Commons:Village pump/Archive/2005/06

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

License tags for publishing own work

I have noticed that we often have the problem that people do not state explicitely that they are the author of images they upload. For this purpose, it is good to have templates like Template:GFDL-self that state this explicitely. However, it's a nucance to have to create a "self"-version for every license tag we have. So, I have created the "wrapper" templates Template:self and Template:self2 (for dual licensing). This will look like this:


I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:
w:en:Creative Commons
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic 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).


I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses:
GNU head 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.
Creative Commons license
Creative Commons Attribution Creative Commons Share Alike
If this file is eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license.

The relicensing status of this image has not yet been reviewed. You can help.

বাংলা | català | čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | occitan | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | +/−

Licensing update unknown
w:en:Creative Commons
attribution share alike
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic 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.

You may select the license of your choice.

I have adjusted Template:GFDL-self to use this schema, and have also created Template:GFDL-and-CC-self and Template:cc-by-sa-2.0-self for conveniance (note that Template:PD-self is special and should stay the way it is).

Please share your thoughs about this, and start using it if you like. Also, this should be described in some place obvious, but i'm not sure how and where would be best. Commons:Copyright tags or Commons:Licensing maybe? Or should we create Commons:Publishing, as a more general version of Commons:Donate to the public domain? -- Duesentrieb 14:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I love it! I think I'll go create Category:Self-published work to put the template in. Dbenbenn 17:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unlicenced images

There are still lots of unlicenced images on the commons, why don't we stop allowing people to upload them? I propose that the Special:Upload form be modified so that it can check to see if there's a licence tag on it (or if it's categorized maybe) and only allow images which have a valid licence. Every so often I go through some images at Special:Unusedimages and at one point it was down to the low 400s (from a high of 1400+) but now it's creeping back up again. -- Joolz 00:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be quite easy to add that feature (I have rewritten part of the upload code for 1.5, i know a bit about it). In fact, I have suggested this feature myself before, but it wasn't really liked by some senior devs. I understand the arguments against it (prople don't like to be pushed, make uploading easy, people will just add a random tag, etc), but for the commons it would indeed be a great help i think. So, If we get some more people to request this, it will be implemented (I would be happy to do it). Here are some criteria that could be checked:
  • Description must contain a tag (checking that it is really a license tag would not be that easy)
  • Description must contain at least one category (but people may want the image on a gallery page, not in a category...)
  • Description must have a minimum length (like 30 characters or so)
  • Description must contains specific words or tags (for example, force the use of Template:Information)
Those are just a few suggestions of what could be done, i'm not saying we should require all of that. For a start, I would just require a tag and a category. If they are missing, the user should see a good and descriptive error message and some information about how to fix it. So, what do you think? -- Duesentrieb 01:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
imo the biggest issue with doing this is it will make problem images harder to find as people will do whatever is needed to satisfy the upload form. Plugwash 10:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
maybe. Depends on how much good will we can assume... -- Duesentrieb 13:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not too sure about the Template:Information template, I prefer not to use it personally.
The other option is to not force users to tag images but for those images which are untagged be automatically marked as unknown by the upload form. -- Joolz 19:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dual Licensing and Categorizing

Hey. I have two question:

  1. I usually distribute my photos online under CC-attribution-2.0 license. Your FAQ page says I should dual-license my work if possible, and add a GFDL license. Since I am unclear about GFDL, my question is - is this really necessary? And if so, why? Can't I just upload my work under cc-by or cc-by-sa? (And by the way, is there much of a difference wether I use cc-by or cc-by-sa?) Another question: if I dual-license, which license is used when the photo is distributed onward?
  2. After uploading an image, do I just leave it at that, and put the image page itself into the appropriate categories, or do I need to create a page (e.g., Larry Niven for image:LarryNiven.jpg), link to the image and categorize from there? I'm asking because I've seen both methods used.

Thanks, Volland 18:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for the first question, you don't have to dual-licence, if you want to just use cc-by-sa-2.0 then you can do (that's what I do), there are some advantages in dual-licencing although I can't be much more specific than that ;) - I think that if a project is being released under one licence such as GFDL then they would prefer that image, for a real-life example (not a wikimedia project by the way) only allows cc-by-sa-1.0 images. If you do dual licence your image it can be used under and distributed either licence.
For your second question, there's a big debate over which is best to use, pages or categories, and it can be found here: Commons:Images_on_normal_pages_or_categories:Vote. At the moment if you don't want to create pages and put your images in there and then categorize the page you can directly categorize the image.
Hope this helps! -- Joolz 19:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, that answered my questions. Just a little one: why cc-by-sa and not cc-by? Volland 21:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you don't care if people create non-free derivatives of your work, cc-by is fine. cc-by-sa is just suggested as the default, because it's equivalent to GFDL. -- Duesentrieb 21:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copyright question, legal advice needed

Hi. I recently found in the Commons archive a photograph of a painting I knew to be still under copyright. I contacted the uploader about it, and he explained that he owns the original litograph, and that he thinks it's ground enough for him to be able to license copies of it in his own terms. IANAL, but I'm not quite certain he's entirely correct. Could anyone here give me a pointer as to how to go about this issue? Thanks, Taragüí @ 13:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well at first which picture is the one you are talking about? Refereing to your question: No it is sadly not enough if you own the original litograph the painter must have explicitly also given away his rights regarding public presentation and reproductions to the owner of the original. Very strange I know but that's law... Arnomane 15:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The image in question is Image:Dalilitografía.JPG. Could you please provide a reference and a scope (i.e., US, EU, Bern convention, etc.) for your legal statement? I'm quite sure you're in the right direction, but I wouldn't like to call a valuable picture for deletion unless we're certain it's the right thing to do. Taragüí @ 15:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
es:Usuario:Taragui, Arnomane is right. This picture is a blatant copyright violation. Salvador Dali sold hundreds and hundreds of lithographies. The right of reproduction nor the right of public presentation is included implicitly : so either User:Manuel González Olaechea is able to show a specific act by Dali or his heirs or I shall delete the picture very soon. We already had articulate legal threats in such matters. villy 17:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Formats on commons

I propose the creation of an article Format on Commons, which can explain briefly for each format what it is, and if it is accept on commons or not,and why.

