Commons:Village pump/Archive/2006/07

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
2019	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2020	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2021	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2022	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2023	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2024	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	Not available yet

1 July

Questionable copyright tradition

Image:Babe Ruth statue.jpg has been tagged as a copyright violation. There has never been a successful case claiming copyright violation of a 3d object in a photograph. Furthermore, this particular object is publicly displayed.

At the same time, Image:Microsoft Sign on German campus.jpg is boldly claimed to be Public Domain, despite being a clear trademark violation of a 3d object which could not possibly survive under the panorama defense. There have been court cases which show this defense does not apply when the use is to indicate the company or product depicted (which amounts to a trademark violation.) Even if it were not a trademark violation it would still equally be a copyright protected 3D object. - Amgine 16:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

At least the Microsoft image is perfectly legal. Read about German "Freedom of Panorama" in Commons:Licensing. Arnomane 21:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

And it is far away from anything, which could be copyrightable. Violations of trademarks are not our concern, but that of the re-user. Commons only has to care about copyright. --::Slomox:: >< 13:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a software licence for images?

I've wanted to use several icon images on my website, but they all come under the GPL licence. As far as I can tell GPL requires the licence terms to be included with the image as well as a credit to the original artist, but this is fairly impractical with images and totally impractical with icons. The problem seems to stem from GPL's origins as a software licence, yet it's being applied to material which simply isn't used or distributed in the same way that software is.

Most of those icons are created and distributed as icons sets for the linux desctop. This requires them to be released under the GPL. The creators of the icons probably simply did not think about dual licensing them so they could be used elsewhere - try to ask the people who made the icons to dual license under a CC license.

The GPL is not really suitable for anything but programs - it's unclear if it's even legally possible to apply them to icons. The GFDL is a little better, but is really suitable only for books. For image, CC licenses are much better. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 19:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've actually seen GPL used on LOTS of images, not just icons, and many of the others use GNU instead (which is apparently meant for documents, not images). Shouldn't there be some kind of mechanism to stop people submitting images to Wikimedia Commons with totally unsuitable licences? Otherwise there's no way we can use some of these images legally because we can't apply the terms of their licences to them.

Also, if the icons were only really meant for distribution with Linux, why the heck are they in here at all? Who put them in here?—the preceding unsigned comment is by 212.146.46.247 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

(L)GPL is a suitable license. No reason to stop anybody. For example I uploaded icons here. Arnomane 21:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

GPL and LGPL are not suitable licences. They're software licences, not image licences. The GPL and LGPL terms requires that there should be "an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty" on every single copy of the licensed file. How can anyone comply with those terms with an image, especially an image as small as an icon?

The GFDL requires the same. These terms are in fact not very handy for using images, but they are compatible with commons policy. I would argue that for online use, there are two workable ways to comply with the "full license text and attribution" requirement: either the image itself links to a "description page" with that info, or you have a line on every page linking to the appropriate license info. This is the way this is handeled on all Wikimedia projects.

So, while GPL (and even GFDL) are not good licenses for images, they are still valid and compliant with Commons policy. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 22:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there is no workaround for icons, they cannot link to a description page because their entire purpose is to link to a functional page, and you can't really have lines for every single icon if you use very many of them. Second... why do it this way? Why not simply have a CC licence as was suggested above? What possible advantage is there in using a software or document licence for an image? Surely no court would ever uphold a software or document licence for something that clearly isn't software or a document? These licences aren't there for commons policy, they're there to give legal protection for the copyright owners, and I very much doubt they do give legal protection if they're blatantly misused like this. Imagine if you were offered a job in a call centre, but when you examine your contract it's a recording agreement with a record company... would you feel happy with that as protection of your employment rights?

Even worse than this though, I've just noticed that the FDL licence is even used for sound recordings on Wikimedia Commons. Would you like to explain the workaround for that if someone uses it in a broadcast? Should each play of the recording be preceeded by someone reading out the terms of the licence?

It seems to me that very few people who assign licences to donated material on here have any awareness or interest in what the licence actually means.

So what CC license are you proposing we use? It can't be anything -BY (because you'd need to give the author then), and -SA wouldn't be useful either (because you'd need to include the license then). -NC is not allowed here, so basically we would be left with public domain as the only option. - Andre Engels 00:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Should each play of the recording be preceeded by someone reading out the terms of the licence? It is possible  :). I actually listened to it the other day, and it explicitly mentions images. So I don't think a court will reject it. I think the articles are licensed GFDL because they are "derived works" from the text articles, which are of course GFDL. And if you want to approach the groups that release icons under GPL license and ask them to release them under a CC license, you're welcome to do so. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right: it's completely insane to apply software licenses to icons. But still, people do. And since their license is compatible with our policy, we can have those images here. If the creator of the icons is a user here, just ask him to use a more reasonable license - for meany of the GFDL licensed images, this may work. The GPL licensed images are usually third party work: they where created for the linux desktop, but because they are under a free license, other people can and do copy them to commons.

Why is it compatible with your policy though? By letting people do this, you're risking their legal protection and generally eroding the whole idea behind licences. It's like offering skydivers parachutes without having any idea if they'll open.

Commons hosts free content - if some of it is not free enough for what you want to do, don't use it or get permission or a different license from the creator. Simple as that. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 00:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of being "free enough", it's a question of having a licence that makes any sense or has any legal status. Imagine if you went to Ikea and most of the beds only came with instructions for assembling chairs, that wouldn't make any sense either, in fact it would indicate something had gone badly wrong at Ikea. Of course you could go back to the shop and ask for the right instructions, and they might give them to you, but if you have to keep doing that time after time eventually you'll stop going to Ikea.

There are different ways to comply with the GPL on an image:

1. License the entire work in which the image is used under the GPL, and attach the license to the work. Many GPL icons come from free software packages which are themselves licensed under the GPL.
2. Show an image description page, as we do on Wikimedia. This does rule out use as a functional icon, though we often still use icons to illustrate pages, userboxes, etc.
3. Have a central "image credit" page that is linked from every page, and shows the license for each image used on a page. This was discussed on one of the mailing lists recently, and is likely the solution we will choose to enable use of images as icons without getting into licensing trouble.

All in all, we need not be too worried about the details of cross-free-content license compliance, though we should certainly encourage the use of generic licenses over work-specific ones. The main difference of the GPL to other licenses is that it requires the availability of the preferred modifiable version (source code for software), which may imply a need to upload SVGs for icons when available. Some archives, such as openclipart.org, have opted to go with the public domain; if we see that a particular site or artist cranks out a large amount of material, we should contact them about their choice of licensing and its implications, to make sure that they are fully aware of the potential incompatibilities that may result from a poor choice.--Eloquence 13:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You say all this, but can you point me to the parts of the licences which actually require me to add a link, or an attachment, or a description page, or an image credit page? I'm informed by someone more expert than me in GPL that you only have to include copyrights already in the file. Well, as the image files and audio files contain no copyrights, I don't see any requirement in GPL to insert a copyright message where none exists in the first place. GPL of course assumes that the file in question is a software package and not a GIF but that's not my problem, it's the problem of the person who submitted it to the commons. GFDL similarly talks about leaving cover pages in place, but again there are no cover pages in the GIF so according to the terms of the licence I don't need to leave anything in place. Of course as humans we could take a guess that the person INTENDED that we add a credit below the image or sound file, but there is no actual requirement in the licences to do so, and the requirements are the only things that count in a court of law.

Putting aside the useability for a moment, isn't there a reason to be worried about the legality of these licences? Their only reason for existence is to defend the images or sound clips in court, yet the GPL doesn't even contain the words "image" or "picture" or "photo" or "icon" or "sound" or "audio" or "music" or "speech". How well do you think such a licence would do in court? How can someone get into trouble for misusing the work when most of the licence is physically impossible to conform to (for example including the source code of a bitmap or audio file) and is clearly being misused itself? You're talking as if the text of the licence doesn't really matter that much, but if the text of the licence doesn't matter, if most of it is impossible to actually carry out in real life, if we are required to do things not even mentioned in the licence, why does it have to be included with every copy of the file? You might as well have a requirement to include a copy of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" with every copy of the file, because that makes about as much sense and contains about as much relevant information. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 16:35, 5 July 2006 (talk • contribs) 212.146.47.250

Please make up your mind before you post. I was cleaning up vandalism, and it's a pain if you change your edits every minute. Thanks. —UED77 16:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, but it would help if you used a proper message board for discussions. Why do you even use wikis on here when you have no articles, just files?

User creating images with inappropriate undescriptive names

Please see Special:Contributions/Daloonik. I'm doing what I can from English Wikipedia (where I'm an admin), but his uploads here are out of my hands. -- SCZenz 20:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice I will block him permanently if he proceeds doing so. Arnomane 20:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

1,215 Categories shall be changed

Followup to the previous thread on this subject- I just wanted to make sure folks understand the scope of the proposal. The Commons:By location category scheme affects somewhere in the vicinity of 1,215 Category names. Full list here.

Changes scheduled to commence after 14 July and I will run them during off peak periods.

Names are indicated in the list, although I have not yet generated the string for string changes. These will be published later. I am still harvesting eligible cats and expect 20% growth.

Some questions and notes

• For armed forces, some are known by somewhat generic names. Not sure on these. The plan is for Italian, Indian etc. Navy categories to be converted to Navy of [foo country] with the exception of Navies commonly known with by a proper name which might have an adjective form. EG Royal Navy, United States Navy (USN)
• Curiousity- The Faroe Islands is surprizingly well represented- never heard of them

-Mak 20:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Used_on_Wikinews

As I know that this will cause quite some trouble with Wikinews I post my reasons directly here: I have emptied and protected the template as we could introduce the very same for Wikipedia, Wikisource etc. as well. Wikinews has no special position in Wikimedia universe. We do a lot of hard work with unlinking but simply don't have the time to do so everytime. If people of Wikinews feel uncomfortable with the current situation where about 70% of all uses in all projects get unlinked by Commons people they just should ask for a CommonsTicker. That way everyone does his part of the job. Wikimedia Commons the one half and the local project the other half. And of course working together via that tool it would even be better: For example replacing images by alternatives or being alerted in local projects previous to a deletion. Arnomane 21:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point either. However, some admins are still deleting PNGs that are in use because of the SVG superiority thinking. I think that is causing frustration, especially with flags that are widely used. User:Pfctdayelise (one day I'll learn to spell that name instead of copy and pasting it ;-) has kindly restored some of these images. If people feel that adding extra tags will make it less likely that the images will be deleted, I can understand.

In the case of the admin who deleted these images, I just sent him a strong warning. I think we need to consider this -- no immediate deletion of images in use except as copyvio -- strong policy here on Commons, and enforce it against admins who violate it. The only situation when it's OK to step the check-usage step are clear copyvios. But not redundant or low quality images.

For the record, Wikinews has a CommonsTicker, and Pfct and myself are listed there as undeletion contacts.--Eloquence 11:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I saw the en.wn CommonsTicker after my post ;-) I should investigate more before posting... I share the frustration of people about removing used duplicates/"superior" images but I think the most effective approach solving it is the CommonsTicker that also shows overwrites (they happen sadly very often). For example Commons has a strong policy not to overwrite images of others but 70% simply don't care because the simply don't want to communicate, they're just interested in their "local" project. As it is impossible watching all images from inside Commons (something that is sadly often imposed on us) CommonsTicker increases the number of watching people by a large number. Adding that template in contrast will at least some people in en.wn think that "Its all in Commons responsibility and duty if $Foobar-person in Commons did something wrong. All commons admins are guilty." And such kind of frustration that leads to stagnation doesn't help anybody of us. Regarding the flag issue. I often said to people that flag experts please join Commons in order to improve the situation but for example Quistnix does show the above quoted opinion towards Commons. :-( Arnomane 11:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was really disappointed when I noticed that. Commons admins should be aware that CommonsTickers are potentially exposing your actions very clearly to the audiences you hurt. Much more than admin actions in a local project. So when you screw up, it's much more likely that the affected parties are going to come and complain about you. As they well should.

Primarily we do serve the other projects (not that we are their slaves, but a co-operative relationship). Having a "clean" database free of duplicates or only images with 100% perfect names should NOT be a primary concern. So I really suggest (to the people who do this) stop wasting your time with actions like unlinking PNGs, nominating PNGs for deletion etc, it's not where our focus should be. After a discussion on template talk:deleted duplicate I think we should delete and forget this stupid "cross overwriting" method which not only creates extra work but also exists to "force" projects to use versions preferred by some users (or, perhaps just one!) here.

In the past I tried to find out why some Wikinews editors were so antagonistic to Commons, I couldn't understand it...suddenly, and sadly, I see why.

With actions and attitudes like these I am wasting my time defending Commons, because I'm wrong. Really that is disheartening. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No need to "play the blame game" -- Commons is a wonderful archive of media, but we do need to develop (and enforce!) policies to avoid constant friction with the projects actually using the content. :-) I seem to recall that this was actually done after the first SVG/PNG debacle, does anyone have a link handy?--Eloquence 12:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding overwriting, I just added some extra text to MediaWiki:Ignorewarning. Is there a policy related to this already?--Eloquence 12:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

@Pfctdayelise: Yes I see this like you. This crossed overwrite should be dropped entirely (especially since now it is possible to undelete images). I never used it because I regarded it hostile if I don't make a relink of a duplicate I noticed by myself but did throw cross on other projects pages.

@Eloquence: Well I personally am a little bit frustrated. I (re-)wrote a lot of policy pages and tutorials but people asking here clearly answered questions again and again (ok better they ask then they don't ask...). So direct messages that pup up at the right place in the work flux are IMHO much more important than a special policy page somewhere (on the other hand a policy page like Commons:Licensing or Commons:Project scope has everything together in one place and can't be entirely placed into the interface...) The overwriting issue: There is somewhere a policy and I repeated myself with that in many places AFAIK but I have no link at hand atm. So your direct warning in MediaWiki:Ignorewarning is now the direct policy. ;-) Arnomane 08:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have rewritten the Commons:Deletion guidelines and dropped the crossing thing as it was very often used as a force against other projects and did thus cause many bad blood also doesn't make sense with current image undeletion possibility.

However there is an issue en.wiknews needs to solve as well:

• A general page protection of ready news articles is never a good idea. If I need to remove/replace an image out of various reasons I just want to do it myself in order to avoid to much friction (such as a copyvio or because I just stumbled across an exact duplicate, I don't search for duplicates but if I find one I resolve it).
• However it is perfectly understandable that a ready news article shouldn't change its content. Thatfor there is need for a better approach making these articles "stable".
• One way would be a very likely future feature of MediaWiki for tagging certain versions as "recommended" version that gets shown to the reader at first by default. As long as there's no such thing something like an internal WikinewsTicker that collects changes to all ready Wikinews articles (can be tracked via a template or category) on a dedidacted page so that people can quickly revert any change that did change the content and not the mere meta information afterwards.

That way Wikinews would be flexible and stable at the same time. Arnomane 08:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if we get a stable version feature, we'll likely use it in place of protection on Wikinews. Since work on that is now undergoing, it might be sensible to just wait for the first public beta.--Eloquence 23:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course we have time (and we have to do much more important work) but I think Wikinews should also realise that locking pages in Wikinews on a regular basis means locking Wikimedia Commons and this is not good if you want to maintain stuff. For example I have talked several times to Amgine and would like that Amgine tries to understand at least that sensibility towards Commons and its specific problems is needed as well. Arnomane 01:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

2 July

All admins should be on commons-l

See Commons talk:Administrators#All admins should be on commons-l and please respond there. Thanks,--Eloquence 11:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:GFDL-presumed

I was not too surprised to find an anon creating this and giving credit presumably to himself, but I was surprised to find it had some 25 links to it already! My guess is people are copying images from en.wp which has w:Template:GFDL-presumed. I think we should not accept transwiki images without a clear license, and thus such images should be deleted until the license is confirmed. Any objections?

I will ask Magnus to "disallow" GFDL-presumed on CommonsHelper too. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We should recreate this (and other related templates from en wiki) and redirect them to fair use, copyvio or similar templates. So user uploading images with these tags gets some kind of alert this licensing is not enough here at the Commons. --Denniss 21:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No objections - and I deleted the images already. -Samulili 19:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

3 July

Job queue truncated

The job queue length was up to 435K, and rising steadily. This is unacceptably high, so I truncated the table. This means that those link table refresh operations will not be performed. You can monitor the current status by looking at Special:Statistics.

