as far as possible from the information template. By the way, the same wording as that of the Creative Commons should be used. So, instead of "attribution" or "credit line", the name of this heading should be "other party or parties designated by Licensor for attribution". I think this crediting third parties fashion should be avoided, especially when they inculde trade marks. Specifying "Wikimedia Commons", a registered trademark, as an attribution party 1) requires the permission of the Wikimedia Foundation, owner of the trademark 2) makes the file unfree, because it gives the trademark owner the possibility to sue for trademark infringement each time the file (thus the trademark) is being used. Teofilo (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand your line of reasoning Teofilo but this is a familiar formate which will be quickly recognised by employees and others who are searching through many picture libraries. If a picture’s usability is not ‘instantly’ clear to them, they will quickly pass on - there are lots and lots of other images out there for them to choose. Whilst others of lesser publications may just ignore the licensing requirements altogether.
Also, the formate helps to give an image provenance. This will encourage reuse by those that see it used. This is a legitimate inclusion of the words “Wikimedia Commons” regardless of whether its a CC licence image or PD one. The licence status and form of attribution can be separate from the question of including any mention of the Foundation but we came to the conclusion that this was the best default solution to providing useful information that a commercial re-user would need. If the legitimate reuse of the images here are too difficult to work out by a prospective publisher or re-user, then what is the point of uploading them in the first place? However, if individuals like yourself are happy to spend the time to make yourself aware of all the ins and outs of the licensing small print and the Foundation’s policies, then you may of course, do it your way. --P.g.champion (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the main purpose of the "other party or parties designated by Licensor for attribution" paragraph in the CC licenses is for the cases when the copyright holder is different from the author. Then in such instance, the copyright holder designates the author as a third party (the author is neigther Licensor nor Licensee in this case) as being compulsorily included in the credit line. This is not the case with the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on the works submitted by users on Commons. So using the copyright symbol © with a Wikimedia Foundation brand name is a crime of en:copyfraud punished by the US copyright law. Teofilo (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
If the authors of the CC licenses had meant "Author", they would've said "Author", not "Attribution Party". You can (and perhaps should) of course ask CC directly what they did mean, but the language of the license seems pretty clear to me (at least as far as its meaning goes — the fact that it's a huge run-on sentence is just typical for legalese):

"You must […] provide […] (i) the name of the Original Author […] if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution […], the name of such party or parties;"

I do believe that Wikimedia Commons, as a community project to develop a library of free media, should fall quite nicely within the scope of the explicitly given examples — "e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal" — of valid attribution parties. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In order to help reusers to figure out how to follow the law, we could place the credit line in some of the CC images. I see here 2 different situations:

  1. In case of the images of users who uploaded them to commons, I do not think we should add credit lines without being ask. Users should add the themselves, but to help this this task I can offer help of my bot user:JarektBot. Just create User:username/Attribution page (like user:Jarekt/Attribution) and drop me a note on my talk page and I will try to add them (time permitting).
  2. Other case are images from big collections like: Bundesarchiv, Deutsche Fotothek and may be some others where images were not uploded by photographers. In those cases I think we should create the briefest credit lines required by the license. This could avoid questions and often misleading replies as in this discussion. In case of Bundesarchiv I think we should add just the simple author / CC-BY-SA-3.0 Germany credit line in this file. Adding credit line to images from Deutsche Fotothek would be much easier - just a tiny addition to {{Fotothek-Description/layout}} can add similar credit line to all images.

By the way {{Credit line}} could still use some help with localizing the field name (so far it only has English and Polish translation).--Jarekt (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Re: Bundesarchiv
Does this condition below not outrank the CC licence terms?
On a FAQ page of the Bundesarchiv web site [1]. Quote:-
... Answers
May I use pictures for wikipedia or other internet purposes?
Yes, under the precondition that you
- quote the "Federal Archives" as source,
- add the signature of the pictures and
- of name of the originator, i.e. the photographer.
It's not allowed to use photos of the Bundespresseamt (Federal Press- and :Information Office) for free!
You also can use fotos from the Federal Archives for free on Wikimedia Commons. End of quote.
In the example file linked to above, this source is explicitly mentioned with aid of a template so satisfying our obligation to use said image. If this means that Bundesarchiv needs to be mentioned in the credit line, then that little grain of information could be added to the Commons:Bundesarchiv page as well. --P.g.champion (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
At the moment there is no mention on Commons images of Bundesarchiv images about need to specify "Federal Archives" as source. I assumed that CC license details were agreed between WC and Bundesarchiv and they intentionally did not exercised their right to specify additional "Attribution Parties" to be mentioned in addition to the author. I think if Bundesarchiv meant to designate another [attribution] party than we should add it to the Credit line after we confirm that that is their wish. As for signature of the pictures there is no requirement in CC license to specify it. --Jarekt (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
As the Bundesarchiv project may be better placed to consider this, I have posted the query on their To Do talk page.--P.g.champion (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this extra template. Just use the attribution option in the Creative Commons template, or the author field in {{Self}}. Multichill (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-de}} needs to be fixed. The attribution part is missing. Multichill (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, in all the discussions we had so far on this subject nobody ever mentioned that some of CC licenses have attribution field and I have never seen any images using it. I tried to use it in my test image but I quickly run into a problem that recommended {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} license I use, do not allow passing arguments to {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Also the according to CC license attribution should mention all the licenses used by the image so the attribution line should not be part of CC license alone. Another reason I prefer the {{Credit line}} template approach is that it is easy to find as one of the {{Information}} fields, instead being buried somewhere in half a page long license block. And the purpose of this template is to provide reusers with a easy to find cut-and-paste text of credit line, similar to format used by most stock photography websites. Finally, author field in {{self}} does not produce anything related to text of credit line to be specified by the photographer. --Jarekt (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

September 12

RAW images

Are there any plans to allow RAW image format/s on Commons?--Kozuch (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for reference. TIFF format support took a long time to implement. If RAW image formats are manufacturer specific, it's means that it'll be even harder to implement.
Anyway, if you could find a sponsor for this project, things may be implemented much faster.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) As there are as many RAW image formats as there are camera manufacturers (and usually closed, proprietary formats), I doubt we will ever support any of them. However, DNG would be nice to have, but I don't know if there are any plans for it. –Tryphon 15:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
A few months ago there was a discussion about DNG and we agreed that it would be the best option for raw format images, which would be also uploaded in standared JPEG for regular use. However the discussion died out and no action was taken. Sv1xv (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, DNG would be nice.--Kozuch (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, DNG would be great, but for RAW images I'd appreciate support as well, albeit not in a way that the wiki software will be able to interprete them / display them. I think it could already be a great advantage if one could simply attach the corresponding RAW file to a usual jpeg or tiff or so, so that anyone interested in improving the JPEG could use the RAW for his venture. That should be a no-brainer to implement. -- H005 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to implement, but a waste of space. Just because you have the RAW file doesn't mean you can figure out what it means; it's not a standard format, and even if you can figure which RAW format it is doesn't mean that it's documented well enough to interpret it. General Wikimedia policy is to just say no to undocumented proprietary formats.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
DNG/Raw formats would be useful for sure but be clear if you just want them to download (I think technically not too bad) or for display (technically very difficult). I think DNG "can contain the original proprietary raw file" (also, is it safe?) so that could be a problem or a solution.--Commander Keane (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
At first sight, I believe it is safe. I heard a podcast featuring one of Adobe's developers, explaining they worked on their format by reverse-engineering (they developed their own RAW dematricing algorithm), and they actually include, well… to put it simply, they stock the info contained within the original proprietary file, and they don't stock proprietary info. For those who want to hear the episode, you are lucky: this episode was so important in Déclencheur's history that the interview has been made in English; you can hear it here. Diti the penguin 12:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

When possible, I provide DNG files for my best works, and I support allowing the upload of DNG files here. Currently, the files are hosted on my own server, and although the arborescence is supposed to stay like this, I couldn't be able to confirm those files to be safely stocked. Diti the penguin 12:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View and maps of Israel

Further to a discussion on the English Wikipedia [2], I've become aware of a problem with a number of maps in Category:Maps of Israel with regards to Neutral Point Of View. My understanding is that this policy applies to all Wikimedia projects including Commons.

The problem concerns how those areas of the West Bank that have been annexed into the Jerusalem District are represented.

