Commons:Help desk/Archive/2011/02

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Image needs to be moved

I need somebody to move File:Nintendo_3DS.png to File:Nintendo 3DS Blue.png since my account is too new to upload a new version. The file I uploaded is directly from the Nintendo of America press site. This makes it a much higher resolution and a better image angle. --Birdman5589 (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For one, we don't overwrite existing files. A picture in use shouldn't suddenly change in looks. Secondly, you may not upload directly from the Nintendo press site; it's not freely licensed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Nintendo puts the image on their site to be downloaded and reused by journalist and bloggers wouldn't it be licensed for use on here too? I'm pry wrong but I just figured it would be licensed since it is distributed to be downloaded an reused. --Birdman5589 (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because they are for journalist and bloggers, not for general use. We need a licence that permits many other kinds of usage. --LPfi (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dont know where exactly you toke it from but the terms in, #1
  • non-promotional, non-commercial and/or editorial purposes
  • reproduction without any alteration
Are the opposite of Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms ( 1) any purpose including commercial 2) modifications allowed). Deleted, such press images are not free. And the source does not mention the {{Cc-by-3.0}} license selected at File:Nintendo 3DS.png anywhere. --Martin H. (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These images will also be easy to replace with photos of the 3DS taken at trade shows, etc., especially after it hits the shelves. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found on the English Wikipedia a very handy feature called (see Architecture of cathedrals, basilicas and abbey churches), which does not exist on Commons. Could you please create such a template here? Thanks. Tango7174 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

All the usages in enwp should be galleries. However, what should be the use at commons? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would oppose using such a tool. As you know, we allow galleries of images, but generally restrict the images to a size set by the viewer, either explicitly in his preferences, or by default. The number of images in a row is also automatically set by the screen width. This allows for users who have screens ranging from phones to very wide, even multiple screens.
By contrast, WP:EN: allows the editor to set both the image size and the number per row, which means that users with small screens may have to scroll across each image, and will also have to scroll across rows. At the other end of the size range, it will mean that users with large screens will have a great deal of white space, forcing them to scroll down more than one of our galleries would.
As you know from your work on several Italian galleries -- Trani, Gargano, etc. -- it is possible to organize a gallery very nicely while still allowing for different screen sizes.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Foreign translations required

I had an unfortunate encounter when I tried to rename the following file, which I found among the ones needing categories on July 28, 2010; File:שער הכניסה לאתר הפרדסנות ע"ש מינקוב ברחובות.jpg. After zooming in on the image, I found that it was of the "Minkov Museum," which is apparently in Israel. Finding no such category, I opted for the category "Museums in Israel," but because the name of the file is in Hebrew, it crashed when I tried to add the name. Can anybody else do something about this one? ----DanTD (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No issues for me with this file: Added. What exactly crashed? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it became a blank page that said "No file by this name exists, but you can upload it." ----DanTD (talk)
In case you want to know why: can you reproduce this error? When exactly (which action) did it happen? Which browser are you using? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually tried that with another image with Cryllic text, it didn't bring the same results. ----DanTD (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent upload inconsistently displaying...

Earlier this morning uploaded the file "Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu". The text images from the uploaded file intermittently show up while editing the index page. Have purged the file in commons and on the individual pages themselves. The previous images seem to want to stay. This upload was unusual from previous uploads as the system did not experience a technical issue requiring a second upload of this file, which has been required with all other uploads. Currently djvu page 10 only displays the previous image, while djvu page 30 displays the new image while reading but reverts to the previous image in the edit mode, even after repeated purging. Thanks in advance...JamAKiska (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although you seem to be aware of purge/cache issues, you don't mention it explicitly, so forgive me if I ask, "Have you purged your browser cache?" That's the usual reason for this kind of problem.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, just re-emptied it and am experiencing same issues with images from previous file. JamAKiska (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know DJVU very well, so I can't be very helpful, but I can look at the current version and the 1 December 2008 version of page 10 and get very different results -- the old one is largely illegible. So perhaps this is a local problem, although it sounds like you've cleared your cache. I'm using the Wikimedia reader for the new version and the Caminova browser plug-in for the old one.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are out of troubleshooting options, I will upload a second copy of the updated file to commons. You are correct in that this version will fill in the missing pages from the previous file once it is correctly loaded on the server and displaying properly. Thanks...JamAKiska (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstand me -- when I call up the current version of page 10, it is entirely legible. When I call up the earlier version, it is not. Therefore, I conclude that the new version is, in fact, properly uploaded and that if you are not seeing that, it is problem that is local to your machine or account. You could try using a different browser or computer to confirm that.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using my existing setup, the only index page on which I encounter any difficulties accessing the latest image is this volume. I recognize that the server now has two copies of this file as I am able to access it on some but not all of the djvu pages. HERE'S A BETTER OBSERVATION...when I observe the image of page 3 using the djvu file viewer (that is the same image I observe in the read mode, the image that displays for me in the edit & image mode is the preview image of page 2 that has the yellowish film removed when observing text page 3 in the main viewer...This seems to be the case with most of my pages. An exception would be page djvu page 10 or text page 2 which seems to have the 2008 Image locked in place for all modes. ...We agree this page is if it were an issue on my end, would it not be the same for all pages? and not just those that previously were identified as problematic? JamAKiska (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aha. I can reproduce some of the strangeness you report, but not all. When I call up page 10 using the Commons reader, I get the yellow, legible version in the main screen, but white versions in the two previews. If I go to page 11, I see the yellow version in the main screen, but the illegible white version in the page 10 preview screen. If I click on the illegible preview, the good yellow version comes up in the main screen. This is true even if I change browsers or computers, so it is not a cache problem here.
I suspect, therefore, it has something to do with the way the Commons DJVU caches its previews. Since the preview pages are not particularly important to an all text work such as this, I'd be inclined to ignore it.
If you want to follow up further, I suggest you drop a note on the talk page of someone more involved with DJVU, perhaps one of the editors of Help:DjVu_files or Commons:DjVu.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last request to rule out all possibilities...Is there a way for you to check for a permanent link to a previous version of this file for some pages? JamAKiska (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. If you use a non-Commons reader such as the Caminova browser plug-in, you can look at any page of any of the versions.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos from a site

I can`t choose the proper license from the list. The photos [1] are coming from the site of FAS Russia, photoalbums [2]. I am the one who uploaded the photos there because my colleagues and I are responsable for filling the site with information. These pictures were made by my colleague. The web-site is registered as a mass medium. It sais there - "If you are going to reproduce, reprint or republish any information from this site: a hyperlink on the original page is required". So, republishing is legal. With what license and copyright should I mark the photos and where is the link to be put? Under the photo, on the photo itself or somewhere else? --MariaAlabyan (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no explicit license for any reuse. At the bottom, as you say, there is an implicit license, but the requirement for a hyperlink makes these unacceptable for use on Commons. Commons is a repository for all kinds of uses, including print, where hyperlinks are, of course, not possible. We would probably want to see Commons:OTRS permission before keeping these images, but I will be interested in what my colleagues say at the Deletion Requests.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess you're pedantically correct, but I would assume a restriction like that could be fulfilled in print by printing the URL.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minor change of the name Rieder Category:Marcel Riéder

Hello, I want to make the following change to the name of this category Category:Marcel Riéder: remove the accent on the "e " of Rieder. This change seems minor, but it is important for the artist's descendants. Thank you. --Méticuleux (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC) BonjourReply[reply]

Je souhaite apporter la modification suivante sur le nom de cette catégorie Category:Marcel Riéder: enlever l'accent sur le "e" de Rieder. Cette modification semble mineure, mais elle est importante pour les descendants de l'artiste. Je vous remercie. --Méticuleux (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have taken the liberty of cleaning up your references to the category and changing the word "emphasis" to "accent" in the English above. There is evidence in various places that the spelling without the accent is in general use, therefore this appears to be a reasonable request, and I have done it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you very much JamesIwoodward -- 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]



for some reason it seems we have been blocked by an (ex-)administrator (see copied text below), i have no idea why. this block also makes it impossible to contact administrators. how can we unblock our account?

thank you for your help. please answer to:

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons: You cannot edit because your account is locked. Your user name or IP address has been blocked. Pathoschild blocked WCBO from 04:03, 19 April 2009 to infinite; the reason given was: crosswiki abuse, abusive name [edit] Information for blocked users You can contact Pathoschild or another administrator (list) to contest the block. You cannot use the email this user feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences, has been confirmed, and you are not disallowed from using it while blocked. Your current IP address is and the block ID is #22742. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1) Pathoschild is not an "(ex-)administrator" but a Steward. 2) WCBO is globaly blocked and all contributions, cross-wiki, are entirely removed (oversighted? the deleted contribs of WCBO (talk · contribs) are not visible for normal admins). For information see meta:Global blocks and locks. I cant help you here on Wikimedia Commons with this. --Martin H. (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Martin and 88. The account was globally locked and hidden in 2008 by a former steward (Wpedzich); my blocks were set in 2009 on a large number of already globally-hidden names to ensure they were locally hidden. I'll ask Wpedzich to comment and will lift the restrictions if he has no objections. —Pathoschild 01:25:17, 04 February 2011 (UTC)
Thx, for me the global account WCBO already says all, all of this edits have been deleted, the talkpage of de.wp let me conclude that he uploaded images containing spam to various wikis. --Martin H. (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I blocked the account WCBO on the grounds of cross-wiki spamming - currently I do not hold the steward powers, so I cannot relate specifically to diffs, behaviour examples, etc., but since the block was issued it's not been questioned, apart from the current discussion, as far as I know. I would point at one additional thing here, which is the account name. En.wikipedia, which is the home wiki for the account WCBO specifically disallows usernames which link a user to an organisation (this restriction applies also to some other major wikis, including Commons, see Commons:Username policy) - seeing the email address above only confirms my strong reservations regarding the lifting of the block. I will naturally not oppose local moods regarding the issue of the block, but from my former steward perspective the block was legitimate and I would maintain it. Wpedzich (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Diese Datei habe ich aus der en-WIKIPEDIA (dort gleicher Name) tranferiert. Ist die jetzt angegebene Lizenz korrekt und für Wikipedia-Commons ausreichend? Wenn nicht, was ist zu tun? Vielen Dank im Voraus für die Antwort. Freundliche Grüße --MartinHansV (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nein, ist nicht okay. War es auch auf enwp nicht. Die Genehmigung (permission) ist nicht ausreichend dokumentiert.
Für die Zukunft: Vielleicht ist dir auch die Anleitung für den Umzug von Bildern auf die Commons hilfreich. Falls dir ein Transfer mal zu kompliziert sein sollte, dann kannst du im de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Commons-Transfer/Aus fremdem Projekt um Hilfe bitten, wenn du das Bild für einen Artikel brauchst. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 16:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

مقالة تحتاج الى صور

مرحبا, قمت بالمساهمة بتحرير مقال و حاولت ان انزل صورةتين ولكن اصبح باللون الاحمر وعندما اضغط على الملف يقول لي ليس لديك ترخيص للدخول

كنت احاول ان اضع صور لها اثنتين ولكن نفس الشي ارجو المساعدة

— Preceding unsigned comment added by سور الصين العظيم (talk • contribs) 08:06, 24 January 2011

Try User talk:Rehman. --  Docu  at 13:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Install an automatic redirection

(en) Is it possible to install an automatic redirection on this entry, as is the case in Wikipedia ( ? Thank You for Your contribution. -- 07:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC) (fr) Est-il possible d'installer une redirection automatique sur cette entrée, comme c'est le cas sur Wikipedia ( Merci pour votre contribution. -- 07:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Currently not. Category:Marcel Riéder uses {{Category redirect}}. This is the way it's currently done for categories. You could add one at Marcel Riéder pointing to Category:Marcel Rieder if you want. To do so, you'd need to use #REDIRECT[[:Category:Marcel Rieder]] --  Docu  at 07:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, I'm missing a OTRS release for all these images of paintings of Marcel Rieder. He died in 1942, so his paintings will enter the public domain in France only on January 1, 2013. Lupo 07:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with Lupo for enter the public domain in France only on January 1, 2013, but these pictures are pictures of the artist's family. I already answered that question by giving the coordinates of the descendant. --Méticuleux (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The heirs of the copyright of the artist would need to send an authorization to OTRS. For photographs of paintings, {{PD-self}} can only be used the artist, not the photographer. --  Docu  at 13:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Downloading an Image

How do I download an image from Wikimedia Commons to my Windows 7 computer? Please reply to <email removed to protect you from spam>. Thank you.Walt Sampson (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most commonly like this:
First possibility: Just right click the high-res link below the image and select "save target as ..." (or similar depending on your bowser)
Second possibility: view the image in full, then right click on it and select "save image" (or similar depending on your bowser). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can also use the "Download" button above the image. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploading a photo in the public domain

Perhaps this is posted clearly and I am just not understanding how to do it -- I have a image that is from a book published in 1901. No authorship is given to the photographer. The book and image are in the public domain as it has been over 70 years since it was published. How to I upload it? I tried to do this by citing the book, publisher and author and the form told me that I didn't have the proper permissions.

If the book was first published in the United States, you're clear - put {{PD-1923}} in the license field. If it was first published outside the United States, it may not be public domain in the source country. We can't tell without more information about who the author is, their death date, etc. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification requested about ability to use images

I am a bit confused. Your site says you only allow images to be uploaded that can freely be used by others. Then there is a bunch of info about copyright/license restrictions. Seems contradictory. So, if you can please clarify. When I click on an image, what verbiage am I looking for that prevents me from using an image? What do I look for?

I went to one image and see the following:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License. Free Documentation Licensetruetrue

 This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.  

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). share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

This licensing tag was added to this file as part of the GFDL licensing Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

As I interpret it, I can use the image. However, the "attribution" part is confusing me. I must attribute the work in a manner specified by the author. What "manner"?

Sorry, I am not a lawyer and I want to make sure I do the right thing here. I appreciate clarification!!


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaz (talk • contribs)

Which image are you interested in? The "manner specified by the author" should be mentioned on its file description page. --  Docu  at

Dummy timestamp 00:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Help request regarding categorization of images

Robert Burns statue, Bernard Street.jpg

I have posted several images and am intending to do more. I have been informed that I have neglected to categorize the images I have so far posted. Try as I may, I can not find where I am supposed to enter the suggested instruction Category:Category Name on the file description page. The instruction to add this "at the end of the page" has not been sufficient to guide me to the right location. Could I be advised further? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Traynor (talk • contribs)

It depends on the uploadform you use. On Commons:Upload, you could pick:
  • "It is entirely my own work". In this case, there is a section "Upload options" with "Categories: (+)". Clicking on "(+)" allows to add categories.
  • "main upload form" and "basic upload form" offer the same options.
If you already uploaded it, you can add categories in one of the ways mentioned in Commons:Categories#Quick_guide. --  Docu  at 07:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added a few categories to File:Robert Burns statue, Bernard Street.jpg (also visible on the right side of this section). I created Category:David Watson Stevenson and Category:Statues of Robert Burns just now.
If you add at least one category to an uploaded image, you wont receive the notice on your talk page. --  Docu  at 10:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What photo can I upload?

Licensing tutorial en.svg

I have searched and searched Wiki help guides about what kinds of photographs are free content, and I still have no idea. I would like to upload a photo of Noah Ringer taken at The Last Airbender premiere on June 30, 2010. How do I know if it is permissible to upload and how I know which license to use? Please clarify this for me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonewolf1380 (talk • contribs)