Jobs are now run on a single common thread pool. When the job queue on one project is held at a high level, every Wikimedia project suffers, due to delayed link table updates. Please protect Template:Edit and other high use templates such as those listed at the top of Special:Mostlinked. -- Tim Starling 17:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Has anyone looked at this yet? pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Is there a way to find the most transcluded templates? Because #3 is template:PD-self and then the next 10 spots are filled by PD-self translations. They are not ever transcluded (to my knowledge) so the job queue thing shouldn't affect them. They are just linked to on every page that PD-self is transcluded. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Adolf Hitler Bigger.jpg

I have restored this image, the original source have given their permission to allow this on ANY Wikimedia project. Please don't delete it!! --TeleportingHitler 19:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Only on Wikimedia Projects? That's not enough. -- Timo Müller Diskussion 21:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus do you have any proof of your claim? Is there an email sent to permissions(at)wikimedia.org? NielsF 22:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The copyright is now added to the photos. See Image:Adolf Hitler Bigger.jpg. Oh, and the permissions were just for Wikipedia. --TeleportingHitler 08:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the image. It was deleted before, permission is only given for Wikipedia and even if there were full permission, I don't believe the original copyright holder has given it. PD-UK at least seems not very likely as a fitting licence tag. --::Slomox:: >< 12:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The original copyright holder has given permission now. --TeleportingHitler 17:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is this permission ? Please stop reuploading this image (or vandalizing user pages). Show us this permission or the file will be deleted again. Vandalizing user pages may result in a user block so be warned! --Denniss 19:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him for one week because he did again upload that file and as he did vandalize JeremyA's user page. Arnomane 08:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone move this category?

Typo in the name of Category:Payload failing, it should read Category:Payload fairing. Please could an admin move it. --GW Simulations 19:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I will instruct User:Orgullobot to do so. NielsF 19:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. I've copied the category info to Payload fairing, deleted the typo-cat. NielsF 19:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks: --GW Simulations 17:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Similar problem

Category:Astronomy Scetches should actually be Category:Astronomy sketches ... AnonMoos 13:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

4 July

Admin alert- Racist Image names again being uploaded- recommend ban.

Arnomane has warned User talk:Daloonik not to post images with racist names, but has done so again today. (List)

Recommend immediate ban and deletion of the images. -Mak 00:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Kjetil_r 02:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have created Template:Blocked User in order to increase usability and transparency so that people do not stumble across people that are blocked and aren't aware of it. I think it makes sense using in generally. See User:Daloonik for details how I did apply it. Arnomane 08:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No fair use template

I regularly come across editors moving images from en.wikipedia that are 'fair use' images. This is especially true to editors of projects such as es.wikipedia that redirect uploaders here. Because of this I think that it would be useful to have a multi-language template to place on user talk pages explaining why the commons doen't accept these images. I have started a template at {{No fair use}} using the language from Commons:licensing, could others look at/improve this template, and once it is OK make some translations. Thanks, JeremyA 02:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well Template:Fair use (and various redirects) is a speedy deletion request. People add that template at upload and do not look at the image page (you see that because such images have only one single page version), so they even won't notice some other template. Everyone that did read a little bit is aware that Fair use is not allowed. Arnomane 07:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There is already an explanation on Commons:Licensing. If you wish to make a more detailed explanation, maybe you could create a policy site Commons:Fair use instead. --Fb78 07:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I was intending this as a nice way to ensure that a new user has read the information on fair use from Commons:Licensing--I have seen a number of obviously well-meaning users who get confused as to why en.wikipedia can have a picture but they can't upload it here for use on a different wikimedia project. Commons:Licensing is a large document, so placing a brief summary of the parts that are relevant to fair use on a new users talk page seems like a good idea to me. The reason for using a template is to get translations to ensure that everyone understands. JeremyA 18:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it for going on someones user talk page? Lcarsdata ^{Talk | E-mail | My Contribs} 06:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think {{Fair use}} should have "subst:No fair use" not "subst:copyvionote" and change {{No fair use}} to take argument, so you could put {{Fair use}} to fair use images, and copy/paste fair use warning to user talk page. --Tomia 14:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing help needed

I have several pictures to upload. Which would be the appropriate categories for a city of Jain Temples, an Indian religion? Thanks in advance --Wotan 05:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and is there such a thing as too many categories for a picture? --Wotan 05:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

We have Category:Jainism and Category:Temples in India - that should cover it, right? If you have many images like this, you could also create Category:Jain temples as a subcategory of the two (although - there may be such temples outside india). We have Category:Jain temples... for category suggestions, you can use CommonSense. Oh, and more than four categories per image generally do not make sense. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 08:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Why did I not find the Category Tree (or am I just too stupid for using it?) --Wotan 12:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

PD-USGov-NASA license tag

Many images featured on the Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) web site are copyrighted. As the site is hosted by NASA (has a nasa.gov URL), images from this site are frequently uploaded here using the {{PD-USGov-NASA}} license tag, even if images are copyrighted non-NASA pictures. Maybe, we should add a warning to this tag that APOD images are not necessarily free, similar to the warning for SOHO-images that is already included in this tag. Maybe like this. Any comments? --Vesta 09:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes that would be a good idea, maybe something like "... and some images from APOD may also be." Lcarsdata ^{Talk | E-mail | My Contribs} 06:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

5 July

Photos of recent public sculptures

It pains me to bring it up, but as JeremyA observed last month in thread "Keeping of a photo not usable commercially", the photographs of publically displayed modern sculptures (life of artist +70 years) might be subject to copyright restrictions. Today, I ran across a Christian Science Monitor article on the subject [1] which seems to confirm this, according to American University School of law professor of intellectual Law Christine Farley.

We have a lot of these photos so maybe the Wiki Foundation Lawyer can look at it and issue an opinion. It would really be a shame to lose the Calders, Moore's and Brancusi's. Also curious if the rules for public art are different in the EU (hopefully similar to the general copyright exemption for architecture).

• Category:Alexander Calder
• Category:Henry Moore
• Category:Constantin Brancusi
• Category:Niki de Saint Phalle
• Category:George Rickey
• Category:Hendrik Andersen
• Category:Donald Judd

-Mak 01:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of this stuff will have to be deleted, according to Commons:Derivative works. Especially the ones that were taken inside museums or on private grounds. Laws on public art differ from country to country in the EU (see the policy article linked above). --Fb78 08:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need a more targeted approach. The Christian Science Monitor article mentioned says that these laws are disputed, too. Also, some of those photos of sculptures above were taken in Germany by Germans example, and are subject to w:de:Panoramafreiheit, that means they are legal for Germany. The more targeted approach would be the following: if we have a sculpture in the public whose copyright has not yet expired, but the photographer who took the photo has licensed the photo under a free licence, and we know when the sculptor died and can confirm when this derivative work (photo) will enter into the public domain

-> then we hide this photo until the date of it entering into the public domain.

Only admins or some few admins for that matter could view the file itself, while the file name and the image description page would be public to all.

1. So everyone could see when a particular object will enter into the public domain.
2. We could establish over time a fairly comprehensive copyright archive. Something which is not available in this form anywhere in the world, and which would be pretty valuable.
3. We would show our respect to current copyright law.
4. When there is again a copyright reform, people who defend the public domain will have a very impressive archive to point to and show the possible harm of copyright extensions. See w:Eldred vs. Ashcroft.
5. If we do not do this, we do not respect the art of the photographers.
6. Our Admins will have time and time again to establish the copyright status of these sculptures, without recourse to prior decisions in these matters.
7. There is the possibility of a review of our decisions in case of error or a (favorable) change in copyright law or a later licence by the rightsholder for our material.
8. Such a software change would be only a minimal effort for the developers.

Longbow4u 18:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sound like a great idea to me- retention of a copy for such non commerical purposes seems defensible, but I have no expertise in IP law. One tangential weird side benefit is as a perc to get people to volunteer for the drudgery of adminship too.

Anyway, it's a long long time to wait for a lot of these- Claudel- 2013, and 2046 for Calder. I think the Wikis are going to have to fall back on fair use otherwise any modern art article is going to be pretty pointless without images. My reading of Commons:Derivative works has been that even museum sketches of copyrighted work are not permitted (see comic book figures: drawings). What I am not so clear on is how "Impressionistic" the sketch would have to be in order to get out from under the derivative label. So if even impressionistic sketches are forbidden, I suppose you could do illustrative things- eg. Make a Calder like mobile animated gif, and release it PD- stating "Done in the style of Calder's mobiles". You are really have problems for the more subtle stuff though. What do you do for Claudel. No sculpture is going to communicate the essense of her work except for someone else in her class in the same style- You might as well show a Rodin with some figure in a gesture of pathos. So if sketches aren't allow, we have no great work arounds except for "in the style of" unique works imitating the style of the more high impact folks- Calder, Duchamp, Giacommetti, Oldenburg.

Detail point on Longbow's list. I think we have to acknowlege weakness of the economic argument portion of #4 point above. For this to have any relevance for future court decisions, in order to counterbalance the harm that the entrenched industries will squeal about, you would have demonstrate a large enough number of successful enterprises whose business model is dependent on recent creations having a shorter copyright. Yet in cases where there have been such enterprises, it hasn't turned out well. The rulings regarding the practice of sampling riffs common in hip hop or rap music have not gone in favor of such lucrative economic activities. (See here for an interesting detailed view of that if you are into music). Culture is the loser, but I think I am likely preaching to the choir. Anyhow, acknowleging the weakness does not mean submitting to the conclusions- eg the mind numbily horrifying notion that that entrenched industries effectively have rights in perpetuity to copyright restrictions. It does mean that we have to be realistic and deal with the weakness one way or another. -Mak 20:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have a few of my own photographs of public art uploaded here (A Picasso, a Calder, and a Chagall) I have tried to research to find a definitive answer, at least for those art works that are in the US. Although I am not a lawyer (nor a US-citizen) it seems clear that photos of non-PD public art in the US should not be sold commercially without a licence from the copyright holder. However, from what I have read there seems to be some doubt as to whether such copyrights would be upheld in court, and I can't find any legal precedent. I have been planning to move my own photos to the English wikipedia and declare tham as 'fair use', but I have been waiting to see if others get removed from here first. --JeremyA 00:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No precedents? You know about the case against the Beanie Baby catalog, right? Beanie babies are copyrighted as sculptures just as are art sculptures, and the artist has the exclusive right to sell photographs of their work. If you want to provide an image that could be substituted for such a photograph sold by the artist, then you can't even claim fair use. So the wikis will have to partly obscure/ make a low res copy of most modern art images, otherwise even a fair use defence will not work. (At least to my legally untrained mind)

Since this covers all of Modern art for all of the wikis, really it would be nice to get the Wiki foundation lawyer to issue some guidance on how degraded the fair use representations should be for Modern art. Secondly, it would be nice to know if applications of Longbow's proposal are ok- that Commons can legally retain non public copies of such images. It would be nice if Admins had access- could go into commons and find them, then could degrade them for fair use inclusion in their wikis. -Mak 22:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to sculptures that are permanently sited in a public place. I realise that US copyright law does not treat these any differently from any other sculpture, however the law in some other countries does. The precedent that I was thinking about was whether the copyright of a public artwork had ever been tested in court. I'm not sure that obscuring is necessary for fair use (we don't do that with logos for instance), but certianly I would lower the resolution such that, in my opinion, it would not be possible to sell prints of the photographs. We would also have to be careful which articles the photos were placed in—a low resolution version of Image:Picasso Chicago 060409-2.jpg might be fair use in an article about Daley Plaza, but probably not in a more general article about Chicago. JeremyA 23:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm sad to see these go, but as they can now be easily undeleted I am going to start deleting some of these images. I am starting with my own photos of public artworks in Chicago; as an example of how they might be reuploaded to individual projects as fair use, I have done this with my photo of Calder's Flamingo that is used at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kluczynski_Federal_Building. --JeremyA 17:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, could you drop a note on village pump when the flamingo Calder Fair Use review is over so that we all can learn how if there is anything new regarding public permanent displays or modern art fair use rules? Thanks -Mak 22:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use review seems to take a long time at en. However, I decided to test the water on what the consensus at en would be to do with these images, so I started an ifd on one ([2]) and the first reply was the suggestion that the image should be retagged as fair use. --JeremyA 04:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep pictures of works permanently situated in a public place. Wikimedia Foundation should declare that policy --Historiograf 22:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In Europe for example The_Little_Mermaid is very problematic. See the Snowball case --Elgaard 23:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this.My hobby is to make drawings &paintings of old buildings-or may be not so old along with a more or less well kept cultured landscape.I even take photos of same to save me from overfrequent sneezing. I like it best when they are dissolving.These buildings are pieces of rustic architecture.Someone has made them maybe recently. What about copyrights to buildings - pics of?

Can Brandenburger Tor show up in Wikipedia? We have in Norway a cathedral which is just finished with finer work e.g. statues on the walls - some, but not all, reconstructions, some originals of yesteryear. If someone (definitely not me ) made a painting of some likness - would it be neccesary with more than the artists freedom for Wiki to use? Two possibilities: 1. Lower solution to something like last generation cellular phone (They are following cameras in snobbery) 2.Watermark pics. Freeware available.Text:Illegally copied Does my sign come by itself? Bjørn som tegner. I`m norwegian

Problem with SVG image pages

Recently the image pages of SVG images contain the original SVG image, instead of a rendered version. However, some browsers (IE and others) don't understand a SRC=xyzzy.SVG attribute on an IMG tag and SVG images need to be loaded using EMBED: "<embed src=xyzzy.svg width=www height=hhh type=image/svg-xml>" Shinobu 09:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Err? SVG image pages contain a rendered PNG for me - and they should as long as embedded SVG is not widely supported. With which image did you see the problem, and when exactly? I suspect this was a glith that was fixed soon. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 09:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Just this morning - but it seems to be allright now... I checked various SVGs, uploaded by me and others, and they were all the same: they referenced the path to the SVG instead of the rendered PNG, like they do now, or did before. I suppose you're right - this was just a glitch. Shinobu 16:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea - it happened to me later on, and I alerted TimStarling to it who fixed it -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 07:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Images of photo models

Some people have transfered images of photo models from flickr to the Commons. Should we perhaps include a warning for the re-use? There have been cases in Germany where photos of prominent people have been used for advertisements without their consent, and the people advertising had to pay damages. That may not be applicable for Commons itself, because we are not using this photos for advertisements but for information purposes. But this might apply for third parties. What is your opinion? A warning would be something like: The author has put this photo under a free licence. It might be separately required to get a licence from the person pictured for re-use in a professional context such as advertisements. Longbow4u 19:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like the legal situation is similar in Germany to what it is in the US. In the US a persons likeness is protected to a limited extent and can not be used for promotion without agreement or compensation. This is not just an issue for Flikr pictures... any image focused on a person is potentially not completely free without a model release. I have in the past suggested that we develop a standard model release and encourage people to use it, but I haven't gotten around to doing it myself yet. :( Here is a good read if you'd like to worry, and here is the advice of a commercial stock agency [3]. In my mind a stock agency is the non-free content, and for profit equal to commons. --Gmaxwell 06:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well you need to separate things. It has something to do with personality rights. A nonfamous person also an unknown model needs to agree on a publication famous persons not. But you still can't do everything with an image of a nonfamous person or a picture relased with a agreement of a person. If you harm the persons integrity (and that's what in these advertising cases was claimed) you can be sued. So we don't need such a warning template but need to make clear that we don't allow people images from flickr just because they were tagged CC-BY there. Arnomane 08:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"You" can be sued, "You" the republisher (or re-user), or "you" meaning us? If it's a republisher then isn't that just their problem? pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"You" = the person that harmed another person. In case of a release of a picture of a nonfamous person "you" is the publisher in case a permission exists or if it is a famous person "you" is the person that made a harmful reuse of the (legal) picture (so nothing we need to care about in the second case). Arnomane 10:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This would, in general, not threaten *us*, but it does cause some material to be non-free for some uses which should be permitted under our free licenses. Arnomane, Why do you think this problem only applies to images from Flickr? --Gmaxwell 15:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The images would only be nonfree if you did release a picture of a nonfamous person without agreement. I don't think that's a Flickr only problem. Though web pages that have lots of "party stuff" are in general the primary source for such images. Arnomane 16:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does Wikimedia Commons use wikis at all?

