Commons:Village pump/Archive/2004/10

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Village Pump archives
+ J F M A M J J A S O N D
2004 Not available 09 10 11 12
2005 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2006 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2016 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2017 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Museum template?

I ttok some pictures at an open-air-museum (meaning garden, sculptures, and some houses with pictures). I looked for a "no photos" sign but didn't find one, so I'd say they are OK to upload here. OTOH, there might be some legal issues in the long run. Should we have a {{museum}} template, saying "This image was taken in a museum. Though there was no indication that photography was prohibited, some additional restrictions might apply." or something? --Magnus Manske 18:39, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I suspect it doesn't matter. Perhaps you broke the law by taking the photos (although it doesn't look like you did), but you would still own the copyright to them. So you could still upload them here, and Wikimedia wouldn't have any liability. So I'd say the point is moot. Quadell (talk) 17:05, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Size of images?

Is there a general guideline regarding the size (pixels, not disk space) of images? I have images at 3072x2048 (usually around 2-3mb JPGs). Should I make them smaller before uploading? Nadavspi 01:54, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nevermind, I already talked to Grunt on IRC.
But the rest of us haven't. What's the answer to the question of both disk space and resolution? - TalkHard 23 Oct 2004
A good guideline is to have pictures of an absolute maximum of ~1000 pixels in the longest dimension. Anything beyond that is probably too expansive. -- Grunt 22:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I question this. I think that the largest possible image should be uploaded. Remember that Wikipedia will some day be paper, and that resolutions of computer display devices are increasing by the day (well, almost). It is very shortsighted to not at least _archive_ a high res version of each image. — Chmod007 21:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think it depends. A difficult to take picture of the earth certainly does deserve a higher resolution than a picture of some toilet paper. Overall, i would put the limits more at the file size than the resoultion due to bandwith constraints. We have some quite large images, as can easily be seen on Special:Imagelist. Currently the largest one is Image:WEC-69F-001.jpg, a 6MB scan of a catalog page from 1969, which i think is absurd. Second is the earth with 5.2 MB. We also have a 4.5 MB grainy BW picture of a Image:Chimneysweep.png, which also seems to me to be too big, and two more catalog pages Image:WEC-69F-002.jpg and Image:WEC-69F-002r.jpg with 4.3 and 4.2 MB. Personally I think 1MB should be the upper limit except for truly exceptional images, and most images hould be below 300kB. -- Chris 73 00:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the largest version available should be submitted. However, the image page should show a thumbnailed image (perhaps 600-800px in the widest dimension) 3072x2048 is too big for todays monitors. If the user really wants the original image, they could download it from there. We don't know what the images will be used for in the future. Print is a good example. While a 640x480 photo was large a few years ago, it is considered small now. - Redjar 02:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


If anyone is interested in a tree view of the categories currently in use, there is now one at Commons:Categories. I don't guarantee to keep it up to date, but it might be quite useful in finding areas that are not yet covered, and in providing an overview to see if any pages could be better classified. Angela 03:59, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good! - Andre Engels 08:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is really great, I guess this will become the backbone of the whole commons-project :-) Fantasy 13:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Due to the really existing “Objects” I would like to suggest another categorization:

and within Technic

And there should be an alphabetacal list too. --WHell 08:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Importing images now?

I was just reading through the FAQ and other stuff, but I could't yet find out, if I should now re-upload all the images I have put on en/de/it, or if there is a function planned, to import them automatically.

Question: Should I start re-upload, or should I wait until a import-function is implemented?