File:000 Israel harta.PNG is good as it shows the internationally recognised borders of Israel. Maps such as File:H1N1_Israel_Map.png and File:Israel_black_hebrews_main_cities.jpgare problematic as they treat the Golan Heights, and/or East Jerusalem and/or the West Bank as part of Israel, a partisan position not recognised as legitimate by any other member state of the UN or by international insititutions such as the International Court.

There are methods for representing both the majority and minority points of view. File:מחוז ירושלים.jpg shows the Jerusalem District with the areas from the West Bank annexed into it shown in a darker colouring. This both the administrative fact on the ground and the internationally held point of view are depicted.

How does Commons deal with violations of neutral point of view in its contents?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Wikipedia, Commons doesn't have NPOV policy. Maps created from different point of view may be useful at least to illustrate them. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Please read our policy at Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. feydey (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Okay, it's the use of the files on Wikipedia that needs to be monitored.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

New special category?

I uploaded the picture File:Raad wat het is.jpg. Is there any category where similar "guessing" pictures can be found? A lot of close-ups can be nice puzzles. If it doesnt exist: what is a good name for such a category? "Guess what", "Puzzling pictures" etc. These pictures should always be accompanied with sister pictures to show wat it is. Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

See the Category:Unidentified subjects tree. Multichill (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
We know precisely what it is, so the missing information categories are not relevant. These are pictures you can use for Quiz questions and puzzles. I have now added a category. Smiley.toerist (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Commonist - Upload problem

Hallo, I wanted to upload some pictures through the programme Commonist, but somewhere has to be a bug, see - can you give me a piece of advice, please?? Thank you very much, --Peripatetik (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

See Help desk. --Martin H. (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

September 13

"Picture of the day" awarded to too poorly documented pictures

Today's picture of the day File:Le Grand Palais depuis le pont Alexandre III à Paris.jpg is poorly documented :

  • Main building's architect's name is missing (failing to provide an author's name is a crime under French law, even if the author died more than 70 years ago)(you should find the author death year if you climb the category tree up to [[:category:19xx deaths]], but category climbing is not convenient by now nor is it possible directly from Wikipedia. So we need a category tree climbing tool)(and anyway Category:Grand Palais fails from categorizing the architect(s)' name(s))
  • Lamp designer's name is missing
  • Bridge architect's name is missing (Category:Pont Alexandre III too)
  • The two image-annotator captions are better than nothing for the two concerned artworks, but it would be better to have them in the main "author" field of the information template, using template:Creator.

Don't you find there is an unbalance between the good documentation on the Camera Maker's brand, and the poor documentation of the authors' names ?

Categorization is deficient. This picture should be included in the categories relevant for the 5 ( = 2 architectural + 3 sculptural) works.

Copyright information is deficient. Until all authors names are provided we are not able to compute the pma+70 calculation and know whether the file is free or not (there is no COM:FOP#France).

Is it impossible to conceive a veto system to veto the "picture of the day" awards when the picture is technically and artistically perfect but too poorly documented ? Teofilo (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Is'nt COM:DM covering the moral rights obligation? I mean if we are unsure that the picture is free or not, it should be deleted already. Also I don't believe photographers should be historians to research lamp design and such and all possible author of a building/statue. If we know them, it's ok to add them but if the parts can be considered DM, it's another problem imo. Esby (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Besides category climbing is highly unreliable when you climb for more than two categories... Esby (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Teofilo, if you think that information is missing, fix it! This is a wiki, and this place is not a far-away remote city... you should be able to find the information as well as anyone else. ;oD Yann (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The lamps are from the foundry of Lacarrière and Delatour - these are considered useful objects, not works of art. Same as with the engineers that did the construction of the bridge. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Only the tungsten thread is useful. Teofilo (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


I need someone's help. My problem is whith this image: File:Phase change - gl.svg. I translated it from the original (File:Phase change - en.svg) but when I uploaded it, a line from the arrow pointing to "Sólido" appeared (over the word "Contrasublimación"). I think it is probably because the word is too long, otherwise it has to be like that. I've tried to make the font smaller and nothing happend. Could somebody fix this, please? Thanks a lot! --Toliño (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

✓ Fixed There was an extra rectangle at the very end of the source code, which I removed. Next time, you might want to ask at the Graphics village pump instead. Pruneautalk 09:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nom for deletion not working right?

many of us have automation to allow easy nomination for deletion. I think maybe it's not working right? It may be "over HTTP encoding" ... see this version] of File:Astroempires.jpg ... all those %3A and %3D s and the like had to be converted to = and : and the like. Anyone else seen this? ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange that it also added the {{delete}} twice... what browser are you using?
One problem may be that you include (through User:Kylu/popups.js) a buggy version of Lupin's popups.js, which redefines getParamValue and botches it. (Should use decodeURIComponent instead of decodeURI.) A maintained version of that popups script that has this error fixed exists at en:User:TheDJ/popups.js. Lupo 11:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Just verified it: popups.js is definitely the source of the %3D problem. Someone should nuke all these buggy versions of this script. Lupo 11:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that is a personal test version of mine. The en.wp gadget is the only official version atm. On commons, you might use User:TheDJ/popups.js, which is an importer for the official en.wp Gadget version. TheDJ (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've switched to just loading the en:wp gadget. Thanks for the sleuthing, guys. I agree, finding all the obsolete versions and suggesting to folk that they switch might be a good project. ++Lar: t/c 09:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And admin can go in and substitute the entire text with a "jsMsg()", I guess. Just have to find the admin willing to do it. TheDJ (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you clarify the edit you have in mind and the page(s) to do it to? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

September 14


Just a heads up: I'm going to be revitalising MotD. The current version has quite a lot of problems, not limited to never changing, even in the face of redlinks, because it's essentially untranslatable.

This will require piggybacking the MotD setup onto the PotD setup pages, but, don't worry, I can make it so that the archives will be separate again.

At the moment, I'd suggest just allowing any media to be put into MotD, provided it's of unambiguous copyright status. I'm sure this will spur commons on into having some sort of quality checking program shortly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is the roughest copyright breach hunter on commons ?

I got you copyviolator

Hi, I need someone really (and I do mean REALLY) rough and thourough commons militiaman who can review images I've uploaded to commons to detect those which depict trademarked logos and such so they can be speedy deleted. It appears that I'm biased because of being the author of those photographs and would hesitate deleting them. Please help. Wmigda (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  • There is no problem of uploading images which contain trademarked logos, unless they are the central subject of the image. So if a player is wearing a Nike shirt or anything with a trademark, it's not a problem. Continue uploading your images and if an image contains a clear violation it will be eventually nominated for deletion. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • There is no problem with trademarked logos at all, even if they are the central subject of the image. The only issue is with copyrighted logos (i.e. recent logos which pass the threshold of originality). But we host lots of trademarked logos, including the Coca-Cola, Microsoft and Adidas logos. –Tryphon 20:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Per Diaa, see e.g. File:Ladies Professional Golf Association logo.jpg, the Logos are maybe under copyright (some are PD-textlogo, the circles maybe creative enough), but it is not the purpose of the image to show the Logos but the scoreboard. Cropping the image to one of the Logos is copyright violation, but the image is ok, any Logos are de minimis. And to prevent misunderstanding: Yes, it is forbidden to extract one of the round logos from the image, but that not means that the image is not free for derivative works. You can modify it as long as the de-minimis argument is not broken. More difficult are cases like Commons:Deletion requests/Images of sports kit, but that's not the case here, also a photo of a person wearing some colorful T-Shirt not violates the shirt designers copyright as long as the image is not cropped to the t-shirt (and maybe some other Commons:Non-copyright restrictions). --Martin H. (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Template for images with a technical problem

I was looking for a template which can be used for images with some technical problem (defective files or faulted display as e. g. File:Dolní Bousov flag.svg vs. [3]), but I found none. Is there such a template and category? --ŠJů (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of such images can be found in Category:Images without thumbnails --Jarekt (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
There's Category:Pictures showing a librsvg bug... AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
However, File:Dolní Bousov flag.svg did not have a librsvg bug, but instead had the usual and typical problem of having a link to an external image on your own local hard drive ("C:\Documents and Settings\MICHAŁ\Pulpit\pastedpic_08302009_143210.png"). AnonMoos (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

September 15

Proposal to change our voting policy


A while ago I made a proposal to change our policy about the 4 votes requirement during a rfa, the last week(s) there has been a discussion on the talkpage and now I believe its time to go to the village pump.

Please raise any comments, objections or questions on the talkpage and I hope to implent it without any big objections in 2 weeks or so.