Wikis such as Mediawiki are designed to let many users edit the same articles together. Wikimedia Commons has no articles, just files, and the descriptions shouldn't really be edited by anyone except the person uploading them or a system admin. The same goes for posts in discussion threads. Can someone explain why Wikimedia Commons uses wiki software at all? I don't see any advantage over CMS software, but plenty of disadvantages (vandalism, very poor discussion interface etc).—the preceding unsigned comment is by Krisse101 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right: MediaWiki is (ironically) not verry good for (multi)media things. It's getting better, though. In my mind, the main reasons for using MediaWiki for commons are:

• People already know how to use it. Most users here come from a Wikipedia, and having to learn a different interface would be annoying.
• On the server side, it would mean a lot of work to install and maintain another complex piece of software - not to speak of making it scale to serving a thousand requests per second.
• I have not yet seen any CMS system that would be felxible enough to do what Commons does. Think of image tagging/auditing, voting (with comments and dicussion), creating/changing templates, etc. A lot of custom could would have to be written (and maintained) for any CMS to be usable - to me, it makes more sense to adopt MediaWiki to be better suited for the purpose.
• The vandalism argument is the same as for wikipedia... allowing anyone to edit allows for vandalism, but it also means many valid contributions be passing anons. And: Image descriptions should in fact be editable: changes in categorization for example, or adding descriptions in another language, fixing typos, etc.

There are some efforts to address the issues you have mentioned. For example m:LiquidThreads -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the first poster. It is sometimes very useful to update image description pages, add more information, standardize the information, add more language support. I could not imagine how that would be possible with other software, content management software etc. And as Duesentrieb says, it is a huge advantage that the Commons users are already used to the interface from their homewikis. Any other system would have much more difficulties. If we do this for some years, we can become a standard. See how difficult it is today for most users to change from Windows to Linux. It will be equally difficult to change from MediaWiki to any other software. I would like certain customizations to the MediaWiki software, though, for special needs in Commons, but not a change to the overall layout. Longbow4u 12:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides, the troll posts occasionally happening on this page could have been easily stopped with a temporary semi-protection if they would have gone too far. The disadvantage would have been that other IP-users could not have posted, too. So this is a cost-benefit problem. So we either have to bear sockpuppets, or revert them all the time. Longbow4u 12:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Longbow4u. Many files lack proper description, because it often happens that the one who takes the picture and/or uploads it on Commons is not the one who knows exactly what the picture represents. Perfect example: artwork. You upload a picture with the following description: "a Greek statue in the British Museum". Someone else may add what the statue represents, another one the date range and yet another one may finally specify the acccession number, materials, dimensions, etc. Why would any of these people need sysop rights? Jastrow 13:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does the Commons use a wiki? Because Wikimedia created MediaWiki. :P We are quite well aware that a wiki is not perfectly suited for a media DB... but that's what we've got now, so it's a bit late to change. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is not perfect. But see the alternatives. My university has digitized about 3 million book pages and placed them in a "Content management system". http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/de/index.html. I think this interface is very murky, it is really hard to find specific files, authors, specific words etc., you do not have version control, cannot contact other collaborators, and probably this cost the university a ton of money to develop with proprietary software. Besides Commons is already multilingual to some degree. On the other hand, MediaWiki is maintained by dozens of developers who work for Wikipedia, who are actively fixing bugs. And the best is other people / institutions can always and instantaneously deploy this software for free. I wonder when other professional institutions (like universities) start using MediaWiki. Longbow4u 13:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to watch Special:Recentchanges for a while. There's a huge amount of colalborative metadata editing going on, from categories to quality control tags to descriptions -- and descriptions absolutely have to be editable. With FlickrLickr, we review photos from Flickr and upload them to the Commons, and the descriptions on Flickr are frequently completely useless (so are the tags). Even overwriting images in a wiki-like fashion can often be useful when there are obvious errors that need to be fixed. As for the discussion interface being "poor" -- while wikis have disadvantages over traditional forums, they also have advantages when it comes to maintaining structure, removing useless content, etc. They tend to be bad for newbies, but wiki veterans generally have no problem using them.

By the way, any system that allows user registration without strong authentication is vulnerable to spamming and trolling. Wikis actually generally have the best toolset to deal with these kinds of problems (range blocks, spam blacklists, open proxy detection, anonymous talk pages, semi-protection, etc.).--Eloquence 16:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

.jpg Photoshop file "cannot be displayed"

Uploaded a .jpg file and got the following error message

The image “http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/CO_Mineral_Belt.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

A version was created with Adobe Illustrator 10 and saved as an .eps file. That file was read and saved as .jpg using Adobe Photoshop 7 on a Mac. Then uploaded the .jpg file. Then received above error message

Read .jpg file again with Adobe Photoshop 7 -- file displays on Mac without a problem

Then, tested by repeating process. Saved it as CO_Mineral_Beltv1.jpg again using Photoshop 7. Uploaded the new version. Same error message is displayed for the .jpg file

So now, two files uploaded that cannot be displayed by Wikimedia

What might cause display errors for a .jpg file created by Photoshop and displayed without problems on computer?

Is there an easy way for authors to delete "bad" files that they created?--Omphacite 17:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I have saved Image:CO Mineral Belt.jpg with GIMP as .jpg (Quality 90%) and now the image is shown. The filesize is ~ 6% of the original. Don't know why... And maybe it will be better to save as .png for this kind of graphics.

If you want to delete a file, please mark it with {{speedydelete}} with a reason and an admin will delete it. CO_Mineral_Beltv1.jpg is deleted now. --Raymond ^Disc. 17:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I know this is not the question, but if you have an eps made with illustrator, I suppose it is a vector image. Why don't you export is as a svg (I don't know if it is possible with illustrator), or convert it afterwards (with pstoedit for example?). Anyways, if you want (or can't do otherwise) stick to a bitmap format, png is more suited to this kind of image. CyrilB 18:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if an admin wants to take a look

Not 100% sure if this is the right place, but there doesn't seem to be any AIV at the commons. I noticed some odd artistic uploads and quickly found this page on Andrew Campbell. The page, along with the uploads of its creator, Artforum might be worth scanning by an admin to see if it fits inside the commons remit. I don't know exactly what the rules and regs are on this type of artistic work, but I can't see 1. How all the images uploaded are directly encyclopedic (person has no en.wikipedia article) - and 2. how the images can be licensed under CC - "leading artists" tend not to licence all their works under CC. SFC9394 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look a the articles Andrew Campbell and the duplicate Andrew B. Campbell it looks more like advertising/linkspam/increase google ranking for this artist. All artistic content is copyrighted by this Mr Campbell and even if he released these images under this license himself most content is not usable because he uses lots of copyrighted logos and other stuff in his work. It looks the stuff was uploaded here beause it was deleted in en wiki, see here. I also see nothing really important in his works, looks mostly like something done with Photoshop.--Denniss 23:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, probably all his material should be nominated for deletion on the grounds of being not suitable material. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

One sentence grabbed me from the Andrew B. Campbell article: "Andrew Campbell is the antithesis of the celebrity seeking and publicity driven shallowness prevalent in our egocentric age." 'nuff said. To the shambles. —UED77 02:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Structured wiki

I do not know if this is place to talk about this. if no ,please redirect me.

---

I have some idea to design a new wiki system on top of media wiki. I mean by structured is to be able get some wiki content from the database.may be something like a trigger whenever a object change in the database it render the new wiki. or this can be done on the fly. Waiting for your comments.

The idea you described is extremely unclear, and is probably better suited to meta: somewhere, although where exactly it's hard to tell. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Temporary protection

I have protected the Village pump (intended to be temporary) to get a little rash of sockpuppets under control. Genuine enquiries can go to Commons:Help desk or my talk page (User talk:pfctdayelise) and if appropriate they will be moved to the Village pump when protection is lifted. Sorry that this is necessary, pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Make that semi-protection. Unless your account was very recently created (last week or so), you should be able to edit this page if your account is logged in. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted free use or PD-self

I have uploaded a number of my own photographs and tagged them {{PD-self}}. I notice that {{Copyrighted free use}} says "If this is your own work, please consider using {{PD-self}} instead if you are in the United States" (emphasis added). Since I'm not in the United States, should I be using {{Copyrighted free use}} instead? Is {{PD-self}} valid only for people in the U.S.? Angr 20:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This might be a relic from when pd-self didn't include the 'in case this is not possible' bit. It's better to use PD-self. --Gmaxwell 20:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the "if you are in the Unites States" bit. It was there is because of countries whose copyright law recognizes inalienable moral rights. In these countries, putting your work in the public domain is legally impossible. However, PD-self includes a "safety clause" (essentially a brief version of "copyrighted free use"), so I see no reason not to use it. It's easier to understand for third parties what the intentions of the author are.

My personal (philosophical) belief is that we need to build a community of individuals around the notion of a true public domain, where we move away completely from licenses and contracts as means to regulate the dissemination of information. (I've registered the domain name gopd.org a while ago for that purpose -- if someone is interested in such a project, leave a note on my talk page.) Those who share this philosophy might want to choose a tag like PD-self for philosophical reasons over one with a big, green copyright logo on it.--Eloquence 20:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible abuse of admin privileges

I am shocked with the decision that was reached regarding my deletion request of image Template:Deletion_requests#Image:Rs_lokacija.PNG. After only a single vote and 1 minute after that the discussion was closed and the image was kept. The user who voted to keep the image did not even present a proof for his/her arguement and I am very suspicious that his arguement is valid. I am not the only one who finds this disturbing see [4] . Could someone respond and clarify this rather serious issue. Thank you--Dado 05:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, what? The map shows the correct bounds and location of the region, no? How does it suggest that it's an independent state? So you think we should delete the Image:LocationGibraltar.png too? After all, the description doesn't even mention that it's actually part of Great Britain. If you feel that the locator map is not good to represent to location of that region, make another one and use that. I see no reason for deletion.

Compare the deletion request about Image:Der Aufbau der Republik Deutschösterreich.png - that map has a lot more implications, but was kept anyway, because it represents historical facts (a state that was defined to exits but in reality never did exist in this form).

Your request for deletion is simply baseles, and in a clear case like this, it's completely ok to close the discussion early. To suggest abouse of admin priveleges is completely over the top (especially since no "admin priveleges" where used at all). -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 08:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

President Bush editing Wikimedia Commons!

Cool stuff, seems like the Whitehouse is very intested in open knowledge... Otherwise I cannot explain how come Category:AIDS being a subcategory of Category:Homosexuality. --190.48.106.137 14:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, dealing with AIDS is an important aspect of gay culture, no? It is, of course, also an important aspect of health care and education in general, especially in third world countries but also in the "first"; and it's a mojor problem for herion addicts. Now, why should AIDS not be associated with homosexuality? -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 15:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it is not exclusive. Hetrasexuals can get it too. --GW Simulations 16:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure - add it to more categories -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 18:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed this wrong cat, every single human in the world regardless of sexual practice may get this disease (although several groups want us to believe it is directly related to homosexuality). Another thing : Why HIV and AIDS cats ? --Denniss 17:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Formally speaking, many people such as Denniss believe that categories represent only IS_A relations. Others, such as Duesentrieb and myself feel that the strict hierarchies that this imposes cannot express the rich set of semantic relationships in human knowledge. One such relation is "Is_Part_of" relations. People who interpreted the Aids-Homosexuality relation as an IS_A relationship interpreted it as meaning "anyone that has aids IS homosexual", a statement that nearly all people contributing to the wikis knows is incorrect. People who were not offended by it understood it to mean that Aids IS_Part_Of the set of subjects of relevance to the Subject Homosexuality. And it is, as was Duesentrieb's point that it could and should be added to all subjects like African issues, intravenous drug injection or sexual promiscuity.

It is a curiousity that there is no clear common understanding about what the category tree represents. Nonetheless, the opposing positions may be evaluated at a practical level rather than a theoretical level.

• Position IS_A: makes it more difficult for people suffering from aids to find information about other issues of interest to the homosexual community.

• Position IS_PART_OF: makes it easier to find more information on subjects related to Aids, such as the heavy impact it has on Africa, it's relationship to recreational inject able drug use etc.

If we treat the category tree strictly as a set of mutually exclusive sets, we are going to come up fast on the realization that the world does not obey such a tidy way of understanding the world. And we will perpetuate ignorance about important issues such as Aids because we refuse to encode the relationships that are non hierarchical.

-Mak 22:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I am one of those people who have always considered categories to represent semantic relationships, as opposed a strict hierarchy. I agree with you, Mak, I don't see how such a view would hurt. But perhaps, we should state this explicitly in a master category scheme — much of the categorization intructions are poorly documented, so I am considering to publicize it more. Hopefully, people will even read such schemes — but I might be a little too hopeful. —UED77 16:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

And another related thought: perhaps... the name "category web" should be promoted instead of "category tree". Consider the advantages... as long as it doesn't get excessive. —UED77 17:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The silence regarding the fundamental nature of the primary reference structure of Commons is not unexpected.

AIDS is now a subcat of African Politics because with 234 African deaths this hour due to AIDS, it IS_PART_OF the set of African political social issues. Of course other cats may treat the AIDS cat like a leper, and in so doing be part of the deadly cycle of perpetuating ignorance. -Mak 16:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

AIDS is now a subcat of Recreational drug use since it is part of the issues that intraveneous drug users ought to be aware of. Betcha can't guess what I'll make it a subcat of next.... -Mak 20:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I get around the problem of intersecting sets by adding "See also" lks, just like WP. This is less organisationally satisfying, but means the user who is looking for African AIDS pics doesn't arrive at Cat:AIDS and wonder why most of the pics aren't about Africa. It is clear these are related sets, not nested sets.

There is a language issue, of course, but a) I don't have any difficulty understanding structures like this on pages where I don't understand the language, and b) if we're really bothered perhaps we could do a language template thing which displays in the user's preferred lang. JackyR 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting thought. You mean it might be useful to be able to transclude link information that would relate a topic to other related topics? Maybe someone has proposed that Commons allow such a mechanism to be included on pages. Hmmmm. After thinking about it a little bit, I believe I agree with you. Many of these relationships are best expressed in links.

Still, it seems to me that there should be some common agreement on general fundamentals about the nature of the category tree- such as whether it is or is not to be regarded as a "tree" (a strict hierarchy), or something else. -Mak 22:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey- all those that think Aids is not an African Political problem, please join Denniss in reverting that subcat, as well as the one for recreational drugs. -Mak 23:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the above discussion demonstrates very clearly that Commons will be more useful as a web, not a tree. Tree structures are nice logically, but don't reflect the real world very well. We don't attempt to build WP like that, and at Commons we use categories the way WP uses articles (to some extent). So both vertical categorising and horizontal linking have their uses. JackyR 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

PS You can see one I prepared earlier at Category:Stoves. I'm not sure about the layout, but the cross-linking works well in this topic. JackyR 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

PPS Don't know that I'm into transcluded info: what's wrong with ordinary lks. No, I meant that the "See also" appears in the language of the user's choice (isn't that what folk have been working on for other bits of text?). JackyR 09:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Folks are interested in it, but no show so far. Transclusion is good because that way you can do the navigation not just from category or article pages, but directly from each image page. You can do stuff like for navigation- take me to the next image in this category, take me to the next decade, or back a decade--- or what is discussed here- take me to an associated category that is not closely enough associated to stick in the Category web. Why should the nodes in your graph be the categories or the articles? They should instead be the basic retrieval unit of Commons: The Image: page. Each transcluded info page adds an additional set of edges from that image node to the graph. The aggregate of those edges make the node unique. -Mak 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Potd in other projects

I'd like to use the Picture of the day in other projects. I understand that it's a Commons Template, and it can't be included in another wiki in the normal way. But I found this in meta:

Transclusion across projects, hence changing contents from a central place, is only possible:

• for content in the form of an image on Commons, to any page,
• for editable content on an image page on Commons, including content transcluded from other pages on Commons, to the corresponding local image pages, if there is no local image with the same name (meta:Template#Use_of_templates_across_projects)

Then, it's possible to "hack" a little, and create a redirect or substituted potd page in the Image namespace, and that will be available in another Wiki? – Glanthor ※ 18:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, interesting idea, but I don't think it works. See image:potd and [5]. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hum well Template:Potd and especially Template:Potd2 are very complicated because of translation stuff. :-( Basically it works with nested sub templates. The image and the image caption are taken from a list of sub templates named after date and that get embedded with the the DATE variable. That's the basic scheme. Everything else is translation that complicates matters. Arnomane 01:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any sandbox image?

Is there any image that can be used for tests? --Nethac DIU 23:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Something like this? Image:Example.jpg--Eloquence 00:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but I didn't mean that exactly. I don't know if I can in that image, but I wanted a image to upload over.

