Commons:Village pump/Archive/2005/02

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

Blue line through images when viewing with Safari web browser

Example of blue line when using 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)

Yes, I'm aware of this (Safari is my primary daily browser). It's probably a bug in Safari though a workaround is probably possible; it has some oddities regarding placing underlines onto images in links. --Brion VIBBER 23:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Brion: That's the link-underlining that for some reason tries to underline the Picture (the height is almost in the middle of the picture as if there was a line of text vertically centered to the picture). Firefox shows a similar line, but behind the picture so it can only be seen while the page loads before the picture is shown. It should be easy to place a "text-decoration: none;" in the HTML to avoid that problem. -- Schnargel 23:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Should be all fixed now. (Force-reload pages as necessary.) I can't replicate any fixes manipulating text-decoration, but separating the <img> and the subsequent text in separate links works just as it always has in the past when I find this problem. --Brion VIBBER 23:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Huh! Well that was pretty simple. Thanks. —Christiaan 00:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Are the images listed on Bomis really GFDL? I vaguely remember Jimbo donated one or two photos, but I somehow doubt it were the ones on that page. Sadly commons still does not show if (and which) articles on any of the wikis actually uses those images. andy 13:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some time ago I marked Image:Sylvia Saint 001.jpg, which Jimbo explicitly released as GFDL. I don't know about the others. Dbenbenn 19:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't know of any reason to think most of those photos are GFDL. And in fact I don't think Bomis has the copyright to most or all of them. They should be deleted as copyvios. I don't have the authority to release them. ----Jimbo Wales 09:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you think Bomis has the copyright to them? They're all from, and all the photos are of people wearing t-shirts. I agree there's no reason to think they've been released as GFDL. The only other one that's used (at least on en:) is Image:Aria Giovanni 003.jpg. Perhaps someone could ask Jimbo to release that one as GFDL? Dbenbenn 09:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Front page security hole

An issue was raised regarding images placed on the Commons. --AllyUnion 18:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From en:Wikipedia_talk:Protected_page#Front_page_security_hole.3F

I'm not sure if this is a security problem or not. Yesterday, the Image:Humpback anglerfish.png was featured in the en:Template:Did you know on the Main Page. A local page was created, with some of the copyright info, but the image is actually on the Commons. The local page was eventually protected, but the page on the Commons never was.

Is this a security hole? I assume creating a local page, and protecting it, is sufficient to prevent someone from uploading a local image and thus overriding the version on the Commons (which was my initial concern). But it also looks like a persistent vandal could have just uploaded a new image over the one on the Commons, with the same effect. Would loading a local copy of the image, protecting it here, and then deleting the local copy when the image leaves the Main Page be sufficient?

Since I'm unregistered I have no practical experience with uploading images; I may be mistaken. But given the recent template vandalism and the current lockdown of the Main Page, if it is a problem a solution should be disseminated, at least to the handful of people involved with updating the templates and protecting the images on the front page. In keeping with the security thought obscurity precept, I deliberately didn't ask while it was still in the template; and I posted the question here, rather than on a more high profile page like Main Page talk, or the admin's noticeboard. 15:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not a 'security hole' because it's quite deliberate that people can edit the materials here; that is in fact our raison d'être. If people feel it's necessary to make certain materials non-editable, then it is their responsibility to make sure they've locked down all the pieces they intended to. Protecting an image page on one wiki for an image that is only hosted on Commons will indeed not prevent an update of the image on Commons, while uploading a local image would prevent the Commons updates from being seen there. --Brion VIBBER 03:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm calling in the cavalary

I've been on a music bend lately. I've found some good resources for copyleft classical music. Now I need help uploading it all to commoons. (I just spent the better part of 2 hours uploading Handel's Messiah - 44 parts) So go to the below sites and start sucking them up:

--Raul654 21:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

majtec agradece pela contribuição no artigo Santa Cruz(Bairro).

I'll help out with some. Inter 17:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Problem with Japanese Interface

I posted the same message at Commons talk:MediaWiki 1.4 upgrade, but it seems nobody read it, so I wrote here the same thing.
I'm using Japanese for interface language. Please see this image. The link to Special:Newimages is not correctly indicated with Japanese interface. Please fix. The problem occures on both IE and firefox with Windows2000. 新着ファイル will be a good replacement.--Moja 05:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. Hopfully meta:LanguageJp.php will be used in future. --Paddy 14:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you.--Moja 12:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I had posted two -imho- perfectly legitimate questions on the FAQ list in the hope that someone with more experience here would answer them if necessary by refering to the correct helppage that I was unable to find. In stead they got merely deleted. Very helpful that. Thank you Plugwash. So let me try again, this time at the pump, although I do think this kind of info is of sufficient general interest that it should go as FAQ or and help page.