The proposal can be found here:

Best regards, Huib talk 03:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Perry Barr renames

I recently uploaded three images, all now in Category:Pery Barr Reservoir. All (including the category) should be renamed, changing "Pery" to "Perry". Can someone oblige, please? Apologies for my ham-fistedness. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. Renaming of files ordered, but may be performed at any later time by bot. --Túrelio (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The best way to rename your own recently uploaded files is to just reupload them under the correct name and tag the old ones with Template:Badname. That is much faster than waiting for the renamebot. And if nobody else has edited the file description or uploaded new file versions, there is not really any reasons for copying file and edit history like the bot does. /Ö 13:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
That advice has been repeatedly given, but are you sure it works? I have tried and I had to change the file, as the the upload was refused. A trivial change, I probably edited the exif, changing the time by one second, was sufficient. Haros (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It worked for me: the system just warns you there's already an exact copy of the image file, in case you did a mistake in the upload form, but it lets you continue uploading. You can also choose to ignore warning messages directly on the upload form, before submitting. --Ianezz (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

PD or Own Work?

I've been corresponding with a photojournalist who is considering offering a portion of his work to the Commons. A good portion of the work was done on assignment for the now-defunct Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, which folded in 1989. Herald-Examiner publisher William Randolph Hearst III donated the paper's photo morgue, about 2.2 million images, to the Los Angeles Public Library after the paper folded -- in return for a tax deduction, so the story goes. Evidently the deed of gift stipulates that upon donation the images were to become public domain (I've asked the LAPL to clarify whether the images are indeed public-domain).

However, when media companies have requested to publish photographs taken by my correspondent which are included in the archive, they have nevertheless paid him a reproduction fee, and their lawyers have occasionally told him they believe he may be in a position to assert copyright over them.

My question is a practical one: if he decides to upload such works to the Commons, should they be licensed-tagged as public domain or as his own work, cc-by-sa?

Rrburke (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would ask him if he would object to explicitly releasing the images to the public domain. That would be the cleanest solution. If he doesn't like that, I would explain the situation in the permissions section of each of the photographs. We have a similar situation when people release photographs of public domain art under CC-licenses. See, for example, File:WLA cma The Sea at Le Havre 1868.jpg. Kaldari (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It really depends on the original contract. A true work-for-hire moves the copyright to company. However for freelancers, this can vary a lot. Sometimes only "usage rights" are sold, sometimes "all rights". TheDJ (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsimilar interwiki links

Recently, I created Category:Carpooling. Someone put interwiki links in there. But these refer to pages on other Wikipedias, not to categories. Is this okay? Apdency (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's actually very very frequent here when there's a category without a corresponding gallery. (If there's a gallery, then the interwikis should generally be on the gballery, not the category, of course...). AnonMoos (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I think that is the correct approach -- galleries and (most) categories here illustrate a topic, so we should be linking to the associated topic pages on the wikipedias. That is what would be most useful for people clicking on them, in my opinion -- going to a category of articles usually doesn't make sense. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
All wikipedia's grow at their own speed, mainly with articles. Commons grows with about 5000 categories per week. It is not realistic to be able to make and maintain a constant one to one relation. Moreover, commons tend to go deeper in categories, wikipedia's wider in articles. I see two major needs for interwiki's:
1. To me, the most important one, is documentation in all possible languages, what the category is about. This is especially important for users that are not native English, that have to try to grasp the meaning of a one to say 5 words category. Clearly, articles provide the most information, even when they don't correspond exactly to the article.
2. Tool builders and bot operators are obviously more interested in having simple "category to category" and "article to gallery" interlinking, but those have no direct interest for the real users, except that this facilitates automated IW updates. --Foroa (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I once read something about cross-namespaces linking being "bad", but I can't remember if it was a serious issue, or even if the writer was well informed. Anyway, what I like to do is using interwikis for same-namespace linking, and giving links in the "normal" text of the category using {{Mld}}. This way, namespace integrity is kept (for what it is worth, I have no real idea), and information is given to users. But I noticed on Category:Macrophages a user going after me (hey, that was you Foroa!) to put interwikis, « for documentation ». So since then, I save him the need and do both ;-). My point being: if there are both linkable Wikipedia categories and articles, there is a way. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Cross-namespace *redirects* are bad; not links ;-) Certainly shouldn't apply to cross-wiki links. The question for me is, for someone viewing a category of images on Commons who wants information on the subject of those images in their own language, which is the best page to send them to? Some categories (say People from XXXX) would naturally go to categories, but most of the time, I would think the most useful link would be the actual wikipedia article on the subject. The summary area at the top can also work, and is good so that people can see the subject without visiting another page, but the interwiki links give a nice unobtrusive way to link to many languages without taking up a ton of the screen, and can be added by people who don't speak the languages in question (by copying the links of links from one of the wikipedia articles). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok for cross-NS stuff, thanks. As for "not taking up a ton of the screen", that's the point of {{Mld}} ;-) Jean-Fred (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, any category I create I try to give a bit of narrative text to, which includes links to en:wp articles (since I write it in English...) but since it's in a {{en}} wrapper, someone else could do the same for other languages if they wished. Interwiki links on a category that lead to pages... seems odd at first glance but why not, if they make sense? ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

To simplify the work of bots and make links more stable, we could limit links from Commons categories to Wikipedia articles. Generally there is at least one category for each Wikipedia article. -- User:Docu at 06:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

September 16

Correct way to branch a diagram already on Commons?

Want to make ---->
Motility of kinesin.png

...have only english captioning on it.

What would be the proper way to upload my new version?

Thanks --Bcjordan (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the image was released as public domain, you don't have to worry about copyright. Still it is considered polite to mention the original author. The easiest way to upload is the upload form which also supplies a possibility to upload a derivative work. Regards, --NEUROtiker  22:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
English derivative version
I see Bcjordan has already uploaded this English language version, so I added {{Derivative versions}} to the original, so that users can easily find the other versions. -84user (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
and I tagged the original as well by adding and filling out "|other versions =" in the infobox. Now fully crosslinked. I think linking in both directions is goodness. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Rename confirmation

file:NewDropstation.jpg has failed to move, and I don't see how to give it a confirmation even though I'm on the Commons:MediaMoveBot/CheckPage trusted user list. Is a link missing to the instruction page? Jim.henderson (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's stupid, though very simple: the rename-bot checks whether the last edit in the edit history was by "confirmed" user, if not, -> failed. In your case, another bot had 2 edits after your one. Return to position 1 ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; I have started the process again. Let me take this opportunity to grumble again against these busy bots that make a nuisance by first first doing one little thing to many thousands of pictures, then another little thing to approximately the same pix, and later another, instead of doing all these heading internationalizations, date format standardizations, license migrations, "own" templates and whatever, in one go. Grumble, grumble. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Categorization by Camera type?

With quite some bewilderment I learned that someone started to put some of my pictures into a hidden cat Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1. Personally I would prefer to have (my) pictures not categorized by camera type or any other meta cat as this could lead to some quite absurd categorization. In my opinion picture content shall be categorized, not the tools used - or if one takes the idea even further - the person behind the tool. If categorizing by camera should become an accepted practice I will consider removal of (at least some) Exif data from my pictures.

