Commons:Help desk/Archive/2007/06

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Minor edit?

What does "This is a minor edit" mean? Yung6 23:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits are the smaller edits which include spelling/typo corrections, simple formatting (capitalisation, et cetera) and those sorts of things.--THUGCHILDz 02:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

a still image of a popular YouTuber - what's the license?

I'd like to upload a still image of a popular YouTuber, in order to display it on the Wikipedia page dedicated to him. The image is a screenshot from one of his YouTube vids. Under what license should i upload the file? Itayb 07:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Those images are generally not allowed here. Please upload them to a Wikipedia that allows "fair use". -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Since the copyright of the videos at YouTube vary, we cannot host thumbnails here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Itayb 16:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please delete

Please delete Oxalys purpurea and the related picture. I can't spell! I have reuploaded with the correct spelling of oxalis. Thanks Andrew massyn 16:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC).

✓ Done by Bryan. --EugeneZelenko 14:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Public domain?

I've seen a couple of images either placed on commons originally or moved from wikipedia with templates claiming public domain due to having the federal government (of the US) as a source. However, the source for these images are actually state university websites. I'm fairly sure I'm correct about this, but I wanted to doublecheck: material from a United States state university (e.g. Cornell or University of Wisconsin) website is not public domain, correct? --Joelmills 13:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure, but if work was made with US government grant, results could be PD. In any case additional investigations required. --EugeneZelenko 14:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Some people have argued that that should be the case, but it isn't. Remember that PD-US applies strictly to work by government employees, which grant recipients are not. See en:Bayh-Dole Act for related info, where the government explicitly gave universities ownership of grant-funded inventions. --Davepape 16:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Account created message?

Where can I found the MediaWiki message that says that your account has been created? Yung6 23:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Welcomecreation. An index of all system messages is available at Special:Allmessages. (zelzany - framed) 00:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Start Shared Course Wiki

Hello. I teach a physics course similar to many other h.s. physics teachers. An electronic disucssion group topic has involved creating a website where approved users could submit/upload lab materials, ppt (or pdf) slides, & some password protected materials like test question banks etc...

Is it possible to create this as a wiki-commons ap physics page?

Thanks for your help. 02:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Paul Lulai

Wikimedia Commons is only for storing and organising media files. Try Wikiversity: or Wikibooks:. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

not sure how to put an apropriate tag

I uploaded Image:Milan-Kecic.jpg but have a notice saying that copyright status is unclear and that image will be deleted within 7 days. I have already used this image on pagečić so I am worried that it will be gone soon. Can someone pls tell me which tag is missing. I took this photo myself. many thanks

You took it yourself? What date? Where is the location? Why is it so low-resolution? You should upload files at the highest resolution you have available. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How to add a definition to Wikipedia

Hi! I am writting from Mexico, state of Veracruz. We have a discussion group about music of the south of the state, son jarocho. We have witten a definition for a word that is used locally, in spanish, it describes a way of playing the "sones". It would be interesting for us to make the definition available on the web, we thought of incorporating it to Wikipedia the encyclopedia. ¿What do we have to do?

Regards, Jessica Gottfried

Perhaps you want to incorporate it into the Spanish Wiktionary (wiki dictionary): You should read about their policies on made-up words, though. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes don't get marked

When I have a look at my watchlist and ervery page which changed should be marked. The problem is that those pages aren't tarked. Does anybody know an answer?
Thanks --D-Kuru 18:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what's happened either, but the change makes following watched pages really hard. I'm so used to seeing changed pages in bold that now I don't know what I've seen and what I haven't. What is this feature called anyway? I can't see anything in preferences. --Para 21:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Me too. It's not very useful. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image not showing on Geode page

I put a picture I took Image:Geodes in unusual rock formation.jpg on the Geode page and it is not displaying.[1] I think I did it right so there must be some other reason. Some of the other images on that page aren't showing either. I, Robot 23:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me...? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
You are editing the page using a browser. The browser can cache the page, so it doesn't have to repeat a download and thus may print an old page from the local cache- rather than the updated page. It saves a its cache so turning off and on doesn't help. Solution, clear the cache Tools>Options>Privacy>Private Data>Clear now on Firefox. Or, Run Firefox to edit but keep a copy of Opera on your desktop just to check pages. But Opera has a Cache too so remember to run Tools>Delete Private Data. ClemRutter 08:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither one. I use Safari. I, Robot 06:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Uploading public domain pictures on behalf of a third party

I have asked the copyright department of a commercial organisation to send me public domain pictures (of buildings and a person) for use in WP articles related to them. They are happy to send some and understand that the pictures in question will have to be in the public domain. Will I be able to upload pictures I receive from them and select an appropriate license, or will the pictures need to be uploaded by people in the organisation itself? I would like to upload the pictures for them, since they are busy, but I am not sure if and how I can release their pictures into the public domain on their behalf. Would appreciate advice. Jayen466 15:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Forward the email to with the commons link where you uploaded the pictures to and for info. look at Commons:OTRS.--THUGCHILDz 18:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Changing file format during transwiki process

I just wanted to check that what I have done with Image:Ronnie Irani.jpg and Image:Peter Such.jpg is correct. They were originally on en.wp, in the PNG format (en:Image:Rirani.PNG and en:Image:Psuch.PNG). Before uploading them here, I have converted them to the more appropriate JPEG format. I have noted this in the source section of the description. Is that OK? Ollie 00:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. The file size has reduced to about 10%! It looks like it's a scan, so the quality is still not great. But you copied all the info, and gave it a category and a useful name :) they're all the important things. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see any information about the author of the images or where he released them into the public domain...!? -- 01:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rotated image

Today, when I uploaded Image:Dean Edwards.jpeg, it showed up in a different orientation than it does when I look at it on my system. Anyone know how to fix it? Caution, it's frickin' huge. -Hit bull, win steak 01:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like user:MesserWoland has already rotated it. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

copy right of journal pictures

How can I get permission to use figures contained in a journal on medline, eg. chemical structure of compounds shown in Journal of Natural Products. 2003, 66, 922-927.

I think best solution will be to draw structure yourself, preferably in SVG format. You could ask help of more experienced users who created many similar images, for example User:Benjah-bmm27. --EugeneZelenko 14:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am having a lot of trouble finding the logo I created. Is there a way you can help? the preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 16:39, 7. Jun. 2007

You can find your uploaded files by clicking on my contributions in the top menue (you must be logged in with your user name.) --GeorgHH 21:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If it's been deleted, you'll only see it in the upload log as a red link... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification requested regarding a license

Template:PD-art-life-70 is the same as the default Template:PD-Art, right? Just checking before I (or someone else) redirects it. --Iamunknown 22:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. --Iamunknown 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It was redirected on 12. Jun. 2007 bei Lupo. --GeorgHH 11:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Rotated image

I just uploaded Image:Penstemon_clutei1.JPG and it came out rotated 90 degrees from how it looks in my camera and computer. Can I fix it myself? If not, can somebody do it, please?