  1. How do I best set up a gallery of my own pictures? (I have created a category [[category:User NlJcwf]] for it but this seems uncommon practice)
  2. I am mostly adding bird pictures. How should I cat them? A category for each species that is a subcategory for the genus etc or should I make an ordinary page under the species name and use the {{species}} template?
  3. How can I search image file names?

User:NlJcwf152.1.193.141 18:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

a variety of people were just dumping unanswerd questions on the faq page which is not its perpose and noone was answering them there (it was over a week between you first adding them and my revert). I agree that my edit comment could perhaps have been more helpfull but i still belive the revert was not in error. Trouble is once one person dumps a couple of unanswerd questions on a faq other people start doing the same. anyway now your asking in a suiteable place on to some answers ;)
1: whatever works best for you really. Categories are quick to add images to but imo produce a low quality page with mostly useless information on the images. creating a page (generally as a subpage of your user page) gives more flexibility but also costs more time to maintain it really comes down to what you are comfortable with.
2: whether to use catagories or normal pages for images is a hotly debated issue (see Commons:Images on normal pages or categories:Vote). However please do not go creating a category that duplicates the perpose of a page or vice versa. It appears that the bulk of nature images in the commons are categorised under category:nature in the scheme kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-binomial name of species. Fratercula arctica is a typical example of such classification. The scheme appears to have been introduced by a bot and is deviated from in quite a few places depending on what works best for the images in question.
3: you can change the namespaces a search acts on in the results page as well as setting your preffered selection for the initial search in your preferences. I've tried to get this made the default but it seems anything that can't be done by a normal commons admin just plan doesn't get done. Plugwash 19:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Pluwash NlJcwf 14:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Localized Commons for anonymous

Why doesn't Commons show localized interface for the anonymous users based in http property "Accept-Language"? Gbiten 23:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

World Heritage Sites

I've started a new category Category:World Heritage Sites, where we can categorize all articles related to UNESCO's list. Hope that people will help me with filling this category! Bontenbal 14:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Added Woodhenge, Silbury Hill and West Kenneth Long Barrow. Gute Idee. Ich habe Woodhenge, Silbury Hill und West Kenneth Long Barrow hinzugefügt. Dickbauch 18:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We already have: Category:UN World Heritage Sites with Sub-Categories. Will have to change the articles. Please sort this. Dickbauch 18:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that one... I've joined the two together in Category:UN World Heritage Sites. Now let's fill that one! Bontenbal 18:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
When Im healthy again I will travel to the UK on the Weekends an visit the other sites in the Avebury area. I really like old stones. BTW:There are always many mentally disturbed people running around neolithic sites brabbling about UFOs and aliens and such stuff. Horrible... Thanks for sorting things out. =;o) Dickbauch 10:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Ao receber sua mensagem eu estava mesmo procurando na wikipedia inglesa a palavra disease, para a página doença. Gosto de fazer mais no final, porque ler a página em inglês pode afetar a minha maneira (mais brasileira) de expor alguma idéia. Sem falar que a wikipédia inglesa tem algumas coisas que não são muito científicas, com algumas idéias absurdas.

As letras em bold realmente é um esquecimento. Procurarei lembrar nas próximas, e alterarei as páginas assim que topar com elas.

Sempre que possível faça uma crítica construtiva. Sou novo na Wikipédia, só algumas poucas semanas. Até agora não coloquei nenhuma figura ou ilustração, preciso me certificar do copyright para iniciar. Tenho fotografias próprias que poderia disponibilizar, mas como provar que são minhas?

Um abraço. Xpto 20:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Je pense que ce n'est pas necessaire d'en donner la preuve. Il suffit d'y mettre un {{GFDL}} tag, si tu est certain qu'ils sont les tiennes. Cela les fera disponibles a tout le monde NlJcwf 14:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Search Image: namespace by default?