Any comments on this issue? --Burkhard (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a harm done by adding by-camera categories? I often add them to my photographs and I think they could be useful to see capabilities of different camera types. Same goes with photographers - if I find one photograph of someone I find interesting I might want to see other photographs of the same person. Of course images with only by-camera or photographer categories should be treated as uncategorized. I personally would not spend my time manually adding such categories to other people pages, but in my opinion it would be great if some bot could do it. Can you explain why are you so hostile to the idea? --Jarekt (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The only "harm" I see is that if it makes somewhat easier to build lists of "people using camera X", or "cameras used by person Y", then the meaning of such categories could in theory be distorted in classifying users as "pros", "amateurs", "with expensive gear", etc. adding another non-content-related variable in judging someone's work. Given the scope of the Commons project, I don't think it'll ever be the case (personally I use such categories for my photos, and a user category as well), but I believe it's not unreasonable that someone could find this a bit worrying in the long run. --Ianezz (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware that these data may - and will - be collected and processed outside of the projects scope? (hidden or not will not make much of a difference). Speaking about harm, we don't know what happens to this type of data once they have leaked out of Commons. We will simply have no control over that. --Burkhard (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Camera type info already is available in EXIF data, so if someone wants to misuse that piece of information somehow, the damage is already done – in that sense it does not make much difference if we categorize the files (by camera) or not. But, as many user has stated, the categories have a lot of proper uses. --Apalsola tc 07:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I am aware, but from this point of view, geocoding is quite higher on the list of things to be worried of. After all, when I'm geocoding one of my photos, I'm telling everyone who takes care to notice that I (author) was in a certain place (location) in a certain date at a certain hour (EXIF metadata). That's definitively more sensible data than the list of cameras I own/use. In both cases, that's ok with me, and I understand that it may be not ok at all for others. --Ianezz (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
My intention was not to do any harm to anyone, of course. I created some new categories and added some (more or less randomly chosen) files to them. I also added some files to existing categories with only few files. I don't have any mission to categorize all files by camera, but I agree with Jarekt; it is a good idea to have some examples of images taken with different camera types. Of course it would be best if some bot would do the work. The first "taken with" categories have existed quite a long while already (at least from June 2006[4]), and some categories have thousands of files in them. As far as I know, there hasn't been any strong opposition, either. So I think it is safe to assume that categorizing by camera already is an accepted practice.
About the harm possibly done: I think all meta categories (maybe with few exceptions) should be hidden, so that they don't clutter the topic categories. (There was a discussion on this on the VP in May.) Best regards, --Apalsola tc 23:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion you mentioned was about being it a hidden or not a hidden cat. Camera type and alike are other non-content related, therefore they serve no purpose within the scope and towwards the primary goal of the Commons project (building up content for educational purposes). I don't see how such cats can be useful. Take the camera type: It's not even good for comparing equipment. Most digitally taken photos will and should have been post processed - possible from RAW - cropped and have its resolution reduced, whereas some are taken directly from the JPG which may have different levels of quality. How can you compare equipment from it's product where the most significant contribution comes from the person behind it? - Right! You have to do it systematically and combine it with other data, possibly personal cats.
If the cat serves mainly (or merely?) personal purposes and does not directly contribute to the primary project goal - why should we have it? To make it easier for 3rd parties to mine more or less personal meta data? See my point above. Thats's why I am opposed to this idea. You could say that I simply don't want to be publicly categorized. Please refrain from doing that to my photos, I will revert such edits. If the project should decide to have a bot adding such non-content related cats automatically I (and possibly other contributors) might consider removing Exif data. Regards, --Burkhard (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Such "categories" (or tags or groups or whatever) exist on several photography sites -- people are often interested in what kind of pictures are at least possible with a given lens when they are researching them. Since they commonly exist, people *do* find them useful for various purposes. Maybe someone writing a wikibook on photography can look for images from a particular lens to find images which demonstrate a characteristic weakness, or something like that. Granted this would be more of a "tag" than an actual browsable category (and really can't be subcategorized effectively), but since we don't have a tagging system, it is one way to do it. I don't see how they are counter to Commons' goal at all. Hidden or not, I have no opinion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
If someone wants to mine Commons for camera type he can as well do this by mining the EXIF data. Thus, if you fear about privacy, you should delete that field from the EXIF data. Personally, I find it interesting to brows these categories to see what camera type makes what kind of photos. -- H005 (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly, I have been planning to write a bot that does exactly that for some time now - scan EXIF data and categorize images according to photographic gear. The equipment used to take a shot can be valuable information (e.g. for people aiming to take a similar one), and as others have commented, the relevant data is available to anyone already (EXIF), so privacy/personality concerns are unfounded. If someone doesn't want the world to see what camera he or she uses, they should delete the EXIF data. Ideally, Commons wouldn't use a category system at all but rather a tag system, which allows people to search for any number of tags. A search for "Landscape pictures taken with a Canon 20D camera" can show a photographer what is possible with his or her new camera, and like searching for specific licenses and authors, this can be very relevant indeed. -- JovanCormac 06:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
* I see a quite a huge difference in simply having Exif data in every single file or handing out processed lists of catetegorized and grouped data at quit prominent and easy to find location.
* As I stated above is the idea of comparing pictures to find out about equipment capabilities quite absurd - unless maybe you are looking at some very low resultion mobile phones. People interested in some specific camera or lens should read relevant reviews and/or arrange with a dealer to try out this equipment. May I add as a side note: some of the Exif data are just lying, e.g. when I add a macro lens to my equipment, the focal length changes dramatically but the number in the Exif does not. Some programs even replace Exif data completely.
* Could someone please point out the benefit with respect to project objectives? At this point of the discussion I get the impression that this non-content cats are added because some users like them and want them, but not because they are helpful or even crucial for what Commons wants to achieve. --Burkhard (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

RfA nominators

Does anyone else think there is any merit to the idea of limiting the number of individuals someone can nominate for admin in a year, I think a limit of making a maximum of four nominations a year is enough, more than enough for most people. If a candidate is good enough than a nominator can always be found and even a self nomination should be enough.KTo288 (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you think that's necessary. Why do you think that someone nominating a lot of people is a bad thing? In what way would these nominations be harmful? Do you have a specific example in mind? –Tryphon 18:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
As long as the nominations are made in good faith and not disruptive, I don't see anything wrong with someone nominating lots of people. If they succeed, why not? We can still block people who open loads of nonsense nominations. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there a specific problem, that this will address? feydey (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It could just be my own inherent paranoia, but I have an uneasy feeling that one admin in particular is making such nominations in order to have a vote bank for an attempt at crat. I'm not saying nominees have been engaged in an actual quid pro quo, but that nominees will feel more naturally inclined to someone who has helped them in the past.KTo288 (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
But anyone can vote for bureaucrats, not just admins. So even if someone was making such nominations in order to have a vote bank (which I doubt), it would be pretty pointless. –Tryphon 09:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
We need admins, so I think it's a bad idea to put a limit on the number of nominations. A quick look at the RFA archive gives me the impression that the only user who has made many nominations is Kanonkas (full disclosure: it was Kanonkas who nominated me for adminship). But Kanonkas is already a bureaucrat. It would do well to assume good faith on the part of the nominators, who are doing the project a service, and on the part of the people who take part in the RFA and RFB discussions and who should be trusted to comment/vote with the project's interest at heart, rather than as a means of expressing their gratitude. Pruneautalk 09:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If noms are good, great. If they're not good, have a word with the nominator. I'n not seeing a policy needed here. Yet anyway. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Doesn't seem like a huge issue to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As we don't require much if any previous participation from voters and candidates, it doesn't seem of much use to limit nominations. -- User:Docu at 06:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

September 17

I can't upload images

I tried several times to upload a photo (Via Flickr2Commons, Flickr Upload Bot and finally manualy). All I got is this File:Mackenzie River Freeze-up.jpg? Why this is happening? --BokicaK (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  • The developers have rolled out some new software updates that appear to have broken several bots and scripts. Please bear with us. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this also the explanation for my problem with commonist uploads? ( ) When I googled the error message, I found out that thousands of users already had the same problem. It doesn't seem to happen only because of today's software update...? ʘᴅoɾ (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with javascript gadgets

Hi. I'm currently unable to use the QuickDelete gadget (at least the "missing permission" and "copyvio" features), I get the following message when attempting to edit the image page:

TypeError: wgRestrictionEdit.join is not a function (60) 

Is it just me? How can it be fixed? --Eusebius (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And I'm unable to nominate a file for deletion as well. Please help! --Eusebius (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Same thing with DelReqHandler:

TypeError: wgRestrictionEdit.join is not a function (396)

And I just noticed that Quick Preview doesn't work either (I don't get an error message though, it just fails to display the preview). –Tryphon 07:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Somebody change wgRestrictionEdit from an array to an object on the server-side. Sheesh. Lupo 07:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Though I don't have a clue what that means, me thinks some areas should be somewhat de-wikied (in regard to writing-access). --Túrelio (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
(to Lupo) You mean, in a MediaWiki upgrade? How come some other people are still able to tag files? --Eusebius (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was a server-side change in the MediaWiki software. The culprit is this change by User:Werdna. See bugzilla:20671. Lupo 08:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
After I tried a DR by myself, I know that I'm also affected. --Túrelio (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I put in a hack to work around this particular problem in QuickMod and in DelReqHandler. If you go to this page and then reload your browser's cache, the problem should go away for you. (But you must visit that page. QuickMod is not loaded everywhere, so reloading the browser cache somewhere else will not give you the update in QuickMod.) Lupo 08:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: I've no idea what's wrong with QuickPreview, but I notice that we now also have an empty category bar on all Special pages, and that MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js would need to be adapted to handle this empty category bar. Apparently, some other things also changed (DOM structure of served pages, class names, whatever. I didn't investigate.) I have no time today to chase after these things. Ask User:Ilmari Karonen or User:Dschwen to take care of any other JavaScript or gadget problems. Lupo 08:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
P.P.S.: For more problems, see en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Vanishing articles? and following sections. Lupo 09:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the bug report and for the workaround! --Eusebius (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This particluar problem should be fixed now in the software (and deployed already, too). Thanks, User:Werdna, for acting so promptly! Lupo 10:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • What about the Empty Category bar on special pages problem. I cannot reproduce that. HotCat looks and behaves fine to me. --Dschwen (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In-article attribution requirement

Please forgive me if this has been addressed before.
When I was preparing to place File:Jens Stoltenberg 2007 04 18.jpg on the English Wikipedia's main page, I noticed that it was tagged with Template:Harry, which includes (in part) the following text:

Attribution: All usage must display the phrase "Photo: Harry Wad" in the immediate vicinity of the image. The word photo may be translated. This requirement also applies to any articles in Wikimedia projects using this image.