Here are some discussions which can help to make this article if commons-users think it's a good way. Yug talk 23:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SVG (vector graphics) support?

I noticed that wikimedia doesn't currently support uploading of vector graphics. I think this is a shame because there are a ton of images that are best presented (and preserved) in vector format. For example, maps, logos, animations, etc. Using rasterized images of vector graphics is a complete bummer since you're loosing so much valuable information. I therefore say that wikicommons should attempt to support SVG images as soon as possible. --Quasipalm 20:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It's on the way. (With, of course, filtering of Javascript etc.) David.Monniaux 20:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

SVG and vectoriel files

It appear than svg cannot be support by wikipedia (commons). Have other vectoriel graph format which can be support on wikipedia ? And can we do something to improve the situation, to be able to share SVG and vectoriel files. Yug talk 22:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

SVG upload is disabled for security reasons (JavaScript...) at the moment. I have contriibuted code to the next version of mediawiki that will make it safe(er) to have SVG files, I hope uploading SVG will be enabled as soon as we go to 1.5 - that is, in a few weeks (hopefully)
Until then, the only vector format supported by the commons is PDF, which is not a very good choice :( -- Duesentrieb 01:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Ok, thank for this information ~ I will prepare my SVG work this summer and put it on wiki-commons when we will get the 1.5 :) Yug talk 14:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

What about .SWF or Animated-SVG ?

I learned than wikipedia will soon be able to host .SVG (image in vector format). But what about animation in vector format ? .SWF ? other format ? Wikipedia think her host this kind of files ?

All information are welcome. Yug talk 03:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uploading SWF and other formats will be possible soon (but i don't know which formats will be allowed). But keep in mind that "open" formats are recommended. Animated SVG will not be possible because it requires Javascript, as far as I know. Anything that contains javascript or HTML code will be rejected for security reasons. -- Duesentrieb 18:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yesterday I started creating some simple SVG graphics for [de:Koppelgetriebe]. I found out, that SVG is able to do animation (in limited form) without any scripting. There are animate* -tags present and they work. In some cases they may be usefull. I will also be greatfull happy if I can upload my SVG graphics as SVG and dont have to converte them to PNG. --ka-em-zwei-ein 6 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)

Wikimedia logo mess

Until now, I have thought about a standarisation of the wikimedia logo's names. the best solution I found (in my eyes the best) ist the following one: Image:"Wikiproject"-"Kind of file"-"Language of slogan".png. (examples) if there is no slogan in use, I used Image:"Wikiproject"-"Kind of file".png. if two or more wikis are using the same logo, I called the file with the language the logo uses (this is used in wikinews de, es, en, fr, nl, pl, pt and sv). for the "sisterproject"-templates I creaded this collection. what I please you is: help me! help me with the renaming of

afterward, the unused images an be deleted. you see, that's a lot. But it's not all! If you all would help, this reform can have success! Schaengel89 @me 12:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Soon, we will need to make some coherent EXIF policies, and spread EXIF awareness among regular contributors, as most people don't even know such a thing exists.

I've heard 1.5 MediaWiki will display EXIF information. That's great. Still, that's just a first step.

  • We need to assure EXIF information has not been damaged (a program may change an image and copy EXIF from the original, that may be bad)
  • We may want to put copyright into into EXIF.
  • Anything else ?

I've made a template Template:losslessjpegrotate to mark those of may images that have been rotated by jpegtran. Thumbnail is certainly affected, so I strip it. I suspect Orientation tag may be affected (I don't correct it), probably nothing else (but it's better to be safe than sorry).

The lossless rotation procedure (perlscript I use below) rearranges DCT coefficients in each of JPEG color channels, and doesn't affect pixel data nor compression factor (size difference of +- a few hundred bytes).

It's better to use this instead of a regular graphical software, which very likely will cost some minor quality loss.

#!/usr/bin/perl -w

$deg = 90; # or 180, or 270
$deg_inv = 360 - $deg;

$TMP = "TMP/";
$OUT = "";

for (@ARGV)
    my $jpeg_file = $_;
    my $jpeg_tmp  = $TMP . "${1}_rot.jpg";
    my $jpeg_out  = $OUT . "${1}_out.jpg";
    my $jpeg_back = $TMP . "${1}_back.jpg";
    my $pnm1 = $TMP . "${1}_1.pnm";
    my $pnm2 = $TMP . "${1}_2.pnm";

    system "jpegtran -optimize -copy all -perfect -rot $deg '$jpeg_file' >$jpeg_tmp";
    system "exif -r $jpeg_tmp -o $jpeg_out";
    system "jpegtran -copy all -perfect -rot $deg_inv '$jpeg_out' >$jpeg_back";
    system "convert $jpeg_file $pnm1";
    system "convert $jpeg_back $pnm2";
    system "diff -q -s $pnm1 $pnm2";