(Most likely someone has stated this already) Would it be possible to have the search form search the Image: namespace by default? As various people have pointed, right now it can be less-than-easy finding images. Just my 2 cents. A-giâu 07:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, here's a Mozilla family search plugin that searches the Image namespace. This will, of course, find only well-named image files. I'm sure someone else has done the same, but I couldn't find it/them. A-giâu 08:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i think what needs to be aded is much more category tags per image so that one can really use the categories...--LadyofHats 13:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Mozilla family search plugin works fine - Thanks  ;-) - Nico-dk 23:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

age warning tag

hi, i was wondering if there is a way to add a tag to very gross images, like medical images, or well anything too explicit and such. there has been a long argue on wikipedia en, about the pictures for dead erection. (apart from copyrights and stuf) i was wondering if there is a way to add a tag to images so that even when it is shown it also adds that is for people older than certain age.. or just sugesting kids to ask their parents or some other parent like recomendation or such... well maybe someone can think on something.--LadyofHats 13:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Normally the Children I know have no problems with scientific or medical images at all. They are just curios or bored. Since we don´t have pornography (or what mentally sane people call pornography, I can´t think in the way religious fundamentalists do) here I don´t think there is a need for such things. By the way who should decide weather a six, ten oder twelve jear old kid may watch a picture of a human kidney or heart?!? I can´t. Since parents are told to watch their kids wihle they surf the Internet it´s their job to fulfill. Dickbauch 19:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

categories doubth

ok i have been trying to help with adding categories to some pictures. the last time i did someone corrected me that there is no a category plants but that they have to be categorizied by sientific name ( wich for me sounds cool and logic, but that takes out about 95% of the people that may want to look for a plant by its common use name) any way that is not my question. the thing is this page Camellia, normally i would place it under flowers, and under plants. in wichone should i do it now?--LadyofHats 13:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, the idea is to create a redirect from the common name to the scientific name (for every language!). To find out the scientific name and the toxonomy (for categorization), look for the Plant in a Wikipedia (in this case en:Camellia) - the "Family" is usually used for categorisation. HTH -- Duesentrieb 15:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Was there a discussion about that already? I tried to start one here on the VP a while ago, but didn't got any response. I like the idea to create redirects, but there are also drawbacks (like having alot of work when moving a page). I tried another way on Vulpes vulpes by adding the different names of the animal on the page. That way you get there when searching for "Fuchs", etc., but it doesn't look that nice IMO. I'd like to establish some consensus first before I add one or another method to all the animalia pages. --Conti| 15:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
so when i see a plant i look for the "family" on wikipedia or google or so and then add this name as category.. but how do i create then a redirect from the common name? and wgere do i place those i didnt found nor common name or family? another thing.. when a given taxonomic name.. is the firts or the second word the family?--LadyofHats 16:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Have a look here so see how to create a redirect (have a look at the source code there). Hint: When you are redirected to a page, a small link "redirected from xxx" appears below the page title. If you click it, you can view and edit the redirect.
For unknown plants, use the Category:Plantae or Unknown flowers (see also Unknown creatures and Category:Unknown subject) - hopefully someone will be able to put it where it belongs. Put a much Info as possible on the description page of the image (any common names you may know, where the plant grows, etc).
I'm not a biologist, but AFAIK the first part of a scientific name of a species is the family. -- Duesentrieb 18:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
no the first part of a scientific name is the genus.

Animal galleries

Moved to Commons talk:Taxonomy. --Conti| 16:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fellow admins, please help

I've banned User:Willy on Wheels (infinite expiry time). He made more than 40 stupid REDIRECTs, see I've undone 4 of those and delete the non-sense REDIRECT pages. That is : cut the content in the stupid page and paste in the normal page. Then delete the stupid page. It's too late now for me to go on. Please try to do some more. I'll finish tomorrow, if needed. I hate those jerks. villy 23:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Easy, this is not Wikipedia. The Media is the content here. -guety 23:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Gosh Plugwash, calm down, I am *not* the vandal here, remember ? sheesh. villy 23:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
villy maybe i overreacted a bit with the formatting of that post but i do wonder how the hell someone who was either ignorant of page history issues or didn't care about them got to be an admin in the first place.
Guety it is important to preserve history. Sure we are not wikipedia but we are supposed to be a professionally run wiki capable of keeping accurate edit histories both for licenseing reasons and to assist in future descision making.
checking more detail the following pages need to be undeleted and then merged back in to the appropriate articles history. Fdsdfsafdfd,Fddffdf,Daffdfdffge Plugwash 00:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I do not understand this point with commons as the the edit history doesn't provide any information on the author of the content. With the current design of commons the only information is provided in the description of the media. Greatpatton 11:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
All done now. I just did that, and moved and deleted everything needed and not yet done, so there shouldn't be a problem anymore. :-) --Conti| 00:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Do this, but I dont think setting up a gallery is some kind of creative work that can be copyrighted. I won't claim copyright on it, but maybe its just me. -guety 00:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Let's say it's past midnight and let's say I'm a sad old ass very tired. Of course you're right Plugwash. I just didn't think it over. Young people like you are always eager to teach lessons, aren't they ? By the way, not only I am an admin here but also a bureaucrat, can you imagine the shame ? . The point of the message was to undo what User:Willy on Wheels did. Nothing else. Thx to Conti who take care about it. Now I'm going to bed, it's 1:30 am for me. villy 00:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

newly added comment from anon not in english doesn't appear related to previous topic