Is such a requirement enforceable? The English Wikipedia's article doesn't appear to comply, and I think that it would be preferable to use one of the other available images of Jens Stoltenberg (as I did on the English Wikipedia's main page) than to add "Photo: Harry Wad" to the article. —David Levy 11:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There have been discussions about that in general, though - if I remember right - most photo contributors, who are interested in this topic at all and who prefer a "near-the-photo-credit" wouldn't demand that for Wikimedia projects, because here the full credit is only 1 click away. As to my knowledge, only :no-Wikipedia has enabled crediting in the image caption (for an example, see here). So, if we take this photographers demand seriously, then File:Jens Stoltenberg 2007 04 18.jpg is used "wrongly" on 30 Wikimedia projects. --Túrelio (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Also see no:Hovedside, where the image currently appears in non-compliance with this condition. —David Levy 14:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly enforceable, although it is debatable whether it (a) conflicts with the CC-BY license, or (b) remains compatible with Commons. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I'm wondering. A copyright holder is entitled to place any number of arbitrary restrictions on his/her works' use, but I'm not accustomed to seeing such a condition attached to an image available under a free (by our standards) license. —David Levy 13:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I took the opportunity to add "Photo: Harry Wad" to the English Wikipedia uses, and used {{byline|Photo: Harry Wad|2007}} for two of the captions. -84user (talk)
Hmm, though surely well-meant, that may create a precedent. IMHO it would be more appropriate to open a local discussion (i.e. on :en) about that. --Túrelio (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
For the time being, I've replaced the English Wikipedia's uses with File:Jens Stoltenberg.jpg, which has no such requirement. —David Levy 17:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As In-article attribution isn't yet accepted on :de, I've put notes on the talkpages of the two articles using the Stoltenberg photo. --Túrelio (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's like fair use, it's up to the local projects to decide whether they accept it or not. Diti the penguin 16:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
My take on this is: this demand appears to be a common confusion which I think comes from reading copyright notices on websites. These are written up by some arty-farty wordsmith, who has simply copied it from another website, rather than added by a lawyer (to get a lawyer, to write anything at all, costs lots more money and the result is usually totally incomprehensible). Legally the copyright owner can demand anything he wants; that is the whole purpose of Copyright – it allows the rightful owner control over publication. From a practical point of view, this particular stipulation is unwise, and perhaps therefore Harry might consider rewording it. And again on Template:Harry2 & Template:Harry3.
The CC licence only says:
* If the work itself contains any copyright notices placed there by the copyright holder, you must leave those notices in tact, or reproduce them in a way that is reasonable to the medium in which you are re-publishing the work. How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work? added emphasis mine.
The reason to alter it, is that: to demand how and where ones credit goes, is to interfere with the “ would be” publisher’s typography or page layout. Something that a publisher would not tolerate on principle. Otherwise, famous or important photographers would start demanding all sorts of unreasonable attribution prominence. Some images ( in say a book) might have all the credits placed in one place at (say) the start of the book or perhaps in an appendix at the back. Many websites now have click through credits (CNN springs to mind). Copyright owners need to be flexible for these reasons. Shall we post him a note on his WP talk page? He probable hasn't thought it through. --P.g.champion (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The license is clear: "Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." But I remove the specified requirement/reminder for Wikipedia in the template. --Harry Wad (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I hope that people will use byline if possible on Wikipedia to. On No.wp we use byline if the photographer's name is known, even if he does not require it. Such is considered good manners :-)--Harry Wad (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, this restriction conflicts with the license text of CC-BY-2.5. Also, it's too strict for Commons. Therefore all images with this extra restriction should be removed. As a sidenote, I do not think that Wikipedia should be forced to include an attribution in the main article text. Should we add an attribution to each paragraph, or even each sentence as well? Or maybe display the list of authors on a sidebar? The name of the photographer is of no interest for the average reader and should not deface articles. --Sebari (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia hosts texts written by a large proportion of persons. It is logical that we must keep an history for this purpose. On the contrary, photographs are almost exclusively made by only one person; they also have generally not the same license as the text, something that should be clear for the reader, who is also likely to be a reuser. And no, it is not too strict for Commons, an image credit is an attribution, not an additional part of a license, and has nothing to do with freedom, but copyright. Should I mention there is still a copyright on any free file (except works that are released under Public Domain)? My opinion is that reusers (and it includes Wikipedia) should themselves follow the CC license terms, that say “you must leave those notices in tact, or reproduce them in a way that is reasonable to the medium in which you are re-publishing the work”: you cannot, for obvious reasons, properly include a link to the license on a printed support, so you have to adapt it. Oh well, you sure can remove the files that require such attributions, but people will post them on other websites anyway. Why deleting the good work? Diti the penguin 20:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see my response below. Setting aside the legal and philosophical issues, hosting these images is far too burdensome (given the added work and confusion involved) to be considered a net gain to the Wikimedia Foundation and those who benefit from the content that it distributes. —David Levy 20:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Specifying where to put the attribution is an additional restriction that is not covered CC-BY-2.5. Therefore the images in question are not covered by CC and are not eligible for Commons. David explains some of the practical problems with this additional restriction well. Also, Wikipedia articles are collaborate works, usually by many contributors. These include writers, photographers, authors of diagrams, reviewers, and editors. Usually photos are used as part of the whole (like texts), and there is no reason to single out their contributors in an article. --Sebari (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the condition is too burdensome for Commons or any other Wikimedia project. Even if the practice of including in-article attributions were universally regarded as acceptable, editors and content republishers are entirely unaccustomed to it, so most won't even think to check whether the requirement exists.
Given that the vast majority of free images lack such a restriction, it's far more practical to simply prohibit it (by requesting its removal and deleting the images whose owners decline) than to demand that editors check every image to ensure that its license terms have been met (a chore likely to fall to the small percentage of users aware of the issue).
I also agree that the actual practice (whether mandatory or optional) is inconsistent with our projects' collaborative philosophy (and therefore highly undesirable). —David Levy 20:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Harry,
The problem may lay with understanding ‘who’ the manner belongs to. YOU own the manner of the form that the credit takes, the PUBLISHER owns the manner of how and where he displays it. This reads like the rantings of the chef on Muppet's to me but maybe it makes more sense to you. Navngivelse-DelPåSammeVilkår 3.0 Norge. Then please read my last post again.--P.g.champion (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I end my participation in this discussion, if any, like to delete my photos or threaten to, please be my gest.