The tutorial one right side is generally suggested as a starter. --  Docu  at 21:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do I find out if the author gave permission for anyone to use the photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonewolf1380 (talk • contribs)
Could you please start by telling us if you are the photographer who took the photo or if this was a photo taken by someone you know who has given you permission to upload the file to Commons? If neither of the last two cases apply, could you please tell us where you found the file? Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 21:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The previous comment was edited on 21:30, 2011 February 6 by Fastily. --  Docu  at 21:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it was. Got a problem with that? -FASTILY (TALK) 22:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's disruptive. --  Docu  at 22:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh really? And just how exactly is clarifying a question for a user in need of assistance disruptive? Please do answer, I am very interested in hearing this one. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fastily, obviously he is not. Please stop your nonsense around this site. --  Docu  at 21:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Either the author published the photo with a permission or you have to contact him. In the later case, he needs to mail the permission to OTRS. --  Docu  at 21:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hardly. Docu, please stop "your nonsense around this site". You have not even asked whether the user is in fact the author of the file! For what it's worth, OTRS receives enough superfluous emails as it is. Please refrain from directing newbies in the wrong direction when you are uncertain of the details surrounding Lonewolf1380's question! Lonewolf1380, I'm sorry you had to see that; I would like to apologize on Docu's behalf for his rude and unprofessional demeanor. Of course, unlike my colleague here, I am still very much interested in helping answer your question, and I would appreciate it if you could answer my last question should you still require assistance. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 21:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fastily, if you need help, you are free to ask your questions here. Please open a new section though. --  Docu  at 21:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Docu, please take your disruptive editing somewhere else. It's quite obvious you didn't know, but I am here to help a new user, not to start a war. As much I'm enjoying myself right now, I must point out that the help desk is no battleground. For Lonewolf1380's sake, consider this conversation over. Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 21:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't take the photo myself. I'm trying to put a picture on Noah Ringer's Wikipedia page. I found one from the The Last Airbender premiere here. Is this photo okay and what would the license be? Also, for future reference, is there an easy website to go to get these kind of photos where I have complete assurance of permission to upload? I'm just so frustrated with this process. Nearly every celebrity Wiki page has a photo, and I can't believe that everyone has such a hard time as I am trying to figure out which photos they can actually use. Is there something that everyone else knows that I don't?
Ah, I see what you mean. I hate to tell you this, but this photo cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons; it was taken by an Associated Press photographer, and is fully copyrighted. Commons can only accept freely licensed media files. By the same token, this file cannot be used on Wikipedia either; Wikipedia non-free content criterion #1 explicitly prohibits the use copyrighted media files to depict living persons in articles. This really is a nice photo, and again, I'm so sorry, for after all this effort, to have to tell you it can't be used. For future reference, consider using file sharing sites like flickr or picasa to locate free media files (e.g. the copyright information of a given flickr photo will be available on the mid-right for flickr). Alternatively, you can now Google for freely licensed files under advanced search. Locating free files is really harder than it sounds, but in adherence to the Wikimedia foundation's goal of free content, we're going to have to follow free-content only ground rules. Hope that helps to answer your question. If you have any other questions or are in need of assistance, please feel free to drop me a line here. Best, FASTILY (TALK) 22:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your help. I'll try your suggestions. Thanks again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonewolf1380 (talk • contribs)

Some celebrities arrange for a picture to be freely licensed to illustrate their bio. Emailing the actor's press contact might work (w:Wikipedia:Example requests for permission has a few samples). --  Docu  at 22:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

external link templates

I have a problem with {{Met online}}. {{met online|130013878}} is supposed to link to Yet when I click on it I get to . Similar templates like {{Louvre online}} work fine. Any idea on what is going on ? --Zolo (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC) oh I have just discovered that the link works when I click on it during preview but not when the text is saved (but I don't understand much more knowing that).--Zolo (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. --  Docu  at 12:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uh it still doesn't at least not on my computer (see File:Antoninus Pius Met 33.11.3.jpg. I imagine it has to do with the .aspx. --Zolo (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NASA images on flickr


I just wanted your opinion on wether it's ok to upload these NASA images from Flickr. The thing is that they are marked as atribution requiered and non-comercial, but there's also a disclaimer below saying "Where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license."

So can those images be ploaded to commons and used in wikipedia articles or not? Thanks. --U5K0 (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same question at Commons:Village_pump#NASA_images_on_flickr. --  Docu  at 12:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not an easy question. The one I looked at specifically credited a NASA photographer, so by law it is PD. However the Flickr license calls out NC, which is not permitted under the law, but is not acceptable for us. Why don't you upload your favorite one and then add a {{Delete}} to it and get the reaction of others? I would keep it on the simple grounds that a NASA person uploading the image to Flickr cannot override the law, but others may differ.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. Anything with a NASA photo credit is, by law, PD, no matter what the Flickr license says. Powers (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This NASA flickr account refers explicitely to the NASA guidelines, so I seems safe to say that the material you would take from the flickr account is to be treated in the same manner you would treat it if you took it directly from the NASA site. You must look if a photo is identified as NASA-created and in the public domain, or if it is identified as created by a third party and copyrighted. If it is in the public domain, then you can reuse it. I couldn't find where is the disclaimer that you quoted, but anyway from what you quoted it seems to the same effect: if and where a work is in the public domain, it is in the public domain, and that is that. I read it to mean that the licence would apply only to works that are not in the public domain or to the reuse of PD-US works in countries, other than the US, where they are not in the public domain. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What was the problem with File:M41A Pulse Rifle.jpg?

Go to and scroll down to the very bottom on the page. READ: "Contributions to are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 License.".. That image IS a "Contribution to". Therefore, it is licensed under CC SA 2.0. I properly attributed the image when uploading, and put up the same CC SA 2.0. So why deleting? -- Wesha (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'd probably get a better answer by asking the admin who did the deletion [3]. If they deleted the file by mistake, I'm sure they will gladly correct that. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cropped images shouldn't supersede

I often use Commons to illustrate article on English Wikipedia, but don't regularly contribute except for a little categorization, so I'm unfamiliar with talk protocols here. Apologies if this is the wrong place for this comment.

I'm concerned about a practice I've encountered a few times lately on Commons. I've found images of classic or canonical works (mainly painting) that are deprecated for use because they're superseded by other images; however, this "better" image in these cases is a cropped version of the painting. Although there are obviously times when a detail makes a better illustration for an article, the detail does not in any way "supersede" or render redundant the full-frame version — Rembrandt knew, um, more than the average bear about the composition of a painting. A large space devoted only to shadow, for example, is part of the effect he wished to achieve. The template is thus potentially misleading.

It seems to me that the "superseded" template should be used only when an image of superior quality replaces one that is compositionally the same. This is true also of sculpture: an excellent-quality image that shows only a portion of the work does not "supersede" a lesser-quality image that shows the full sculpture or the sculpture from a different angle, because an article might need a full-length or other view to illustrate technique or composition.

If there's a better place to express this opinion, I'll take my comment there. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing much to argue about that. With thousands of users, it is inevitable that sometimes some user makes a mistake and places an inappropriate template or category, etc. If you see a template or other information that is obviously inappropriate in relation to an image, remove or correct it, and, if you are unsure or if you feel like doing some useful pedagogy, discuss it with the user who you believe made the mistake. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! That helps. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files also helps you. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

old picture permission?

I want to upload a picture taken from a page that is explicitly stated to be freely available for download. It's from the chapter The Mausoleum in Full of Life, a publication of the Eugene Masonic Cemetery Association, available from their site at It's a picture of a building taken around 1914. What sort of copyright info do I need to provide to upload this image? CRBW (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THe URL you gave does not seem to work -- I found
but didn't find the PDF you referenced.
In any case you will need to provide the author (if known), the source (the correct URL for the page which refers to the image, not a page with just the image), and the date of first publication. The critical question for most USA copyrights is "when was it first published?".
If you can show that it was first published before 1923, then you can put {{PD-US}} on it.
If not, it gets much more complicated, see our USA copyright information summary.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the tip on the URL typo. We'll get that fixed. I'll see what I can do about finding the original picture in the University of Oregon Special Collections and Archives. If all else fails, I can walk 3 blocks and take a picture of the mausoleum, but I think the old picture would be much more suitable for the article on Hope Abbey.

CRBW (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting help with categorizing images

This is my second appeal for guidance on this issue.

I have posted several images onto wikipedia pages, but have stopped now that I have received notification that I am not categorizing the images. My question is: how do I do that? I am told by email what to enter, but I am not told WHERE on the image description page the entry should me made. Can someone advise me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Traynor (talk • contribs)

Open the image page for editing (click "Edit" tab). At the bottom of the page, enter:
 [[Category:Some Category 1 Here]]
 [[Category:Some Category 2 Here]]
as many as you need. -- Wesha (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I need to learn how to do something on any of the WMF projects, I find it helpful to find an example and then click on "edit" to take a look at the markup text that produced whatever I am looking for. In this case, doing that for most images will give you a concrete example.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There are two files with this name - one of a horse (which is the one I want, to insert into an article), and one of a purple magazine cover. I tried to follow the FAQ instructions for re-uploading the horse file under another name; however, I can't find the link under "File history" that says "Upload a new version of this file". Please help. Thanks! Wi2g (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(please always link files) those are the files in question: File:Tellus.jpg and en:File:Tellus.jpg
one file needs to be renamed. As a rename here would affect at least two usages in wikipedias I suggest that the en wp file should be renamed. I placed a tag on the enwp file to request rename to a more specific name. When the rename was done you can use the file here in your article. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the confusion; I'm a new editor and knew the file I wanted was on Commons and the other wasn't, but didn't know how to distinguish them. I had tagged File:Tellus.jpg for renaming, but have removed that tag. Many thanks for your help! Wi2g (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could not distinguish them in enwp articles. You can use the horse File:Tellus the Ardennais horse.jpg now. User:DragonflySixtyseven renamed the file here on Commons against my reasoning since he thought the name was not descriptive enough. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again! Wi2g (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Normally, the file in the local project should be renamed. With hundreds of Wikimedia projects, there is always the possibility that one uses the same name for a file from here. --  Docu  at 07:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, but one word names are just asking for trouble. How much trouble it causes, I don't know, but when possible files named things like Tellus need to be moved to a descriptive name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion requests helper thingy

Is there some tool to help with leaving keep/delete along with a reason for the suggested action when paroling the Deletion Requests? Andyzweb 14:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this what you're looking for:

  • {{vk}} yields Symbol keep vote.svg Keep
  • {{vd}} yields Symbol delete vote.svg Delete
  • {{comment}} yields Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment
  • {{question}} yields Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I use a photo from personal Facebook?