Thanks for help :-) Fantasy 13:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think there are bots to do it. Angela 18:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A pointer to RTFM will be greately appreciated. Meanwhile, I have similar questions about the bots: will the bots move the file along with the history, replacing the original articles' links to them? Or will they'll just clone it at commons? In that case, will there be a trace left on the corresponding en/de/fr/... image page signaling the upload success and giving the link to the commons file? BACbKA 19:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think WTFM (Write the f.{4,7} manual) would be more appropiate here. Neither the manual nor the bots have been written yet. Bots to copy images already exist, but as this doesn't suffice, new bots will have to be written. Moving images would involve copying and removing, and a bot being able to do this would need to have admin privileges. I don't think any bot has this. It could add {{delete}}, but a server-side bot would be a better solutieon. What do others think of this? Gerrit 20:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As an alternative to an upload bot, i would like to propose a single-image transfer script. I believe this would make life much simpler without the risk of bot-gone-wild. What do you folks think? -- Kowey 10:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Automatic uploading using Topjabot

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to ask, but here goes. I have been granted permission to upload about 8000 botanical pictures now (re)licensed under GFDL. See User:Topjabot for information. I would like to use User:Topjabot to upload those to Wikicommons. Can I do this? I will use pywikipediabot and a large delay (why bother if it takes weeks ;-)... Gerrit 09:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What exactly will the bot do? Just upload the images, or will it also create pages to put them on? Will the bot be able to add categories to those pages? Angela 16:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The bot would upload images. It could also create pages to put them on. The site I take them from lists them under the scientific names, so if I would create pages to put them on, the names would all be the scientific ones. I could also add categories to those pages, but I don't know how I would exactly do that. Gerrit 16:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Maybe you can do a few test uploads? As a pywikipediabot writer and user I of course don't mind you using it, but it's a lot easier for everyone to make a decision if they know more of what they are or are not agreeing to. (P.S. - are you using - Andre Engels 19:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'll do a few test uploads before the mass uploading. I'm not ready to do that yet, because I have to download the images to my own hd first, and extract the necessary information from the website. I expect to do some test uploads in approx. 24 hours. Gerrit 19:24, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've test-uploaded a few images. See, for example, Rhuopsis stylosa. Todo: Categorizing. All families will be put into the category Category:Plantae. Since I keep a local log of all categories, that's quite easily done. I plan to wait with it until I've uploaded everything, however. Do you think Rhuopsis stylosa and the related images are in a good format? Gerrit 10:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Looks good to me, and I also have to say that the whole project is really great. When you ask about the format I presume you are not asking about the file-format because you have done nothing with it which is a good thing. I would link en:Kurt Stüber though, as he seems to be worthy of an encyclopedia article (perhaps it should be tested first, though). Apart from that I would really, really, love it if you could get the same images in a higher quality. Keep on the good work. --Dittaeva 12:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I didn't mean the file format, I meant the look of the articles, with the category on them, and the description of the images. I think it's good as it is. I don't agree Kurt Stüber would deserve an article. And if he would, linking to the English wikipedia would add a bias to the English wikipedia. Unfortunately, there is no better quality available, as all images were taken with this resolution. Also note that this is a snapshot of the first and largest batch of three. The other batches are a mix of photographs and drawings. Because the source pages are in a very different format, having different information available (for example, the English name as well as the Latin one), I will also upload them seperately. Those photographis have a higher quality, by the way. Gerrit 16:34, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm also adding the categories. See Category:Plantae_by_family. Gerrit 10:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A suggestion: For those users who have long lists, maybe use either a template marking the image to be moved or use a list marking the image to be moved or both? A template marking the image to be moved would be useful for nominating images into the Commons, while a list would be useful for users wanting their images to be moved to the Commons. --AllyUnion 09:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Second batch

According to MPF, 'the source I am using has a considerable number of typographical errors, and also out-of-date taxonomy in several instances'. Because of that, I have made a quick-and-dirty list of the data for the second (much smaller) batch of images here. The first column represents the family, the second one the name, and the last and third one the URI where I'm going to download the image. Could someone with knowledge of the subject either confirm the data is correct or point out errors in the source? Thanks! Gerrit 19:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Checking the list, these stand out:


  • Aceraceae - now treated as part of Sapindaceae
  • Caryophyllaceaew - typo for Caryophyllaceae
  • Compositae - now called Asteraceae
  • Cruciferae - now called Brassicaceae
  • Cypressaceae - typo for Cupressaceae
  • Gramineae - now called Poaceae
  • Hippocastanaceae - now treated as part of Sapindaceae
  • Labiatae - now called Lamiaceae
  • Lamnaceae - typo for Lemnaceae
  • Leguminosae - now called Fabaceae
  • Leguminosum - typo of above; also now Fabaceae
  • Rosaceael - typo for Rosaceae
  • Umbelliferae - now called Apiaceae
  • Woodsiaceae - now treated in Dryopteridaceae

Individual species

  • Fagaceae : Quercus pedunculata - synonym of Quercus robur
  • Polypodiaceae : Matteuccia truthiopteris - typo for Matteuccia struthiopteris; now treated in Dryopteridaceae
  • Polypodiaceae : Phegopteris connectilis - now treated in Thelypteridaceae
  • Rosaceael : Pyrus malus - synonym of Malus domestica
  • Rosaceae : Prunus amygdalus - synonym of Prunus dulcis
  • Staphyleaceae : Staphylaea pinnata - typo for Staphylea pinnata
  • Typhaceae : Sparganium erectum - now treated in its own family Sparganiaceae
  • Ulmaceae : Ulmus minor - synonym of Ulmus carpinifolia
- MPF 22:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I made all changes described above, as well as removed some question marks from the data. The current data has been dumped here. The format is simply Python dictionairy format so not very readable, sorry. Gerrit 10:11, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Commons support enabled on all wikis

See my announcement on foundation-l.--Eloquence

Hi, I just uploaded a photo to Commons
, but when I insert the pic in the German Wikipedia w:de:Hersbruck and open the description page, I get this:
<quote>Dies ist eine Datei aus Wikimedia Commons. Siehe die Bildbeschreibungsseite dort für Lizenzinformationen.
Dieser Artikel existiert noch nicht.
Wählen Sie Seite bearbeiten ( aus, wenn Sie ihn anlegen möchten.
Falls Sie neu hier sind, empfehlen wir Ihnen aber zunächst unsere ersten Schritte. Vielleicht gibt es dazu einen Eintrag 20010705-85 Hersbrucker Altstadt vom Michelsberg.jpg in unserem Schwesterprojekt, dem freien Wörterbuch Wiktionary.
Kein Artikel benutzt dieses Bild.
Von "" <unquote>
Which means basically that Wikipedia tends to create a new image description. Is that ok? Best, --wpopp 15:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I belive this is intentional - is allowes every wiki to have a description page in the local language. The message shown however is misleading and should be changed (an extra message is needed, that is destinct from the page-not-found for normal article pages or missing immages). -- Duesentrieb 19:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Great, thanx. And how do we go about changing the message? Lost in the Wiki Meanders. --wpopp 22:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Flags and maps

Where do we put flags and maps? Greatpatton 21:50, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Under the country name or region name. For instance, see Spain, Dobrodzień, and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Quadell (talk) 17:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
We could create a world map too with links to the national maps.

Copyrighted materials not allowed?

After reading Commons:Licensing I just want to make sure again that Wikicommons only accept free works. Therefore copyrighted images are not allowed to be uploaded to Wikicommons. Does this mean that if any Wikimedia projects need to use copyrighted images/materials under fair use, the images/materials have to be uploaded to each local projects rather than here?--Formulax 06:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes. However, not every Wikipedia allows fair use.--Eloquence
How about {{PD-US}}, where the copyright expired in the US, but not necessarily in other countries? Is this free enough? -- 23:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Opinions on that differ. I would prefer in such a case to go with the copyright laws from the country of origin. - Andre Engels 15:35, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Wikicommons does allow copyrighted images, if those images are released under a free license. If you're in doubt as to what this means, ask first and we'll be able to clarify. Anthony 02:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)