You can upload over any image once your account is older than 4 days. If you upload over something by accident you can revert back to a previous version. So you could do that on the example image, if you wanted to, although I can't imagine why you would. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Invisible category

Maybe it's this flu my 4 year old gave me, but this seems like a database bug:

Category:Liberian politicians declares itself a subcat of Category:Politicians by nationality but when you go there, you don't see Liberian politicians listed. Tried editing Liberian politicians to ping it, but still its a no show in the parent cat. Odd. -Mak 05:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Politicians by country is a RDR. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Quality Images

Commons Quality images has commenced reviewing please nominate images at Commons:Quality images candidates or come and review whats been nominated, remember that this is for original works/photographs created by Commons Editors. Gnangarra 07:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

GNU license

If I want to convert a image into SVG, must I ask for permission to the original author for using the same name? --Nethac DIU 10:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No - the license does not require that; it does require that you link to the original and name the original author(s).

It's considered impolite to overwrite an image before consulting the original uploader, but since a different file extension creates a different file name, you will not be overwriting anything. Do not mark the original image for deletion or as duplicate/obsolete though - just put {{Vector version available}} on the original image's description page. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Which Freeware SVG program should I get?

Moved from Wikipedia's VP at the suggestion of another editor

I'd like to convert some images with the {{Convert to SVG}} tag to SVG, though I don't know which freeware SVG program I should get. Does anyone have any good recommendations for a program of this sort?--ɪkiɾɔɪd | talk 14:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

InkScape is pretty popular (and it's free(speach) software, not only free(beer)ware).

Note that it's not really possible to "convert" a bitmap to a vector image - that's like extracting text from a bitmap: you can try automatically (using a "tracer"), but the results are usually so bad (and huge) that you are much better off redrawing by hand.

Often it is useful to ask the original creator for the "source files", or directly for an SVG version. Programs used to create diagrams generally use a vector-representation internally, and many even support SVG export. If not, there may be some program that can read the "propriatary" diagram file and convert it to SVG. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 14:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

How to replace an upload?

I uploaded the .JPG version of a pic, but intended to upload the .png version. How do I replace an image? --Concrete Cowboy 23:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

and just to make it entertaining, it is a picture of a sculpture! (debate above). --Concrete Cowboy 23:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Just upload the correct file, and add "{{bad name|Image:newfile.png}}" to the description of the old file :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UED77 (talk • contribs) at 00:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [for some reason, I forgot to sign earlier :) ] —UED77 16:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikimania Awards!

Hi, everyone. We need your help nominating great images and video for the Wikimania Awards (Wikimania is held next month in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA) -- the people who've donated their talent (and there are a lot of them here) deserve recognition.

Anything posted to commons during the past year is elegible. The winner gets a w:Nokia 770 Internet Tablet (and fame. Lots of fame.). Tlogmer 02:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

10 July, 2006

Image unprotection request

The commons image Human Feces [6] is protected. I was the original uploader onto the english wikipedia. Someone moved it over here a few weeks ago and didn't include the changes I later made to the description page there. The image has since been deleted from the english wikipedia. I would like to restore the description and remove the vandalism currently therein ("ew") but in order to do that I need to have the image page unprotected. Cheers, Cacetudo 14:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ehm the image isn't protected. NielsF 16:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Help wanted from an admin

My talk page is continuously being vandalized by a vandal-type "Willy on Wheels" : by User:William On Owls and User:Arofol Sockpuppet 1 . Quick intervention requested. JoJan 14:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Pool Piping Rudd Twyther has now joined the vandalism outburst. JoJan 14:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the vandals to User:Andre Engels JoJan 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

World Cup photos

Let's be sensible here people, and realise that low-resolution professional-quality World Cup images on Flickr are copyvios. Let's not propogate them OK? In particular delete anything on sight from user beatrice contardi because she cannot be trusted. thankyou... --pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Commons media used in the press

Do we have a page to record this? :) Maybe we should!

The first image in Slate's "A Brief History of the Bikini" slideshow is Image:Casale Bikini.jpg, which they credit to us. Pretty cool, eh?

<wipes sweat off brow> thank god it's not a copyvio... --pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Pretty cool indeed, but the image is under a CC-BY-SA-2.5 license, so they violated the license by not naming the author :-S. Although that license may be invalid (should it be PD-ART?). NielsF 16:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, good point. Image:Armerina.jpg is very similar, but PD-art. I don't know. Is a mosiac 2D or 3D? --pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess you could argue both ways... See Commons_talk:Licensing##Mosaics:_2-_or_3-dimensional.3F as well, nobody seems to know for sure (otherwise they would've said so I guess). The third dimension of a mosaic is only because of the material used (little stones), so I would say it's 2D (a painting actually has three dimensions as well, however it's always perceived as 2D). NielsF 16:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. The third dimension of a mosaic is not significant enough that you can get a substantially different perspective on it by altering your camera angle. Angr 18:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In this case the photographer must have chosen how much of the subject to capture. Jkelly 04:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Text folding JS for commons?

EN wiki has the css and monobook.js stuff working for doing text folding, EG: en:Talk:Hudson's_Bay_Company#WikiProject:__Retailing click on "show" lower right just under the light brown cell.

Looks like we have some of the css but the not everything is working since I can't get the div code to work on commons pages. Will this be on commons anytime soon? Is anyone planning on doing this for selective folding according to language preference declared by the browser?

-Mak 20:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem in Commons:Media_help

The internet address we link to in the Windows section ( http://www.illiminable.com/ogg/ ) where people shall download the Ogg Codec has apparently expired and the codec is not available. So perhaps we should look for alternatives to link to. Has some one an idea? Longbow4u 20:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Now it works:

News: Sorry if this was down for a few hours. I thought it was 
auto-renewing but they had an old expiry date on my credit card. The domain 
expired. Thankfully Ralph Giles from xiph.org bought the domain back on my 
behalf. Thanks Ralph :) Sorry about the inconvenience to anyone. For today 
I am Zentaro, Lord of the Idiots!

Platonides 14:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Radical proposal

Since sorting images seems to be a categorical affair, and that articles here do not require much in the way of articles or descriptions, is it possible to make article pages function as if they were a category? It would save some typing, reduce use of static linkage (ie. articles) in favor of dynamic likage (ie. categories). -Stevertigo 21:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you can talk in other words, please? In simple English? Thank's! FML ^hi 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have suggested that a long time ago; It's not easy to implement and posts some challanges for redesigning the user interface. It would be doable, and I think it would be really cool for commons. But someone has to invest quite a bit of time and code into it. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 21:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Glad to know its not a new idea. Ill look into the particulars. -Stevertigo

Not to make more noise than signal, but it says: "Assuming the code for this is based on the current category system resources used per page view are perhaps 1,000 times as much as for a normal page. Maybe more." I had thought Categories were cached as HTML pages, which only need rewriting when a tag is added. Aside from the basic personalized info and CSS, what needs rewriting? -Stevertigo 21:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Category pages are not cached currently (or at least, they weren't until recently). That is one part of it. The far more complicated part is the transition - if a category and a page with the same name exist, the category head would have to be merged with teh article text. Also, since categories often have plural names, we would need a way to "link" pages to a category with a different name, if we don't want to re-categorize every other image on Commons.

I have been wondering if it would make more sense to create a <autogallery> tag that looks like <gallery> but shows all pictures from a given category. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 10:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess that would be an effective way to use redundancy to solve a problem. But the other solution would actually force people to think about categorizing, which IMHO is far more important. That solution unifies the site's modus operandi behind categorization, whereas this one... well, Ill try to be helpful and see if theres a bug filed. -Stevertigo 13:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC) PS: the plural names problem speaks more toward the idea of revamping the redirect system as it currently exists. A radical proposal in its own right is just groundwork for this one... :\ -Stevertigo 13:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you decide to spend any amount of time on this please give some thought to multilingual labels. For the current system, RDRs work well for galleries but not for categories. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

2,087 adjective Placename categories to be renamed.

• Changing from adjective form placenames to noun form will affect 2,087 categories.

• Final list of categories affected, and the new names may be found here.

• Reminder- these Changes will begin on 14 July and will not use origulla bot or whatever the name is for the thing that many folks use. The new cat will be created, the only cat redirected to the new cat, and the images in the cat will be subcatted to the new catname. No clue how many images are affected but it is probably a ton and a half.

This final list is the result of discussions on the scheme talk page. Any problems with this list please contact me or leave notes here before 14 July.

-Mak 04:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly see no point renaming short category names like "Andorran politics" to longer ones like "Politics of Andorra". Arnomane 08:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Question if I come here and search for Australian Botantists will Botantists of Australia be found. Gnangarra 08:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely the existing categories should be converted to redirects. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Arnomane- Perhaps you should contribute to the scheme's talk page then, and specify why Luxemborgish politicians or Kazakhstani (sic) heads of state should be changed, but not others. It's never too late- maybe you have hit on something no one else has. Really, your answer is expressed in the rationale for the scheme had you read it. When folks search, they use noun forms not adjectival forms. For example, in google, most people will not find hits on an image classified as Andorran, but will as Andorra. I have said this many times to you. You must think more carefully about Google how other internet searchers interact with Commons. -Mak 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Gnangarra- if pfctdayelise's response was not clear, the answer is yes. If you search here for australian botanists, you will be redirected. I will place a note about this in the warning pages.-Mak 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

12 July

Images from 2MASS

Hello all,

can anyone tell me if the images of 2MASS can be used here. Here is a link to their release explanation: http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/allsky/

Thanks. --Wing 07:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes you can upload 2MASS images. See http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/gallery/index.html. Quote: The images in this gallery are released into the public domain.. Arnomane 08:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Tag {{PD-LOC}}

We have this tag, {{PD-LOC}}:

This work is from the collections of the United States Library of Congress. If no information on copyright protection or usage restrictions has been given for this particular work, it is presumed to be in the public domain in the United States.

Contrary to what we are saying with this tag, the Library of Congress clearly states that

“it [...] does not grant or deny permission to publish or otherwise distribute material in its collections. Permission and possible fees may be required from the copyright owner independently of the Library. It is the researcher's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in the Library's collections.”

See here for details

I don't see a point in this tag. It leads people to believe material of the Library of Congress is automatically suited for the Commons, particularly when it says “No known restrictions on publication” on the Library's site. E. g, this 1964 Image of Martin Luther King, tagged with {{PD-LOC}}, is taken from this page of the Library, where it says nothing more than that the copyright status is unknown.

I think the tag should no longer be used. --Wikipeder 11:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the template as it stands is incorrect and could be misused. It should not be deleted, but made more self-restricting. For many photos, the LOC does explicitly state the photo's copyright has expired. That is certification from an official USGov agency, so it's gold.

The PD LOC tag should be modified to require the LOC# or Marc record# which states the copyright is expired or that there are no known license restrictions. If the number is omitted, the template should raise a category warning on missing license info. -Mak 21:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No known restrictions on publication will not do. This is something very different to a certified public domain status. It does not mean public domain, it doesn't even mean copyright status cannot be established, it simply means we have to find out the copyright status by ourselves.

The LOC is quite clear in this: Researchers have to determine copyright themselves (see above).

Just look a the image of King quoted above: The LOC has tagged it with No known restrictions on publication. That could only mean public domain, if the photographer had not just licenced it to the LOC but donated it to the public domain. If that were true though, the LOC would say so.

--Wikipeder 00:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

LOC does, where possible, explicitly state if the copyright is expired. It is not uncommon, and they state as much in their guides. Eg.[7] I have struck the case you mention from my note above. The rest of my statement stands. I don't see what objection you have to this more restrictive LOC tag. I propose that the current PD-LOC tag be removed from the list at Commons:Copyright_tags and from the upload pick list, and that a warning text be added that an approved tag should be used instead. The new restrictive LOC tag would state the source is LOC and that LOC record for that image confirms that the copyright has expired. Template requires the page where LOC makes the copyright expiration statement for the image or the collection for which the image is a member.

How does that sound? -Mak 03:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good. That will make things a lot clearer. --Wikipeder 03:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hold your horses, guys. When the LoC says "no known restrictions on publication", that means that they evaluated the copyright situation of the item and think it is in the public domain in the U.S. For the Image of Martin Luther King from this page of the Library, please see this explanation from the LoC why this image is {{PD-US}}: the copyright holder, U.S. News and World Report, donated these image into the public domain. (Since that image was done by Marion S. Trikosko as a work for hire, USNWR is the copyright holder.) The LoC is very diligent about labelling its images; when they did not evaluate the copyright status of an item, they say "status unknown". The tag needs to be changed to make clear that only images for which the LoC says explicitly "no known limitations on publication" are {{PD-US}}. Lupo 09:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Or maybe {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} is more precise. The copyrights have not expired, but the rights have been "dedicated to the public". I don't know what that means exactly, but I would guess the LoC acts as the custodian of these rights, and since they say that there were no known restrictions on publication, CopyrightedFreeUse looks like a plausible interpretation that would even apply world-wide. Copyright expired, however, may apply only in the U.S. (I very strongly doubt that the LoC evaluates whether a copyright had expired all over the world.) Lupo 09:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In other cases, the phrase "no known restrictions on publication" means that the investigations of the LoC have not unveiled any copyright holder. See their own explanation. I think that's good enough for us to consider such works at least {{PD-US}} if in doubt, and maybe even {{PD-old}} in some cases. Image:Jerusalem Jaffator um 1900.jpg, for instance, was published 1905 and thus is at least {{PD-US}}!. Lupo 09:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 

Thanks for these details, Lupo.

The trouble is that "No known restrictions on publication" is not equivalent to a single type of licence. Such an image may be PD-US, it may be PD-old (particularly anonymous works according to the Berne Convention), it may be Copyrighted Free Use, it may be Fair Use or even something else.

After some consideration I suggest the existing appropriate tags be used accordingly, not a tag that seeks legitimacy by mere reference to the LOC. Images where the LOC say it were not established which of these images are merely Fair Use – such as the ones donated by USNWR – should not be accepted to the Commons. {{PD-LOC}} should open a warning to this effect and not assign any licence.

--Wikipeder 12:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I reworded the template a little bit, should be better now but may need some further modification. Suggestions ?--Denniss 01:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been uploading images from the LOC to Wiki*edia for a while now. Almost every high-resolution photograph that is provided by the LOC (meaning the .tif file is made available) has been evaluated quite thoroughly or is from a collection where the copyright status is well-known. Most images from the LOC website database are simply thumbnails, and you have to actually order the image from them or view it in their collections at wherever they are storing it. More often than not, these high-res images are also in the public domain or have had their rights released. --tomf688 (talk - email) 16:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Anatomy in black

Hi, I started working on some article about anatomy on the Lingala Wikipedia (language spoken in the Congos) and I feel uncomfortable having only pictures of body part of White people. It just seems weird to know that the public is mostly Black and that all the pictures are of White people. That made me think of the problem in a more general way, there's a large quantity of pictures with White people and very few with non White, or whatever you call it. ---moyogo 14:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Even the diagrams representing the human body, clearly depict White people. To be fair we should have diagrams representing other ethnicities or even better, have them neutral (if that's possible). ---moyogo 14:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree very much that we need anatomy pictures for a much wider range of people, but unfortunately we are limited by what people volunteer or donate. The contents reflect our demographics so far, I guess.

Diagrams, though, we can definitely do something about. I don't know how we could make a neutral-colouring one but having re-coloured versions is a great idea. Are there any in particular you'd like? The first step would be to request the creator to remake another version, if they are not willing/available maybe another graphics whiz will step in to volunteer. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

13 July

Color profile used by Commons?

Screenshot from Photoshop of image before and after beeing uploaded

There's an annoying color shift to images I've uploaded to Commons. Can't see the reason for this as I've optimized them for web usage in the same way as I would for any other web application (and then without any shift). Haven't found any info concerning this. Have I missed something? --Oktober 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Commons (or rather, MediaWiki) does not change the files you upload. They are just as they where on your disk. Note however that in articles and also on the image page, you'll see a scaled version of you image (click on them image on the scription page to go to your full version, like here [8]). It is possible that when scaling the image, ImageMagick changes the colors a bit somehow. If even the unscaled, full version looks different than you expect, then it's an issue with your browser. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The colors should not be changed by imagemagick (although we add fun jpeg artifacts, and bluring from downsampling).. it's possible that your image has an ICC profile attached and it's getting lost causing a difference in your ICC aware application. In any case, images uploaded to commons should be sRGB... don't expect the clients to obey ICC profiles, because most don't. --Gmaxwell 20:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd bet a donut on Gmaxwell's theory. If you haven't a clue what he said try the following- load up the offending image and do save as. See if the a box labelled "ICC" at the bottom is checked. If it does, try the following to fix:

1. Menu "Image->Mode->Convert to Profile".
2. Dialog- "Destination space", pick "sRGB IEC1966-2.1
3. Now, when you go to save the JPG image, the ICC checkbox will now be unchecked.