It's me again. Another question. Noah Ringer, the celebrity whose Wiki page I'm trying to find a photo for, has his own personal Facebook page (I've listed the ways to validate this over at Wikipedia - don't want to get into here). Can I use photos that he has posted on his page? Or would I have to get his permission? Would a reply from him on his Facebook suffice, if I do need permission? What kind of license would I use for the photo, in that case? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonewolf1380 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The owner of the copyright on the photo must offer it explicitely under a free licence of his choice. 1-Determine who owns the copyright. 2-Have that person send a declaration of free license with all the useful information via OTRS. The principle is the same for any photo that you take anywhere on the web, except if it already has a declaration of free license well in evidence at the source. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Interieur pastille.jpg

Hey, I have been told there was a problem with my licence on that picture, but I send the email to about 15 minutes ago, so I should be getting the answer very soon. why am I beeing picked on again when I'm doing everything I've been told to do?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joliesceramiques (talk • contribs) 10:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. It is also a courtesy to link the file in question, as I have done above. I have also corrected the spelling (it is "pastille", not "Pastille")
Second, removing history from your talk page is strongly discouraged, as it makes it very difficult to answer questions such as this. I have replaced the history there. In the future, you may archive the page, but please do not blank it.
The note from Nikbot today appears to be the first action taken against the subject image, so I'm a little confused by your "again" above. In any case, the source and author given on this image are Emaux de Briare, a French manufacturer of ceramic tiles, which does not have any obvious connection to you. You say that you sent a message to OTRS. Like everything else here, OTRS is run by volunteers and has a backlog, so it could be several weeks before that is read. It almost certainly will not be sufficient, because the message will actually have to come from the company, Emaux de Briare, not from you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minhas imagens poderão ser apagadas. Por que?

Esses dois arquivos de minha autoria poderão ser apagados:

No entanto, os argumentos para remoção não procedem. As informações pedidas (autor e fonte) já estão nos arquivos.

Alguém pode me ajudar, por favor?--Juniorpetjua (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rough translation: he's asking why these images, of which he says he's the author, are marked for deletion. He says that he provided author and source as requested, and is asking for help. - Jmabel ! talk 00:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Desculpe o meu Português estrangeiro. Eu li isso melhor do que eu escrevo. Você está afirmando que todas as fotos usadas nestas montagens são o seu próprio trabalho? Se assim for, ele será normalmente mais adequado para carregar versões de resolução completa de cada foto, em vez de uma montagem como esta. Se não, esse é o problema. - Jmabel ! talk 00:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
English: It does clearly say that he is the author, so it seems like he did everything right.
Español: La página claramente dice que él es autor; parece que lo hizo correctamente.
Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Odd behaviour?

Suddenly tonight this image (File:Gnome-dev-camera.svg) fails to render on my PC - it should look like File:Nuvola filesystems camera.png and it looks like a blue blob with some drawing lines. I've tried more than one browser in Windows 7 and IE in XP virtual mode, and reboot - all the same. Has there been some change to the Wiki software which does not like this svg?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronhjones (talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've got the same problem. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Purging seems to have fixed it. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's certainly fixed, but it wasn't by purging! I must have purged a good few times even after a re-boot. Something odd definitely happened. We may never know what ...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploading SVG versions of JPG, PNG, ...

I like to draw svg images. Sometimes I find (or look for) a png or jpg or whatever pixel format image that I can easily make a vector version of. When I have done this I suppose it is not just to upload it using [4] but I should change some templates or something so that pages that pointed to the pixels now point to the vectors. How exactly do I do this? The "Template:Vector version available" does not have enough information for me a first time user. (The first line even has the name of an existing svg Template:Vector version available/Presionvapor.svg but no instructions to change this or whatever...) Thanks for any indications to where I can find help /GregorS Gregors (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's say there is an image named File:ASDFG.jpg.

  1. Make an identical vector version of it.
  2. Upload the new file as File:ASDFG.svg. Use the same license(s) as File:ASDFG.jpg.
  3. Click on "edit" at the top
  4. Change the source to say something like, "Vector image by User:Gregors, derived from ASDFG.jpg"
  5. At the bottom, add the same categories as File:ASDFG.jpg.
  6. Also add an SVG category if appropriate.
  7. Click on "save"
  8. Then go to File:ASDFG.jpg
  9. Click on "edit" at the top
  10. Add {{Vector version available|ASDFG.svg}} to the text, generally as the last thing above the categories.
  11. If the file has the {{Convert to SVG}} template, remove it.
  12. Click on "save"

Note that the word "File" is not used in the template -- the template will add it automatically. You may then go to each of the uses of the old file and change the link to the svg, but that is not essential and may be difficult in some WP languages that you can not read.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploading it with and adding {{Vector version available|Presionvapor.svg}} (note the "|" instead of "/") to non-SVG versions is generally sufficient. --  Docu  at 05:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very true, but I have found the various special purpose uploaders confusing and difficult on occasion, so I stick to the general purpose one and recommend it for newbies and experienced users.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contacting Members?

Hello! I'm a grad student in art history, and am desperate to contact a member to learn where he found an image I need to source for my dissertation. Is it possible to contact individual members?

The easiest way to contact members is via their "talk page". Just click on the author name in the image description and you should find a link to the talk page. You can leave a message there. Some users also allow contact by e-mail, but I think you have to be registered to use that function. --rimshottalk 21:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

copying a page

I would like to copy an existing page (on a chemical) and rewrite it for a new chemical o- rather than try to recreate all the details of the box with technical facts.

what's the easiest way to do this?

Skipper2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 02:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~, which adds links to your contributions and talk page, and a time stamp.
Second, are you asking this in the right place? This is Commons, not the English (or any other language) Wikipedia. We do not have pages on chemicals here. However the answer is the same here or on WP:EN.
Copying existing markup is a very good way to create new pages -- of course you have to be careful to make all the appropriate changes, but if you are careful about that, it is easier and more likely to be done accurately than starting from scratch.
Simply go to the page you want to copy from, click on "Edit" at the top. An edit box will appear near the bottom of the page. Highlight the whole edit box and then copy it to the clipboard (in most browsers, click anywhere in the edit box, then Control-A, Control-C). Go to the search box at the top of the page and type in exactly the name of the page you want to create. You will get a page that says "Search results" at the top and near the bottom there will be a line that says, approximately "...create the page called whatever name you typed in on this wiki..." (This varies depending on which WMF project you are on). Click on the red link, paste the clipboard into the edit box (Control-V on most browsers), make the necessary changes, click on "Show preview" below the edit box. Check your work, then when it is good, click on "Save".
Note that you cannot generally copy markup from one WMF project on another -- many Commons pages will not work on WP:EN and vice versa.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Last but definitely not least: Ensure that you do not violate copyrights! If you copy text which exceeds the threshold of originality (likely if the text copied is long) and is therefore copyrighted (except very, very old text) you need to obey the license! See en:Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo of a carved panel

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

Help! Not really sure which option I should have chosen. If someone could hild my hand I would be most grateful. The website holding the image of the Heswall Tablet gave the impression that thge images could be used freely. If whoever is helping me could look at that then they will see my starting point. I now want to use the image in an article I am writing for Wilipedia on Alan Durst so I firstly put the image on WikiCommons and then have to choose the right category to enable be upload the image and insert it in my article. As I say I would be very grateful for some help, Weglinde (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Im posted my above comment yesterday but as "Nikbot" is an automatic poster of messages then perhaps this is not correct and I will not get a reply- I am not in fact asking a person the question,

I really would like my Heswall image kept on Wiki Commons as it has been entered into my wikipedia article on Alan Durst and I really would appreciate advise as to which license option I should choose.