Taw 00:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I could use a short definition of EXIF, to begin with ... villy 08:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
see en:EXIF :)
and yes, we should spread awareness. I am also working on an extension that allows to create RDF metadata for images. This uses, among other things, EXIF data. -- Duesentrieb 17:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added "-optimize" to the script above, which losslessly reduces the file size. Thanks for pointing out the "exif -r" option; I never noticed that. dbenbenn | talk 18:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the guy who imlemented Exif support in MediaWiki and I just wanted to say that your idea of pulling copyright metadata out of Exif data is neat theoretically but almost useless in practice, In my Exif tests I made a script that pulled alot of images from the commons (including all the featured images) and not one of them had any useful copyright information in the Copyright tag, so indexing images by Exif tags would create a very small index. However if the copyright tag exists it will of course be displayed along with any other tags found on the image page.
You might want to leave a note on my talk page if you have any further questions, I don't really watch the pump alot;) —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You are right that the EXIF data seldom contain useful copyright info. However, RDF is not only about copyright info - it's a format for arbitrary meta data. What my plugin (optionally) does is to return all EXIF data in RDF format, as defined by the RDF vocabulary for EXIF specification. This way, EXIF data can be easily requested and processed by bots and scripts. The Idea bhind my RDF effort is to make all kinds of metadata available and usefull not only for humans (as HTML) but also for programs (as RDF). -- Duesentrieb 14:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Israeli Creative Commons

Creative Commons for the Israeli law has recently been released [1]. Can someone create the according license tags? Benjamin Shlevich 06:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually it seems as though only version 1.0 has been adapted. What is this good for?... Benjamin Shlevich 07:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what it's good for. But if you want to use the license, feel free to be bold and create the tag yourself, using the other language versions as a model. dbenbenn | talk 19:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi all,

can any Spanish-speaking guy verify that the license of this site (claimed CC-by-sa) allows to use its pictures? User:Luisddm is uploading pictures from that site and, sincerely, I don't think that the publishers of the web site hold the copyright of the photographs they provide.

Regards --Ecemaml 09:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The site's copyright declaration says that the main column of the site is under cc-by-sa 1.0, and all material submitted by external users must also be under a free licence, but that the site administrators take no responsability for such content, and it is left up to contributors to make sure that they are not adding unfree content. Actually, it's fairly similar to Wikipedia. It's all supposed to be GFDL, but individual users can and do add unfree content despite policy. I think we can use content from that site, whilst making copyvio checks just as we might for stuff uploaded here by a new user. Chamaeleon 22:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

copyright of speeches

does anybody know whether a copyright on recorded speeches exist and who's the owner? I'd like to upload some speeches like Mussolini's declaration of war (1940), the habemus papam of Pius XII (1939), John XXIII (1958), Paul VI (1963), John Paul II (1978) and Benedict XVI (2005) etc. I haven't the slightest idea (and couldn't find anything in the italian laws) if a speech is copyrighted and if so if the copyright belongs to the speaker, to the recorder or ?? In the last case (Benedict XVI) it seems logical to assume that it is PD as it has been broadcast by all major tv/radio nets. I hope I don't have to ask permission to the Vatican or to Mussolini's heirs ...
thanks, --Marco Bonavoglia 19:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just like any broadcast, these speeches are almost certainly copyrighted. dbenbenn | talk 20:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By whom though? -- Joolz 00:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hm... government work? how about that in italy? the vatican? -- Duesentrieb 00:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Government work has no special law in Italy. Italian Wikipedia asked permission to publish pictures taken from the Parliament web site ... and there's now a group trying to decode the answer ;o)! As most of the speeches have been recorded by more networks it's difficult to understand what is the real source. Speeches that were recorded in the Tv/radio buildings are copyrighted I believe, but my doubts are about recording of speeches given to a general audience. How can you discriminate one recording from the other (I know this is the habemus papam of the BBC?). There are two speeches in Commons (Lech Walesa and gen. Jaruzelski) that are considered PD without any comment. They seem to be in the same category ... or not? --Marco Bonavoglia 07:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I expect the copyright of the person who gave or wrote the speech is relevant too. "I Have a Dream" is copyrighted by King's heirs; I couldn't record myself reading the speech and upload it here. dbenbenn | talk 20:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


we have several images from now, and i'm wondering if their terms are really compliant to our licensing policy, or if we are actually violating their terms. Quote from the terms of use:

All materials within this site are property of the morguefile and its contributors. By using this site you agree to comply with and be bound by the following terms of use. This license is issued only to the person or organization that downloads these images. This agreement may not be resold or reassigned, distribution and or resale of the archived compilation in part or whole is prohibited. These images may be used for any other commercial or personal use. Credit for this use is appreciated but is not necessary.

And from the about page:

Yes, all images are really free and they can be used in your commercial projects without permission or credit from the photogrpaher. Although selling prints, selling the images directly or claiming the photo is yours is prohibited.

I'm not a lawyer and don't really understand... what exactly can not be re-sold? Is it OK to offer the images for download? How much of the collection can be host on the commons? What about selling prints? I don't really get it.

So, either the images should be deleted, or the template should be changed into a "real" copyright tag. The parameters seem not to be used, anyway... -- Duesentrieb 00:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What we need is for someone to ask Morguefile for clarification. If they tell us we're infringing, then we can decide what to do about it. But they might say "that's fine, go right ahead!" dbenbenn | talk 02:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
mail has been sent. -- Duesentrieb 14:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Arg! Mail bounced, their disk seems to be full! This is... silly. I can't tell them either, because, you know... -- Duesentrieb 13:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do I include an image with a non-ASCII filename in en Wikipedia?