But make sure it is in line with the guidelines on Commons. I do not like bickering, send an email if there is anything you want me --Harry Wad (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleting a photo

Hi! I need some help regarding photo deleting (How?) and changing a mispelled surname in a main title (Thus I edit it the mistake remains). Thanks! XimenaXgm324 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Upload the photo again with the correct name, then tag the bad one with {{bad name|name of good photo}}. The one with the bad name will be deleted eventually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with uploading a new version over an old one

Ever since last night, when I try to upload a new version of a file over an old one I get this message:

"A file with this name exists already in the shared file repository.If you still want to upload your file, please go back and use a new name. File:$1 $1"

I tried it with two different files. Could it be fixed please? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

bugzilla:20677 TheDJ (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that message is usually seen when you're at Wikipedia and you try to upload a file which has the same name as an existing image at Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I was on Commons and tried to upload a fixed version over old file. I have often done it before and know quite well how to do it. I've never got such a message before last night.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The message may have been issued in error, but that was probably its main original intedced purpose.... AnonMoos (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I just tried to upload a file over a other file but didn't get a error, I guess this problem is already fixed or was a temporarily problem? Huib talk 16:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I restarted my computer and tried again with Internet Explorer and Mozilla.I still got the same message, and the file does not upload. I have Windows XP. Maybe it works with vista? I'd like devs to take a look at that please.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

See also COM:HD#unable to update image, Lupos answer there adn TheDJs answer above. I myself reuploded two images and dont have this problem. --Martin H. (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am already feeling better knowing that it is not only me Face-smile.svg--Mbz1 (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Admins don't have the problem with reuploading images since they have the "reupload-shared" right. That allows them to locally upload files that exists the shared file repositoryon. /Ö 19:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have (basically) the same problem: trying to upload a new version over an old one, with the same name. (To be exact, an updated version of File:US debt outstanding by sector.png; the Federal Reserve just released the Q2 numbers.) I get the message "Indien u het bestand niet voorziet van afdoende licentie- en broninformatie, wordt uw upload verwijderd zonder waarschuwing. Dank u voor uw begrip." In English (I'm Dutch, and the localizing works fine!) it says "If you don't supply enough information on licence and sourse, your upload will be removed without further notice. Thank you for your understanding." However, the text fields where I could supply this information are greyed out. But I've uploaded updated versions of images (containing statistical information, see my user page) many times. In fact, as recently as September 10, see the history of File:Trade balance US.png. I think there is a hiccup in the software.;) Best regards, MartinD (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I see there's a bug report: bugzilla:20677 --Farry (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have the same problem. Yesterday I uploaded a svg format flag, today I see an error and fix it, when I try to upload a new version, it returns to me an error "Ya existe un archivo con este nombre en el repositorio compartido. Si todavía quiere subir su archivo, por favor, regrese a la página anterior y use otro nombre. ". --Xavigivax (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Please vote for this bug in bugzilla as it really sucks - it is really bad that such a bug went through to live site :(((.--Kozuch (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems there is only one vote till now for the bug....--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
That was my vote most likely!--Kozuch (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I am getting this message too, when I try to crop out some negative space in photos and then overwrite the original image. --Blargh29 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I have the same problem with File:Guerra Civil Española.svg, I've tried a few times already. --Té y kriptonita (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I also encountered the problem, and bugzilla seems to be down. Why should it be necessary to vote there anyway? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it is not necessary to vote for the bug, but it is one of the ways how to let developers know you want the bug have fixed.--Kozuch (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm encountering the same problem myself - I try to upload a higher resolution version of File:Dimmu Borgir 28.jpg with one I saved locally and it comes back saying "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still does not work, try logging out and logging back in.". I'm an admin so you would expect I'd be able to upload over an existing image... Tabercil (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe this is a different problem that is not related to the recent bug. Sometimes session data is lost - this also happened frequently before the recent mediaWiki update. Can you try again whther it is reproducible? -- H005 (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Huh. Tried again with File:Dimmu Borgir27.jpg which was uploaded in too small a size, and it worked. I'll wait a few more hours and try again with a couple of other images that are in the same boat. Tabercil (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Same problem for me, with File:Armigeri_defensores_seniores.svg. I thought it could be linked with the renaming of this file I've asked for, but seeing the other cases it sounds unrelated. I've got the French version of the message: "Un fichier portant ce nom existe déjà dans le dépôt de fichiers partagé. Si vous voulez toujours téléverser votre fichier, veuillez revenir en arrière et utiliser un autre nom.", then a link with the following name: File$1. Fanfwah (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Same "$1" bug for me here, on two days with two files. Needs central fix, no doubt. - Orion 8 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly urge that this be made a high priority. The fact that admins don't have the problem may be concealing from many of you how annoying this is. Not every hard-core participant in Commons is an admin. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the bug has already been raised to major and a fix has been created. We are just waiting for the Wikimedia developers to push the fix to the live site. I assume that this will be resolved within the day. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture works with Firefox, but not with IE

Am I going mad or what!!?. This picture seems to work with FireFox, but not with IE. Can you confirm or deny, or better yet, tell me what to do with it!

can you see this?

Can you see it

GloverEpp (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, same when I try it, Firefox is fine, IE not. Generally the IE is not capable of colour management, thus it is only able to display standard sRGB images properly - but usually IE at least displays something, although it often looks weird or at least far inferior in quality. But here something seems to be wrong, as IE displays nothing at all. GIMP says it has an embedded sRGB profile and shows it well, but IrfanView says it's CMYK - and displays it in wrong colours. I suppose it has an embedded profile that is corrupt in some way. -- H005 (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I saved it in IrfanView without CMYK and, after some time and some more troubles, it showed up. --Túrelio (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Impossible to upload images, without tearing hair out

I tried to upoad a file, but was met this nonsense:

You must give the original source of the file, the author of the work, and a license.

Nowhere was it explained what this means or where and how I fill in these details. The upload function is laughably ant-intuitive and user-unfriendly. You seem determined to do everything you can to avoid having interesting and useful images uploaded by memebers of the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblecar (talk • contribs) 17. September 2009, 20:33 Uhr (UTC)

There are fields for each of those pieces of information on the upload form. The original source is where you got the file - if downloaded from a web site, the URL of the page, if scanned from a book, the title and page of the book, etc. The author of the work is the artist who drew the picture, or the photographer who took the picture, or so forth. The license is the greatest restriction, it is what makes the file free. Did the owner of the work put a Creative Commons license on it? Then it is that license. Is the file public domain because it is old, or because it is a work of the US federal government? Then it is public domain due to age, or so forth. there should be a drop-down to specify each of those licenses. If you don't know what the license is, then it may well be not a free file, and if it isn't, we don't want it. The reason we only have 3 million files here is mainly because we only accept free licensed files. --GRuban (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Impossible to upload image, without tearing hair out

I am entirely the author of the image I want upload - I am the photographer, the creator of the object, etc etc. I am wanting this image to be entirely free of copyright. So can someone please tell me exactly what I have to write in each box of the form in order to upload the image. Just tell me exactly what I have to write in each box. If I have to spend any more time trying to work out this cryptic shit I just won't bother with you. And I am a very important person with important images to upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblecar (talk • contribs) 17. September 2009, 20:33 Uhr (UTC)

Hello. We are all important in our own right. You should start by signing your posts with ~~~~ and you must have a username to upload. Then in the upload section you should select "entirely my own work" and at the bottom licensing drop down box select "public domain". Don't forget to fill in other things like author and description and what not, and maybe even try to give it categories. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
And don't be worried if you do not know what to write into these fields. Anything can be fixed afterwards by anyone else who comes along, the only thing YOU must ensure is to pick the proper licence (public domain in your case). -- H005 (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, your first upload, File:Rebec fiddle.jpg, looks good and is a very valuable contribution. I've made some adjustments, but this shouldn't bother you much. -- H005 (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nariokotome Boy

An image I've uploaded - a reconstruction of Homo ergaster, Nariokotome Boy, is now in danger of being deleted, apparently because the image of the skull is copyrighted elsewhere. I've tried to replace the picture with a picture of the reconstruction alone, without the skull, but it won't let me because the image has the same name or suchlike. Can anyone tell me what to do here. If I can't get it sorted quickly I will simply give up on this shit, and won't bother with wikimedia ever again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblecar (talk • contribs) 21:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Bubblecar, thanks for your contributions but you really need to not threaten us other users with your "walk off" because we are all here together. It's quite silly to get so angry about this process, just spend some time learning it. When you upload it again, it will ask if you are sure you want to replace the original file... just confirm that its OK. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Your account is too fresh to reupload files. You need to wait some days. However, I tagged the file and you can simply ask me on it, auch auf Deutsch. --Martin H. (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
No, this is a bug in the Wikimedia software that has been introduced with the new release deployment yesterday. I have the same problems, and others too. See above: Commons:Village_pump#Problem_with_uploading_a_new_version_over_an_old_one. It needs to be fixed asap. -- H005 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing work from Wikimedia

I have uploaded a couple of images to Wikimedia but have now decided I want to permanently remove them. How do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblecar (talk • contribs) 17. September 2009, 22:58 Uhr (UTC)

Lol (sorry), thats the shortes Wikimedia career I ever saw ;) You can neither delete your account nor the images you contributed under irrevocable free licenses. --Martin H. (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course, the image tagged as "missing a source" may be deleted anyway if you don't provide evidence that it is free of rights. --Eusebius (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Do what you like, but I won't be uploading any more images. Far too anti-user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblecar (talk • contribs) 17. September 2009, 23:12 Uhr (UTC)

Colleagues, Bubblecar (talk · contribs) looks clearly like a troll to me, who has succeeded in starting four threads (see above). Don't feed him anymore. --Túrelio (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm an artist and luthier who has contributed a couple of images (and intended to contribute more), but experienced a good deal of trauma in trying to do so, because of the non-intuitive nature of the upload interface. And one of the images won't be accepted because of material that is apparently copyrighted elsewhere, but I can't work out how to re-submit the modified version which doesn't include this material.