Many thanks.

Weglinde (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The robot merely tells you that you have not used any of the available license templates, which often is a sign that some essential information may be missing as to what the license is. You say that "the website [...] gave the impression that the images could be used freely". That is not the case. The information page of the website merely says: "You are welcome to use a few photos from this web site for your own personal use.". That is not a free license, in particular because it is limited to personal use. For an explanation of what conditions must be present in a free license, please see the page Commons:Licensing. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although my colleague has set forth the situation, I'm not sure you will understand the implication of his comment. Because the source does not grant a license that meets our needs:
  • "limited number" - we allow no limit
  • "personal use" - we require personal, educational, commercial, and any other use
  • it is silent on the question of modification, which we require
the use here is a copyright violation, which means that the image is subject to deletion on sight. Ordinarily I would suggest that you ask the owner of Carlscam to send us permission for the image using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. However there is an additional question -- Alan Durst died in 1970 and, therefore, this photograph could infringe on his copyright in his work. In the United Kingdom, there is an exception to the general copyright rule which we call freedom of panorama, which allows photographs of copyrighted "works of artistic craftsmanship" that are permanently located in a place accessible to the public. I suspect that this woodcarving falls within the exception, provided, of course, that the church where it is located in open to the public, but you will have to address that as well.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Origami Crane


Hello! I've used the file "File:Origami-crane.jpg" (the picture on the left) as a pattern for a new artwork. It shows the origami crane in the same position like in the picture on the left, but the whole illustration is made by me. The only thing which the picture an the illustration have got in common is the position of the crane. Can I upload the file as "my work"? Or do the ShareAlike rules apply on this work, even if the illustration (made with Illustrator, it's no picture anymore) is made by me? And, if so, i should upload it as "a derivative work of a file from Commons", right? Origami-Kranich (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are the author of all the works, you are not bound by the licence you released under, since the licence are just a context of usage you give out to others users. Esby (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Permission to use a photo

Where can I see the permission granted to use a certain photo?

For example, the file summary of the Image:Blowing-alkali-dust-Owens-Lake.jpg says that it was obtained from I visited that site and cannot find any place where it states that the photos on that site are freely available. Was permission obtained? If so, where can I see the permissions?

Mbeychok (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The uploader Eekster claims authorship, that means he is Richard Ellis and the website belongs to him. On other uploads, such as File:Mount_Harwood_from_Devils_Backbone.jpg, he made that website an attribution requirement, maybe this was the intention at File:Blowing-alkali-dust-Owens-Lake.jpg too. --Martin H. (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For recent uploads, we would ask for a confirmation to OTRS in such cases. --  Docu  at 09:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

u.s history

how did TR use the big stick in panama? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are probably looking for w:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


✓ Done

Hello. This file is largely used in Wikipedia, however neither Firefox nor Chrome seems to be able to render it.

When I click on

I get the error message

XML Parsing Error: prefix not bound to a namespace
Line Number 20, Column 3: <ns:sfw

Is the svg corrupt ? Can it be fixed ? Thanks. 12:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Pictures can be used freely as long as credit is given"

When it says on a page: Pictures on our websites can be used freely as long as credit is given. (Norwegian language: Bilder som ligger på sidene våre kan brukes fritt så lenge det opplyses hvor de kommer fra.) When it says that, would that be enough for pictures to be uploaded to wikimedia (CC BY-SA 2.0)? (Text is from [5] (in Norwegian).) Wcommons (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Used" does not include modifications and it does not include giving the images to other, e.g. redistribution. --Martin H. (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name change requested

Someone moved,_AR_IMG_1465.JPG to Commons, but in both cases, the name is spelled wrong. Can someone fix the name in Commons?--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can request the rename by applying
to the file description page. --  Docu  at 15:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License tags

I've been editing some photographs that are already on the commons, which I believe allow me to do this (based on the license info shown on their info pages), but most of them are showing as "No license tag" when I list them here: [[6]]

Am I mistaken in my understanding of the licenses, or is there something I've overlooked when uploading them? Here's one of the images in question: [[7]]

Please help! Quickos (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The example (File:305509 at Stratford.jpg) displays its license information through a personalised template. I'm guessing that template doesn't get identified in the gallery as an usual license template. There's no mistake from you. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thankyou, it's good to know I'm not doing anything wrong!Quickos (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Off topic

got a patient suffering from Parkinson & Paranoid Personality Disorder.Getting nagged,desperate.Seeks guidance how to nurse the patient.

Well, you can check out w:Paranoid personality disorder, and help edit. If you want pictures for the article, you can come here and ask for help, since this is a help site for pictures. Wcommons (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Origami Kranich als Grafik


Hallo! Ich habe die links dargestellte die Datei "File:Origami-crane.jpg" als Vorlage für ein neues Bild verwendet, dass diesen Origami-Kranich noch in der gleichen Position zeigt, jedoch von mir komplett neu in Illustrator als Grafik erstellt wurde. Darf ich diese Datei als "mein Werk" hochladen? Oder gelten trotz Neuerstellung als Grafik (nicht mehr als Bild) die ShareAlike-Regeln, sodass ich sie als "ein abgeleitetes Werk einer Datei aus Commons" hochladen muss?

Well, if you are showing it from exactly the same angle I think it would be a derived work. At any rate you would probably want to link to the photo from your image description page to connect the two files in Commons. Or maybe you could upload this as your own work, but state in the image description that it's "based on file X". --Morn (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Bei dem Bild File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F068128-0032, Bonn, Feier Landesvertretung Berlin.jpg erscheint im Bearbeitungsmodus kein Knopf Add a note, wie in Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator/de beschrieben. Warum nicht? Ich möchte noch weitere Annotationen ins Bild einfügen. Vielleicht kann mir jemand einen brauchbaren Tipp geben. Danke. -- H.Albatros (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

H.Albatros is confirmed. —DerHexer (Talk) 14:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sollte nun behoben sein. Einmal den Cache des Browsers neu laden, dann sollte es nun gehen. Lupo 12:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Similar images

I'm not familar with using Commons so am not sure if this is the right place to ask. I've come across two images here and here which appear to be remarkably similar to each other, but reversed. Despite the quality of one of them, there seem to be enough similarities that it appears as though one of the images was reversed and then used as a source for the second. The headwear, the people's stance, the pile of stuff in the back ground, even the box with holes in the middle foreground are all identical. Therefore, can you please advise on how to proceed here? As I said, I'm not familiar with Commons so don't know whether they should be tagged in some manner like in Wikipedia. Thank you, LordVetinari (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For each, you could add the other image at
If one was mirrored from the other, you could add it to Category:Flopped images.
It might even be worth creating a mirrored version of the photo, for easy comparison with the drawing. --  Docu  at 09:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not just flipped. One image has a man standing in front of the shaft of the cannon, the other doesn't. The box with hole is in a different position. Maproom (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-displaying image

The image Stock post message.svg, when placed on pages in any project, doesn't display - it creates a link instead. Why is this happening? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently quite a few SVG at Commons are broken, but displayed due to a bug in a SVG parser we previously used. If you use a PNG instead, you don't have these problems. --  Docu  at 18:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry but I can't do that - it's not a case of me wanting to use the image as a standalone item in one particular page, but a case of the image already being used on several templates, each being transcluded onto several pages, which now display incorrectly. I first noticed this on English Wikipedia - where the image is mainly used on talk pages, because of its use in about thirty templates. Then checked commons, to find that it's used on hundreds more pages across dozens of WikiMedia projects. I can't go around all these projects changing the SVG to a PNG; not having admin powers, I can't amend fully-protected pages such as. Can't the SVG be fixed? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Purged the file. Better now? :) Bypass/clear your browser's cache if not working. The same error happenend to quite a few svg during the last week. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I needed to purge a few pages on English Wikipedia, and it's now behaving on those, thanks. I guess that over the next few hours it'll work through the job queue. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I posted a summary of the recent bugs known to me at Commons:Village_pump#two_recent_svg_issues._Cache_problems.3F_New_malicious_files_filter.3F. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

uploading my US copyrighted book- unpublished

Hello, I wrote and copyrighted: ' The Classroom Technique of the Isadora Duncan School of Dancing'. I wrote it in 1979 from memory of my classes with Lillian Rosenberg in NYC who was a pupil of Irma Duncan's in the 1930's. I copyrighted it but never published it( although I've received offers). The copyright was in 1983. TXu-152-000.