Why all the mumbo jumbo? Because if you care about color accuracy, you don't want to be limitted by different devices that cannot handle all the colors in your image. More info, see Color management. There are better color profiles than the one used by nearly all images on the web (sRGB), and some jpgs do use them (it is pretty rare for internet images though). So if it's your image and you can't tell the difference between them, convert your image to the sRGB profile as gmaxwell recommended.

If you have default photoshop settings, you will be made aware when you load an image with a non sRGB profile. However, if you work in a publishing or photography shop, your photoshop may have been configured to simply use the profile embedded in the metadata of the file. You can set it back to ask you- take a look at the help for your version of photoshop to see how to do that. Search on profile in help. -Mak 23:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's working fine now using the method I always have for web images. I must have done something a little differently with the church photo, and instantly suspected MediaWiki's image rendering to be the cause ... Still - thanks for your input! Footnote: The way I work with web images in Photoshop is this: 1) I do all adjustments in the color space used by the original file, normally AdobeRGB. 2) When happy I flatten the image and copy-paste it into a new file which uses my calibrated screen color space. This as to neutralize any ICC while the colors stay perfectly intact (with "Keep embedded profile" chosen in Color Preferences). 3) Resizing and sharpening, if not a MediaWiki image. 4) Finally using "Save for web" with ICC's off. I find this the only way to be in control of the colors in screen images. So far it's been working perfectly with the browsers I've tried (IE, Firefox, Safari) on both Mac and PC's, as well as on web applications like Flickr.

Before and after, part 2:

Image:kalmar_kyrka.jpg Old version

Image:kalmar_kyrka_v2.jpg New version

--Oktober 10:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Massive upload

Hi, I have a lot of pictures uploadable on commons. I have downloaded commonist, now I'm not sure if I should upload them with my user or let them do to SunBot (i would ask for permission on meta). Suggestions? --Helios89 22:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot meaning how many? Dozens, hundreds? Dozens you can probably do under your user account without a problem. BTW you don't need to go to meta to request a bot flag, see Commons:Bots. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I used commonist for hundreds of images (see Category:Army parade of Italy). is that wrong? --Jollyroger 08:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That category doesn't exist. I guess if no one's complained to you yet it's probably OK. :P Just as long as your bot is tagging & categorising images - that's the most important thing - and you are prepared to clean up after it if it screws up. Also hundreds over a long period is OK, but hundreds in an hour, maybe not as OK. Don't worry... there are no 'bot police' here. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

right, i used the new name, since the renaming had to be done on 14 july. It should be Italian army parade or so...--Jollyroger 19:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There are about 800 images, there is anyone that could flag User:SunBot ? When I finish this work it will operate like an usual bot, find/replace, etc... --Helios89 08:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please upload about 20 with the bot first (so we can see how it will operate), then follow the instructions on Commons:Bot to obtain a bot flag. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Helios89 13:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm... Why should a cloud be in a category:landscape and not a subcategory of Category:Clouds? Are they 800 images of clouds? There seems to be a high degree of similarity between the pictures. Is it necessary to upload so many similar images? (It may well be - I don't know.) Can you give the images more descriptive names? pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Err no I have no more photos of clouds. Most of them are of flowers in my garden, other of my trip to Florence and other are of Bormio a little town in mountain. I will check to avoid uploading of pictures too similar...Err I don't know many name of flowers but I will try...--Helios89 15:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Votes violation and possible bad use of sock puppets

See the history of Commons:Featured pictures candidates/Image:Soichi 20Noguchi em 20alta.jpg. The User:João Felipe C.S modificated one vote ([9]) , but after he come back ([10]). After, the User:Isabel Larroyd modifies two votes and erases two coments ([11]). The same user includes a vote of a person that no voted ([12]), the User:Celia M. can be a sock puppet, as well as User:Isabel Larroyd. After, Isabel includes more three votes ([13]), change one more ([14]) and arranges some fake votes ([15]). The user still make some editions, but the vandalism still there. I think that something must be made with the user. Thanks for attention and sorry my bad English. -- Fernando S. Aldado 23:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think that User:Fernando S. Aldado is right, but I don't know what we can do --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

One more possible sock puppet: User:Voter 789. -- Fernando S. Aldado 00:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly also Fernando Torres. You'ld get paranoid here ;-) -- Lycaon 06:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Warn them, if they do it again, block them for a week or so. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Finito questo!I asked to User:João Felipe C.S if he had created the following accounts:

• User:Celia M.;
• User:Isabel Larroyd;
• User:Voter 789;
• User:Fernando Torres.

He confirmed in my talk page. Who knows Portuguese can confer. -- Fernando S. Aldado 18:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

14 July

Can't see image

I recently uploaded Image:Opera Bucharest 25 A.jpg. When I view that page, I don't see the image. If I click through, the high resolution version comes through fine. Does anyone understand what's going on here? Is this liable to be jsut a temporary glitch? - en:Jmabel | talk 06:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Having the same problem at the moment, probably it's just a temporary glitch. --Oktober 09:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I confirmed the issue a few minutes ago, but now it's working. Reportedly, there was some problem with thumbnailing. Should be fixed now. It may be necessary to purge the image cache for images that appear to be broken. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 09:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I upload a new picture to replace old one(Image:Largo da Sé.JPG), but the new picture can't be shown properly. Someone can fix the problem? --9old9 08:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Great news! WMF does content deal with LoC, US Holocaust Memorial Museum

Danny reports that WMF is making some agreements with the Library of Congress and United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (plus maybe more in the pipeline) about collaborating with them to include their archives content on Commons and Wikisource (primarily).

About the USHMM, Danny says:

[They have] given us permission to use any and all of the material created and licensed by that 
Museum... This includes images, video, video  transcripts, audio, and text, including the new Holocaust
encyclopedia  that they are building on line (in seven languages), and which they plan to  be the most 
comprehensive encyclopedia of its kind in the world.... [They were] especially excited by the prospect 
of our  people participating in the translation effort. I would like to point out that  this is an 
outstanding repository of material, not just about World War II and  the Holocaust, but about other 
modern instances of genocide, including Armenia,  Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur. They have no problem 
whatsover with our  translating their proprietary formats into free software formats such as .ogg  
files.

About the LOC:

They also  have enormous archives which they are willing to share, but I am noting  here that some 
of their materials still fall under copyright so greater caution  must be exercised. Over the next few 
weeks, we will better identify what is  there for the taking. 

Pretty amazing stuff huh?! Also very exciting times ahead for Wikisource.

--pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

-Yeah, it would be especially helpful if they put in enough clues that would assist in determining copyright.

• I have guessed that nearly all the liberation ones of the western camps are US Army, but have only transfered images in the past that were clearly indicated. There are a huge number that are not clearly indicated, and some must have been made by soviet army- probably nkvd. Small notations on collections of those would make release a lot easier. Loose conjecture is not very satisfactory for determining license, and I personally am very reluctant to spend a huge amount of time enhancing, classifying and transfering all pertinent metadata on an image only to see it deleted due to license questions.
• Mugshots are official German government photos but the rights are murky. There are huge numbers of them and put the human face on the atrocities- IMHO, every single one should be on commons, but the german law on such official photos from this period suggests they are not PD. If they have a lawyer that can issue an opinion about whether those particular photos are free for copying, that would keep folks busy for a quite a while.
• Soapbox comment: If such official german Nazi photos really aren't PD, then it is time for the German governmental body to strip copyright from the lot of them.

-Mak 16:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This are really great news. If we could formalize such a cooperation we would gain much more leverage in any future negotiations. I hope these libraries can put some of their resources and influence to our rights clearance efforts. Longbow4u 16:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed great news. Let's wait and see how it turns out in the end. Especially the USHMM will need to clarify the copyrights on a lot of images (as Mak already said). Maybe we'll get as a side effect finally the long overdue official word on {{PD-Soviet}} and on German photographs in U.S. archives (why are they considered PD in the U.S.?). Lupo 18:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey now, Thats not what Danny said... It is premature to claim that there are any actual deals actively being worked on with LoC. :) They were very positive, however.. --Gmaxwell 20:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is really great. I've uploaded at least a couple of hundred images from the LOC, but that's not even a fraction of their collection that is freely useable. Some sort of system between the LOC and Wikimedia Commons would be awesome. --tomf688 (talk - email) 17:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Decision Tree Image

First of all there's a .svg-version of the image - and that's the one I've been using.

For the use on Danish Wikipedia I've downloaded the image and made som changes to it. I've made the colors clearer, resized some boxes and moved some text. Furthermore there's no longer a red arrow pointing out in the blue (link).

Although I'm modest I do think my version is a lot better than the current version showed on License selection, and a bit better than the .svg-version.

In a try to limit the number of "illegal" (copyvio, no license, unknown source, unknown license, etc.) images on Danish Wikipedia the image has now been implemented on the upload page.

So what this typic really is about is advertising for my new image - and a suggestion to change the used version. Perhaps other Wikipedia projects could place the image on their upload pages too? What do the users of Wikimedia Commons believe?

Thank you in advance. --|EPO| 19:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to see if it makes any difference to da.wp. Is there any kind of newimages watchdog group that could comment on this?

I am hesitant to overload Special:Upload, since the more text is there, the more it will be ignored, and I don't actually find it that useful... the decision tree is good for people who genuinely want to find out the copyright status of their image. But sadly most bad uploaders, I think, do not care. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't officially got an "new images watchdog" - but I am the administrator who uses most time on clearifaction of images. So if any change I'll gladly report back.

And yeah.. Many people probably don't care, but I'd say it's worth trying. --|EPO| 10:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Duplicates

Hello I am a browser here rather than a contributer but I would like to do my least bit to help by locating duplicate files. I tagged the left image as a dupe of the right but nothing has happened to it. Did I do something, is it just caught in the backlog, must I delink it first from all the wikis, are near dupes fine???? The thing is I am not trying to shirk a duty but I am not artistic and I would not like to impose my choice of image on others. The image I proposed for deletion was much larger then the alternative but I'm sure the colours must be wrong. The main reason I am asking this is I have found other, not quite duplicated artwork images, and I wanted to know if it was worth bringing them to attention or if they are regarded as no big deal. MeltBanana 22:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Some other examples found Image:Abelard and Heloise.jpeg and Image:Abelard.heloise.jpg, Image:VelazquezVenues.jpg and Image:Diego Velázquez 064.jpg, also Image:Dante Gabriel Rossetti 001.jpg, Image:Beata Beatrice.jpg and Image:Beata Beatrix.jpg but these last three may be different attempts at the same subject. MeltBanana 23:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right the red shifted one is awful, but the one you prefer is worse. Your preference is out of focus, and lower res. Load up the red shifted one in Photoshop and look at the hair line in the mirror. Next do an Image->Color balance with -31, 0, -41. Ok, now the flesh tones are more natural than yours. I recommend you withdraw your duplicate notice. -Mak 02:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason duplicates are not immediately deleted is because there is a large deletion backlog and duplicates are the lowest priority. Also, I would ask that you please don't tag art images as duplicate. Please do link to other versions, so that people are aware they exist, but trying to decide which image is the best and most faithful rendering of a piece of art is a fruitless exercise IMO. Best to let the end users decide which they feel is the most faithful. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

15 July

Need for admin assistance

Charhally (talk · contribs) was blocked recently for repeatedly uploading unsourced images. After the expiration of the block, he uploaded more unsourced images, and removed the no source tag on the previously uploaded ones without providing any source info on most, and applied a GPL (?) license tag. Those for which he has provided author info do not make clear why there is permission to use the images here. I've retagged some but not all of the 50+ images; I think a block is in order as well. Apologies if there is a more appropriate place to have posted this; I'm more familiar with Wikipedia. Cheers, Postdlf 14:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I blocked this user for week. --EugeneZelenko 14:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

See also Commons:Deletion requests#All contributions of User:Charhally. --EugeneZelenko 15:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

New vandalism bot

Hi, just a note to say I've placed a new bot (a pgkbot clone) in #vandalism-commons which shows new uploads and flags possible vandalism to Commons. Cheers, Tangotango 14:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Whew, so it's an anti-vandalism bot. That headline scared me for a second. ;-) --Eloquence 11:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Add language for login/create account page

Could a sysop add "Bahasa Indonesia|id" on MediaWiki:Loginlanguagelinks? Thx. -- IvanLanin ♫ 16:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thx! :) -- IvanLanin ♫ 14:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

16 July

Help with converting video to open format

Could anyone direct me to an opensource free GUI based tool which will help me convert .MOV files to Ogg Theora format. I have many small video cliplets of creatures in the Indian desert. AshLin 12:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

See Help:Converting_video -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 13:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Drimran90

Any idea what this should be this user has on his userpage and on the talk page ? Looks like an attempt to increase Google hits or something similar. Should this stay there or may it be deleted? --Denniss 16:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

17 July

Orphaning images

Sure, I acknowledge that admins are expected to unlink/orphan images before deleting them. However, taking a look at Category:Against policy with Bad Old Ones is enough to dishearten even the most devoted of admins. Take this beauty for example, Image:Puglia-Bandiera.png:

Usage on wikimedia projects:
commons.wikimedia : Article (1)
de.wikipedia : Article (10), Template (1), Portal (1)
fr.wikipedia : Liste_de_dirigeants_ (1)
nl.wikipedia : Article (2)
it.wikipedia : Article (269), User (2), Template (3)
sv.wikipedia : Article (1)
ja.wikipedia : Article (38), Template (1)
pt.wikipedia : Article (258), Template (1)
ru.wikipedia : Article (7), Template (1)
zh.wikipedia : Article (2)
fi.wikipedia : Article (20), Template (1)
no.wikipedia : Article (6), User (1), Template (1)
eo.wikipedia : Article (284), Template (2)
he.wikipedia : Article (1)
ro.wikipedia : User (1)
sr.wikipedia : Article (5), Template (2)
cs.wikipedia : Article (1)
ca.wikipedia : Article (6), Template (1)
bg.wikipedia : Article (2)
lt.wikipedia : Article (1)
et.wikipedia : Article (1)
eu.wikipedia : Article (1)
scn.wikipedia : Article (1)
nap.wikipedia : Article (1)
cy.wikipedia : Article (1)
it.wikisource : Category (1)

There are heaps of other images, including other Italian flags, that are similarly widely used and are likewise copyvios.

Commons should be a repository for freely licensed media, and hence also a source of supplemental materials to enrich other Wikimedia projects. When users upload files to the Commons, they should do their best to provide accurate information — or at least believable, since we often have no way of telling the difference. Likewise, as with many other stock photography and image hosting sites, users should be aware that their files could be deleted at the discretion of the Commons administration if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the source or validity of the license.

But in accordance with the intended role of Commons as a media repository instead of a Wikimedia slave database for multimedia files, projects using files from Commons should also accept that these files could be deleted at any moment. Thankfully, CommonsTicker is available for any interested project to notify them of deletions. However, it should be the responsibility of the projects themselves to actually unlink the deleted images.

In the meantime... I've begun to investigate the possibility of writing an OrphanBot for our client projects, but my Internet access will be sporadic for the next month, and my programming capabilities are... yet untested on such a scale, to say the least.

Until then, perhaps the most efficient technique of decreasing copyvios without drastic changes in policy is to rely on Orgullobot to tag files with seemingly insuffient info and for admins to browse Category:Unknown often. However, some users have gotten creative and figured out that the GFDL and common CC licenses are free, and upload copyvios under these licenses, necessitating the patrol of Special:Newimages as well. While these take a fair amount of time and effort, I can accept them as part of the daily workings of Commons. Unlinking images from 20+ other projects, however, should not be our responsibility.

Sorry if this reads more like a blog entry than a serious proposal... Though it's quite far from a serious proposal. Nonetheless, I would like to solicit your responses on this matter. —UED77 04:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't waste your time writing an OrphanBot. We have one - User:Orgullobot. But the projects got snarky when it was used (since it edits anonymously and without necessarily meeting their local Bot laws).

Hm. Perhaps we should do this: decide that local projects that have CommonsTickers have delinking responsibility. Post on the Village pump of every project that doesn't already have one, that they have three options: 1. Get a CommonsTicker and assume responsibility for delinking. 2. Allow orphanBots to work on their project without registration or meeting local requirements (however they must post their commons user name in their edit summaries). or 3. Accept redlinks caused by still-linked images being deleted. (This doesn't apply to en.wp while the database is broken.) Hm I don't know... maybe this is too harsh.