Valeu! Eu ainda estou aprendendo a postar no sistema Wiki. Pretendo dar uma melhorada nos verbetes de Direito que estão muito bagunçados. Abraços! 23:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Quanto ao artigo "cracker":

1. Vc não deve ter percebido, mas sou o autor do artigo original, logo, posso ceder os direitos autorais; 2. Mesmo se eu não fosse o autor do texto principal, nada impede uma citação de trechos do texto original, desde que citada a fonte. Isto é extremamente comum em qualquer livro de ciências humanas e jamais constitui violação de direitos autorais em nenhum país do mundo. 3. Se se proibir toda e qualquer citação textual, nunca haverá como os usuários comprovarem as fontes científicas dos artigos.

It is the third time that it happpens. This message should be post in an user's talk page in pt.wikipedia, but it appears here. I don't know if it is an user mistake or a software error, please apologize the portuguese/brazilian community for theses inconveniences. Gbiten 14:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Translation Requests

Already exist. Please keep them updated and I request translations for other langauges. --Paddy 22:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

...same thing for:

the license thing is the biggest Problem :-( --Paddy 17:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can we utilize the texts for new upload form (orig. de) translated in last year on meta for this purpose? --Aphaia 01:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think it is agreed, that we will change the text on meta instead. As you know we have a lot of problems on de with copyvio images or images with no license. As soon as there is a final version on de WP I will upload it on meta. thanx --Paddy 17:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Should have date tags so we may delete them after one month. For example {{Unknown 2005-01}} Also there should be a plausible reason written. At the time beeing I keep guessing why and who and when put {{Unknown}} in the file article. --Paddy 22:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I support this. Should spare a lot of work. --Avatar 17:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would support this, if the date is given as a parameter. So we haven't to create template a new for every month. --DaB. 00:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deletion categories

In a lot of cases on can not find a reason why! Please give a reason and put --~~~~ after the reason it is already a lot of work deleting things! Please do not make it harder for the sysops. --Paddy 22:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

nod. --DaB. 00:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

categories knot, knots

someone created a redirect from the category knots to the one knot. but didnt change any page to direct them to this new category. i have been working on wikipedia making more than 12 diagrams of knots, plus 6 or 8 extra that i knew they were there.. is there another way that is not just manually one per one to change them to this new category... and how do i find the other images that were also lost in the process ...since search now sends me only to this knot gallery--LadyofHats 12:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I started Commons:Taxonomy to get some discussion rolling on handling the animal/plant galleries. Some input is welcome! --Conti| 17:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Hi, yesterday I marked two nonsense-pages [1] and [2] (some kiddy foud Sexual intercourse and its hormones went amok) with {{delete}} and they are still here. Is this on purpose, did nobody notice it, or doesn´t this tag work?!? ((o)), Ja, bitte?!? 08:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Those who cannot read the alphabet and language in which the article is named obviously do not know what is being said - therefore, with no justification from you, they will not delete it. Perhaps you could tell us what the articles are named, and thus why they are illegitimate. --Oldak Quill 13:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The second article is empty so fast deletion. It could be a redirect if you want.

<britty> jenes ... vielleicht menschenheit(人類)+sex+handlung(行為) 

The first redirect is correct! So I removed speedy deletion. --Paddy 16:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bei mir war das nur ein wirres Rudel Sonderzeichen (Firefox+IE), einzig der Bezug auf die Abbildung sexueller Handlungen war klar lesbar. Ergo dachte ich ein pubertierendes Kind sei vor lauter Aufregung mit dem Kopf auf die Tasttatur gefallen und habe so diesen Unsinn angelegt. ((o)), Ja, bitte?!? 10:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removing Red-Eyes

Can someone fix the Eyes in Image:Sarah Michelle Gellar.jpg, I am not very good at this. -guety 16:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. Here is how ysou have to do it with gimp: or this for windows users ;-) --Paddy 20:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Danke, ich habs Versucht per Hand zu übermalen, war mühsamm und nicht sehr erfolgreich. -guety 20:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) PS. Das Burj Al Arab Hotel git es auch in größer
Längst erledigt ;-) --Paddy 23:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki for categories

Interwiki links are handy for categories and frequently used to connect WP cats, but I don't seem to see anybody using them for commons cats. Is there a reason for this, or do people just not know about the possibility? Stan Shebs 02:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What the *Beeep*