You people really need to consider that many of your contributors are creative individuals who have decided to make unique and interesting images freely available to the global public, but who are not much helped in this aim by the software here. And when we're called "trolls" this really does make the Wikimedia project look half-baked and unwelcoming indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblecar (talk • contribs) 23:53, 17. Sep. 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bubblecar, I understand your concerns (and do not believe you are a troll). The problem is that the matter itself, especially licencing, is very complicated, if we would simplify this any further it would become illegal. All this fuss is about protecting the rights of artists like you are. Sorry for that.
But I do believe that you probably have some very valuable images to add. If you have trouble uploading, we are willing to assist you. Or, if you don't mind, you can send your images to other users, e.g. me, accompanied by a descriptiion and a confirmation that you release all rigths, and I will upload them for you, provided they are indeed valuable. -- H005 (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies to everyone. I was drunk and obnoxious, and deserved the troll call.

White House photos?

I was always under the impression that official US government photos are in the Public Domain, and I was browsing through the White House Flickr site and saw a nice picture and uploaded it to commons with out paying attention much to some warning about not using it to sell products. When it was up on Commons I saw (in the metadata) that it seemed to be more strict than that, saying can't be used or some such? Is this just government sounding puffy about something to make sure people don't start selling Obama cornflakes with his image photoshopped onto it OR is this somehow within their rights to apparently say a government work is not public domain? If so, I might have boobooed uploading it here? Details please. (File:HelenThomasAndBarackObama2009.jpg) Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictures on an official government site are not all necessarily government owned pictures. With permission from an owner, they can show ones that were privately made and are still privately owned. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
In case of the White House photostream the images are government created. It is your first point, this is a case of Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, you may not use obama portraits for advertising in respect to personality rights and maybe other legal restrictions. In sense of copyright the photographs are public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Contributing 222 Medical Education Images, but need help

I am an employee of the Open.Michigan project (Wikipedia Page) which helps professors at the University of Michigan create Open Educational Resources. This past summer we were working with the Michigan Medical School and in doing so our student workers created roughly 222 images that are useful in medical education (CC:BY replacements for images that were All Rights Reserved). These images, however, are lacking in title/metadata information that is required for Wikimedia Commons. So far one student has helped by adding this information for roughly 15 images, but there is still a long way to go. This is where I will graciously ask for assistance from the wider Wikimedia Commons community.

The instructions I have laid out are located here and the images are located here. Any comments/suggestions are also welcomed. Greg g (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. Well first of all I suggest creating a source category for images that would be imported from there. So each image should contain the category "Images from the Open.Michigan project" or something... --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    1. Will do. Greg g (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. A template with a bit of information about the work and an OTRS confirmation mail is needed, saying you have the sufficient rights to upload these images over here, see Commons:OTRS.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    1. Not sure who you would send the confirmation email to except myself, as these students were working for the University, thus all their works' copyrights are held by the University. And the University is licensing all Open.Michigan staff created 'stuff' as CC:BY. Greg g (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    2. I should add that the attribution for these images will be "Regents of the University of Michigan" (as is all staff "for hire" created work, which is different than faculty created work, which is held by the faculty). Greg g (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The idea is that you (or someone else authorized to grant this license) send an email from the university (please use a sender adress) to the OTRS, saying that these works (please provide a link, preferably to the files uploaded on Commons) are released under CC-BY with the attribution you request. It would probably be best if you do this _after_ the upload to Commons and include the link to the files on Commons in the mail. Be sure to upload the files with {{OTRS pending}}. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha. Will do. Thanks for the clarification. Greg g (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. Are these images also available as SVG ? This would be really great, since it allows limitless scaling...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    1. No, our students did not create SVGs. Greg g (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. I suggest uploading all these images as they are to flickr, where the description and category can be added without much difficulty through a comment.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    1. I don't see where on flickr categories could be added (they support user-generated tags, which our images mostly already have). And the description is only editable by the uploader, unless you're speaking of a different description. Greg g (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I mean here that students could add a comment containing the description, file name and Category. This makes it easier because you have an instant view of the image while adding a description. Instead of opening the file, going to spreadsheet, checking if it's exactly the same name or not and adding file name, description and category.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Right, I know that process is not the most efficient, it was the best I could come up with quickly. My question is then: what happens when pulling that data from flickr to commons? Seems using the comments on a photo as the Description in Commons could be problematic (ie: which comment is the description? The first comment could theoretically be "Nice drawing, Bobby!")
I could easily upload these to flickr today without a title or description (both things required on Commons, plus at least one category) but again, crowdsourcing the title/description on flickr seems problematic. That is, unless you know of a different process/guide that I haven't seen. Thanks for your help/comments! Greg g (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The spreadsheet seems a sufficient way to organize the image. It does have version control somewhere, right? Otherwise you should make regular backups in case a vandal finds and deletes the whole thing. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, google spreasheets have built in version control, but I will be backing up the work every night or so (depending on use). Greg g (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • How about you choose the right comment and add it as a description. Then add in the tags the right category and write the correct name. Which should all be available in the comment. This would make our side of uploading much easier, since we already have a flickr batch upload tool (Flickrripper) which gets the description from the description, the filename as a combination from filename and username, and categories via the tags. This would also help you when adding newer images. It would be instantly viewable and can be imported to Commons easily. I'm just saying this would be in my opinion the best approach. Create a username as Open.Michigan and upload the images there. Since most images aren't over 1MP you won't need a pro account...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I was planning on using the User:Nichalp/Upload_script using the bot associated with Open.Michigan for this purpose (User:OpenMichiganBot because of the large number of images and the fact that this will hopefully be automated next semester. Having to go through 220 images and copy over the correct description and title separately (if either of them were added by the someone in a comment) seems quite manual and inefficient. But, either way, this process will be streamlined (hopefully) in the future when we perfect our process. I think for now I'll wait to see how many people help out this way. The goal is to get the images in both flickr and wikimedia commons (and anywhere else that might make sense), but since the only info I had for the images were tags (the filenames are just hashs of the file, hence their ugly names) I decided to try and get useful names first :). Thanks again for your input, it is really helpful. Greg g (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Differentiation of "false" categories by italics

I am convinced that category redirects by {{seecat}} are very useful. When some user choose categories using the upload form or HotCat.js, he may guess and search any exceptable category name very easily and it is automatically changed to the right category name.

But when some user set categories directly in the edit box, the "false" category isn't corrected and the user isn't warned that the category is only a redirect (the category link is normal and blue). That is why many wikipedists don't like category redirects and delete them generally.

I have a proposal to improvement. The name categories should be always displayed in italics when the category includes some template of Disambiguation and redirection templates. --ŠJů (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories entered directly in the edit box that would have a {{category redirect}} get moved within a day by bot. -- User:Docu at 05:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories in preview of upload form

Generally, I make the description of images in that way, that I copy the all description text including categories into the old edit box and then I change it before uploading. But I have a problem: the categories are not displayed in preview in this case, unlike the normal preview of pages. Can someone add this? --ŠJů (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. If you go to the upload form and then refresh your browser's cache, you should also get a mock-up of a category bar in the preview. For technical reasons, the preview cannot distinguish normal and hidden categories, and it also does not show red links for non-existing categories (it shows them in blue). The reason is simply that the API call used to generate the preview ("api.php?action=parse") does not return this information. Lupo 09:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

September 18

Personal archives

I have seen this deletion request, and I'm not sure of the way this issue is handled. It seems the photo was taken a long time ago, not published but just kept in the family for personal interest (like the photo's of grandpa's wedding, or similar things). Most likely, the uploader is not the real author of the photo, but if he can get access to such archive, he must surely be a relative or close confident of the family. On a strict sense, we may consider he does not own the images as to release them, but on a more relaxed one, it's all "kept in the family" and the rest of the family would probably never even know or care about the photo being on internet or under wich copyright status. The Precautionary principle policy does tell to dismiss such “we can get away with it” arguments, but I don't want to stick to "instruction creep" either. I consider as well the De minimis principle: if the seeming infraction was so minor or trivial that it's not realistic to consider any court even taking the case to begin with, we may (perhaps) simply let it go.