Specifically, I am trying to include this image in the EN Fred and Ginger article. The markup I used to put it in here doesn't work on the EN Wikipedia as the č and ů are converted to HTML entites and the image is not found.

Note I didn't upload this image to start with, I am just trying to include it in the relevant English article. -- Blorg 10:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

English Wikipedia uses ISO-8859-1 coding (see m:Help:Special characters, so that won't work. You might need to reupload the image to commons wihout the diacritical marks in the file name. --Mayhem 10:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
if i were you i'd upload it to en with a plan ascii filename and put a note on the image description page there that its a temporary copy until en is converted to utf-8 Plugwash 12:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have heard some rumors that it will be fixed with a new software on June 15. --Fred Chess 13:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
you can simply use html-entities to express the filename on the english wikipedia. that should work. -- Duesentrieb 13:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The code [[Image:Tančící-dům.jpg|thumb|right]] doesn't work. It gives the message "Missing image TanÄící-dům.jpg". dbenbenn | talk 12:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm. The original version is at Image:Prague - Dancing House.jpg anyway. dbenbenn | talk 22:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm, I think it was supposed to be a different image. Why did you delete it? --Mayhem 04:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See Special:Log. It was an unused thumbnail of Image:Prague - Dancing House.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 15:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criteria in different languages disagree

According to Commons:Deletion guidelines, a redirect can be speedy deleted if it is "a redirect over which another page must be moved" or "a redirect to a nonexistent page". User:Franz Xaver just pointed out to me that the German version, Commons:Richtlinien zum Löschen, says that a redirect can be speedied if it is "not needed any more" (his translation). We should make sure the various translations of the policy pages agree! dbenbenn | talk 18:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

we should also consider doing what the GPL does and putting a statement to the effect that the english version is authoritive and that translations are for guidance only.
This last statement does IMO not meet the point: If guidelines in Commons were transferred from en.wikipedia or de.wikipedia respectively, without discussing contradictory rules, none of these rules can be declared as being authoritative. Rules should be agreed within the community and not be adopted from another wiki without discussion.
Some redirect pages are IMO not worth keeping them, provided that the only information in version history is, that this redirect has been created. This applies e.g. to redirect page which are created if a mis-spelled page name was moved to the correct spelling, which is often necessary with scientific names of plants or animals. Allowing speedy deletion in such cases reduces efforts both for users and sysops. --Franz Xaver 08:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes and no: rules should indeed not be copyied from wikis without discussion, they have to be agreed upon on the commons. But we should have only one definite version, in onle language (probably english), all translations should be considered auxilliary. Otherwise, we will get a big mess (we already have that, actually) - translations are never goping to be up to date... -- Duesentrieb 13:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Getting back to the deletion criteria, redirs for common misspellings are always useful - computers being what they are, without the redir, searching for a misspelled name returns no matches and nor even a suggestion that there was a spelling mistake. Now we don't normally need to go overboard and preemptively create redirs for every possible misspelling (although I have done known troublesome terms in en:), but if something was misspelled once, chances are it will be again, so it's helpful to keep the redir. Presumably de: doesn't do this because all the editors and readers are godlike beings who never make mistakes, but over here in commons there are lots of ordinary mortals who need a little more help. :-) Stan Shebs 13:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, some (most?) wikipedias have a policy against typo-redirects for a number of reasone - the best reason being IMHO that if you are redirected automatically, you may never notice that you spelled the word wrong. For common mistakes, it would IMHO be a good idea to have a plain page with something like google's "did you mean XYZ?" - that way, people are able to find the page even if the spelled it wrongly, but they will notice the mistake. -- Duesentrieb 14:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi Stan! Please, stay serious! Argue facts, not personalities - cited from en:Wikipedia:Wikiquette. A minority of people is feeling godlike anywhere. Not feeling godlike myself - but being misunderstood. Cheers --Franz Xaver 16:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just having a little fun! I'm much more the Bavarian than the Prussian... :-) A "did you mean" feature would be a handy software addition. Stan Shebs 17:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Template:PD-Flag is extremely problematic. It basically says

This is a flag. It might be from the CIA World Factbook, in which case it's PD. Otherwise it isn't.

As such, no image should use it. Flags from the World Factbook ought to have a {{PD-USGov-CIA-WF}}; other flags should have some other free license. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:PD-Flag has hundreds of flags using this "tag". I'm going to change the template to address these issues. Help in replacing the tag will be appreciated! dbenbenn | talk 21:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, it does say that now. But it's not that surprising, because you just edited it to say that.
On what basis did you completely change the text of the template from saying that images of flags are ineligible for copyright, but have other ND-like requirements due to international law, into something else?
James F. (talk) 01:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, that's confusing, isn't it? Please see the 23:22, 23 May 2005 revision of the template, from before I ever edited it. Perhaps the message there is wrong, but I didn't write it. dbenbenn | talk 01:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand either. Do we need to credit CIA-WF or what is your concern? --Mayhem 15:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please read the 23 May revision of the template that I linked above. It says "Representations of national flags are subject to copyright as original works of art". If that's correct, then these flags need to have copyright tags just like any other image here. dbenbenn | talk 03:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I certainly see that, the question is what makes you want to remove the tag altogether? We can agree that the "PD" part is a misnomer and that it shouldn't be used as a copyright tag, but the notice itself seems to be useful. --Mayhem 07:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, what is the purpose of the tag? Before I changed it, it looked like a copyright tag, and that's how people used it. Since it isn't a copyright tag, what should it be? Feel free to edit it yourself. Or you could start a new tag at Template:Flag. dbenbenn | talk 15:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The purpose of the tag is to indicate that the design of the flag depicted is in the public domain whereas (at least in some countries) the image itself is not, and that the use of such symbols is subject to restrictions imposed by international (and possibly national) laws. If you would like to get people to tag their images with proper copyright tags, you should go the traditional way of placing {{unknown}}-tags and/or asking the uploader. --Mayhem 20:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Lang-mp and others