Sean Kennedy seems f**king funny and Image:Sean Kennedy-Suicide.ogg is real great although Warning: This audio file contains explicit language and may offend some people.. Well note the word some *ROFL*. If it is not *beeep* funny than it is *beeep* offensive to you. Seems to be another homepage. Keep it for another week for those who enjoy the humour ;-) Or maybe move it to kamelopedia. --Paddy 04:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

see also en:Sean Kennedy --Paddy 05:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just to make sure I don't make a mess of it

Hi, I'm new to the Commons so if these are stupid questions, please be lenient on me... Do I understand correctly that the following onformation should be supplied with an image: copyright status, preferably in an established format (PD, etc.), name of maker, date, description (in English and local language), pages (on the Commons) on which it is used? Am I also correct that an image should be put in a category, or it will be really hard to find it back? Best regards, MartinD 14:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Possible Copyright tags you can use. Yes, please name the author if possible. Date and description would be very nice but is not obligatory IMHO. Choose whatever language you like for describtion. English is always preferable. But there may always be translation requests if English is too hard for you. Pages (on the Commons) on which it is used is a sofwarefeature ;-) Put the image in an article and put the article in a category. Have a look at Praha that is how I would do it. --Paddy 15:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Paddy, thanks a lot. Just one more question, if I may: how do I start a new article? BTW, lovely pictures of Prague! MartinD 15:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you ;-) You just type the carfully chosen name in the search field on the left. If the article does not exist you get a message saying something like: "do you what to edit this page?" then you just click on that. Or you type the name in the URI field of your browser like this then just click on the third tab from the left on top of the page that is named "edit". If you have mispelled somthing ask me or some other sysop to delete it. Move the page first though. Alternatively you can mark the misspelled page for speedy deletion like this {{delete}}. --Paddy 17:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Paddy, thanks again for your help. I think I should be able to manage now! Regards, MartinD 18:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are wellcome :-) --Paddy 21:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Animal Fotos

Animal photos cc-by-sa-2.0: 29 - 33. Maybe you find something nice? Also have a look at his tags. He has som great photos. --Paddy 15:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here are some more [3], there are a lot of good photos of plants, but the problem is they need to be identified. -guety 17:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That's why we've got Category:Unknown subject :-) notafish }<';> 17:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New here

Hi, I'm new to commons (been on english Wikipedia forever, though). Can I move pics directly from the en: image namespace to the commons, or do I have to download them to my hard drive, then upload them again? --Slique 21:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, the second. We like it complicated here. And to make it even more complicated, please read Commons:Licensing before uploading. -guety 21:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I was going to upload some photos I took for some articles. I think I will look around a bit more before I do anything. Get to know the place and all. :-) --Slique 21:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No poblem, if you only want to upload your own Pictures its much easyier. Only add a Copyright tags and it would be nice to link it somewhere or put in a category so it can be found. -guety 23:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What about the images on the individual Wikipediæ, e.g. en? I've got a few pictures on there that I plan to move here; since I've got admin powers there, should I just go ahead and delete the images on en after I move them here? Or should I list them all on the regular VfD, or perhaps speedy deletions, preferably all in a single group, and let them go through the regular process? Or just leave the originals on en, preserving what little history they have? --JohnOwens 22:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Where can I find definite information about this non-retroactive copyright law of the former USSR? Where does this information come from? I cannot find anything here or in other WPs. Information may be in russian, no problem. Thanks for any hint. --Elya 22:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(old) discussion page to de:Bildrechte -- 19:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

GNU programm screenshots

my mail on: de:Benutzer:Paddy/mail an following reply:

relpy 1

> My question is the following:is there a policy or rule of if and how
> screenshots of GNU programs may be published?

We think publishing screenshots generally does not infringe copyright.
So, you're permitted to do it.

> I am aware of the " GNU Free Documentation License Considered Harmful"
> (,
> which is one of the reasons why I need a clear answer as to licensing
> rules for GNU programs screenshots. 

Natureally, FSF does not agree with these criticisms.

> Please confirm if you do not wish your reply to be published on
> Wikipedia

-Dave Turner

This means to me only if all the images used for the program GUI have free License only then the screenshot may be published under this free license. If all of them are PD for example then the screenshot must be PD too because the creative work of creating a screenshot is ZERO! If the screenshot contains icons or content of nonfree sites than the discussion about it is needless! --Paddy 20:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the creative work in making a meaningful screenshot is not nessecarily zero. I agree with Paddy. We can not automatically consider icons or else of GPL programs to be PD or GFDL. --Schizoschaf 18:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)



  1. Use a free program with a comletely free skin. NB: GPL is not GFDL compatible. Easy solution cut away all possibly copyrighted stuff. Just show the content.
  2. The content of the screenshot must be free too. Make sure the screenshot does not contain:
    1. unfree fonts.
    2. commercial tradmarked logos or icons.
    3. unfree text.
    4. ...