When that happened, I tried rotating the image in my software (mere Adobe Preview), but the rotated version (Image:Penstemon_clutei2.jpg) uploaded in the same orientation the first version! I've tagged that one for speedy deletion.

Also, at full resolution both images have horizontal lines (that would be vertical if they were oriented right) on Wikipedia that I don't see on my software.

Does anyone know what to do about this? I hate to upload things and then find out they're messed up and I can't fix them. (If only uploading pictures had a preview!) If it makes a difference, I'm using a Pentax K10D, which automatically rotates pictures taken in vertical format. Conceivably that's the source of the problem. —JerryFriedman 02:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing in Safari

Hello. I seem to have trouble getting the page to save in Safari. That new in-you-face Copyright banner on the editing page stops before the edit summary box, yes, but if I click anywhere from there downward (including "Save Page"!) it takes me to Commons: Licensing. It also does this for the bottom half of the edit box--very annoying! I am going to use the keyboard shortcut to save the page (I entered an edit summary by using the tab key, since I can't click there either!) and see if it works…--HereToHelp (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please delete

Please rename Image:Aloe pillansii Giant quiver tree.jpg. It should actually be Aloe dichotoma. If you prefer to rename, thats fine too. Thanks Andrew massyn 21:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please use {{Rename}}. Thank you --Trixt 03:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

question regarding videos

I have a video which is a wmv file and is 90mb, I know it has to be in Theora and 20mb or lower but how do I compress it down to 20mb without splitting the video? Is there anyway I can just upload the video whilst it being that big, because it's a very good educational video which is all most at a professional level and I don't want to compromise the quality of the video.--THUGCHILDz 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have a large file that you think is more valuebable in hi resolution, you must ask somebody with shell access to upload the file for you. Try User:Eloquence. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there anyone else I could contact that could help me because Eloquence seems to be inactive since May.--THUGCHILDz 18:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
He's active with other stuff - try contacting him via email. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Another public domain question

I know not all images on US government webistes are PD, so I wanted to ask: if a photo on a page in a US gov website doesnt have a copyright notice, but it does have a photo credit, is it PD or not? The image I'm interested in is the first one at this page. It's credited to PISCO, which I assume is the Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans, not a government organization, found at this website. I was going to tag it with {{PD-USGov-DOC-NOAA}}, but now I'm not sure. Thanks. --Joelmills 03:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no experts have answered, I'd assume it's not PD, since PISCO is not a governmental organization (as you note). Very disappointing, I know. —JerryFriedman 16:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Software created images PD?

Image:Molniya.jpg and Image:Molniya3D.PNG were created with AGI [2] software. Are the images used in that software free for users to create their own images and release those in the PD? Garion96 13:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the software is something similar to Google Earth, correct? If all those images of the Earth are supplied with the software, then I don't think it's free unless the software is open source. In which case it won't be PD anyway.
An open source alternative to Google Earth is NASA's WorldWind program. Could it be used to generate these images too? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what I thought as well, I will tag the images for deletion. I have no idea if the other program can be used. I just found these and was wondering if they were free enough for Commons. Garion96 21:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

lines on picture, sandbox

Do others see horizontal lines on Image:Penstemon strictus plant1.JPG at full resolution? Does anyone know what causes this? I don't see them on my computer.

I would love it if Commons had a sandbox where you could upload media. Then I could upload files and see how they look. Right now I hesitate to upload anything, since it might come out flawed and need to be deleted, which I have to bother someone else to do. Also, I could experiment at solving this problem (though the only idea I have is to upload the picture at lower resolution). —JerryFriedman 16:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any horizontal lines...
You know you can upload new versions of all files, right? At the bottom of the image page, look for the link that says "Upload a new version of this file". pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any horizontal lines either now. Strange things are afoot.
Indeed I didn't realize I could upload a new version (though User:WJBscribe just told me that too, in answer to something in Talk). Thank you! Soon I'll upload some more files and write en:Penstemon_strictus. —JerryFriedman 00:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

T-Square fractal (evolution) -clean.png

I've just uploaded a cleaned-up version of Image:T-Square fractal (evolution).png under the name Image:T-Square fractal (evolution) -clean.png, in which I removed anti-aliasing. Could someone replace the original with the cleaned-up version? Urocyon 07:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done. --EugeneZelenko 14:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Rotation request

I give up. Could someone please rotate Image:Penstemon_strictus_flowers1.jpg? I tried different rotations of the file I was uploading, and I tried saving the Commons file to my computer and rotating that, with variations. Nothing worked. Sorry to be a bother. —JerryFriedman 01:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You're going to have to be a bit clearer about how you want it rotated... because it looks fine to me. (Sometimes when you upload a new version of an image, there is a "lag" in the new image showing on the page.)
BTW what photo editing software do you use? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Penstemon have vertical flower spikes :) I've uploaded a rotated version. Celithemis 02:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's much better.
I use Adobe Preview. Maybe I should put uploading on hold till I get better software. Although I'm thinking of one more experiment. The problem is that if it doesn't work, I'll have to ask someone to fix it for me again. —JerryFriedman 03:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Might as well try it. I don't mind rotating and reuploading. Celithemis 04:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
What is Adobe Preview? There is no info about it on the Adobe website: [3]
I use w:IrfanView (Windows) - it is a good light-weight image editor. Rotating images is as simple as pressing "L" (roate 90deg counter clockwise) or "R" (clockwise). It's good for rotating, cropping, resizing, converting formats. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, there are many websites now that function as image editors. see e.g. . --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Irfan View also has a function for lossless turning of images (it might need a plug-in, I am not sure), just press [Shift]+"J" --Matt314 12:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
My mistake: not "Adobe Preview" but Apple Preview (which also reads pdf files, hence my crossed neurons). It rotates images just as simply as the programs described above, and the results look fine on my screen and when I e-mail them—just not here. In fact, the image is still wrongly oriented as seen at [Category:Penstemon]! (This is a low-priority problem, as the image looks fine at en:Penstemon_strictus.)
There's obviously some incompatibility between my hardware, my software, and Wikimedia, and the software is the easiest one to change. The next thing I'll try will be that snipshot site, but Celithemis, I may still need to ask for help. Photoshop may be in my future. Thanks to all. —JerryFriedman 14:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Kashmere picture

The holder of the rights, the record company Stones Throw / Now Again has allowed me to use this image. Which kind of license type should I specify? Thanks.