That image was tagged as a copyvio long before we had CommonsTickers. So I just did a fake untag and retag, hopefully now the CommonsTickers will pick it up. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that something has to change. Examples like the one above are very disheartening to admins wanting to delete copyvios; depending on how temperamental your Internet connection or Wikimedia's servers are being, it could take as much as two hours just to orphan one image like Image:Puglia-Bandiera.png. It seems to me that between the conflicting principles of (1) getting rid of copyvios as quickly as possible and (2) not leaving red links, (1) should take absolute precedence for a Commons admin. Angr 10:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Commons admins are not required to unlink images that are in violation of copyright or commons policy before deleting them (although it's nice to do it). Unlinking is only requiredfor "non-critical" deletions (duplicates, etc) and should generally be done by the person filing the request. Keeping track of which project has to be dealt with in what way is bound to fail - but perhaps we could have an opt-in list for an OrphanBot.

For patrolling uploads, I recommend using my Gallery tool - it shows tagging on usage of the image on teh first glance, making it much simpler to detect "unlikely" tagging. Note that in the link i gave, the tool is configured to show images uploaded until six hours ago, so people have some time to update the image descriptions after uploading. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if Duesentrieb, or anyone else who shares this belief, would like to take on the wrath of dozens of projects and delete these, the most heavily-linked speedy delete candidates, me & UED77 would be much obliged:

• image:Vatican_coa.png (being used by 42 projects! not counting commons)
• image:Trentino-Alto_Adige-Bandiera.png (27)
• image:Puglia-Bandiera.png (23)
• image:Ww2_Stalingrad_GermanSoldiers.jpg (21)
• image:Russia_coa.svg (20)
• image:Sallende.jpg (18)
• image:Valle_d'Aosta-Bandiera.png (17)
• Image:Niederösterreich_Wappen.png (14)
• image:Scoutworldmembershipbadge.jpg (11)
• image:Prešov.PNG (10)
• Image:Needles_(for_sewing).jpg (10) Replaced by free image. -- Ranveig 15:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• image:Remains_at_Nalanda.jpg (8)
• image:Pommernwappen.jpg (8)
• image:TSV_1860_München_(Wappen).png (7)
• Image:Histamenon_nomisma-Constantine_VIII-sb1776.jpg (6)
• Image:P_V_Narasimha_Rao_BW.jpg (6)
• image:Provincia_Málaga.png (6)
• image:Ružomberok.PNG (6)
• image:Televisionset.jpg (6)

I have to admit, I don't like being the bad guy. So if someone else here doesn't mind... please help us out. pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't we have someone explain politely but firmly to the local projects that a bot is absolutely necessary? We cannot expect Commons admins to delink thousands of instances of one image just to delete it. Jkelly 16:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetically speaking, say there were a bot run by a simple commoner that did the following:

1. Posted a warning message on each offending wiki article's talk page 2 weeks prior.
2. Copies the image to a new name on commons
3. Deletes the reference from the wiki article, with embedded comment that:
   1. profusely apologizes for the action,
   2. gives the location of the temporarily stored new name image on commons,
   3. suggesting that they either copy the image back into their wiki if local law allows, or investigates whether a fair use copy may be used.
   4. Warning that the temporarily stored image will be deleted in 14 days.
4. puts the image in a category of copyvios with no Wiki links and so may be speedy deleted by any admin with no obstacles. (political cover- "hey, when I deleted, there was no link from your wiki. Further, I see you were warned two weeks in advance, further, I see that you had an opportunity to copy a fair use copy back to your wiki in a 2 week window....")
5. image is speedy deleted so a reversion of the wiki article does not bring the image back into the article.
6. Temp copy of image (EG:"Image:[BotName] TempCopy034" is reused or speedy deleted in 14 days.

That would not be too much trouble for a bot, and if other wiki folks don't like it, the ire would be vented on the simple commoner who has no relationships or interest in future relationships that might be a constraint for others. How does that sound? -Mak 20:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty complex. Since images can be undeleted now, I think it would be easier to simply delete the problem files and if any project requests a copy to upload locally, any admin can easily email it to them, or temporarily undelete. But anyway, it kinda misses the problem, which is: local projects don't like anonymous bots running on their project without their knowledge or permission.

Like Jkelly, I too would just like to say "too bad, we need a bot. deal". But we also need the constant co-operation of the local projects. This is a pretty ultimatum-kind of approach which doesn't generally tend to win friends. I was thinking it might be more acceptable after we get universal login, then the bot wouldn't be anonymous, but that appears to have been a mirage. :/ --pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I will say, in months of using my translations (I originally used a longer version explaining about uploading locally if they accepted fair use), I have never had a single person from any project approach me for a copy to upload locally. They mostly seem to just accept that the image can't be used. And mostly they can't: most uses are not fair use and I get the feeling unsourced images is a bigger problem than fair use conflict. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Mak's proposal is much to complicated - too much overhead, too many things that can go wrong, and it takes too much time and effort. Images that are copyvios or are not compatible with commons policy, or are missing crucial license or source info, should be deleted without firther ado after giving the uploader one week time to fix things (this does not apply to duplicates, "superceeded" images, etc). I have a bit of an itchy finger for some of the above, but I want to make sure I have the support of the Commons community for my course of action. I say, we delete such images (unlinking being nice but not required in such cases). Generally, it's the repsonsibility of the local project to educate their user to think about licensing before using images. They have the following options:

• get a CommonsTicker page and use it
• opt-in for an "orphanizer" bot (we would have to establish a bot and opt-in mechanism)
• live with the red links
• come here and ask for a copy to upload locally, if they believe the image is compatible with their local policy.

Any thoughts? -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, looking at the list again: several (especially coats of arms) seem to be borderline cases to me, perhaps they should be discussed some more. What I proposed above should be used in clear cases. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what I said? :P I agree, then. For the images I listed, if they're borderline I guess we should list them instead on COM:DEL. Quite a few are about European laws that I rather don't like to delve into. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever we do, please let's make certain it's communicated properly to all projects and to users on Commons. At the moment, red links are once again appearing as certain admins delete files without warning — even on Commons itself. Common users need to be told, repeatedly, what they can do to help. -- Ranveig 15:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

However it is performed, it is a subtractive operation, so how best to do it must observe the human dynamics of the situation. You guys are best suited to guage the fit between process and those dynamics, but in my opinion, making red text is not the way to win friends and influence people. Attempting to get people to be proactive and getting involved in a process people would rather avoid (like death and taxes) is a difficult sell. My way deals with a more passive behavior pattern, and is certainly not as trivial as a single button click to make red text, but really fear of the unknown makes it seem like I am talking about something more complex that what it really would be (more like a fire and forget script). Other proposals are not without their costs as well, such as the price of massive communication overhead in educating perpetually new volunteers to process, soothing irritated and/or confused individuals, etc etc. Your choice. It's impossible to prove in advance but I think you folks are drifting into the wrong set of choices due to your model of how people behave. -Mak 16:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Vatican coa.png

Just a note: Image:Vatican coa.png can and should be replaced by Image:Emblem of the Papacy.svg before being deleted. I've just put in a bot request at en-wiki to do this for the local version there because it's being used in well over a hundred pages there. If other people could help me go through its usage on other projects and replace it, we can finally delete this copyvio. Thanks! Angr 17:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Before we go nuts doing that, are we certain Image:Emblem of the Papacy.svg is not a copyvio?? Both appear to be from OpenClipArt, neither has a direct URL, one is tagged copyvio and one is not. Can we resolve that first, please? pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Emblem of the Papacy.svg is cropped from Image:Flag of the Vatican City.svg (current version), whose original is [16], so yeah, clearly not a copyvio. I did the same with Image:Vatican coa.svg, which Sanbec marked as duplicate. I don't care if that image is deleted, but if there's a difference between the coa of Vatican city and the emblem of the Papacy (which I asked Sanbec on his talk page) maybe some care should be used when replacing the image. NielsF 01:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Text-pages

To have later a change to separate non-illustrated text-pages like Image:Brownsequard-recherches-pages16-17.jpg, please use Template:Text. This could be useful to create for instances a beautiful screensaver or something else. In the german discussion there was also a plan about a Template:Drawning. What do you think, would it be useful to differing images(photos) from drawnings? I think no. Kolossos 16:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This might be useful for bots or a "smart" media search engine... but I see no benefit to human users. What is this actually intended for? -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You self prove more then one time that, something that is good for a program can be good for the human users. So, I simply want to avoid that we have in future a big bunch with no order. Kolossos 19:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Vanucci.JPG

Is anybody able to explain to me why this picture should be kept here, bearing in mind that there are other websites for this sort of explicit erotica? MartinD 08:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

While "explicite erotica" do have a place on commons (not en mass, however), this image seems to be a plain copyright violation. I have tagged it for deletion and asked the uploader to clarify. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! MartinD 12:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Replacing images

Someone has replaced Image:Front_Norwegian_Railway_Museum_2006.jpg, Image:Skedsmo kirke.jpg and Image:Stange kirke.jpg with his own work, rather than upload a new work under his own lisence. Could someone please take a check on user and revert these changes? Thanks. beagle84 10:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the images. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone going to Wikimania?

From the Signpost: Copyright basis and Wikipedia: A workshop

In this workshop, Jean-Baptiste Soufron, the chief legal officer for the Foundation, will provide an introduction to copyright rules for publishing on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, and address questions such as how to properly use copyright to input data into wikipedia, and how to properly re-use the content of wikipedia. The workshop will take the form of a 45 minutes presentation of copyright basis, followed by a discussion with participants asking questions related to their experiences and work. It is hoped that the content of these discussions will take the form of a wiki webpage with someone dedicated to input the content of the session on the wiki. The objective of the workshop is to provide a simple copyright manual, and a good introduction to copyright, for new and old Wikipedians.

Someone please go and ask lots of questions?????????? :) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Contacting Soufron via e-mail is another way to get some input on specific questions. Remember, though, that he's a volunteer like most of us, and may have only limited time available to answer enquiries. I can't go to Wikimania, unfortunately, but how about collecting questions right now and here? Lupo 06:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I listed some questions in this mailing list post. It got rather no response. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ouch! The few responses you got are very disappointing. Apparently some people (James, Anthony) think the WMF should stay out of this! That won't do. Professional help is dearly needed, and the volunteers from juriwiki-l apparently cannot provide it. BTW, your questions are excellent. I think you should re-post that message on foundation-l. See below for some problematic tags that all are related to these questions. The "Panorama freedom" questions (which laws to apply?) could also be added to your list. And with the USHMM deal in the works, we absolutely need the official word on {{PD-Soviet}} and the "German images in U.S. archives" issues. There's only so much laypeople and volunteers can do, and consensus is sometimes a catastrophic failure and an extremely poor way to decide what ultimately are legal issues. Lupo 08:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is an extremely poor way to decide what ultimately are legal issues. Exactly, exactly, exactly. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

18 July

New Free Use License

The image copyright tags page requests that a new free license be posted on the Village pump before posting it on the list there. I recently made a new free template specifically for the New Jersey Department of Transportation, at {{NJDOT}}. Please let me know if it's OK to put it on the general Commons:Copyright tags#Other free tags list. Thanks! lensovet 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects within 7 days, I'll just put it up. lensovet 04:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't (yet). Selective quoting is a powerful way of (self-)deception. They also say "However, the Department of Transportation makes no warranty that materials contained herein are free of Copyright or Trademark claims or other restrictions or limitations on free use or display. Making a copy of such material may be subject to the copyright of trademark laws." That should at least be mentioned in the template, and I'm not sure the template is useful at all. Consider the images here, where they state "Photo taken by Mike Rosenthal, NJTransit". Now what does that mean? Is NJTransit a branch of the NJDOT? (It seems so, but I'm not sure.) Does Mike Rosenthal hold a copyright on that image? (Maybe, but maybe it falls under their license statement as a "work of an employee of the NJDOT created in the course of his duties and published on the NJDOT website"?) What does "view, copy or distribute" in their license statement mean? How about derivative works (modifications), or commercial uses? Ultimately, I think you should contact the NJDOT and ask for some clarifications. Lupo 06:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, NJTransit has nothing to do with NJDOT; it is a wholly separate corporation, simply created by a state law in the 70s. See http://www.njtransit.com/an_ci_history.shtml lensovet 18:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As for your other concerns, I shall get in touch with them. Thanks.

Please help with "free-domain" question

I want to publish a map, but I am not sure, if it is in free-domain. Here is the story:

1. The base of the map has been published on the Net (on the site of the .gov Internet-domain) by the New York City agency . It is clear that images, created by US Federal Government are in the public domain. What about City Government?
2. If not, I still have a chance. I fixed an error on that map and did some minor adjustments. May I say, that I am the creator and put it under free domain license.
3. If not, are there any other ways to include the image into Wiki articles? The image is needed by several of Wiki projects.

Thank you --HenryS 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

1. I doubt that the map is PD because only work by the US Federal Government is PD, most states and cities do not release their work into the public domain. So if it does not say it's PD on the specific web page you cannot use it.
2. No, since the original is copyrighted, derived work cannot be under a free license.
3. Maybe you find a free source in Category:Maps_by_source that has a map for your need. --Matt314 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If all else fails, you can upload it on the local Wikipedia under fair use. lensovet 21:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

...if that local wikipedia allows fair use. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The simplest and best thing to do in such cases is: just ask them. Use Commons:Email templates. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

19 July

A photo shot by my friend

Dear colleagues,

I would like to ask you whether or not it is proper to upload image with the following copyright status:

During a touristic trip, my friend made a photo (on my camera) that seems to be quite good for Wikipedia. To have an opportunity to upload the image later in Wikipedia, I have immediately recorded a video, in which he expresses his agreement me to publish or otherwise use this photo without any limitations, including publishing it under GFDL and Creative Commons. I have no quick contact with the friend, but I can easily contact him in emergency (for example, in case of any official requests).

An important note: both my friend and me are Russians, photo shot in Russia, and I'm going to upload the image via computer resided in Russia. According to the Russian copyright laws, it is technically impossible to transfer any physical person's copyrights in a work by a gratuitous agreement (any physical person licensing agreement (russ: “авторский договор”, “avtorskij dogovor”) is required to contain royalties clause).

May I upload such an image with link to the video?

If no, does it mean that no Russian third person's works are allowed to upload in Commons Wiki, no matter that the explicit consent from the person is granted?

Thank you!

Drbug 09:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you can upload it, using {{PD-author}}. He doesn't have to transfer the rights to you for you to upload it. For the template parameter, you should put your friend's name. It might also help if you get your friend to email you a statement to that effect, which you can copy onto the image talk page as "proof" of his releasing the photo, or else fwd it to mailto:permissions@wikimedia.org . pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I repeat (after saying it at ru:Обсуждение изображения:CableCarPassengersGelendzhik05Jul2006.jpg), that according to article 32 of Russian Copyright Law the agreement must be in written form (on a paper), not a verbally sayed or even e-mailed. And according to article 30 that agreement must contain:

• concrete list of transferred exclusive rights for that photo
• period of transferring the rights
• designation of territory, where the rights may be used (e.g., "all countries of the world")

etc.

All of these requirements for author's contract was not implemented in video (especially, the main requirement: the written form of such agreement).

Thus, actually and legally (according to Russian laws) rights was not delegated. And when rights are not delegated, nobody except original author can publish it (according Russian copyright laws).

And original author of that photo may claim his/her rights for this photo at any time. --Jaroslavleff 11:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So, if a russian user uploads his own work and puts a GFDL or CC tag on it, that is void too, because there is no written contract? Is a free "blanket" license to anyone even possible under russian law? If not, we need to delete all images created by russians, unless they send written permission for every single image to the foundation, right? -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, technically it's so. It's impossible for a physical person to release his work under GFLD or CC or any other gratuitous agreement in accordance with the Russian copyright law. Drbug 12:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

@Drbug: it would have been better if your frind had not granted you anything, but instead had just licensed the image under GFDL and/or CC. That way, anyone (including you) would be allowed to upload it here. If such a thing is possible at all by russian law, see above. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's consider that he wishes to release the image under GFDL and CC. And let's assume that he have no access to computers and can't either upload the image to Commons by himself, or send an e-mail to WMF. So, is it still allowed to upload the image to commons? If not, to the some extent, it seems that even self-created works can't be uploaded either... Drbug 12:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I gather from what Jaroslavleff said, this appear to be the case. Although I find that a bit strange. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange or not, but Law is the Law. --Jaroslavleff 13:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

are image uploads disabled on ruwiki yet? -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 15:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And this is problem not for images only, wiki/free software are in danger too. --EugeneZelenko 03:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I read Russian copyrights law and Law about protection of computers and databases. Both of them are required written agreement.