Can I please upload some SVG pictures? I know the software doesn't really support on the fly rendering, let alone wiki editing of SVG source (not that this last is necessarily a good idea) but surely I am not the only one creating diagrams who wishes they could benefit from others' improvements? At the moment, when I attempt to upload an SVG file, I get a "warning" that SVG is not a preferred image format, and as far as I can tell the upload fails. Really, though, I'd like to put the SVG here, even if I have to upload a PNG also. For example, if people want to change the labels to another language, it's much less painful (and gives better results) if they can grab the SVG and use the free Inkscape to change the labels to their own language, at the moment they have to contact me and I have to email them the file (or something).

Ultimately, SVG images should be rendered on the fly, either by the MediaWiki software (in fact, supposedly the software already supports this under some technical condition I amnot in a position to verify) or by the user's browser (or plugin). I know this requires waiting on software, but can't we at least get a start by making them available at all? All this should require is adding as acceptable extensions ".svg", and possibly ".svgz" (for gzipped SVG).

In fact, it might be better to make the "bad file type" warning really a warning, and allow people to upload them anyway, as there are other free formats such as OGG speex, OGG theora, MIDI, Encapsulated PostScript, ImpulseTracker modules, and maybe even xfig, that make sense to allow. --Andrew 06:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree about making it really a warning. But in the mean time, why don't you just upload the SVG source code to the PNG image's talk page? I've seen that done before somewhere on here ... Dbenbenn 06:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All thirty machine-generated kilobytes of it? Surely that can't be a good idea? (No, I don't know why a simple image like Image:Thermal reactor diagram.png takes thirty kilobytes) --Andrew 08:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Er, no. I didn't realize you were talking about something so big. Another idea: you could gzip the SVG, name it "Thermal_reactor_diagram.png", upload it, revert, then put a note about the SVG being in the second version of the image. I'm pretty sure the Commons doesn't check that a .png file actually is PNG. Dbenbenn 17:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
better not do that, ask a dev to allow svg upload but do not try to exploit weakness of the soft. imho, if you use a tool for an unexpected usage there is a risk the tool get broken one day. -- FoeNyx 20:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
SVG, like HTML, allows for executable embedded JavaScript. Until a safety filter is written and tested, we have to consider SVG uploads a security risk.
And yes, the upload *does* check that your PNG really is PNG. :) --Brion VIBBER 00:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Until a safety filter is written, how about allowing gzip uploads? There's no security issue with those. Dbenbenn 08:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the security risk? If the SVG is served as a downloadable attachment (which seems to be the only current option - on-the-fly rendering does not appear to work), then it's no worse than any other downloadable attachment. I suppose if SVG readers helpfully execute the Javascript in any file they load with no security controls then any SVG file that somehow ends up on a user's computer is a security risk, but I find it difficult to believe that this is really a problem that the Commons can do anything about. Besides, do any currently-in-use SVG editors actually support Javascript? I don't think Inkscape does, for example.

If this is the security risk, then in this sense, gzip uploads are a big problem.

If the security risk is rendering SVG on the server, then that's a whole other technical issue, relating to "How do we render SVG on the serve anyway?". If the security risk is serving up the SVG untouched as page contents, to be rendered by browser plugins, then just don't do that (for now). But surely no sane browser plugin trusts the content it gets?

I suppose one solution would be to include the entire SVG source code in the PNG comments (PNG even supports gzipped comments). But that's a pretty awful solution too, especially if the wiki software preserves comments when thumbnailing (Imagine a 5k PNG that gets a 30k comment added to it...) --Andrew 00:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Common names of species

I have been uploading images of trees, and I don't know if there is any politycal about how to put the common names of the species, it is something that it is being in discussion or simply nobody worries. I think at last the common names should be in the article of every specie, like in populus alba.--Arturo Reina 13:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Opinion request about copyright status

I would like to know if the following image would comply with the Commons copyright policy, before uploading it:

On en.Wikipedia it has been regarded as a non-commercial use only image because on its original page all the images are described as "at least free for non-commercial use" but given that it is a scan of a 1838 print it should be on the public domain, shouldn't it? By the way, is there a Commons page specifically created for this kind of request? ManuelGR 19:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(IANAL) If it was made in 1838 and has not be creatively modified since, it's in the public domain and usable on commons. Raul654 19:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Searching not finding things?