Can I upload the content for free use? Also, I revised the wording in the original. Is this ok?

Wiki member: dam2011

email: m1dorothy@gmail

Thank you,

Dorothy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dam2011 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From a copyright point of view, it should be no problem -- you own the copyright, so you can license it any way you wish. The fact that the copyright is registered is not important.
However, I doubt that such a book falls within the scope of Commons, which is a repository for media files -- primarily images and sounds -- and not text.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikisource might be interested in the book however. --Morn (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Captcha help request

.../w/index.php?title=User:TutorJDD&action=submit says "enter the words that appear below in the box" I click on "more info" which takes me to Special:Captcha/help which says

Unfortunately this may inconvenience users with limited vision or using text-based or speech-based browsers. At the moment we do not have an audio alternative available. Please contact the site administrators for assistance if this is unexpectedly preventing you from making legitimate posts [...]

I am using JAWS 7.1 (screen reader); I'm pretty sure that the external link Easy Auscultation - Learn Stethoscope Skills at WWW.EasyAuscultation.Com is a legitimate addition to my Commons user Page, and the captcha is definitely unexpected (but IMO reasonable). Clicking on "Commons:Help desk" brings me here, where I find no reference to captchas. I am new here so wondering how blind people handle captchas. By the way: This specific external link is not something I must have on my user Page; I just need to know how to handle captchas. Guidance appreciated, (I hope the way I wrote this help request is okay), TutorJDD (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the only immediate problem is with adding this link on your user page and if that addition is not urgent, I would suggest that the simplest solution is to wait out the ordinary period of four days after the creation of your account, and then you will be rid of the captcha requirement, as long as you are logged into your account when performing the edits (see Commons:Autoconfirmed users). However, if there is any urgency for you to bypass the captcha before the expiration of that period of four days, just say so and an administrator can specially lift that requirement for your account. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the tip/reminder (I might have known that at some point...). I'll wait -- far from urgent. TutorJDD (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wikt:File:Wiktionary broken 09-FEB-2011.JPG

I was hoping to upload this file here in order to be able to delete it from Wiktionary. I'm unsure of which licence to use (et al.) Thanks for your cooperation. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can use {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} license --Sreejith K (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please reupload it as PNG. --Perhelion (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move picture to an existing one

Hi, I recently uploaded the file, and would like it moved to overwrite the current file . I am too new of a member to have the appropriate permissions to overwrite current files. Also, I would like the comment of my edit changed to "Reverted back to 1,214×786, and edited colors to reflect current situations." I used derivitiveFX and the comment for my update came out as a mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfernoApple (talk • contribs)

It's not a problem to have it as a separate file. Maybe you want to add the date it's update to date in the description though. --  Docu  at 03:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The original file is on a bunch of pages on Wikipedia, so it would be great if someone could move it for me. I don't know what you mean with the date, I just joined and don't really know what I'm doing. InfernoApple (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The file you made should represent the situation at a given date.
You can edit the article at Wikipedia and replace it with the new version. --  Docu  at 04:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source an Permission

Hello, I have two problems I need your help with. At first I uploaded two photos showing an old bakery File:Backstube_aus_dem_19._Jahrhundert.jpg and an old shop window File:Rischart-Schaufenster_um_die_Jahrhundertwende.jpg of the bakery I am currently working for. It is a family business an these pictures have been taken by the ancestors of the current business manager. I stated that is is my own work speaking for the company I am working for. Was that ok or do I have to change anything. If so, how can I change that? The second problem is that I uploaded two other photos showing establishments of my company. File:Café_Kaiserschmarrn_auf_dem_Münchner_Oktoberfest.JPG and File:Fassade_Marienplatz.jpg I thought they would have been taken by a colleague but I found out that they have been taken by a photographer we paid for. I also stated that it was my own work thinking it belonged to the company. But I think I should have given the name of the photographers because its their work. Do I have to change that an how can I change that? My company is informed and approves of my uploading the photos, so there should not be a problem with that. Thanks a lot for your help!!! --Rischart (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo Rischart, ich antworte dir einfach in Deutsch - das ist für mich und für dich wohl einfacher. Ich war mal so frei und habe die Links zu den Bildern in deinem Text verbessert, ich nehme an, das ist dir recht.
Für die beiden Bilder der Vorfahren der Geschäftsinhaber gilt, dass eigentlich jene möglichst eine E-Mail an unser Supportteam schicken sollten (siehe Commons:OTRS/de) in der sie bestätigen, dass sie die vollen Rechte an den Bildern vom jeweiligen Fotograf geerbt haben und die Bilder unter einer hier akzeptierten Lizenz freigeben. Wenn das möglich wäre, wäre das so am besten. Oder ist der Fotograf schon mehr als 70 Jahre verstorben? Dann ist es egal und {{PD-old-70}} sollte benutzt werden. Eigenes Werk und dich als Autor ist nicht so ideal. Schreibe es einfach so hin, wie es ist. Bei source eben: This picture have been taken by the ancestors of the current business manager. I got the picture from him. Und bei author beispielsweise Rischart family member.
Für die Bilder der professionellen Fotografen sind Genehmigungen durch jene nötig. Bei dem Foto vom Cafe Kaiserschmarrn auf durch den Künstler, der das "Haus" entworfen hat, da hier wohl die Panoramafreiheit nicht gilt, da das Ding ja nicht dauerhaft dort steht. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 18:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

copyright issue

Can I claim as my own work the photo of a statue or a painting taken by me? Kkutty (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just use {{Own}} (photo) as source to make this clear. And try to find out the artist of the photographed work and write is his name in the "author" field, too. E.g. author= Kkutty (photo); Da Vinci (painting). This may be also required by your freedom of panorama (check if allowed at all!) laws if the artist is not already more than 70 years dead. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

opplasting av fil

Hva er kravet for å laste opp et kart som viser grunnkretser fra Statisk sentralbyrå sitt folketellingshefte 2001 Er det forresten mulig å laste opp pdf filer--Pmt (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I cannot understand Bokmål - maybe Commons:Licensing (section "Norway") helps you? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A simple summary in bokmål: Kravet er, slik jeg forstår det, at den eller de som har laget kartet må gi alle rett til å kopiere, gjenbruke og modifisere kartet. Hvis det ikke står noen slik tillatelse i heftet, så kan det ikke lastes opp her. Det finnes PDF-filer her, så da bør det være mulig å laste opp slike. Ters (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

multi-upload tool for images?

Hi I did a multi-upload a couple years ago and was wondering if it is still available?

I have a few hundred images (all the same subject) that I want to upload but I can't seem to find the software tool to upload anymore?

It looks like i can upload only one at a time?

Thanks Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyet (talk • contribs) 2011-02-19T16:27:09 (UTC)

Hi Dave, you're searching for Commons:Tools/Commonist. But please keep in mind that you have correct descriptions after upload and maybe first test with one file upload so check that everything is okay before you upload 100s - otherwise you have to correct all files manually. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want, you could upload a few and then ask them to be reviewed. BTW, here I added the filename in to the description field diff. You could use {{en|1={{subst:PAGENAME}}}} there, but shorter filename and longer descriptions would obviously be preferable. --  Docu  at 07:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

incomplete uploads

Slightly relevant to this topic, I found two incomplete uploads; File:Snow in New York City - Madison Square Park.jpg and File:The cliffs surrounding Fayetteville Green Lake..jpg. Can somebody upload the intended images to those files, or should I give them a shot? ----DanTD (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No svgs, no error. What should be wrong with them? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They weren't showing up at the time, like File:Harding (Pix, Chopin) Theatre, Chicago, IL.jpg?zz=1 isn't showing up now. Apparently somebody fixed them between the time I posted this message, and the time you replied. ----DanTD (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is also a completely different issue - above was only specifically for svg. Your last file was never uploaded. Only the description page was created. Probably the upload by the vlickrbot failed because of the strange "?zz=1" in the file name. It is not escaped proberly. I tried to reupload it with bryans tool and it told me it is already on Commons: File:Chopin Theatre Chicago Illinois.jpg where the uploader put it some minutes after the first attempt. He just forgot to cleanup (delete) the incomplete upload. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using a photo within a commercial brochure

I woudl like to use a photo ( with a "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license" license. (yes I know that is redundant)

I hope to use the photo on the cover of a comercial brochure along with other text introducing the content of the brochure. I would like to confirm that the contents of the brochure is not covered by the share and share alike license. The copy does not refer to the photo under question. I think the brochure copy and ond other graphic design materials aggregate content. Is the correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)

Sounds correct to me. You would need to indicate in the brochure that the photo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, you would have to provide a summary of the license comparable to the one we give, and you would have to credit Wikimedia Commons user Nephron. That's a lot of text to have to put in a brochure, though, so it may not meet your needs, in which case you should contact User:Nephron and see if he or she will provide you with a more suitable license for your purpose. - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CC licenses were designed for just this sort of use; it seems odd that their licensing requirements would require the use of so much space as to make the image's use untenable. Powers (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to upload a historic Wiki Commons photo I restored?