What should be done then? Deletion, keep with OTRS authorization or something like that, or simply keep it with an "own work" type of tag?

(Note: this thread is not about the mentioned deletion request in itself, it's just an example to ask a wider type of question) Belgrano (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We'd need to find out the contributor's basis for claiming rights. For example, I inherited intellectual property rights to my late father's photos, and will probably someday get around to uploading some of them to Commons. I'd have the same legal ability to grant rights as if I'd taken the pictures myself. Someone who happened to be the subject of those photos would not. - Jmabel ! talk 06:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
{{PD-heirs}} might be the best fit for this kind of images. --Jarekt (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to release it into the public domain, rather than continue to reserve attribution rights on behalf of your late relative. - Jmabel ! talk 05:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Mother lode of free images

I came across a great resource for union and political images at AFL-CIO's flickr page.--Blargh29 (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks promising and seems all are licensed CC-BY. --Túrelio (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I suggest requesting a batch upload at Commons:Batch uploading.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I am collecting a list at User:Blargh29/alfcio2008 before I put in the request. I only looked through the Pennsylvania-related images, so if anyone wants to comb through the others, feel free to add them to my list.--Blargh29 (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Why are u making a list? why not just upload all or are some images not educational?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't imagine that all of those pictures serve a purpose here -- people at picnics, etc. But I'm sure a bunch would. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Category:Picnics is not too crowded, so why not... --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
There are WAY too many unusable photos (near-duplicate shots, random people standing around, and just poor photography) to do a full batch load. Is anyone else interested in sifting through these images to find the good shots?--Blargh29 (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Defect of reuploading dialog

When I choose "Upload a new version of this file", the system refuses the upload of new version. It displays a message "Upload warning - A file with this name exists already in the shared file repository. - If you still want to upload your file, please go back and use a new name. - File:$1 - $1" and it disables an uploading. --ŠJů (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Village_pump#Problem_with_uploading_a_new_version_over_an_old_one above. -- H005 (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

error message UnexpectedAnswerException

Hi, for a few days now I have massive problems uploading images via commonist: . Any idea what might be wrong there? Thanks ʘᴅoɾ (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This is probably the cause of the problem. Because there isn't an upload api (yet) we have to use screen scraping. When the interface is changed, this will break. Multichill (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes I am experiencing the same problems (see user:Jarekt/gallery) also in AWB login process stopped working. --Jarekt (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Will this boil down to bugzilla issues???--Kozuch (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Link problems

Hi everyone, the number of links here at Commons increase rapidly causing problems with performance (graph). This is because all heavy usage templates include a language template. Usage (GFDL : 1,7 M) * number of languages (GFDL: 60?) is a lot of links. The worse templates are listed at Commons:Template i18n/Most linked-to templates. To solve this problem the number of links should be reduced. We have two options:

  1. Remove the included /lang template. Most of the heavy usage templates are already translated in dozens of languages so the user will probably see it in his interface language anyway
  2. Convert the links at the /lang template to externallinks. Externallinks was hacked to not be included in a table if it points to the same site. Without this hack Commons would already be down.

Doing this with the top 20 templates would greatly reduce the number of links. Opinions please. Multichill (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd just remove the /lang templates from all autotranslated templates and rather display a message (please help translate this template) if it is not displayed in the interface language. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
No, please don't remove them. They're there for a reason, so that people can switch from one language to another one. Remember that every unregistered user sees the template in English, as they can't choose another language. Also, several people don't know how to change the language setting, so they also use the English skin, though they might not fully understand it. The external links solution sounds good here and I would be fine with its implemention. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I personally prefer one langtemplate on every imagepage including links such like and leading to the image instead of multiple langtemplates in every template leading to templates. A user is not interested in seeing a template in his language but in seeing the template in context of the file description in his language. However, there are to many languages on this planet, having a monster like Template:Lang-mp on every image page is distracting. --Martin H. (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
That's probably a stupid question, because if it was possible, surely it would have been done, but here it is : can't we detect the language of the unregistered users system ? Jean-Fred (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Theoretically we can, but it's not implemented in MediaWiki. This came up on Wikitech-l just a few days ago and the answer was that serving content by language would defeat most of our caching and put too much load on the servers. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer second one. I agree with The Evil IP address. Maybe we can consider to use the extension Language Selector. Kwj2772 (msg) 16:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Did a {{subst:Lle}} at all templates. The only template left is Template:Welcome/lang. Multichill (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Commonist problem after MediaWiki update?

Commonist stopped working.--Kozuch (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

See two topics above. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Which species?

Hello, Could you help me indentifying which species of swans are these? I had never seen brown swans like these before, except juveniles, but these look like adults. They were even a bit aggressive. Thanks in advance, Yann (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Yann, Cygnus olor, in german Höckerschwan keeps his grey color the first year of his life. --Martin H. (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Looks like a batch upload could be useful here: Tekstman (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

please fix

Category:Zhao Ji contains itself which is not good. I would fix it but get the message: "Category "Zhao Ji" not found; maybe it is in a template?" bamse (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Something odd is happening when one wants to upload a new version of an existing file

First you get the same warning as usual that a file with that name already exists. Fair enough. But when you indicate you want to go on and upload anyhow. You get a second warning, with a flat out refusal.

This flat out refusal seems to be incomplete. It gives the file name as "$1".

Is there some reason we can't go back to the old behavior? Geo Swan (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Village_pump#Problem_with_uploading_a_new_version_over_an_old_one. -- H005 (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

September 19

Uploading from Flickr

Flickr2Commons has not been working for me for a few days now. I have uploaded a couple of pictures the old fashioned way, but couldn't we make the old fashioned way better for people who aren't aware of the tools or those who use it when the tools aren't working, which is surprisingly often? For example you have to fill out source, date, author etc when you could just provide the link and these could be pulled from the image page. Is it impossible for the normal uploading process to be extended to the point where it could do all the tricks that Flickr2Commons does? Richard001 (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

you could possibly use bryan's flickr tool as a backup. Nanonic (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone may wanna go ahead and make a notice of that in case someone else has the problem.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 15:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Correcting a File Name

Hello, I uploaded a file but inadvertently made a typo in the name, and simply want to rename the file so the subject's name is spelled correctly. The name of the file is File:ValPinsep.jpg. It should read ValPrinsep. I left out the 'r.' How should I go about changing that? Thank you! MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter? It is in Category:Valentine Cameron Prinsep, it is easy enough to find. Otherwise you can reupload, and label the old one with {{bad name}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I suppose it doesn't. I placed it in that category so others can find it if they need it. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect file

I uploaded a wrong file on File:88 flood at Provincial Highway No16.jpg. It should be a file from flickr as shown the source in file page. But it seemed that there were some problem in the database so that i could not upload a new version. Any administators can help me?--Koika (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Help desk#General or personal upload problem?. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright by Wikimedia AND GFDL ??

Are these legal combinations of licenses? Copyright by Wikimedia & GFDL --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright by Wikimedia is only for wikimedia project logo. if article text is on file, text is under GFDL, cc-by-sa. Kwj2772 (msg) 15:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Cannot upload new versions

For the past couple days, I cannot upload new versions of files. When I try to do so, I get the following error message. Any hope of this being fixed soon? -Peteforsyth (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Upload warning

A file with this name exists already in the shared file repository.

If you still want to upload your file, please go back and use a new name.
<a href="/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=$1" class="new" title="File:$1">File:$1</a>
I had the same problem too.--Caspian blue 17:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Same here. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • In addition, Commonist has been broken for days, but no indication of fixing the error. I've been manually uploading image (aka. wasting my time) since then.--Caspian blue 17:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
You guys might wanna skim over the larger thread of this issue (above), #Problem with uploading a new version over an old one. I went to #wikimedia-tech last night and told them, and I think they are working on it. There's several things wrong at the moment with pictures. I initially told them of several cases where Commons said no file existed at a specific file page, but the upload logs indicated otherwise. Killiondude (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Medical Education Experts - Help Identify/Name/Categorize Educational Images

See my Sept. 17th Discussion for background. Thanks to everyone who commented for their feedback.

The Open.Michigan project has 222 images that were created as replacements for All Rights Reserved medical education content. However, they are lacking some much needed metadata (real names/titles, categories, and descriptions). If you can help identify this material, please see the instructions here and the images are located here. Greg g (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)