So I have all possible namespaces selected, and search "Panama", which tells me are only five images with "Panama" in their name. Now go to Panama Canal and observe nine additional images not reported by my search. What gives? Are newer images not indexed so searching can find them? Am I the only one seeing this kind of misleading result? Stan Shebs 01:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

last i heared it was an indexing problem of some sort but the devs weren't sure what exactly. Plugwash 01:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
some rather worrying discussion from #mediawiki (though they may be winding me up)
[03:36] <plugwash> btw does anyone have any idea if/when the problems with new pages not showing up in searches will be fixed?
[03:37] <brion> plugwash: the search index is updated periodically, not immediately.
[03:38] * DCLXVI ( Quit (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer))
[03:38] * DCLXVI ( has joined #mediawiki
[03:39] <plugwash> how often is periodically?
[03:39] <diniweidrwydd> annually
[03:43] * Glenp (~dns_NOSPA@ has left #mediawiki
[03:43] * mhnoyes_ ( has joined #mediawiki
[03:44] <plugwash> really? do you realise how quickly things can change particularlly on the younger projects like commons
[03:45] <plugwash> and im sure until very recently it was updating pretty rapidly
[03:46] <diniweidrwydd> no.. not really
[03:47] <brion> heh
Plugwash 03:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, they are. On Wikipedia the search index is updated at midnight UTC; I don't know if it's the same here. Dan | Talk 13:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Policy on copying over Wikipedia media

What is the policy for copying over media from the Wikipedia media directory? I recently copied a picture[4]. However, I noticed that Wikipedia does not require people to reference the sources of their images, unlike the Wikimedia Commons so I am wondering if this good practice, ot whether Wikimedia Commons is an attempt to start afresh and that some effort should be made to source the images. --Axon 14:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Unless it is one of the free licences (creative commons, public domain, GNU) please do not copy it over. In Wikipedia "fair-use" such as screenshots, company logos, and official product pictures can be used. However, the Commons is a santuary for free-licence pictures as anyone can use them, and depending on the licence, only need to cite the author. If the picture is cited as under a free licence, then please do copy it over. However, make sure you put it in an article or category. Thanks! --Mboverload 08:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Would PD-Art works come under that heading? Also, many pictures in Wikipedia do not include sources: will this be an issue? --Axon 09:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If it is PD-Art, then yes, it is public domain and you may upload it, not sure about the sources problem --Mboverload 10:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Should all those "free" files eventually be copied over to Wikimedia Commons, the specific file deleted in the datbase of the Wikipedia and the link replaced to the one to Wikimedia Commons? If yes, how can that be done, I mean, how can can pictures be deleted in the Wikipedia by moving them to Wikimedia Commons? --Zerokelvin 18:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Possible Wikimedia Commons flagship article?

I have been working hard the last few days on what I hope to be an example of the "perfect" article here. I choose to do it on the N64 because I think it is important to keep it for future generations. I have never seen an Altari or really know what they look like, and I don't want future generations to not know the past of video games =)

Anyway, here's my article: N64. Remember to click on the pictures for in-depth descriptions. Please give me any feedback or things I should add. I want people to point newbies there to show what a great article should look like. --Mboverload 10:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Can be a picture about a videogame licensed under public domain? Isn't it a copyright violation? I really don't know. I'm only asking because sometimes I don't take some pictures like these because of this. --Arturo Reina 13:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not sure what you are refering to, there are no screenshots. --Mboverload 13:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I am refering to that the titles of the videogames a trademarks like Nintendo and those things have copyrights, but maybe I'm being too rigurous. I really didn't know if it was a problem, that's all.

One note: This article is missing something. Where is the category? Adding it in a category or two will help more people find it. (See Category:Computers for a start - perhaps also Category:Toys...)-- Ranveig 20:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleting referenced images and other oddities

This discussion was copied from User talk:Paddy#deleting pictures referenced thousand times.


You have deleted image:the GNU logo.png, which is the original gnu logo referenced in nearly every wikimedia project, as well as here in commons. Its deletion was a very careless move, breaking plenty of pages all around.