It does not get control in Template:Lang-mp and Template:Potd/Day. Though I described an opinion in Talk.... How is it proper? --kahusi - (Talk) 08:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

カフシさん、CantoneseWikiさん、おメッセージ有難う御座いました。 感謝你給我這個信息. Kahusi, CantneseWiki, thanks for your messages. こんな事では、何も知らないだと思っていますが。 我不知道說什麼. I'm sorry, but I don't really know what to say here. でも、こちらは、CantoneseWikiさんと同意したいと思っています。 但是,我同意CW. However, I think I will agree with CantoneseWiki. However please take my opinion with a grain of salt. --Node ue 3 July 2005 08:01 (UTC) From Template:Lang-mp - History:

CantoneseWiki m (I am afriad I've to revert it. "zh-yue" is not the code for the script, but "zh-hk". Zh-yue denotes Cantonese as a dialect of Chinese, which is disputed. It is generally not intelligible with Mandarin)

There is not a lang attribute for a script, and there is it for a language It is not a problem what kind of language it is intelligible by. "zh-yue" right signify "粤語" and signify "廣東話". --kahusi - (Talk) 06:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Fixed: Lang attribute is not for a script but for a language. It is not a problem what kind of language be intelligible. .... --kahusi - (Talk) 2005-06-30 14:35:09 (UTC)
I am afraid there is no script called zh-yue. Cantonese is written in Chinese characters, and specifically, zh-HK, which is tailored made to serve the need of Cantonese-specific characters. Cantonese is Cantonese, together with Mandarin, Taiwanese, Shanghainese, etc., are separate languages of the family of Chinese languages. It is not just a variant form of writing like the difference zh-hant (Traditional Chinese characters) and zh-hans (Simplified Chinese characters). - CantoneseWiki 29 June 2005 19:29 (UTC)

There is it in my argument with "There is not a lang attribute for a script, and there is it for a language Lang attribute is not for a script but for a language.". The language code that Chinese is given for the variety is only "zh". Min-nan language which is a category of "zh" in a reason is "zh-min-nan". Since Cantonese does not have an exclusive language code either, and it is a category of "zh", it is an extremely natural thing that use "zh-yue". And it is NPOV most that the order of lists of a language is a order of a language code.

  • The Japanese original: 私の反論には「lang属性は文字の為ではなく言語の為にある」とあるのですが。中国語はその多様性の割に与えられている言語コードはzhのみです。故にzhの範疇である閩南語もzh-min-nanであります。広東語も専用の言語コードが無く、zhの範疇である以上、zh-yueを使うのはごく自然な事です。そして、言語の一覧の順序は、言語コードの順番であるのが最もNPOVであります。

--kahusi - (Talk) 2005-06-30 13:31:03 (UTC)

Chinese is not one language, but a family of many languages, although many would consider them a single language as they share a writing standard. Nevertheless each of the languages is a language on its own merit, and can be written in its own way.
For the use on computer, software designers have assigned two sets of language codes for Chinese, that is, zh-hant or zh-TW for the traditional script, and zh-hans or zh-CN for the simplified script. In other words, the language codes denote the script, but not the language. zh-HK is assigned for the set in which characters specific to Cantonese are included. - CantoneseWiki 1 July 2005 13:24 (UTC)

It does not have a connection that there are having assigned zh-TW/zh-CN and a language code for a letter.

There is ISO 639 used by a language code for a language name as ISO 639 says "ISO 639 is one of several international standards that lists short codes for language names". A lang attribute of HTML uses ISO 639 again, too.

TW / CN / HK is a code of ISO 3166. "ISO 3166 is a three-part geographic coding standard for coding the names of countries and dependent areas, and the principal subdivisions thereof." (From ISO 3166) It seems to distribute a language in a country to use this for another language and should avoid it.

In addition, only by having attached this code to zh, it does not leave a level of Mandarin used about somewhere. (zh-TW is a meaning of Chinese used in Taiwan. A software designer merely used it for traditional script. Also, zh-hant is a meaning of Chinese written in traditional script.)

And I describe the subject again last: It complies with the most neutral point of view that the order of lists of a language is a turn of a language code.