It's depend on permission itself. Could you please post text here? --EugeneZelenko 14:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What licence to use for a British building?

I have a photo of a cinema in Britain that I'd like to upload to the Commons. It's under a cc-by-sa licence, so that in itself is no problem. However, I'm really not sure what upload page to use, or even if I can upload it here, given the whole area of copyright in buildings. From my non-specialist POV it looks as though British law gives less copyright on buildings (and statues, public art etc) than US law, so despite the warning on the upload page I think I'd still be okay. I would like some help on this, though, please. Loganberry (Talk) 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

See COM:FOP#United_Kingdom. Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, allows photographers to take pictures of buildings, [...] without breaching copyright. Such photographs may be published in any way. So the answer is yes, the images are allowed here. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll make a note of the COM:FOP#United_Kingdom page, since it might be useful to include a link to it with uploaded images. Loganberry (Talk) 21:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What Creative Commons Licenses are allowed here?

Hi, I'm new to images here, and I want to add an image here that is from Flickr. I found this image that says its under the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license. Is this acceptable to be uploaded here? I'm wanting to add it to English Wikipedia. If anyone can lend me a hand with the licenses, that will be awesome. RaNdOm26 17:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. The licenses allowed here are Creative Commons Attribution, Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike, all versions 1.0, 2.0, 2.1, 2.5. CC licenses 3.0 are currently not accepted. So the image from Flickr is allowed here. Please see [4] for more information. Consider using Flickr upload bot to ease uploads from Flickr. This experimental service will only upload images under a license allowed here. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I have just uploaded the image. Now, can you check if I have added in the correct details for the image, or otherwise, and let me know soon please? RaNdOm26 18:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Proper Handling of Page Images from Books on Commons


I have posted page-scans of various works on Wikimedia Commons, that eventually end up OCR-ed and put onto Wikisource. I just used previous uploads of this type as an example as to how to properly categorize such works. However, I want to organize several works by author, so that one link (gallery, category, or what have you) will display all that author's works. What is the best way to go about doing this? Are there any firm policies on Commons about the proper handling of page-images, etc? Thanks. —Wikijeff 19:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, have a look to Category:Books by author please, there is a short instruction. Commons:Categories has generaly information about categorizing. --GeorgHH 20:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Uploading a new version of an image

If I upload a new version will it delete the existing version? If so (the image is an improved version done by someone else in photoshop) should I just do so anyway, or should I upload it separately? I should know this by now but I've never had to upload over an existing image before. Richard001 01:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the old version is still available. To upload a new version of an image, you should use "Upload a new version of this file" under "File history" section on the description page. --Trixt 02:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain Images

There are images of the birthplace of Woody Guthrie here: I am not familiar enough with tags on Commons to sort this out and need help. Specifically, I want for the en.wikipedia article. Gaff 02:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded the image to Image:WoodyGuthrieBirthplace.jpg. I need help tagging it. thanks. Gaff 02:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that you should use:

  • {{PD-USGov-Interior-HABS}} - US National Park Service, Historic American Building Survey (via the Library of Congress)
  • {{HAER}} - US National Park Service, Historic American Engineering Record (via the Library of Congress)

--Trixt 02:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Permission contradiction

This Flickr image of Paige Davis is tagged with the CC-by license, but the caption says "Copyrighted Material. All Rights Reserved." Which one should we go by? --CrazyLegsKC 04:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Permission needed?

This Flickr image is tagged with the CC-by-sa-2.0 license, but the caption reads "To license this image, contact WireImage..." and gives the contact phone number for WireImage. Does that mean we have to get permission from them to use the image, or can we just use it in accordance with the by-sa license it's tagged with? --CrazyLegsKC 04:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Flickr user is probably not in a position to release the image under CC. Only recently an image from this user was delete from Commons for that reason. I'll send them a quick message later to attempt to clarify matters but I'd suggest not uploading the image. Adambro 07:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image previews

What's going on here? The preview isn't showing up, it doesn't show up on articles, but when you follow the link on the Image page, it shows up ([5]). I think I may have messed up the coding...but it was traced in Inkscape...? tiZom(2¢) 05:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You embedded a raster image. I have removed it, and it should show up now. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Images do not show up

I have uploaded 4 images. Three of them show a questionmark when I load the page. These are, and
When you click on the ? you can download the full image. The thumnails are visible on
I have tried to edit a page without success to get the image visible. What should I do to solve the problem? Thanks. --Wouter 19:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I purged the images, and they show up now, at least here. Nice images, btw. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response. As the thumbnails at the individual pages did not show up I tried also the "At the end of the URL (address) add the text ?action=purge". This resulted in that a thumbnail became visible, but that the main image disappeared. How to solve that? Thanks --Wouter 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Seems like serious problems then... It usually means that the servers are too busy. Trying again later usually helps. What you also can do, is regenerate the thumbnail per resolution. This way only a not-apperearing thumbnail will be generated.<filename-without-Image:-prefix>&w=<thumbnail-width> -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I wish someone would write a script that put those thumb and purge URLs in links under the toolbox. That would be super handy. Especially the thumb one. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

downloading photos

I am very new to computers and am building my first web site please can someone tell me how to download photos to be used on the website. thanks regards David.

Please ask on w:Wikipedia:Reference desk. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

game screenshot elements

Hello, i want to describe a game on wikipedia. I know that I can not put a full screenshot, but I want to describe the powerups, monsters also. May I use small screenshots of this powerups/monsters graphics ? If yes, under what licence ? Thanks

The size of the screenshot is irrelevant to Commons. If the game is released under an open source license such as GPL or BSD, then you can upload screenshots to Commons. If not, then you can't. You may be able to upload screenshots at the English Wikipedia under the fair use guidelines regardless, but you'll need to talk to people there about that. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is a Postcard Copyrighted?

Hello, I would like to scan an image of an old postcard that is dated from the early 20th century (I do not have an exact date). The postcard depicts a bridge crossing the Delaware River. Is it acceptable to scan the image and release it under a GFDL license? Sunweb52 00:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't, but you can upload the image. If the postcard is in the public domain because its copyright has expired (death of the author plus 70 years), a merely reproduction is in the public domain with the same license (in this case, {{PD-Old}}). --Trixt 00:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Or, in this specific case, if you don't know the author, but the postcard was published in the US before 1923, it can be {{PD-Art|PD-US}}. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Another rotated image.