Belarusian copyrights law at lease allow electronic distribution in case of computer programs and databases (I think computer images could be viewed that way).

Good idea to contact http://creativecommons.org and ask them this question. May be they tried to make Russian version of their license.

EugeneZelenko 03:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If it is true that licensing in russia requires a written contract, this would mean it's illegal there to download and install any software without such a contract. It would be interesting to know how software companies deal with this. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 10:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, according to article 32 paragraph 2 of Russian copyright law: for software there is special simplified procedure described in Russian Law "О правовой охране программ для ЭВМ и баз данных" ("O pravovoj ohrane programm dlja EVM i baz dannyh" - "About legal protection of computer programs and databases"). --Jaroslavleff 12:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the English translation of the Russian Copyright law, article 32 says "The author's contract shall be in writing. The author's contract on uses of a work in periodicals may be concluded orally." I notice that the translation only says "in writing", it doesn't saay that the writing must be on paper... Lupo 13:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

According to this version of "O pravovoj ohrane programm dlja EVM i baz dannyh" (article 11) Договор заключается в письменной форме (written form). New revision didn't change this requirement. --EugeneZelenko 14:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

See there article 14, paragraph 3:

"3. При продаже и предоставлении массовым пользователям доступа к программам для ЭВМ и базам данных допускается применение особого порядка заключения договоров, например путем изложения условий договора на передаваемых экземплярах программ для ЭВМ и баз данных."

I.e. the contract may be printed on CD covers, or displayed while installing (e.g. Microsoft EULA while installing MS products). So, it's a simplified form of making contracts. --Jaroslavleff 06:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you are not allowed to any install software you did not buy in a store, but downloaded from a website? -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 09:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? Contract may be displayed on computer monitor while installing (e.g., user must press on "I accept license" button or something like it). So I download software, and while I install it, I agree with license (or contract). --Jaroslavleff 12:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You said earlier that it must be on paper. That's what the law saism no? Anyway, if it does not have to be on paper, an email would be ok, and licensing your own work using a license tag on a wiki would be ok too, right? If that's the case, I would suggest to simply take the risk that the photographer might try to revoke the license given orally on video. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It must be on paper, but only for software and databases there are exceptions made in law. For any other media (including photos) it must be contract in written form. --Jaroslavleff 13:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Think about digital image as sequence of bits which programs computer to display something. --EugeneZelenko 14:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Say it later in the court. :))) --Jaroslavleff 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Whether or not a written contract that is sent by e-mail is legally binding is not a question limited to Russia, and actually has nothing to do with copyright per se. Some countries already consider digitally signed e-mails as legally valid contracts as good as paper contracts, others still insist on paper contracts with a hand-written signature. That's nothing new, and we haven't cared until now. I suggest we keep not caring, for we really have no way to require permissions on paper from all our uploaders. E-mail permissions are fine. I gather chances are good that in the event someone disputes our use of an image published here based on such an e-mail permission, we can either get a signed paper from or through the sender of that e-mail (if one should be needed in a court), or in the worst case, use the e-mail permission as evidence that we acted in good faith. Depending on the precise circumstances, an e-mail might even be considered good enough to constitute a contract. Note that it is true that in several (many?) countries even orally concluded contracts are valid, although they are a bit hard to prove in court. An e-mail is at least better than just an oral contract. So stop worrying about it. That issue really is something that Jimbo and/or the WMF must have cleared before ever having gone on-line. Lupo 13:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Errrr, the WMF could not have cleared that before ever having been online, since 1) originally the project was started in english only and quite possibly, no one at that time ever thought that it would become so huge and definitly multilingual. So, no one probably ever think about it at that time. 2) the Foundation was created 2 years after the projects started...

I am absolutely NOT a lawyer (so, we'll need to ask lawyers), but here is my handle. There is more than one thing that we do, which is actually illegal or bordering legal. We do not really respect the GFDL (not citing the 5 main authors). We claim fair use in countries where there is no fair use doctrine. Wikiquote is illegal in some countries (no citation allowed out of context). Etc... and I am pretty sure that our upload system is not so clean in many countries. Not to cite the issue of responsability and who holds it in case of troubles.

What we are doing is entering new territories and challenging old concepts and habits. We will not be able to fully respect the law everywhere, in big part because what we are doing is so new that there is no legal frame and also in big parts because the law is not changing quickly enough to "stick" to changes induced by new technology revolution. Typically, making only "hand written agreement" legal is non-sense today. But it will be probably several years before electronic signature is considered "binding" in all countries. I think we will have to live with this and be "ahead" of our societies.

If you can get an email from your friend, it is best. Otherwise, upload the video. Or if people are worried, have him send you a letter, scan it and upload the scan. Or whatever.

In any cases, a copyright violation can only occur if your friend changes his mind and decide to attack someone using his picture. Make sure he understood fully the notion of GFLD and reuse (even for commercial reasons), and if you feel you can trust him, please guys, let's trust him.

If we take the other path, you may just prefer to disable image upload on ru.wiki and delete all images uploaded by russian on commons. This makes little sense. Anthere

On your first point: I know, it's why I wrote "Jimbo and/or the WMF"... :-) On the "we'll need to ask lawyers" bit: that's absolutely right. Are you going to ask Brad? Lupo 12:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anthere! DrBug incorrectly describe the real situation.

User Mithgol was photographed while he was on cable road (ru:Image:CableCarPassengersGelendzhik05Jul2006.jpg).

Cable road is owned by the "Olimp" company, and photo was made by its employee.

According Russian laws, that employee owns so called "author's rights", and its employer (i.e. "Olimp" company) owns all exclusive rights of property for the photo. Exclusive rights in means of Russian Copyright Law contains many rights, including right to publish the photo.

User Mithgol alleges that now he owns exclusive rights; and he proved his words by video, where Olimp employee says that he allows Mithgol to use photo for any purposes.

But actually there are several questions of principle:

1. Is that employee had right to say anything by the name of his company? According to Russian Civil Code only head of company can say anything by the name of his company, otherwise any other employee must have letter of attorney ("доверенность", "doverennost'") from his/her boss. (The same situation: I arrive to Microsoft and its employee, e.g. garbage-collector, allows me by the name of MS to use Microsoft software by free of charge, and also distribute it freely.) So, firstly, we cannot even make sure that Olimp really allowed Mithgol to freely use the photo.
2. And if Mithgol have no right to use and publish the photo (see previous paragraph) any of his words about that he guarantee that he will solve any problems regarding that photo are legally void.

--Jaroslavleff 13:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear colleagues,

thank you very much for your attention and detailed comments! I will sum up them all (including comments in Ru-Wiki and Meta) next week, and also I will write some details related to the Russian Copyright Law; after discussions, it probably will result in new more detailed rules on copyright in Ru-Wiki, and maybe there will be a bit more clearance introduced into the global Wiki-rules on copyright. I understand and agree the main idea expressed by many authors: we have to live with potential threat of legal actions whilst we follow accurately our internally developed rules (i.e. WMF rules) that allow us to demonstrate our good faith. As for my specific example above, it was rather theoretical one, despite based on the real discussion, and this specific case is not worth to be discussed anymore. Thank you! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 13:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

We could always provide an easy program-maker, similar to those auto-extractors, which would show the EULA (GFDL, Cc...) on startup and an image gallery. Then it could be sent to a bot (outside Russia) who checked the license and uploaded here only the images. A complicated system, yeah. But could evade the legal issue. Platonides 11:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tag Template:PD-UK-photo-pre-1945

We have this tag, Template:PD-UK-photo-pre-1945:

This photograph was taken prior to 1 January 1945 and is therefore in the public domain in the UK. (See [17], [18].) This status might not apply elsewhere.

The tag gives the impression that somehow images automatically are in the public domain in the UK if they were created prior to 1 January 1945. This is not so. On the contrary, the vast majority of images taken in the UK within the last century (and many fotos beyond that) will be copyright protected due to the EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection. The tag itself links to a site explaining why: If an image was copyright protected in any of the EEA countries on January 1st, 1995, the EEA country with the longest copyright protection's legislation applies. For the most part, that would be Germany or Spain (70 or even 80 years after author's death).

To be indeed PD in the UK, an image needs to not have been copyright protected in any EEA country on January 1st, 1995. Being taken prior to January 1st, 1945, is merely one precondition of one of 17 EEA countries at the time.

I think the tag should be re-worded and should clearly demand that a reference is provided to prove that this is one of the rare cases not covered by copyright of any other EEA country on January 1st, 1995. --Wikipeder 12:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You do know that we have more such questionable "PD" tags? {{PD-Italy}} comes to mind (even if it were true, it would apply in Italy only; such images are usually copyrighted elsewhere—uploading images under such a license might just be acceptable at the Italian WP, but hardly at the commons or on any other WP), or also {{PD-Poland}} (may apply in Poland, but again, unlikely to make an image PD anywhere else; therefore upload images under that claim on the Polish WP but nowhere else—the claim that it applied worldwide is a common fallacy and completely unsourced. A work can be PD in its country of origin, yet be copyrighted elsewhere, see Berne Convention, §5(2), or also this explanation!). And then, of course, there's {{PD-Soviet}}... or also {{PD-Canada}} (which is true within Canada, but any image uploaded under this claim should always have a rationale why the image was PD elsewhere, too—e.g. in the U.S. or in the EU.) {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} is also rather useless (see Template:Deletion requests#Image:Leuenberger.jpg). Lupo 12:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

On that EU directive: since it went into effect on July 1, 1995, any copyrights it restored in the EU were also restored in the U.S. by virtue of the Uruguay Rounds Agreement Act, which became effective in the U.S. on January 1, 1996. Tough luck for us. Lupo 12:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Lupo. Delete 'em all --Historiograf 22:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete them all.

whereas a photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account; whereas the protection of other photographs should be left to national law;

So, don't delete “other photographs” and try to find some legal cases to tell where the line is drawn. -Samulili 13:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

But isn't the problem precisely that "the protection of other photographs should be left to national law"?? The national laws of Italy and Poland exempt some types of photographs from the general 70 years p.m.a. rules, but the national laws of other countries don't do so. Which is why I wrote that such works might be PD in Italy or Poland, respectively, but not elsewhere. Images under {{PD-Italy}} may be PD in Italy all right, but e.g. in Germany, such images would be considered photographic works and thus have a longer copyright term there. Each and every country defines the categories "photographic work" and "other photographs" differently. Lupo 13:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Supposed we managed to find a line to tell which images are "other photographs". We'd have two sorts of photos then:

• images under copyright according to the Berne Convention, to be deleted on the Commons for not being free, and
• "other photographs", to be deleted from the Commons because they are only PD in a single country and should be uploaded at the respective WP, not here.

We might as well not bother about the difference. --Wikipeder 14:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be just one country. From what I know, at least most EU countries have the same "non-artistic photograps" clause and they'd be PD in the US, too, in most cases. -Samulili 17:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's true and I would like you to provide a source. I've taken a look at some copyright laws: those of the EU members and a few others. Most countries have no special copyright terms for "simple photographs" and indeed do not even know the concept! Only 8 of the currently 26 EU members have special terms for simple photographs. (Ok, for Cyprus and Greece I didn't find any info.) In most countries, any photograph that passes the threshold of originality is a "work" and copyrighted with the normal term (70 years p.m.a. in the EU). AFAIK, this threshold of originality is rather low in most countries, where thus most photographs are copyrighted as "works". See User:Lupo/Simple Photographs. Only Italian law provides relatively precise categories of images that are "simple photographs" so that it can be used without entering the realm of the subjective interpretation of this threshold of originality. However, in most other countries, EU members or not and including in the U.S., images considered "simple photographs" in Italy would still pass the threshold of originality and thus be copyrighted outside of Italy. (I leave it to you now to make an equally well-sourced survey showing how high the bar for this threshold of originality is in all these countries. For a few, I have already provided sources.) Lupo 12:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Was Finland one of the 8? -Samulili 12:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

<cluebat>Why don't you go take a look for yourself? It's here: User:Lupo/Simple Photographs.</cluebat> Lupo 12:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is there need for such a hostility? I'll reflect on the content of that page, why don't you reflect on your own behaviour. -Samulili 13:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The "cluebat" was meant as an (at least semi-)humourous attempt to express my exasperation at your not even going to the trouble to look at that page, but instead apparently wanting to argue on without considering the available facts. Sorry it came across as being rude. Humour just doesn't work well on the internet... Lupo 13:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion appeals

I was so bold to change the appeal procedure defined in Template:speedy delete text: [19]. Formerly, it told users to write any objections to the talk page of the page in question - but comments there are easily missed, and the procedure was rarely used anyway. I changed it now to say that in case of objections, the speedy request should be changed into a regular deletion request, so it can be discussed. I hope this is OK qith you. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Much better quith me. -Mak 16:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nyeh...that actually will make appeal much harder. Finding the talk page is a relatively easy thing to do. The only "talk page appeals" I have seen are from newbies saying "please don't delete my image" [no reason given not to] or "how can I make the delete tag go away?" (when they tag stuff as {{Logo}} etc). Just a thought. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, why do you think it's easier to find the talk page than to click the link to the deletion requests in the template? Well, ok, you have to change the template itself from "speedy delete" to "delete". How about adding a link to the help desk for people that need assistance?

In any case, I think talk page appeals are useles, because easily missed by the admin looking at the request, and because no one else is likely to see them and join the discussion. People "in the know" have always converted to a regular deletion requests in case of doubt. I believe the template should reflect this. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 10:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Finding COM:DEL is not hard, but adding the nomination is. For anyone who reads this page: no, it's not hard. But we would all know that we could convert it to a slow deletion request if we wanted. Speedy "appeals" tend to mostly affect newbies. I rather think that an admin who doesn't notice a talk page is perhaps being a bit TOO speedy, but eh. I don't really mind. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

World War I era images

Sorry if this has been brought up 99 times before, could not find a straight answer (related to the above question about pre-1945 UK PD). My problem: I have one volume from a Swedish series about World War I written in 1914 and printed in 1915 (more info on a subpage of my user page). The book does not provide any image source or credits, though I assume the images were fairly common (used in newspapers and such), for example, one of the images is identical to this one which is uploaded from Project Gutenberg.

More to the point, how strict should we be? These images have as of now unknown authors while the source (book) is public domain due to copyright expiry. I'd like to point out that several images from WWII that were probably taken by German photographers are considered public domain here since they have been hosted at the U.S. Navy's website (and no author info), in my example images have been printed in Sweden, and have a contested copyright status. What would be the sensible thing to to? Template:Anonymous work perhaps or leave them as they are (as simply PD-old)? Should we use a very extreme and strict reasoning then this image of Paul von Hindenburg would probably have to go too (and could not be replaced by, say 11th ed. Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on him). Scoo 13:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is all pretty frustrating. I had a quick look over images of Hindenburg – they are all tagged PD, they all have no proof for this but are likely to be copyright protected. I'm afraid they should indeed be removed. Copyrighted images can ruin the project. --Wikipeder 13:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Paul von Hindenburg.jpeg can stay as {{PD-US}} (evidently published pre-1923). It comes from the Perry-Castañeda Library. It may be copyrighted outside of the U.S., but we cannot know this without knowing the photographer. Lupo 13:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Admins- are the germans done fighting over Angela Merkel?

Image:Angela Merkel CDU.jpg is locked against edits. Presumably tempers have cooled after a year? If so, please unlock. -Mak 16:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually they never fought. It was used on the main page, the whole reason for locking was to avoid vandalism. I unlocked it. --::Slomox:: >< 18:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure that not fighting about Merkel is a good thing. I briefly looks at the talk page and saw duezy refer to some vandalism under the Jesus Christ! heading and misidentified the reason- My german is pretty lousy.-Mak 18:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, sorry, the block should have been lifted a long time ago. I whish we could set a timeout for page blocks... -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 20:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop deleting "redundant" images in "inferior" formats!

The Wikimedia Foundation isn't running out of server space, is it? One would think so, based upon the rampant desire to purge perfectly good, freely licensed image files from the system.

The prevailing attitude seems to be "SVG is always better is PNG, which is always better than GIF. We must delete all but the best version of everything!"

In reality, this simply isn't true. SVG is a more advanced and versatile format than PNG (which is a more advanced and versatile format than GIF), but there are plenty of applications for which the "lesser" formats (especially PNG) are superior.