  • The Japanese original: zh-TWとzh-CNを割り当てた事と、言語コードが文字の為にあるという事は、繋がりがありません。言語コードに利用されているISO 639は、「ISO 639 is one of several international standards that lists short codes for language names.」と書いてある通り、言語名の為にあります。HTMLのlang属性もまた、ISO 639を利用しています。TW、CN、HKはISO 3166のコードであり、国名又は地域名を表します。別の言語の為にこれを使うのは、言語を国で分ける様なものであり、避けるべきです。また、このコードをzhに付けただけでは、どこかで使われているMandarinの域を出ません。(zh-TWは台湾で使われている中国語という意味になります。それをソフトウェアデザイナーが繁体字の為に利用したに過ぎません。zh-hantもまた、繁体字で書かれた中国語という意味です。)そして最後に主題を再び述べます:言語の一覧の順序は、言語コードの順番であるのが最も中立的な観点に添うものであります。

--kahusi - (Talk) 2005-07-01 17:07:14 (UTC)

Sorry I cannot understand whay you are saying. Please consider the fact that "als" is used for Alemannic edition of Wikipedia, and "nds" for Low Saxon and East Low German, instead of nl-nds/de-nds, or de-als. "ang" is not en-ang either. - CantoneseWiki 2 July 2005 10:07 (UTC)

IANA sets up "zh-yue" for Cantonese language: . how do you want to order languages?

--kahusi - (Talk) 2005-07-02 17:51:31 (UTC)

Node ue氏のコメントに感謝します。CantoneseWiki氏への同意とは何を指すのでしょうか。
Interlangの順序について:"en:Wikipedia:Language order poll"や[1]を見ると、「言語コードによるアルファベット順」の他に「現地語(の発音)によるアルファベット順」があり得る様です。
I thank for comment of Mr(s). Node ue. What will you point at with an agreement to Mr(s). CantoneseWiki?
About the order of Interlang: There can seem to be "By order of alphabet, based on local language" other than "By order of alphabet, based on two letter code" when I watch "en:Wikipedia:Language order poll" and [2].

--kahusi - (Talk) 2005-07-05 13:40:20 (UTC)

When there is not an argument for 5 days, I do it with: a language code of Cantonese assumes it "zh-yue", and two our one that the order was written on the above. Will you be all right?

--kahusi - (Talk) 2005-07-08 19:52:14 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. But frankly I cannot understand what you are trying to say, except that I can guess your position. I am not sure if you can understand what I said. - CantoneseWiki 17:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Then one asks you a question. Why do you want to do a position of Cantonese (gwóng dūng wá / yuht yúh (Yale Romanization)) at a position of "c"? --kahusi - (Talk) 12:09:18, 2005-07-13 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not a linguist at all, but I can read Japanese and I feel Kahusi's English might have cause some problems in communication. But basically he is (would be) right, I think. So let me explain what he'd like to tell.
But before that, let's not care about language order for a while. That's not the primary concern here, right?
All right then, I'll begin. Correct me if I'm wrong:
  1. According to the pages of W3C (w3c lang-tag page and w3c css-lang page), it was true some used "zh-HK" or kind of that, in the past. However, now "the IANA language code registry has more precise language codes for a range of Chinese languages." (quoted from w3c css-lang page)
  2. Then, please take a look at IANA's lang-tag page. Here, among many other zh-XXs, "zh-yue" is especially prepared for Cantonase. In other words, it's is a tailor-made lang attribute for Cantonase ("zh-yue" description page at IANA).
Thus, using "zh-yue" for Cantonase seems the natural way. If my (our) understanding has any faults, please point them out.
And well, in fact, I found that there're many people who accept zh-yue as Cantonase...
- Marsian / talk 10:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC) added Marsian / talk 06:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
To my understanding zh-TW, zh-HK, zh-CN, zh-hant, zh-hans, etc. are the codes assigned to the scripts. This is because Chinese group of languages is usually written in one single writing standard, with two common sets of scripts. Nonetheless Chinese can also be written according to the languages belonging to the group. Using codes such as zh-min-nan and zh-yue represents only one side of the view that Chinese is one language, and its variant are dialects, while many linguists would actually consider them different languages of the same family. Node ue can say a bit more. - CantoneseWiki 11:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding philosophy...

I'm unclear what the official philosophy is for the commons. Is it intended simply as a repository for images which are in the other Wikis? Or is it intended to be a sort of open-copyright stock photography bank. For instance, I've just uploaded Image:Rubber_pig.JPG. I can't think offhand of any wiki articles for which it would be useful, but it is (IMHO) a fairly nice photo which someone else might want to use. So, should I continue to upload photos in this vein? Or should I only upload photographs which can be used in a Wikipedia article? --Wxs 05:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only upload photos that can be useful to others. No vacation snapshots of yourself in the hotel swimming pool or your newborn niece. See Commons:Project plan#Criteria for inclusion. Thuresson 05:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Many Wikipedia articles could use that image "Rubber", for example, or an article about the style in which it is created. That photograph is useful to others, Wikimedia or not. --Oldak Quill 10:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Future wikibook projects will likely want a greater variety and depth of imagery to choose from than what WP needs. For instance, one can imagine field guides for plants and animals, travel guides, and even how-to manuals for art photography (but if the pic is a "what not to do" example, label it so others don't try to fix! :-) ). Stan Shebs 12:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Transferring free Wikipedia images to Commons

I think it is about time that we transfer the thousands of free images on Wikipedia to Commons, particularly those at English Wikipedia. I will be starting with en:Category:GFDL images, would anyone else like to help out? --Oldak Quill 10:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This may be much easier to to once we get the import/export function in 1.5 - i'm not sure that it supports moving images, but it would, as I understand it, be much easier to transfer the description and histories. Some support by the software would be good, anyway...
That being said, I would like to make clear that this can not be done fully automatically, because many images in the wikipedias are missing vital license info, even if they have a good license tag. -- Duesentrieb 11:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've already moved all those for which I own the copyright... It's probably most useful not to try a single mega-import, but to focus on classes of images where everything is already clear, such as US military pics, old paintings, etc. Thousands have already been moved, so part of the process should be just to figure out what's already done - not everything was re-uploaded under the same name. Stan Shebs 16:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded the image file Image:Curonian Spit and Lagoon.PNG into the English Wikipedia instead of WikiCommons by mistake. What is the usual method for transferring files from Wikipedia to WikiCommons? I would like to transfer (or move) it to WikiCommons.
H Padleckas 8 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)