This one did the same thing when I uploaded it: Image:Kim Gordon.jpg. How do I fix it? -Hit bull, win steak 12:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

For future uploads, consider using Flickr upload bot. This service will generally automatically rotate images on upload. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
That's generally not a bad idea, but since I had to crop this particular image, the bot wouldn't have been an option. -Hit bull, win steak 20:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Usuario:Dark Power/monobook.js

Hi, can someone change the name of this page Usuario:Dark Power/monobook.js to User:... as it is incorrectly named. Thanks. Deadstar 15:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Deadstar 07:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Making a guild page on wiki...wanting to put our cape pic on it...dont know what lisence

we have a pic of our cape on our website at

im not sure how to get it on the site for our guild on wiki...or what lisence is is a screen shot taken from the game and cut to remove anything but said cape...with a black backround.

Screenshots from games are almost always unfree, and not allowed here. Furthermore, I doubt whether it would fall within the scope of any Wikimedia project to host your guild website, so those images probably don't belong here. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Library and Archives Canada clarification

I've uploaded a few images from Library and Archives Canada's website. They fall under Public Domain in Canada, and have (as an overall collection) the following conditions:

  1. Library and Archives Canada is identified as the source;
  2. You exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the material reproduced;
  3. You do not manipulate and/or modify the material reproduced; and
  4. The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the material reproduced or as having been made in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of, Library and Archives Canada.

I'm confused about the third condition and its compatibility with Commons. Additionally, all of the images have "Copyright: Expired" and "Restrictions on use: Nil" on them. An example image would be Image:Eva Ault.jpg. Could someone clarify the appropriateness of uploading these to Commons?--Wafulz 15:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Thalidomide-structures.png Image:Thalidomide-structures-1.png

Hi, please move Image:Thalidomide-structures-1.png to Image:Thalidomide-structures.png. The 3D-model does not match with the line-drawing of the structure. My version corrects this mistake. Alternatively, I could change the article(s) to use the new image and the old one could be deleted. Please suggest a good way to introduce the correction or move the image as suggested by me. (PS. I asked User:orci for "proofreading" of the structure, as this is very obviously an error-prone task) Iridos 22:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done. --EugeneZelenko 15:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Thx Iridos 15:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please also delete Image:Thalidomide-enantiomers.png. This image has the same content (is redundant to the one above), but shows the same enantiomer twice incorrectly calling them R and S. Iridos 22:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this image could be useful too. --EugeneZelenko 15:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
ok I take my last comment back - it is not incorrect, as I had assumed and could therefore still be useful. Iridos 20:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Categories, categories, categories...

Howdy folks, I'm very new to commons and have a category question. I'm planning to upload small jpeg's of various common nouns in Khmer script for use in enWikipedia (and hopefully others) I'm also fulfilling a few requests for Khmer script jpegs on EnWP. However, my main project is to capture and jpeg the names of all 24 provinces and 183 districts in Cambodia (and write the articles where needed). I think these should all be categorised in - category:Khmer script - or something similar, under the main language category. I'm loathe to create categories willy nilly without knowing if this is appropriate or would screw up the current categorisation scheme.

Can some kind person suggest a logical categorisation scheme (that fits into the existing scheme) for images like this, and tell me how to go about it? Thanks in advance. Paxse 06:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure .jpg is the best format for scripts? I'm no expert but I would think .png would be preferred. Richard001 08:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and the tip. Any idea about categories? Paxse 11:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, put them in Category:Khmer script. Maybe it would be useful to make a gallery page to put them on too? See e.g. Pronunciation of Dutch municipality names. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

One final PD question

I'm 99.9 percent sure that this time I found something that is in the public domain, but I want to doublecheck. The United States Geological Survey operates the National Wildlife Health Center, which publishes several fact sheets and pamphlets, and also the Field Manual of Wildlife Disease — General Field Procedures and Diseases of Birds, which is a wealth of photos of diseases in birds. There is usually a photo credit, but it is to the same two or three people consistently, and from doing a google search I know for absolute certainty that at least one of them is an employee of the USGS. Normally I wouldn't even ask, but I'm likely to use a lot of these photos over at wikipedia, and I want to be sure. Thanks. I'm going to post this at wikipedia to be doubly sure. --Joelmills 00:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Anything from the USGS is PD. (zelzany - framed) 20:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I feel more confident about its PD status after browsing a few chapters and seeing that some of the images say "Reprinted with permission from...". Those images are clearly not PD, which makes me more sure that the others are. --Joelmills 02:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

updating an SVG file

Hello. I cannot update the file Image:Phaser.SVG. I uploaded the new version here. Can anybody help? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scoofy (talk • contribs) at 19:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your account is too new. (zelzany - framed) 20:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You can either wait 4 days, and then you can upload the new version, or else upload it here under another name and make your request here again. Uploadingit here is useful because then we can see the license declaration etc... as opposed to some random website. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

US Army Corps of Engineers image info change.

The image Image:1997 Red River Flood Grand Forks.jpg is named incorrectly as the caption on the USACE page was incorrect as well. I have contacted the USACE about the issue and they recently confirmed that the caption is wrong and that the image is actually of the 1979 Red River Flood of Grand Forks (a copy of that e-mail is on the image's talk page). Can the image be moved/renamed? -JWGreen 05:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just re-upload image under new name and place {{bad name}} on old one. --EugeneZelenko 14:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Updated image of the pizza Margherita

Image:Eq it-na pizza-margherita sep2005 sml.jpg I've uploaded a higher resolution version of a picture I've uploaded in the past on the English Wikipedia, but my account is too new to update an image here in Wikipedia commons. Please replace Image:Eq it-na pizza-margherita sep2005 sml.jpg with Image:Eq it-na pizza-margherita sep2005 sml update.jpg --ElfQrin 09:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Which license?

