- 1 overzelous translation
- 2 Full length movies and music
- 3 Can this really be under GFDL?
- 4 Singular or Plural?
- 5 Category:Author
- 6 Catagory: Carniverous plants
- 7 Protist images
- 8 Categories
- 9 Municípios
- 10 Should be some images protected?
- 11 Multilangual Interface
- 12 Moving images from Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons
- 13 Moving images and language barriers
- 14 eo:MediaWiki:Sharedupload needs changeing to mention commons
- 15 Blue line through images when viewing with Safari web browser
- 16 Can I put photos of music albums in Commons?
the first two posts here are moved from bdk's talk page
you made an edit comment on the main page whicm mentioned my name "Wiederhergestellt zur letzten Änderung von Plugwash" in what i assume is german. Please translate it. Plugwash 12:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, that´s the automated rollback comment of the german interface for Reverted edit of $2, changed back to last version by $1 :-) --:Bdk: 01:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Right... translating the interface is one thing. translating things that are inserted into comment fields automatically is quite another. this should be edited so that no matter what language interface is being used the rollback function inserts the same comment asap. Plugwash 03:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- So you would like to have all these messages in english, right? No problem for me, personally. I don´t mind changing this, can do that also if it´s wanted. Of course it was not translated by anyone here because the fundamental parts of the interface came from mediawiki language set  - for every other language. And what do you think should happen to all the similar comments made by users who are not speaking english (or just little). Should we really call on all our users to made any comment in english? --:Bdk: 04:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- So if you like the same comment for the rollback function everywhere I propose to use the German text for everyone as a reminder that English is not the native language for everyone here. -- Schnargel 21:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This way we have only one message. Multiple messages are missleading, that is true. --Paddy 21:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
whilst it is true that not everyone here has english as thier first/native language it IS the lingua franca round here. Every description I have seen on a category or gallery page has either been in multiple languages including english or in english alone. if the aim is to make the auto-inserted messages readable to as many of our users as possible then they should be in english simple as that (they also probabblly shouldn't have been placed with the interface translations in the first place but that is another issue). Plugwash 13:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Auch auf die Gefahr hin mich unbeliebt zu machen muß ich gestehen, daß ich meine Bildbeschreibungen meist hemmungslos in Deutsch verfasse und die Texte neuer Artikel auch. Wen es stört, der kann diese gerne übersetzen, oder es lassen. Ich denke nicht, daß es nötig ist alles ins Englische zu übersetzen, nur weil die Leute, die Englisch als Muttersprache haben, meinen jeder müsse sie überall verstehen. Ich vermeide bewußt das Wort des Sprachimperialismus.
I could make some people angry, I only seldom describe my pictures or Articles in English. If somebody is insulted by this he/she may translate it or leave it. I don´t think that everything should be in English just because people that have English as their native language think everybody should understand them everywhere. Dickbauch 18:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Full length movies and music
I was recently pointed toward Commons:Sound, which says that full length songs belong on wikisource. I should point out that that page is copied verbatim from the one on the english wikipedia, which I wrote. That being said, the policy is wrong. I wrote that after discussing policy with Jimbo/Angela/et al prior to Wikicommons being founded. Wikicommons has a much larger upload limit than any other project, for good reason. This project is supposed to house full length movies and sounds, not wikisource, which (as I understand it) was intended for text. As such, I think the policies should be changed to indicate that full length movies and sounds belong here, not at wikisource. Raul654 07:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Was the Commons sound policy ever subject to a vote? Raul654 is correct that large portions of Commons:Sound were copied verbatim from w:Wikipedia:Sound. --MarkSweep 07:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Of course Commons is the place for full length music and film, this goes without saying. --Oldak Quill 16:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Can this really be under GFDL?
Hi. I have a very important question: can I take a picture of a CD cover, by example, using my digital camera, and then release it under GFDL and upload it to Commons? This doesn't apply only to CD covers, of course, if I take a picture of a television showing "The Simpsons" instead of a fair use image, which is not allowed here, and upload it to Commons under the GFDL, will I be doing something legal? --Ikescs 20:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No, a simple reproduction does not give you any rights to the material, so you can't put it under the GFDL. That includes screenshots, scans and reproductive photography. However, if you would show the cd-box as an object (especially from an angle) in some context, it would be probably alright. In short: if you copy and image, by whatever means, it's not yours. There's alsway a gray zone, however... -- Duesentrieb 20:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Singular or Plural?
This may be addressed somewhere, but in creating category/article names is their any guideline on using singular or plural form?. For example I created Category:United States Navy Officers but should it be Category:United States Navy Officer?. cheers, wombat 01:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is it possible to make a category for an author of a photograph ? When an author as put a lot of material on commons, it should be interesting to permit an easy access to all of its contributions... NoJhan 09:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Catagory: Carniverous plants
I've uploaded my image Image:Venus Fly Trap.jpg to the Commons. How do I link to it as requested from the "Catagory: Carniverous Plants" page as these "Catagory:" pages do not appear to support edits as other pages do? It is just the same problem on the "Catagory: Photo" page.