Upload it to Commons (preferable with lowercase extension) and add {{NowCommons|Image:Curonian Spit and Lagoon.png}} to the description page in en-wp. --Avatar 8 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Sites with free pictures (for a bot)

I have written a Python bot (to be added to the pywikipediabot framework, but already available on request) to find pictures on certain subjects. It first does a commons search on the subject, then some Google searches on other sites - first two runs on a series of sites or parts of sites with general or many pictures, then some groups of sites chosen by the operator. Not all pictures on these sites are usable, but many are.

What I would like your help with, is extending this list of sites (I took the current one from Commons:Public domain image resources). Please post additions either here or in person to me. The list as it is now, is posted on User:Andre Engels/Sites. - Andre Engels 13:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you may want to integrate the search engine provided by have a look here. Also, would you write a web-frontend for your bot? Or give me the source, I may write one when I have some time. I would sure like to try it out -- Duesentrieb 14:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea how to write a web-frontend, sorry. I have sent you the source, but the basic functionality could I think also be implemented in an HTML form, so maybe that's the way to go. I will try to include the CC search form as well. - Andre Engels 09:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"books on tape"

My wife and I often listen to books on tape. There's a lack of free content out there. If I were to record myself reading a public-domain book, and release it into the public domain, it would be a large file, even in ogg format. Would Wikimedia be willing to host it? Where would be an appropriate place for it? Commons? Wikisource? Thanks, Quadell (talk) 18:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look at this (german): [3] or [4]. Kolossos 19:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It certainly would be appropriate and very useful. Commons would host it (or it broken up into several parts) and it would probably be linked to by Wikipedia article and Wikisource text. I was hoping to do the same thing in the summer - a shortish book such as The Picture of Dorian Gray by Wilde. I'd probably upload it chapter by chapter, keeping in mind there is an upload limit of 20 MB. Preferably, however, the file should be downloadble as a single file - upload limits are changable. Use Wikisource and Gutenberg to get some ideas of what to read. The use of such a file is not limited to the diffusion of knowledge. It would be very cheap for these books to be put on CDs (or DVDs for those with funky stereos) and sell them on behalf of Wikimedia resulting in quite a bit of fiscal gain for the project. --Oldak Quill 23:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Directory of free content

Hi. Do you know if there is any good directory of sources of free content ? If it doesn't exist any, why dont we create one in the Commons?

Something that would include souces of free (in the sense of fredoom)

  • Photos
  • Music and sounds
  • Vídeo
  • Paintings
  • Drawings


About specific themes.

We could create pages like:

--OsvaldoGago 20:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting proposition. I wouldn't make the type of media the largest directores - the links themselves could have icons representing the type of media included. An issue seems to me to be high maintainance - links die all the time, and we'd need to keep on top of this. Also, as a central repository our aim would be to include the free content of these websites, rendering (in the perfect world) such sourcelists useless. -- 00:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS. I wasn't signed in. --Oldak Quill 00:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have started it in here --OsvaldoGago 26 June 2005 19:55 (UTC)

I'm checking the links on Commons:Public domain media resources and related pages. There are many who changed their licences or do not exist anymore. Can anyone help me to build Sources:Main Page with confirmed links ? --OsvaldoGago 28 June 2005 11:51 (UTC)

Missing text

After having finished my work on Image:En Gedi Israel Arugot.jpg I got (and get till now) the following message: Der Text für den Artikel "Image:En Gedi Israel Arugot.jpg" wurde nicht in der Datenbank gefunden. Das ist wahrscheinlich ein Fehler in der Software. Bitte melden Sie dies einem Administrator, und geben sie den Artikelnamen an. (~Text wasn't found on the server. This problem is probably caused by the software. Please inform an Admin). My changes appear in the history. --Grauesel 26 June 2005 11:55 (UTC)

It's a common problem that fixes itself automatically. dbenbenn | talk 26 June 2005 14:16 (UTC)</nowiki>
How long does this usually take? I've got two pages that are still "missing" after about six hours. --Milkmandan 26 June 2005 21:27 (UTC)
A few minutes, in my experience. Try clearing you cache (Shift-reload or Ctrl-reload ought to do it). dbenbenn | talk 26 June 2005 22:18 (UTC)
The first thing I tried was to clear the cache out. It looks like the pages have fixed themselves around 10 hours after I made changes, though. Odd. Thanks for the info! --Milkmandan 27 June 2005 04:03 (UTC)

Same problem, with Irish_coats_of_arms, and it hasn't fixed itself! Bastique 27 June 2005 03:55 (UTC) I guess it did...

These should not be happening anymore. Please let us know if it does. --Brion VIBBER 27 June 2005 08:00 (UTC)

Aerial photos of cities

I've begun documenting towns I fly over (Tysto's aerial project) and adding the images to the Wikipedia page for the town. Does this seem useful? It's rather hit-or-miss and the quality ranges from very good to sasquatch, but it adds something to the town pages, which are generally quite bare.