When more than one PD license is applicable, which one should be used? For instance, I just uploaded Image:Blind monks examining an elephant.jpg. It would seem to be covered by {{PD-old}}, {{PD-art}}, {{PD-Japan}}, etc. Is there some kind of order of preference as to which is the best? -Hit bull, win steak 16:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

PD-old seems to be the most widely applicable, so I would use that if possible. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
{{PD-art}} seems to me to be the most appropriate template in this case, as this is a photograph of a picture whose copyright has expired. {{PD-old}} could only be used, if the photograph of the picture itself was old enough, so that the copyright on that photograph was expired (which is probably not the case). {{PD-Japan}} explicitely states: Note: This template cannot be used for photographs or film. - if this includes photographs of pictures is unclear.
How old the photograph is, actually does not matter because it was a) probably (?) made by someone employed within the government in the US and b) Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional original works cannot attract copyright in the U.S.[...] as stated in {{PD-art}}. There might be issues using this image in countries where this rule does not apply, which is another good reason to use {{PD-art}} Iridos 20:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Local sign

I have uploaded a cropped picture of a Swedish non-artistic local sign indicating the relative positions of three runic inscriptions Image:Hags bro, display.jpg, for use here. To the best of my knowledge this is legitimate, but I just want to make sure that there are no copyright objections here.--Berig 19:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The copyright of the picture should belong to the copyright of the sign. So you need to do some research and find out who wrote the signs and what they consider the copyright status to be. Sorry. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are about 2500 different signs like that spread out in the bush. Moreover, there is no copyright tag on it, nor information about any individual artist. I guess it is a matter of whether anyone actually cares, more than the casual reader who is helped out by it, or if anyone has a fit of copyright paranoia.--Berig 10:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would email the organisation that is in charge of maintaining the park. The signs were obviously put there by some group. I am not going to do anything about it, but don't be surprised if someone else nominates the image for deletion, as it stands. We strive to provide only content that we KNOW to be free, not just content that we HOPE is free. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I have already e-mailed the Swedish National Heritage Board about it. It's a government agency, and hopefully they have enough common sense to allow it.--Berig 13:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

World66 (a travel website) uses a creative commons licence. Can this image be copied across to commons (or wikipedia)? If so is there a template to do this like there is for Geograph images? Bobbacon 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. {{cc-by-sa-1.0}} -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Even better - {{cc-world66}}. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Public domain because of non-renewal of copyright

I have some images I downloaded which are in the public domain because the copyright was not renewed when it came up for renewal. I did the search to verify that. It would be helpful if the "Licensing" dropdown box on the upload form had an entry for this. Right now it has a bunch of "public domain" cases but not that one. I ended up stating it in the text of the Permission field, but that's more confusing. Paul Koning 21:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The dropdown box only lists the most common templates, not all of them. PD-not-renewed is a relatively rare case and it's worth taking the time to explain what's happened, rather than risk deletion in the future because of lack of information, IMO. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Add the license tag {{PD-US-not renewed}} manually on the image description page. Also document your research: where and how did you look for renewals? If you got e-mails, forward the e-mail conversation(s) to permission-commons AT wikimedia DOT org, indicating to which uploaded images they apply. Finally, note that non-renewal applies only to U.S. works, not to works from other countries, and is a valid PD reason only within the U.S. (But I see that the Linotype diagrams are U.S. works.) Lupo 09:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks gentlepeople. I found the PD-US-not renewed tag after some searching. It's on there now, and of course the text in the "permission" field of the description has the same info. The reason "this isn't a common case" makes sense to me. Paul Koning 21:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing the default html editor tool bar


I have added Tiny mce code to MonoBook.php head section....and I need to remove the existing tool bar...where is the place to comment that? the preceding unsigned comment is by (talk • contribs)

I don't think this is the correct place to ask such a question, however there is a preference that users can set (though this will, obviously, be on a per-user basis, rather than for everyone). There may be a better answer, however you are more likely to get a full and accurate response from (the MediaWiki website) or the MediaWiki mailing list. UberHalogen 19:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please delete or rename

I took a picture of this Image:U 644, Ekilla.JPG believing that it was runestone U 644, but double checking I discovered that it was U 641. Could someone please delete Image:U 644, Ekilla.JPG or rename it "U 641, Brunnsta bro"?--Berig 20:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just re-upload image under new name and place {{bad name}} on old one. --EugeneZelenko 14:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!--Berig 15:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Advice on restricted PD image

Hi all. I found a neat engraving on RocWiki of an event called the "Rochester Mirage", a fata morgana which occurred in 1871. It's from the May 13, 1871 edition of Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, and due to its age, its in the public domain.

However, you might notice the message on the right, which reads "Commercial use or publication is strictly prohibited without permission. Please do not transfer to any third party. Where written permission has been granted, please credit 'Department of Rare Books & Special Collections, University of Rochester Library.'" As I understand it, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. applies in this situation, and University of Rochester really has no legal ownership over the image and can only control the image by restricting access to it.

I have contacted the person who put it on RocWiki, and he stated that he paid the library to be able to use the image. I also contacted the library, and they said that they would not want a high resolution version available online, but would permit a smaller watermarked version on Wikipedia. They also said that the watermark helps lead researchers to their materials.

Now, since I don't believe the gains outweigh the risks (getting some library mad at me), I probably won't upload the image. I was just curious what others think of this, and whether or not they would ignore the library's so-called usage restrictions. ~MDD4696 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I would. It's a clear case of copyfraud. They have no copyright whatsoever on something published in a U.S. newspaper in 1871. It's a 100% clear PD case. I would, however, out of courtesy, credit them on the image page. I would upload it. (Besides, 818×614px is hardly "high resolution".) Lupo 19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Have fun: Image:Rochester Mirage.jpg. Please add the categories of your choice. --Polarlys 23:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

SVG image not displaying correctly

I was looking around and I found this image Image:SerbianGFflag.svg which wasn't displaying. Neither the thumbnail nor the image will display in my browser. Not sure where to tell people about this so I post here. UberHalogen 06:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this SVG is just a container for w:Image:SerbianGFflag.jpg and embedding a raster image in a vector container doesn't make a vector image. But worst, the JPEG image is even not included. — Xavier, 10:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tianjin metro map.jpg

Are these sorts of images allowed? It looks like a deriviative work. UberHalogen 09:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right. See nomination for deletion. --EugeneZelenko 14:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


i was wondering how any of my photos i upload may have a chance for the picture of the day? i have to do something special or does it just get nominated or what?...please let me know

At the moment, the requirement is that it should become a Featured Picture. Please see Featured picture candidates for info on how to achieve that. (It's not easy!) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Or Commons:Quality images. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Our images keep getting deleted, help!

We are new to wikipedia and we seem to be slightly lost and frustrated so we'd like to ask for your help please.

We have uploaded the following images of our dance school and they got all deleted, despite our comments, explanations an requests for help:

‎ Image:Equipa (Discussão) 
‎ Image:Equipa Latin Quarter 5 02.jpg (Discussão )
‎ Image:Festa de verao lq-2007.gif (Discussão) 
‎ Image:Festa participantes.gif (Discussão)
‎Image:Festas praia.gif (Discussão)
‎Image:Historico ( Discussão)
‎ Image:Historico Latin Quarter.jpg (Discussão )

The images are ours (we created them, we appear in them) and we set the IPRs as public (chosen from the combo box available)

Why are the images being deleted repeatedly? Why doesn't anyone answer our requests? (should we not be posting on the Discussion of the image?)