Hi, Am a total newbie to Wiki Commons, and unfortunately, a low level computer user. I saw a photo of John Brown (yes, the John Brown in the Battle Hymn of the Republic) on Wiki Commons, which was badly marred by dust and scratches. Being a long time photo retoucher, I digitally cleaned up the photo and am now trying to figure out how I can upload it to you. I have been searching for almost an hour and am totally overwhelmed by the computerese of your website. I went to the "freenode" pages and couldn't figure out what it was asking me to do. I'm sorry I can't follow all this -- is there a simplified instruction page I could access? Or is there someone on your site that I can send the photo of John Brown to and they can get it to where it's supposed to go? My retouched photo is a professional job and I know it will be used in place of the dusty print used on Wickipedia as the main John Brown photo, if only I can figure out how to upload, with all the copyright notes, etc.! I would like to do more volunteer clean-up and retouching for Wiki Commons, but I'll need some help! Thank you in advance for your assistance!

To upload files, you will need to register an account on Commons. You can have a quick look at some of the pages linked from Commons:First steps, which should get you started and give you a general idea of the workings of the project. You can have a look at the Category:John Brown, to see if someone else has done a similar work on a version of the image. You may also be interested to get in touch with other people at the Commons:Graphic Lab or its equivalent on Wikipedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using image in a book

I would like to use this image in a book. Are there any restrictions?!Charlemagne-by-Durer.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 19:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The painting is in the public domain, so it is not a problem. While not every country agrees, it is USA law, and Commons policy, that photographs of two dimensional art that is in the public domain do not have their own copyright. If the book is going to be published in the USA, there should be no problem. In other countries, you should probably start by reading the summary of Bridgeman v Corel and the following section at Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag.
In any case, it is always courteous to give credit to the museum that owns it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subcategory spacing

Does anyone know how an extra space is created in the following subcategory list?

In Category:Nissan_vehicles, the first and second subcategories have a line break separating them:

[×] Nissan interiors (73 F)
********extra space here*********
[×] Nissan police automobiles (48 F)

Looking at their sort keys ([[Category:Nissan vehicles| ]]) shows no difference. Does anyone know why there is an extra space between these 2 subcategories? There are similar instances of such extra spaces in Category:Audi_vehicles, Category:Jaguar_vehicles, etc. Thank you for any info on how this is coded. Altair78 (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It changes if you click edit and save on the subcategories.
One could be the old version of sortkeys, the other one the new version (since MW 1.17). --  Docu  at 06:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah yes, I tested and you are correct, an old category with last edit in early 2010, now edited in 2011, falls in line with the rest and no extra spaces. Thank you for your help. Altair78 (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving an image

Hi, I want to move File:363.jpg to File:Gateway Arch (distant view), but I can't find the move button. Could someone go ahead and move it and also tell me how I can do it myself for future reference? Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind, I just found COM:FAQ#MOVE. Goodvac (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

unifying user name

I have been registered to wikimedia commons by the name Eitn f (eitan_f) and to WIKISPECIES by the name Eitan F. I wish to unify this two users under the same name, one of them. How to do this? Eitan f (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might want to try COM:USURP --Foroa (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-US-not renewed (Netherlands)

I am looking for something like this Template:PD-US-not_renewed. The issue is that this is a photo taken in the Netherlands, of a Dutch book produced in the Netherlands after 1912, and we don't have any templates for that. Anything published before 1912 is beyond copyright in the Netherlands. My question has to do with a particular case here: File:Herman_Heijenbroek_-_jj_Beijnes_-_werkplaats_Haarlem-_1938.jpg. My question has to do with the coyrightholder. Is this the heirs of the artist or the owner of the book? The publisher of the book is a defunct company, so they cannot grant permission, and the book was given to employees of the company in 1938 and was never for sale. The book's owner is a museum that has granted rights, and the photos are taken by me, so that is all ok. Thanks in advance, I have OTRS ticket number Ticket#2011021710013617 open on this issue. Jane023 (talk) 08:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no Netherlands analogue to Template:PD-US-not_renewed for the simple reason that only the USA (as far as I know) has an enormously complex series of rules for copyright. In most other countries the rule is simple -- the copyright lasts for X years (usually 70) after the creator's death.
As for the specific question, please refer to the comments at the related deletion request.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just found this file File:Curtiss CW-22 Falcon ML-KNIL 1940.jpg which has 2 templates; one for the museum (maybe I need to look into this!) and another one for Template:PD-Netherlands. Maybe it is this second template that I want, but I need one without the 70 year clause (although this picture seems to be violating that as well). As far as I can see, there are no other Netherlands templates available. Jane023 (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On that image, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Curtiss CW-22 Falcon ML-KNIL 1940.jpg. I don't think it even showed a Dutch plane. Lupo 10:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anything published before 1912 is beyond copyright in the Netherlands. You sure about that? Because Template:PD-Netherlands links to an English translation of the Copyright Law of 1912, and there's a complex set of rules permitting those who were using works in certain legal ways prior to 1912 to continue using them even if it wouldn't now be legal, subject to certain objections by the author mediated by the court, implying that pre-1912 copyrights may still stand.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out! Clearly the US is not the only country with complex copyright rules. In fact, I really can't imagine why all other countries would *not* have their own set of complex rules! My issue here however, has to do with objects produced *after* 1912 and falling outside the 70-year rule, and not before. Thx Jane023 (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your file does not fall "outside the 70-year rule", not at all. Heijenbrock died 1948, so his works are copyrighted until the end of 2018. Lupo 09:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

photo by "user PRA"—what does that mean?


I have found a photo of a peacock desplaying which I would like to use in a book. I understand the license to mean that I must credit the photographer, but in this case, I can't understand who the photographer is. The book is a small run academic publication on Indian vocal music. Do I need to contact the photographer, or is PRA in fact something other than the photographer?

Many thanks for your help with this,

Nicolas Magriel Please write to me at <isnt AT blueyonder DOT co DOT uk>

User:PRA is User:PRA who is the photographer and a user of Wikimedia Commons with the pseudonym PRA. You need to attribute him with PRA. According to the license and the attribution requirement it is suggested (see Commons:Credit line) to credit «Paon bleu faisant la roue by PRA / CC-BY-2.5 ( )» while the term "by" is not necessary and the creative commons deed can be linked in other languages or, in case of an online publication can go like CC-BY-2.5. This is not very handy for a print publication, for a different licensing you may contant User talk:PRA. --Martin H. (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Count parameters in a template

I have created {{Category definition: Object collection}} that explains the content of a category in a multilingual way. I was wondering if it should be used to distinguish between "pure" categories like Category:Levallois points and "intersection" categories like Category:Necklaces in the Muséum de Toulouse collection of prehistory. It would amount to finding categories that use more than one of the template's parameters. Would there be any reasonably clean way to find it ?--Zolo (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could test each parameter to see if it's defined with the following (from mw:Help:Parser_functions_in_templates):
{{#if: {{{1|}}} | Parameter 1 is defined and non-null/non-empty. | Parameter 1 is not defined, or is defined but null. It contains only empty string(s) or breaking space(s) etc.}}
e.g. for "institution"
{{#if: {{{institution|}}} | 1 | 0}}
This assigns 1 if there is an institution and 0 in all other cases.
For "type" this would be:
{{#if: {{{type|}}} | 1 | 0}}
Do the same for all others.
Then add those together, e.g.
{{#if: {{{institution|}}} | 1 | 0}} + {{#if: {{{type|}}} | 1 | 0}}
If the addition is >1, there are several parameters.
This might be tested with (from mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions#.23ifexpr):
{{#ifexpr: expression | one parameter | more than one }}
where expression = (..) >1
In the sample above (..) >1 would be:
({{#if: {{{institution|}}} | 1 | 0}} + {{#if: {{{type|}}} | 1 | 0}}) >1
Maybe it works. --  Docu  at 05:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it works thanks (now the question is can it be useful?).Zolo (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, it's just that categorization currently doesn't work (Bugzilla:27626). --  Docu  at 19:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing sub-categories

I don't understand this. Category:Structures in Lincolnshire contains Category:Lincolnshire, but if I display Category:Lincolnshire it does not appear as a sub-category. Nor did the main page list Category:Rivers of Lincolnshire but I have moved it to Category:Geography of Lincolnshire where it appeared straight away.