On a related note, I've categorized these with the town name ([[Category:Bremen, Indiana]]) and [[Category:Aerial photos]], but shouldn't the Aerial photos category be more specific? How should we make it more specific without just mirroring the town categories? --Tysto 28 June 2005 04:04 (UTC)

This is awesome, thanks! If it gets too big, others could always subcategorize Category:Aerial photos by, for example, country, then US state. But don't let those worries stop you from uploading plenty of photos! dbenbenn | talk 28 June 2005 18:41 (UTC)

Leagal Status : Pictures involving recent artwork on expired copyright paintings


I recently shoot some pictures of a free (as in beer) representation of Claude Monet's paintings.

Monet died in 1926 so it should not be a problem to publish pictures of his paintings.

What I saw, and shot, was a projection of his work around the Rouen Cathedral in France on the original Cathedral (scale 1). Those projection where designed from the original artwork by someone else and the representation is organised by the city of Rouen. I beg the company which have performed this work to hold a copyright on this new interpretation of the original artwork.

Some of those pictures are nice and, anyway, could be usefull to illustrate impresionism painting, Cluade Monet, Rouen's Gothic Cathedral ...

Am I entitled to publish the picture I took under the GFDL or a cc-by-sa licence ?

Slye, 2005-06-28

IMO there are no problem with Monet's works and the cathedral of Rouen. So the question is "Is this public projection entitled to copyright of its own ?" Yann June 29, 2005 11:34 (UTC)
Creative lighting (but, presumably, not purely technical lighting) has been deemed to constitute an artistic creation. See for instance the case of the night lighting of the Eiffel Tower. David.Monniaux June 30, 2005 06:38 (UTC)
As proposed in the french Bistro I asked the Rouen city administration, and the answer was something like "you can publish your photos provided that you mention the creator "Skertzo" and licence them for a non commercial use". Thereafter I beg it's non recevable here, can someone confirm ? slye 2005-07-01 09:05:49 (UTC)
Commons won't accept images not usable for commercial use. However, the claims of the author of that lighting anyway don't hold water under US law. David.Monniaux 06:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Registered trademarks, logos

An example of a 'public domain' (according to the photographer) image: Image:Idea-SIM.jpg; there are more. Some people extract logos from such images and claim that they are also PD, because the source image was PD. Any comments? / tsca 2005-06-28 09:52:32 (UTC)

I think the photograph is fine. The idea that a crop of a PD image is automatically PD is incorrect. dbenbenn | talk 28 June 2005 18:36 (UTC)

Copyright on old anonymous photos

What is the true status of (old) and anonymous photos ?

There's only two photos of the great blues singer Robert Johnson (you can see one in the article), he died in 1938. And I got the CD of his works, with the 2 photos on the cover and I read:

  • Studio portrait of Robert Johnson 1935 - © Stephen C Laver 1989
  • Dime-store photo of Robert Johnson early 1930s - © Stephen C Laver 1986

Can anyone get the copyright of an old anonymous photo ? --Serged 29 June 2005 07:49 (UTC)

Are these really anonymous ? These photos probably come under "works published in the USA between 1923 and 1977. See [5]. Yann June 29, 2005 11:26 (UTC)

Self Meta-license

I have created a template: Template:SelfBSA that put a self-published work under three similar licenses: GFDL, CC-BY-SA-1.0, and CC-BY-SA-2.5. This saves a few keystrokes when you want to put a work under these licenses. My main motive is that I think I am missing out on a lot of good stuff for Wikitravel just because many are too lazy to publish their work under cc-by-sa-1.0. --Elgaard 2005-06-29 10:57:46 (UTC)

Can you really not use stuff under CC-BY-SA-2.5? Chamaeleon June 30, 2005 01:07 (UTC)
What Chamaeleon said. The Creative Commons even officially recommends not to use 1.0 for new work. dbenbenn | talk 30 June 2005 02:02 (UTC)
Yes, but it requires the accept of alle Wikitravel contributers to upgrade to CC-by-sa 2.X. --Elgaard 03:09:37, 2005-07-13 (UTC)
I've been reading the copyright info on Wikitravel and it seems that they are in a mess whereby they are stuck with CC-BY-SA-1.0. Chamaeleon June 30, 2005 05:40 (UTC)
Why "BSA"? - Omegatron July 1, 2005 02:12 (UTC)
Just a working title. Maybe SelfCopyleftAttribution? --Elgaard 03:09:37, 2005-07-13 (UTC)
See Template talk:SelfBSA - Omegatron 18:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


We report on our meeting with the European Space Agency regarding their photographs. We have to make them a proposal of licensing, so we invite discussion on the issue. (Please keep discussion on topic - we are not trying to remake the world.) David.Monniaux June 29, 2005 14:17 (UTC)

BMP support

I was entirely ignorant of PNG files until about a week ago. I converted a few files to JPEG that I shouldn't have...I can fix that mistake myself, and I won't make it again, but wouldn't it be nice if we could upload BMP files? This would bring up a menu of "would you like to convert this to JPEG or PNG?" showing the results of each conversion, both visually and as file size. Even if that isn't implemented, perhaps the "we don't support BMP" error message should include a little more info on JPEG vs. PNG, for folks as uninformed as I was.--Polyparadigm 30 June 2005 00:58 (UTC)

Good point about more info on JPEG versus PNG. I've added a sentence to MediaWiki:Badfiletype (which is what displays that "not a recommended file format" message. It now says
See Commons:File types for more information.
That page needs to be written. I'll take a first stab at it right now. dbenbenn | talk 30 June 2005 01:39 (UTC)