Furthermore, we have two more questions which I am not sure if you are the apropriate person to ask, but here it goes as you probably know the answers anyway: - Can we create wikipedia content referring to images from our site? - The main reason is that we don't mind cc licensing but for some (and only for some)images we would like to have them used freely yet be maintained as they are (No Derivative). Is there a way to do that?

Please help us because we are about to loose our enthusiasm for this great project.

Thanks in advance, Best regards, Aristotelis.

You claimed that these images licensed under free licenses, claims otherwise (© Latin Quarter - Portugal 2006). If you are owner of that site, please change terms and conditions there. --EugeneZelenko 14:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, we are starting to understand now.
  • Can't we keep the license of our site as it is (as it refers to much more content)? I mean can't we decide which images we release with the public or cc license through the wikipedia (although the same/similar image obtained through our site would have different licensing).
  • Do ALL images in wikipedia HAVE to be public? I mean take for example logo of IBM (IBM_logo.png)...
  • Can't we reference (link) images that are in our site?

Thanks in advance. -- Aristotelis 16:07, 22 June 2007 (GMT)

If you wish to free licence certain images on your site but not the whole site, you certainly may do so. Captions under individual images listing them as licenced under cc-2-by (or whatever free licence you prefer) may help keep the situation clear. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Infrogmation. We are interested in licensing some images under cc-2-by in wikipedia and not our site. Can we not do so? (We certainly have the right to do so as they are our images... is it not?). -- Aristotelis 11:35, 24 June 2007 (GMT)
Hi Aristotelis, I had a look at your deleted images. I am concerned that they are not appropriate for Wikimedia Commons. How do you intend to use them in Wikipedia, for example? They look rather like advertisements for your website, which are not allowed here. We only want files that are useful for projects such as Wikipedia. So what is the purpose of your files? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi pfctdayelise. The images are going to be used in wikipedia to describe the Latin Quarter, an entity related to dance, teaching and the creation of communities sharing experiences, promoting culture, positive spirit, health, community actions and fun. Its presence in wikipedia was requested by many many students and members of the various communities and is definitely not an advertisement. We seem to be lost and we cannot get our above questions answered... are we asking in the wrong place? who should we talk to? Thanks. -- Aristotelis 11:11, 24 June 2007 (GMT)
Replied on user's talk page. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


I uploaded this image, with a summary of it, and included the licensing that it clearly states on its Flickr page. How do I get the tag in the "licensing" section to make it say that I have reviewed it?

You can't review it. Somebody else has to come along and do the reviewing to make sure the license is valid. (zelzany - framed) 20:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I looked on its Flickr page and the given license is valid. So what I'm asking is: How do I make it say that the license is valid?
Update. I need to know how to the same on Image:Cakes.jpg. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Personalguy (talk • contribs) at 19:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You cannot do the reviewing. A trusted user or admin can review. You must wait for that to happen. (zelzany - framed) 20:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
If that is so, then how come I have done so by looking on the Flickr page and seeing that the license on the images are valid? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Personalguy (talk • contribs) at 19:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Because you wanted to. And please sign your comments! (zelzany - framed) 20:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean "because I want to"? Personalguy 20:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
(sigh) Please read COM:F to learn about how flickr images are reviewed. You cannot review them. (zelzany - framed) 20:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Personalguy, we have a system that only known trusted users at Commons can "review" Flickr licenses. This is to stop people who don't understand about copyright falsely reviewing images. Hope this helps --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

upload question.

So I have modified a photograph that was released as creative commons:

You are free:
  • to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to Remix — to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • 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).

What license do I use to upload to Wikimedia commons? --Knulclunk 06:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like the work is released under the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY). It would be useful to know which version of the license. Is the source available on the web that we can look at? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright renewal regarding ComiColor Cartoons

Hi. I came across w:Image:Whittingtonscat.jpg in a maintenance category at the English-language Wikipedia. It is tagged as being in the public domain with w:Template:PD-US, which is clearly wrong since the image was not published pre-1923. I know that these film clips were published with a copyright notice, as one can see by closely examining the bottom of w:Image:Comicolor-title.jpg. Is it possible, however, to determine that the copyrights to these images were not renewed? Then they would be out of copyright, as described by Hirtle. I don't know how to check copyright renewals; any suggestions? Thanks, Iamunknown 20:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Statue in public space (The Netherlands)

I have taken a photograph of a statue, permanently placed in a public space in The Netherlands. Can this be uploaded here? JeroenHoek 12:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is allowed here on Commons under the so called Freedom of Panorama: Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 6°, [...] dat is gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst, wordt niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging of openbaarmaking van afbeeldingen van het werk zoals het zich aldaar bevindt. Here explicitly refers to sculptures. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you. JeroenHoek 12:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How to put a picture in Wikipedia

I wanted to put an picture of Anita O'Day on the Dutch Wikipedia and I was directed to Wikimedia, where I uploaded the picture. Now I don't know how to put that picture on Wikipedia. On onli a link is put at that page but no picture. Can you help me?the preceding unsigned comment is by Artinas (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC+2)

See this edit. But you will have to provide information about the source and copyright status. See Template:Image source/nl. --Kjetil r 15:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

'Royalty-free' photos from HRR

The following page from the Henley Royal Regatta website lists the photos as 'royalty-free':

It does however mention that 'Copyright remains with and should be acknowledged.' So does this mean that files can be uploaded to commons/wikipedia from here? If so what kind of licensing should be used?--Karl Hudspith 09:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they cannot. They're only "free of charge", but not freely licensed. You could only upload them if you contacted them by e-mail, and got them to agree to license their images as {{CC-BY}} (or maybe {{CC-BY-SA}}, or another suitable free license). If so, you could then forward their permission e-mail to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org, clearly stating which images it applied to. Note that a "Wikipedia-only", or "non-commercial purposes only", or "no modification allowed" permission is not good enough. Lupo 10:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

landscapes and churches

hello everybody, i need to upload 3 pics of geographical interest, but i have no idea of which licence to use. these are pictures i found on public sites, that i personally reduced in order not to accidentally violate their copyright (even if not signaled). which tag should i use? thanks. francesca.