Chilepine 20:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- In Image:Venus Fly Trap.jpg (or another article/category) you add anywhere (usually at the bottom) [[Category:Carnivorous Plants]]. This will put the image/article/category in the Category:Carnivorous Plants. Also, Categories can be edited like any other page. Only the categorized images (articles...) have to be added/removed on the image page itself. Does this help? BTW, another user already added the image to the category. See the edit history for the changes. -- Chris 73 23:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi, all. I notice that under Category:Protista, each image sits on a separate page, with a series of categories reflecting possible classification schemes (there is no real standard). I would like to copy across the images from the en wikipedia, but this system doesn't make much sense to me. On en, there is a single category (w:en:Category:Protist images) that holds media directly, and subcategories would be created in the event that there are enough files to warrant it. This approach makes much more sense to me. Has there been any discussion about this sort of thing? Josh Grosse 20:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- There's been a couple waves of random pre-emptive category generation, and being too soon for much of an organizational consensus, lots of junk is just laying around. I would just throw images into Category:Protista and not worry about it for now. Stan Shebs 22:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Who is in charge of "Category" creation? I believe that an organic or "wild garden" approach will not work in the long term. LoopZilla 22:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why not use these categories from Wikipedia? Surely a one to one correspondence between all categories on all Mediawiki Wikis would make sense? After all, human cognition works that way, doesn't it? LoopZilla 16:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- copying every category from the en wikipedia would just cause a flood of empty categorys. Commons is currently much smaller than the en wikipedia and even if and when it does grow as big its biases will be very different for the simple reason it is NOT an encyclopedia. Some subjects are either not coducive to graphical representation or VERY HARD to get free photographs for. With others like domestic dogs we have a so many photographs that we have to classify them down to individual breads. organic growth is the way wikis work people will try to find suitable categorys that already exist and if not create ones themselves in a similar style to those they have seen before. There are people around on wikipedia who spend most of thier editing time tidying and trying to form consistancy there are other people who add content. We need both types for things to work (btw many still consider it mad that we allow anyone to edit yet we have surprisingly little trouble). Plugwash 03:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We are encouraged to add a category: "Create an article on Commons containing a minimal information, a thumb of the picture or a link to your file, and a category...". I guess have a problem with "Categories" in first place, and the Common Project FAQ insists we place items in categories. LoopZilla 08:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Your example of dogs just shows how an extant, external classification (taxonomy) has been imported into the Commons. All species are classified in biology, breeds by the Kennel Club. My concerns are where categories will be added without a "proper" structure. On a related note, is an image of a Church, Synagogue or Mosque an example of architecture or religion? I know of an example of somebody in Wikipedia who spends a lot time patching up Categories (not me). Some interesting points raised here LoopZilla 09:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes there will need to be people here who spend time tidying up/rationalising the categorisation just like there are on wikipedia. Churches are classified under both religious buildings and christianity. religious buildings are classified under both buildings and religion. The most important thing for uploaders to do is to get the images into the structure somewhere and to provide as much information as possible. Wikiholics can deal with consistancy issues once the images are in roughly the right place. Plugwash 14:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tu não dabias que eu queria ajudar e eu não sabia que era preciso ajuda. Ok vou começar por baixo (aliás é por aí que se deve começar sempre eheh). Se tiver dúvidas pergunto. Isto agora está é muito lento, vamos ver se melhora. Juntas 19:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Should be some images protected?
- some people really need to read meatball:SoftSecurity and meatball:HardSecurity. Hard security like page protection is very disruptive to wikis and should only be used as a last resort. Plugwash 13:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that you can choose from a multilangual interface. I would like to have one in LB too, to choose from, so my question is, how do we get an lb-interface in the prefecences/interface choice ? :-)
--Briséis 16:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Moving images from Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons
I uploaded some images to Wikipedia some time ago, I'd like to move them to the Commons. Is there a simple way to do this and is there any reason I shouldn't do it? —Christiaan 00:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There isn't (yet?) a simple way to do it. You have to just re-upload them all by hand. Some people have 'bots that can do that; if there are a lot of images, it might be worth getting in touch with some such person. But you'd still need to add Commons-specific stuff, like subject categories. No reason not to do it, besides perhaps sloth. Dbenbenn 02:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Moving images and language barriers
Hi, I had a couple questions. I'm new to the Commons (perhaps we all are), and I've amassed a number of public domain image contributions on En, but I have no clue how to migrate these effectively to the Commons. I want downstream users to have access to them — many of the articles containing them are much easier to understand with them. See here for a list:
I also had another question: it seems to me like any "international" wiki intended to be used by Wikipedias in all languages faces a problem of enabling communication between many people who speak different languages. It's possible people who speak a minority language might not get enough attention, or people who speak English poorly might not be understood. Moreover, all image names seem to be in English, which could make including them on other Wikipedias somewhat confusing without uploading a redundant copy to that Wikipedia under another name. All of our image copyright tags are also in one language only, as far as I know. What will we do to internationalize the Commons? Dcoetzee 20:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Check out Commons talk:Language policy and Commons:Language policy Dcoetzee. —Christiaan 21:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
anyone here with admin on the eo wikipedia that can do it? (i don't speak esperanto so i can't easilly ask them directly). Plugwash 02:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- ok i asked in #mediawiki and someone did it. Plugwash 02:45, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Blue line through images when viewing with Safari web browser
This is an example of a problem I have with a blue line through the middle of images when I'm using the Safari web browser. Do our developers know about it; does anyone know why it happens? —Christiaan 21:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Can I put photos of music albums in Commons?
"Are photos like that allowed in Commons?"
This question comes from the author of this photo. Gbiten 23:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say no. It's still fair use to me... Ausir 06:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- plain reproductions of album covers are definitely not allowed. Showing a collection of cds at an angle, as you did, may be allowed in some circumstances, especially if the covers are not the only thing that is shown on the image. The problem is: the better the covers can be recognised, the less likely it is that the images is allowed. Your photo is probably a copyright violation. -- Duesentrieb 09:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)