I uploaded another one with the same name, please consider image usage before deleting. If that is not policy here please advise others to consider it before deletion. (I don't have right now the mental power to start debating it, but feel free to reference me on the topic, preferably using my hungarian talk page. Thanks. --grin \u270e 17:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I answered you on hungarian talk page. Where does it say that this image may be used commercially? "Please be aware that not all Free Art Licenses allow commecial use, and upload only images that are not restricted to non-commercial use!" Please tell me where I can see that this image is apt for commons. I see no email telling me that the guy agreed to a commercial license on commons. Therefore this image will be deleted if the exact license will not be solved. I suggest Commons:Village pump or Commons:Deletion requests for further talk. --Paddy 02:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, this image was there for two months without licenses and attribution. Doing that was a very careless move. The deletion was just a consequence of that. Cite: "Please be aware that not all Free Art Licenses allow commecial use, and upload only images that are not restricted to non-commercial use!" The problem is not me. The problem was the uploader of the image. The legal status of that image is unclear and has been for over 2 months. The legal status is still unsolved. On commons only really free images are allowed. I know it is a pain but that is how the status is. --Paddy
I understand that. You see that I did not upload the image. When I (and probably others) referenced it it was not tagged as problematic. I (and probably others) had no reason to, dunno, regularly check back to see whether someone tagged the image? As you may see my problem is not that the image was removed. My problem is that it was an image well referenced from many projects (well it is *still* referenced by many projects I guess) and was deleted without replacement and consideration.
As you see I replaced the image with a similar free version (but see below). It could have been done. We (on huwiki) usually do not delete referenced pictures. Either we remove references (or at least check whether they exist or not!) or if it is important, try to replace the image with a free one. That's just what I did, so this problem is fixed, but I wanted to make people on commons aware that pictures may be referenced by 100+ projects and if a picture was online for a given time (say, more than a week) without any warning then admins ought to check whether people use the picture before deleting. This should be an advise for people who delete the pictures.
You asked: "Where does it say that this image may be used commercially?" I read the license (linked) and it does not state that the usage of the art is limited. Please point me to the part which denies commercial use or to the part which specify that the author is required to separately approve commercial use. I'd like to point out that if there would be any problem with the image it would have been tagged to, or at least indicated so (especially if, as you mentioned, "it is known for 2 months"); you must not expect people to be clairvoyants and mind readers and know that some fellows know that an image is violating commons guidelines but tell nobody. If it is not tagged so I logically expect it to be free and fitting for commons.
By the way the image uses a template, which doesn't mention that the image is not fitting the commons and should not be used, etc. So as far as I see some people for 2 months know that these images violating things but keep it secret? And you expect me to figure this? (At least you told me like I should have known.) Please.
So, please tag these images accordingly, and debate it with the uploaders, and other fellow wikimedians. We "end-users" of commons expect to use the content, and the best we can do to check the page of the images. If it does not suggest any problems with the image, we are going to use it, reference it, and expect it to stay there.
Thank you. "I know it is a pain but that is how it should be." (I copy this to Village pump as you requested.) --grin \u270e 23:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The only still unresolved problem with the copyleft license is that there needs to be commercial use explicitly allowed. I read the license again and again. It allows you to take a fee but there is no mention of commercial use whatsoever. A email (from a brasilian commons user) to the author Aurélio A. Heckert is on its way to resolve the problem. This should have been done before uploading. First ask than take ;-) I know I am probably beeing a pain nagging. But the tagging of the Image:The GNU logo.png is still not according to license. This line e.g. is still missing:

Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111, USA 

A lot of work her on commons is still violating the free art license. I quote:

Directions for Use:

- How to use the Free Art license?

To benefit from the Free Art License, it is enough to specify the following on your work of art:

[- A few lines to indicate the name of the work and to give an idea of what it is.] [- A few lines to describe, if necessary, the modified work of art and give the name of the author/artist.] Copyright © [the date] [name of the author or artist] (if appropriate, specify the names of the previous authors or artists) Copyleft: this work of art is free, you can redistribute it and/or modify it according to terms of the Free Art license. You will find a specimen of this license on the site Copyleft Attitude as well as on other sites.

GNU, CC and other work is also not tagged properly. Commons can not allow slothy work. The attribution is a very important thing. To ignore the fact that the author wants to take credit may not be ignored. The whole point of those licenses is missed without the propper attribution. If you do not want attribution use CC-SA, PD or some other license.

I know that my tagging is not allways 100% with images I uploaded from de to commons. But this is on my TODO list. It was a pain uploading and I let sloth rule my doings. Greetings --Paddy 02:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

GNU there are already three images of the head. I think it is a little redundant --Paddy 07:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I sent an email to Aurelio A. Heckert, and I just receive his response. Some points to note:

  • He agrees with commercial use.
  • He is the author of the image. That image is a redraw from this work of Peter Gerwinski. And the Peter Gerwinski´s image is a redraw from this work of Etienne Suvasa.
  • I will post his response in Commons, but I don´t know where I post it, here, here or here.

Gbiten 14:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great, thank you! Post it any way (I'd use Image:Heckert GNU.png as it was the original it seems) and refer to it from the others (which is probably already done anyway). --grin \u270e 21:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please see and comment Template talk:FAL - "if free art license isn't, why the template doesn't say so?" Thank you. --grin \u270e 22:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)