Copied from the web, eh? Don't upload them. They're copyright violations even if you scaled them down. Things are copyrighted by default, a © notice is not necessary. Unless someone clearly and unambiguously states that his or her photos were freely licensed, they're not free. Lupo 12:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please delete

Please delete three photos:

  • Image:Fächergewölbe KingsCollege.jpg
  • Image:Cambridge Kings College Gewölbe.jpg
  • Image:CanterburyCathedrale.JPG

Agnete 18:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? I don't see anything wrong with these images. Lupo 21:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I don`t know if I have the right licence. It was allowed to take pictures in the churches but only for private use. I`m not sure, is Wikipedia "private use"? -- Agnete 08:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a common kind of restriction - for example, sporting venues do this.
Our attitude so far is that in releasing the photos under a free license, the author may be breaking the agreement/contract with the venue, but Wikimedia Commons is not breaking the law.
If you want to have the images deleted to respect the contract, I think that should be fine, but if you're happy to break the contract, we're happy too. :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi I need help choosing the right license...

Hi I need help choosing the right license... I have found some great photos on, so because I liked them so much I've asked the author if he can allow me to publish some of his photos (only) on He said ok and he is willing to give me some low-res photos (800x600px) to upload and use them on projects. The problem is that he wants to write as license "All rights reserved", (of course with Author: his flickr account name) So I have his given consent to upload/use them on wikipedia but, how should I upload them, what license? Mastermindsro 17:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" only licenses are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons, and other Wikipedia projects that do not allow some kind of fair use. Please note that for an image to be allowed here, the image must be able to be used by anybody for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative work. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Replacement of Image

Please consider updating image: with corrected one at The correction involves the placement of Adélie Land in Antartica, based upon Image:Antarctica territorial claims.png by User:Astrokey44, which has been removed by User:Aldeby since many nations claim Antartica but it is not on their maps. Also, claimed territory is not territory as stated by User:Zulu,_King_Of_The_Dwarf_People. Antartica has been declared internationalised by the Washington Treaty signed dec 1st, 1959 in whose article 4 is stated that signing countries (among whome there was France) "do not recognize, dispute, or establish territorial sovereignty claims and no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force". This treaty officially entered into force on June 23, 1961. Later, the United Nations with General Assembly resolution 40/156 of jan 21, 1986 declared Antartica a world heritage site. Thank you

I tried to replace Image:St Patrick's saltire.svg with Image:St Patrick's saltire2.svg but I currently have insufficient priviledges. I have given reason for the replacement in the new file. Could somebody please take a look and replace the first with the second? Many thanks. --Gisbwoy 19:49, 26 Jun 2007 (UTC)

Correction - please considering replacing the file with Image:St Patrick's saltire3.svg, which I have just uploaded. The version I uploaded earlier had a transparent white colour that needs to be filled white in many of the pages its used in --Gisbwoy 22:14, 26 Jun 2007 (UTC)

Need Help Splitting Djvu file


I have a large (slightly less than 60MB) Djvu file that I'd like to upload to Commons. It's the scanned text of the JPS 1917 Bible and is therefore in Public Domain. The file size limit is preventing me from uploading it to Commons. I can't seem to find a utility for splitting the file into smaller chunks. I have access to both Linux and Windows PC's. If someone could help me, by pointing me in the direction of the proper tool to split Djvu files, or offering to do it for me, I'd appreciate it. I'm uploading the file to Commons for the benefit of Wikisource, so that a known good copy from which transcription to that wiki can take place can be used. Thanks. —Wikijeff 17:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. It might be worth asking this question at Wikisource, since I imagine someone there has already dealt with it. I don't know of any "DjVU experts" on Commons unfortunately.
If you can't find any answer, we can try and arrange to have the entire file uploaded via a developer, but that's the less-preferred option. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I think Gmaxwell knows quite a bit about DjVu. Unfortunately, he seems to have left. Lupo 08:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of free and easy GUI programs to do it, but the command line DjVuLibre tools work fine. The command "djvmcvt -i document.djvu . index.djvu" extracts each page into a separate file, and the command "djvm -c document_part1.djvu page0001.djvu page0002.djvu page0003.djvu" combines files. There is no re-encoding of the images, so no loss of quality. A win32 version is available here. --Para 09:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
For those using Debian/Ubuntu GNU Linux, this command line tool is included in the djvulibre-bin package. — Xavier, 10:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How do I resize an image?



I would like to put this image on a page of it.wikibooks. But it is too big! How can I give it the size I wish? Thanks for your help Fracqua 08:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is now placed on the right, and will be 400 pixels in size, thumb means that it can be expanded, notice the caption


[[Image:Perpendicular-coloured.svg|thumb|400px|right|This is now placed on the right, and will be 400 pixels in size, thumb means that it can be expanded, notice the caption]]. Here is the tag that goes in Wikibooks

Is this what you want? ClemRutter 08:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, thanks a lot. Fracqua 07:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Cookie log in problems

I can't log into Commons. It says I have cookies disabled and must enable them, but they are enabled. I've also checked that my antivirus program isn't set to block cookies for the site, which it isn't? Why do Commons keep giving me this message? I run firefox. I've also tried explorer but I still get the same message. 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What about your firewall? Also firewalls sometimes block cookies... -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How to add licensing tag?

I accidentally uploaded Image:Rocket lauchers.jpg on 27 June, before I'd entered description, source, author, etc., or entered a Free Art Work Copyleft tag. I immediately tried to fix my mistake, but all I can do is up-date the description, etc. It is still tagged for not have sufficient information on its copyright status. What do I do? Wait for it to be deleted and add it back write? Pawyilee 06:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just click edit on Image:Rocket_lauchers.jpg and replace {{no license}} with license tag ({{self|FAL}} in your case). --EugeneZelenko 14:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

request image replacement

I would like to replace the the image here: Image:John_William_Waterhouse_-_Magic_Circle.JPG with this one I just uploaded: Image:Waterhouse_the_magic_circle.jpg. The reason being that the current version, although of a higher resolution, seems fuzzy and indistinct (looks like someone put it through a photoshop filter). The image I uploaded shows the original painting much more accurately. --Krsont 12:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows Massacre map from 1909 book

There is a book that has been scanned on Google and can be viewed:

My library owns a copy of the book and I scanned two maps from the book today. I have edited the images to exclude the text and want to include at least one in the article on Mountain Meadows massacre. On the Google page it is the illustration marked page 20.

Josiah Gibbs, the author has been dead in excess of seventy years, as he was born in 1845. The publisher is the Salt Lake Tribune Publishing Company. The OCLC record is

May I upload this to the Commons, and what license should I use. I am hesitant to do this without permission, as I have had a bit of trouble lately with violations of copyright. On my talk page, User:MECU suggested I get permission first, so "the image licensing and source need to be correct from the get go." Your new upload page does not have a pick item for Public Domain specifically.