Lord alone knows where Category:Towns and villages in Lincolnshire is spliced into the hierarchy. It certainly does not appear as a sub of Category:Lincolnshire. It is as plain as a pikestaff in Category:Towns and villages in England

Category:Architecture of Lincolnshire looks exactly the same as Category:Structures in Lincolnshire if I edit it, but the architecture category already appears as a subcategory of Category:Lincolnshire.

What is going on? --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To view Category:Structures in Lincolnshire on Category:Lincolnshire, you need to click on "(next 200)" or add {{Category tree all}} to the category description of Category:Lincolnshire.
It's a known problem that might eventually get fixed. --  Docu  at 12:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that. The workround works, but is ugly. Good advice. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Permission granted, but unsure about license

I have been tracking down permission to use images of a figure skater for upload here at Commons for use at Wikipedia. I used the appropriate email template asking for images released under an appropriate creative license in asking for permission and was quite clear that I needed images that were either in the public domain or were released under a creative license. Today I received an email from the figure skater's publicity agency that had two images attached for my use and the following information: "Fotocredit: Trixi Schuba [the figure skater herself]", "For press purposes free of charge". Is this permission from the agency too little? Thank you. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, too little. Obviously, they did not grant what you asked. They do not even mention free license terms. (Besides, sending their reply to you personally instead of Wikimedia would not have been really useful even if they had granted a free license.) -- Asclepias (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your response. I will email again and ask for clarification. Can you direct me to where I can find a proper email address for contacting Wikimedia to provide permission that I can send on to the gentleman I am in contact with? --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the procedure and the email address, please see Commons:OTRS. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

deleting own file

hello, i can't seem to find an answer to the question if (and how) it is possible to remove an own file.

i work for an organization (WCBO) and recently became aware that 3 images that the organization has (or had) the copyrights to are to be found on wiki commons (, and

originally, they were uploaded by someone from the organization by mistake. now it appears that the WCBO has been removed from users (see:, i don't know why or by whom. that seems a bit odd.

we do not want these images to remain on wiki commons. is there a way to remove them?

i am not at all familiar with wiki commons and don't know if i will find this page again - if possible, could you send (a copy of) your reply to

thank you very much for your help!

daniel diederich (WCBO)

Well, this might not be easy. The free licensing of those three images was officially confirmed by an email from C. Braun, sent from, in 2008. That is what the "OTRS ticket #2008100110036061" is about. I asked someone with OTRS access to look at this email and they didn't see any reason to doubt its validity. So, it doesn't seem that such an email confirmation could have been sent by mistake. Now, sometimes there might be other reasons to delete otherwise valid images, but the usual reasons (privacy, out of scope) don't seem to apply to those images: the events are public, there is no infringement of personal privacy, the images are in use and they illustrate several articles, so they are "in scope" and they have been there for three years. Anyway, is there any particular reason why you would want them deleted? As for the "username removed", this is an "oversighter"'s action. I don't know why it was done, perhaps it was done at the WCBO's request, but anyway the credit is still given to the "World Chess Boxing Organisation" on the description pages. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Subhashish Panigrahi (ସୁଭ ପା) here, I have uploaded this image below which I was supposed to upload as Wikipedia-logo-v2-or.svg because it is a logo for Oriya Wikipedia , please help me move this image and guide how this will be displayed in the Odia (Oriya) Wikipedia site ?

✓ Done File moved --Sreejith K (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scan of newspaper front page - newspaper long defunct

I have had a scan of a newspaper front page removed for copyright violation. However the newspaper went out of business decades ago - does the copyright still apply? I mean who holds the copyright if the business no longer exists? --Rizlazu (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generally when a business winds down the residue goes to one of four places, in this order in the USA:
  1. the government (for unpaid taxes),
  2. the employees (for unpaid wages),
  3. the creditors (for unpaid bills), or
  4. the owners (if everyone else has been paid).
If there is an auction of the assets, there is often an explicit sale of intellectual property -- that would be very likely in the case of a newspaper. If there was no auction, then the copyrights would belong to the highest group on the list that was not paid in full.
This is, of course, rarely worth tracking down. Someone who had a specific use for the page might just use it and hope, but Commons rules require that we know that it is free for all use.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks James but how would a front page or newspaper article ever get shown? --Rizlazu (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Material that is still covered by copyright but where the copyright owner cannot be found cannot be used on Commons and is largely unusable in the outside world -- this is more usually a problem with books than newspapers, but it applies to all such things.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could this diagram be uploaded with Template:PD-ineligible? --P. S. Burton (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say "no". While the facts have no copyright, creating this sort of tree so that it is clear and usable actually requires considerable effort, well beyond the threshold of originality.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obtaining category for Topographic map of Anchorage File:Anchorage and Vicinity O61149A6 geo.pdf

Hi , my name is Eric Torsen and I uploaded a topographic map of Anchorage Alaska and received an email from Wikipedia on labeling catagorie.I have know idea in how to do this as I'm very new to uploading(this was my first upload to a website!)I was hoping you could me with this or label a catagorie(?)for me!!I do appreciate this,Eric Torsen!My email is <removed>.Thank you!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Etorsen (talk • contribs) 03:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi and welcome to Commons! Just read the advices on your talk page or see Commons:categories. And yes, you do not need to categorize - other users will do it. Or even you in some moths/weeks. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome to Commons. I have added Category:Anchorage, Alaska and Category:Maps of Alaska to the file. Please note that we generally prefer such files in PNG format, not PDF, because it is much easier to edit. See Commons:PDF to image files for suggestions.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creative Commons and Nazi photos

Many Nazi photos are under the creative commons liscense, which says, 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).

On the Nazi photos that I've seen, I don't see anything about attribution. For example,,_Mutter_mit_Kindern.jpg

How would I know if they wanted attribution? Would it be specified in the box above the creative commons box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 14:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply] . Additionally: There is something about attribution, I wonder why you not see anything. See the watermark on the file: Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1973-010-31 Foto: o.Ang. | Februar 1943, thats an attribution specification, with parts of this specification might be tranlatable (o.Ang., Februar=February) . Furthermore the license agreement requires you to provide a link to the deed,, and to keep the title of the file, "Mutter mit Kindern". --Martin H. (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For this photo, "the manner specified by the licensor" is explicitely specified in the "attribution" line of the license tag. It originally read: "Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1973-010-31 / CC-BY-SA". (Much later, a user changed that line to "Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1973-010-31 / Unknown / CC-BY-SA". I do not know if this change is valid or useful.) -- Asclepias (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The text written in the attribution line is only an interpretion. The copyright holder provided an attribution line in the watermark, that attribution is obligatory. Additionally attribution requirements stipulated in the license contract have to be followed, see my information above (link to the license deed, title of the work) --Martin H. (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you both for your very helpful feedback--the attribution was right in front of me. Thanks, too Martin, for pointing out I need the link and title.

Martin, by keeping the title of the file, do you mean the default name you save the photo as?

The Bundesarchiv requires to attribute their archive number, "Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1973-010-31", the Creative Commons license requires the title which is specified as "Mutter_mit_Kindern" (I dont know, but maybe its allowed to translate the title), the filename consist of both. --Martin H. (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I upload the image source?

I know my way around the english wikipedia, but I'm an utter noob when it comes to commons. I uploaded my first picture, File:Perl history.svg, which I created using Dia. Can I upload the dia file anywhere, so that the source is available for others to reuse? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The svg would be fine for reuse and modification if you could save the text as text and not as paths. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have a question concerning copyright. I have taken a photo of footballsupporters during a match showing a big banner with the logo of Red Bull Salzburg. It is markedf as copyright violation. I´m not quite sure why. I have taken it in a public event and it is was not my main intention to show the logo but to show the banner of the supporters. Can somebody help me with an answer?--Werner100359 (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Werner. You'll likely have better luck getting an answer at the actual Commons:Help desk; this talk page is intended for discussing the help desk itself. Better yet, try Commons talk:Licensing; that's a popular place for copyright questions. Also, be sure to link the image in question! Powers (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Rd232 (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]