Thanks in advance. --Robbie Love Giles 23:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Robbie, it's good that you're getting advice :)
Since this book was published in 1909, it is at least OK as {{PD-US}}, if not {{PD-old}} (do you know the date of the author's death?). So on the upload form, choose "from somewhere else" (Special:Upload). On that form, for the license selector, you will find an option "first published in the US before 1923 - public domain", which is what {{PD-US}} is for. (I'm assuming this book was FIRST published in the US, right?)
It's also worth checking: does the book mention anyone else as the author of the illustrations, or are they definitely by the book's author? (Either way, I think it's fine, but it's nice to get the author details correct.)
When you upload the file, make sure you mention the details about the book as the source.
If you like, after you've uploaded the file, tell us what name you gave the file, and we can have a look and see how it's going.
cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Josiah Francis Gibbs was born 1845-08-26 and died 1932-08-05. He came to Utah in 1857. The book is {{PD-old}}. See also [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. Good point about the illustrators, though. Lupo 08:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Image name is Mountain-meadows-ut-us-map.png Let me know if the licensing looks OK. Can you tell if the file is corrupted, or what the thumbnail problem is? --Robbie Love Giles 01:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The licensing info looks great, thanks Robbie!
The thumbnail problem is because the file is a very large PNG. I marked it for cleanup, so hopefully soon someone will run it through an optimiser program and reduce the file size. Then it should be fine. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Rule of thumb - what is a good max size to avoid problems? I looked, but didn't see, even though it was probably spelled out in letters a foot high. --Robbie Love Giles 12:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I've just got confirmation of what AnonMoos wrote here: the limit is not a matter of file size on the disk, but a matter of the number of pixels (12 megapixels). I cleaned up the image without changing its dimensions and its file size dropped to 500 kB but the thumbnail was still not generated. Then I cropped the image, its the number of pixels dropped below 12 Mpx and only then the thumbnail was generated (after a fair amount of time). Does someone know where this policy about the 12 Mpx limit has been discussed and voted ? — Xavier, 15:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not a policy, but a technical consequence of the tool that does the thumbnail producing, which is ImageMagick I believe. If it takes too long, MediaWiki assumes there was some error.
If you can suggest some nifty options for ImageMagick to use to speed it up, the developers might be convinced to include them. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
also thanks for your help, Xavier :) pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical question about licensing

I have a hypothetical question (although not an idle one). Suppose someone takes an interest in an image I've uploaded here, double licensed under GFDL and cc-by-sa. They know they can use the image for commercial purposes, but would prefer to have one for which they own the copyright. Now it so happens I have a similar image of the same subject still on my computer, but taken from a different angle. It would be fairly obvious to the casual observer that it was of the same thing. Would it be OK to sell or otherwise license this image to someone? Please note that a photo of this object may be hard to come by, which is why they are interested. If it's OK, how different does the image need to be? The change in angle may be subtle. --Joelmills 04:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You are fully allowed to relicense an image you create under whatever you please (so selling the copyright to them would be possible). However you cannot revoke any license you grant - therefore anybody would still be able to use your images under the GFDL and cc-by-sa.
Strictly speaking, you cant't revoke GFDL, CC or similar licenses. But other licenses may be revokable or limited in time. You CAN revoke license if it allows to do that. Both GFDL and Creative Commons licenses are non exclusive. You may grant other licenses for the same work as well. A.J. 15:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the responses, although I was referring to a similar image, not the same image. However, I think you still answered my question, which is that it would not be a problem. Thanks. --Joelmills 01:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright question

I usually know what I'm talking about with copyright questions, but I'm stumped with this one.

Image:Teraotegata.jpg is a photo of a tegata. A tegata is a piece of memorabilia associated with Sumo that consists of a wrestler's handprint, along with the wrestler's name written in calligraphic style by the wrestler himself. Does the fact that the writing is calligraphy add sufficient creative expression to make this copyrightable?

Along similar lines, there are Image:457px-Banzuke.jpg and Image:Banzuke2.jpg. These are banzuke, printed copies of the official ranking list of sumo wrestlers that's released about 2 weeks prior to a grand tournament. The original is written out by hand in a traditional calligraphy style. These are not antiques: To judge from the rankings I looked up, the first one is from September, 1998 and the second from May, 1993. Or thereabouts. In this case we're looking at what would be a simple tabular list of ranks, and therefore probably not eligible for copyright -- except that it's done in calligraphy. Again, does that change anything?

I think they're tagged incorrectly either way. In the case of the tegata, it's tagged {{GFDL}}. If the tegata is copyrighted then the editor who photographed it isn't able to release it under that license, but if it's PD then a simple photo of it is PD too; probably {{PD-ineligible}}. The banzuke are both tagged {{PD-self}}. The same argument applies: they're either {{PD-ineligible}} or non-free. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

See en:WP:PD#Fonts: "According to section 503.02(a) of the Compendium II, typography and calligraphy are not copyrightable in themselves in the U.S." I don't know what the situation is in other countries, and in Japan in particular. The UK, for instance, has a 25-year copyright on typographic arrangement of a text, but I don't know whether that would apply to hand-written calligraphy, or whether calligraphy would be considered a "visual art", making calligraphic writings "works". Lupo 10:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Using GFDL images on Commercial Web Pages


I'm writing a web page for a commercial copyrighted site. If I use a GFDL image on that page from wikimedia, is it just the image that is GFDL or does the web page containing it also have to become GFDL? I'm a bit confused because of the situation with GPL software where use of GPL makes the other parts of the software also GPL. If I state the image is GFDL, link to the license and credit the author is that sufficient?

Thank You --ksfan 16:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That depends on whether or not the website could be considered an aggegration per section 7 of the GFDL. In case it is not an aggegration, and the website can be considered a derivative work of the image, you must license your website under the terms of the GFDL, or you are committing copyright infringement. See the official text. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure section 7 really clearly explains what an "aggregate" is. The image would just be used to adorn the page as an illustration of the associated text. I guess a web page could be considered an aggregate because it is a run-time amalgamation of separable components, the image isn't permanently embedded as such. I'm not sure if this section isn't really referring to situations like image archives though such as wikimedia which ocntain variously licensed images. Hmmm, I think I'll steer clear of GFDL as it's all a bit ambiguous. Thank you for your reply. --ksfan 17:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Or you could ask the author to grant you permission to use the image under other conditions... -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictures from

A number of pictures from have been uploaded by User:Airwolf, e.g. Image:CapelloMadrid.JPG. They are tagged as "Copyrighted free use provided that the website is stated as the source of the image" but all I can see is "© 2000-07". Can someone who understands Polish confirm that these pictures are offered under those terms. William Avery 20:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I have just noticed that it says on his user page that he is uploading those as a member of staff. William Avery 20:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)