Most notably, a documented MediaWiki bug causes all SVGs to be needlessly rendered as 24-bit (instead of 8-bit) PNGs. This means that they're displayed without transparency for approximately 85% of users (because of an IE bug). For images containing 256 or fewer colors and no alpha-transparency, this problem can easily be remedied by uploading an 8-bit PNG version of the image (which can be converted directly from a MediaWiki rendering of the SVG in any size). Not only will the image display properly for most users, but it also can be significantly smaller (due to the optimized compression). SVGs containing more than 256 colors and/or alpha-transparency can be converted to optimized 24-bit PNGs with better compression and a fall-back background color for IE users (to match the background color of the destination page). This is especially useful for small icons used primarily in specific templates. It's extremely handy to have these stored at the Commons, as the various projects often copy each other's templates (background coloring and all).

Unfortunately, these useful images are automatically deemed "redundant" and "inferior." Never mind the fact that they're smaller and look better for 85% of users. "SVG is a better format than PNG, so the PNGs have to go!" Sometimes, the SVGs aren't even accurate conversions of the raster files that they're supposed to replace, but few editors seem to care. "They're SVGs, and SVGs are better than PNGs, so the PNGs have to go!" Sometimes, a set of matching raster icons is in use by a project, and someone creates an inaccurate SVG version of only one. "Well, that has to be used! The fact that it doesn't match the other icons is irrelevant, because SVG is a better format than PNG, so the PNG has to go!" When the IE issue is noted, a typical response is "well, people shouldn't be using such a crappy browser." I agree (and I use Firefox), but I lack the desire to punish 85% of our users.

It's becoming difficult to rely upon the Commons as a universal free media repository. I'd really hate to give up the benefits of sharing the images in this manner, but it's reached the point at which the projects are going to have to store important images locally. That's a shame, as it makes expansion much more difficult for everyone.

I'll also mention the irrational hatred of GIF (the most compatible image format on the Internet). In some cases, it's possible to create a GIF file that's nearly the same size as its PNG counterpart (or even smaller). Older graphical browsers still in use by a small minority of people are incapable of displaying PNGs, but GIFs are fine. It isn't realistic to expect that these users will always be accommodated (as it isn't always possible to create GIFs of high enough quality and small enough sizes), but there's absolutely no logical reason for us to go out of our way to make images incompatible for them (when no one else benefits). The decision to use GIFs in limited circumstances should be up to the individual projects, but the attitude here seems to be that non-animated GIFs should be shot on sight (even when they're smaller than the optimized PNG equivalents). This sentiment seems to stem from the belief GIF is an "unfree" format with dangerous ramifications. In fact, the Unisys LZW patents have expired, and no significant licensing issue exists. On 11 August 2006 (one month from today), GIF will become a 100% free format worldwide. Nonetheless, I'm sure that many people will continue to claim that all GIFs are "evil" and must be "burned."

Can something please be done about this? Can we establish a policy against deleting images simply because of their availability in other formats?

If an image is:

• freely licensed
• of decent visual quality
• linked to any available SVG versions from its description

...what's the harm in keeping it?

—Lifeisunfair 13:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The deletion policy was changed months ago to express exactly that (and since some days now, Commons:Deletion guidelines is finelly up to date). If an admin has recently deleted a bitmap only because an SVG is availabl, please complain to him/her, and/or mention a specific, recent case here. It's always a good idea to keep the original around, in whatever format it is in.

That being said: SVG is preferred for diagrams, and PNG is preferred over GIF for everything but animations. Browsers that are so old that they don't display PNGs will prbably have a very hard time showing this site at all, with all the complex CSS and all that. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 19:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that policy prohibits the deletion of images on this basis, or does this apply strictly to speedy deletions? Presently, numerous icons are listed for deletion purely because they've been "superseded" by versions in other formats. —Lifeisunfair 20:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a vector version is available is by itself not a reason for deletion. If the vector drawing is derivative work of the png, we should keep the original, just as we keep old versions of the same file.

Useles images can be deleted - if the SVG is clearlysuperiour, and no one wants to use the picel version, then deleting it would be ok, imho.

None the less, I should probably start spending a bit of time on the deletion page... -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The following raster images are listed for deletion purely because vector versions (which are not accurate reproductions) are available:

• Image:Merge-arrow.gif
• Image:Merge-arrows.gif
• Image:Merge-arrow.png
• Image:Merge-arrows.png

The following GIF images are listed for deletion purely because PNG conversions are available:

• Image:Split-arrows.gif
• Image:Mergefrom.gif
• Image:Mergedisputed.gif

The user who listed these images for deletion pre-emptively orphaned them at the various projects (which I reverted at the English Wikipedia), despite my repeated protests.

—Lifeisunfair 21:47/21:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

@Lifeisunfair: Honestly we have lots of crap GIF/PNG graphics that were replaced by far better SVGs and people still rant (if I replace a 1KB PNG flag virtually any SVG is better and we have lots of such crap graphics). The other case were obvious failures where people were right about complaining. Anyways please have a look at our Commons:Deletion guidelines. They're very clear about deletion procedures of poor quality files. So we have that what you demand. ;-) Arnomane 02:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That Lifeisunfair, as the creator of the images, beliefs that his images are the best images, is the normal behavior of an artist. But the rest of the world is happy with png or svg. If you take a look at the history of en:Template:Merge you can see, that many people tryed to change the gif to png or svg, but David reverted it all the time. So, maybe everybody is wrong except David, but I doubt on that. --jed 15:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the creator and uploader of the original images. (Of course, you didn't bother to inform me of these deletion listings, as required by policy.)

I didn't say that my images are "the best" for all applications. I do, however, know for a fact that your proposed setup (which you unilaterally decided to impose on all of the projects) creates numerous problems and absolutely no benefits.

You're attempting to force the projects to replace two of the three main merger icons with SVG images that are NOT accurate recreations, one of which contains a major unintentional visual flaw, and neither of which matches the other SVG or the remaining unconverted raster icon. And again, due to a documented MediaWiki bug, the SVGs render improperly for 85% of users. MediaWiki displays them as 24-bit PNGs, which are vastly inferior for this purpose to the 8-bit PNGs and GIFs that you seek to delete.

I explained all of this to you, but you ignored me and continued to pre-emptively orphan the "redundant" images and list them for deletion.

And yes, some people have made similar mistakes at the English Wikipedia. I'm the one who watches all of these templates and reverts any unwise edits, but that doesn't mean that my actions are unsupported in the community. Most of individuals making these changes were unaware of the issues cited above, and they reversed course upon reading my explanations at en:Template talk:Merge. You're ignoring these discussions (in which other users have supported my stance, and no one has ever managed to counter my arguments or cite one actual advantage of using SVGs for this purpose).

For those who haven't seen the deletion discussions, here are the images that have been widely used for the past year:

Each is under 1KB in size, they're 100% compatible with all graphical browsers, and they match each other perfectly.

If Jed's proposed deletions are carried out, here's what we'll be left with:

There's no significant file size reduction. (In fact, the first two render as PNG-24 files that actually are slightly larger than their PNG-8 counterparts!) More importantly, the first two are displayed improperly for most users (because of the infamous IE transparency bug), and not one of the three images matches another.

Here's what they look like in IE6 (the browser used by approximately 85% of website visitors):

Why, Jed, do you want to make the templates look worse for everyone? Oh yeah, I know why. It's because "SVG is always better is PNG, which is always better than GIF, and we must delete all but the best version of everything!" —Lifeisunfair 16:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who watches all of these templates and reverts any unwise edits Who says what is a whise and what is a unwise edit? --jed 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No one person decides. Again, this has been discussed a great deal at en:Template talk:Merge. —Lifeisunfair 16:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok folks, let's not confuse reasons to use SVG with reasons to delete gifs. I see absolutely no reason to delete anything. And while I don't believe 85% oft wiki visitors use MSIE (for the overall web, this is probably correct, wikipedia's clientel is a bit different), and indexed 8 bit png reportedly works in MSIE too, i see no reason not to use the gifs either.

I suggest to let people work out for themselves what should be used where. SVG is the preferred format for diagrams, but that does not mean that it's the best choice in any case. Icons are a bit different anyway. Even if the SVG is better, we should keep the bitmap it was derived from for documentation. Disk space is not an issue in this order of magnitude (we are talking about kilobytes here, after all).

So, can you guys please take your discussion where it belongs? -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 16:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed there at great length, but Jed evidently doesn't care. —Lifeisunfair 16:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Obsolete" images should indeed no longer be deleted except where they're orphaned and there's clearly no opposition. Now, let's not feel too much sympathy for all the poor IE users who see some additional white background because of a bug in their browser, given that there's a perfectly good open source alternative that doesn't exhibit that problem.--Eloquence 00:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Obsolete" images should indeed no longer be deleted except where they're orphaned and there's clearly no opposition.

Thank you for confirming this, Erik. As the deletion of the images listed above is contested, am I correct in assuming that an administrator should close the deletion discussions with a result of "kept"?

Done.--Eloquence

Thank you, Erik! One additional icon from the set (Image:Split-arrows.gif) remains listed. (It was nominated the previous day.) —Lifeisunfair 03:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, let's not feel too much sympathy for all the poor IE users who see some additional white background because of a bug in their browser, given that there's a perfectly good open source alternative that doesn't exhibit that problem.

1. The issue in question relates as much to the aforementioned MediaWiki bug as it does to the IE bug.

2. Not everyone is able to switch to a different browser (even if they want to). For example, many people access the Internet through computers at schools and public libraries (which often refuse to permit the installation of third-party software). When I'm at college, I have no choice but to use IE.

3. This isn't merely a matter of aesthetics. I've personally worked with visually-impaired people for whom these icons serve as a means of differentiating between Wikipedia articles and meta-content. The lack of transparency makes the images more difficult for them to recognize. —Lifeisunfair 01:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 2), I've never had a problem doing things I'm not supposed to do. ;-) Installing Firefox into the "My documents" folder (don't know what it's called in English) usually seems to work fine even if you don't have admin privileges. Portable Firefox is another alternative, or if you're desperate, just take a Knoppix or Ubuntu DVD with you. ;-) --Eloquence

Thanks again! I'll give those ideas a try.  :-) —Lifeisunfair 03:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding IE. Yes everyone knows IE is lame but I agree with User:Lifeisunfair that "too bad, use Firefox" is a totally unacceptable response to IE problems. There are tons of people in workplaces and schools, public libraries etc that don't have install priveleges and even if they did, would not necessarily know how or even desire to install FF or any other decent browser. It's a really unhelpful attitude that doesn't solve anything at all for the people who are affected by it.....you know, the people we're trying to work with? As for the actual discussion - ACK Duesentrieb --pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree, but when it comes to minor issues of "white background vs. transparent background" ... From an accessibiltiy point of view, the fact that we only allow Ogg Vorbis sound and Ogg Theora video has a much larger impact on ordinary Windows users.--Eloquence 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that there is no plugin which solves IE6's brokenness with PNGs, but windows mediaplayer will play Ogg files with a simple codec download, which is the same thing that is required for a lot of video resources out on the internet.--Gmaxwell 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not that some of our images are less compatible with IE than with other browsers (which is unavoidable). It's that users are going out of their way to replace existing images that display properly for most users with versions that only provide disadvantages.

I can understand sacrificing maximum compatibility in exchange for a tangible benefit. For example, it makes sense to replace a poor-quality PNG-8 with a PNG-24/SVG that uses more than 256 colors and/or alpha-transparency to achieve a better appearance; the tradeoff is logical because overall image quality is more important than background transparency.

Conversely, it makes absolutely no sense to switch from an 8-bit PNG/GIF to an SVG containing no additional visual information at the intended size. This merely results in larger files with far less compatibility, while providing zero advantages for anyone. —Lifeisunfair 18:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion resumed

Shizhao deleted Image:Split-arrows.gif, despite the fact that Erik Möller posted this message. The votes to delete the image did not reflect policy, and it was to be delisted. This image was in use on hundreds of pages at the English Wikipedia, all of which suddenly contained broken links. As I wrote above, it's becoming difficult to rely upon the Commons (where sysops delete images that are in wide use), and the projects are being forced to tolerate these incidents or store important images locally. —Lifeisunfair 16:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the image and left a message to Shizhao. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 17:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Daniel! —Lifeisunfair 17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No need to blame Commons for deleting the images on a policy-base, when Shizhao deleted it, who doesn't understand the arguments that well but only looks at the number of delete and keep votes. I don't know why he is deleting images on the commons:deletion requests but maybe we are just too polite to tell him not to ;-)

Fred Chess 10:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Raymond/licence and GFDL

I've stumbled across another licence tag that rises questions, User:Raymond_de/licence: It appears to me that this text is, at best, potentially harmful as users might think they were fulfilling the licence if they are fulfilling what it says in tag. At worst, it is not in line with the GFDL. What do you think?

In any case, users who upload an edited version will have to remove the tag, since the tag does not describe how they licence their edit, so it is somewhat pointless. --Wikipeder 16:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. It basically says that if you want to use the image under terms different from the GFDL, or want a higher resolution, you have to contact him (which is correct, of course). It also asks for a copy of any work that uses the image - to require that would be against commons policy, but anyone is free to request it. If you think the working is unclear, ask the user to change it and/or explain here what exactly you would like to change. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 18:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

fixed heading.abf /talk to me/ 15:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin- please unlock Image:IndiaMaharashtra.png

There was a revert war last year over some disputed territory. -Mak 19:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

done. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 20:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

20 July

Flickr allows license changes

Hello, some of you may be aware that Flickr allows the user to change the license on their images. Even though a CC license cannot be revoked, we have several definite cases where CC-BY or CC-BY-SA images have been uploaded here, and then the license has been changed to something not free (like CC-BY-NC-ND). Cases where the image was uploaded by the FlickrLickr bot (such as Image:Lighthouse wedding.jpg, Image:SL-hoops.jpg) are extremely obvious, as the bot only spiders CC-BY images. But for images uploaded by mere civilians it's a lot more ambiguous. People make mistakes, and upload CC-BY-NC-ND images and tag them as CC-BY, for sure. But sometimes it's a license change. I strongly suspect that is what has happened at Image:NewportBeach California USa.jpg, as it's a former FP candidate, so several people have looked at it with some scrutiny.

User:Eloquence (who runs the FlickrLickr bot) is aware of this, and created {{Flickr-change-of-license}}. I feel that this is not quite enough, though. When someone may ask "how do you know this is CC-BY?" we have nothing to point to, no proof or anything. So what should we do?

• Start an archive of flickr image pages at the time a flickr image is uploaded, as license proof (? how to do that? and systematically)
• Respect the photographer's change of mind (even though we are legally entitled to use the image) and delete anyway
• Ask Flickr to put a 'history' tab on the license info (obviously this would be ideal, but how likely is this?)
• Stand our legal ground, keep the images tagged as {{Flickr-change-of-license}}, and for the iffy ones where we can't tell if the uploader made a mistake or not.......?????????

--pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

License proof:

1. Require all flickr images point to the page where the rights are declared.
2. Spider the page off of flicker and archive.
3. User changes rights, and tells us it was never CC released, we tell them to blow off and we have proof. If they send a lawyers letter, the foundation burns a copy of the archived spider CD on which the file appears.
4. If you are super paranoid, contract the spidering to be done by an unaffiliated third party and have one CD certified mailed to you which you toss in a safe. In court, the judge has proof the html existed in that form at the date of the certified mail. The only thing the complainant can do at that point is try and destroy the credibility of the third party who did the spidering.

End of story.

Eloquence is well meaning, but we cannot get wishy washy with Commons images. It's bad enough if you accept it for Flickr images, but look at the precedent. If Flickr why not other images- Does that mean that if an uploader who once uploaded their image and declared it image CC2.5, that they can come back and say they changed their mind, it is now copyright and you must pay, (by the way thanks for making it featured image of the month- I just got a publishing deal for my images).

If Commons accepts the notion that Indian giving image rights is ok, you better be upfront with volunteers about it and not be surprised if volunteers show little interest in converting over such dicey files. I for one will not move over Flickr images if I know they could be pulled like that. Many of these aren't exactly pristine and ready for use in Wiki articles as they are posted on flickr. A great deal of time is often required, working over them over to remove reflections etc. For example, compare Image:Sphynx-530 BC archaic Greek .jpg to the original at [20] Don't think folks are going to spend that kind of time cleaning up an image with the knowlege that their work may be thrown away at any time subject to the caprice of the person who gave the photo away. Personally, I would rather work on photos I know will be there in the future. -Mak 08:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out this problem. Perhaps I'm going to talk nonsense, but if so, you will be kind enough to tell me so. I understand that at present the process of geting Flickr photos to Commons is largely done by bots. Obviously, this is efficient, but I understand this carries some legal risks with it. Wouldn't it be preferable to do it this way: if one sees a picture on Flickr that would be useful on Commons, try to contact the person who has posted it, explain the situation (by which I mean the entire licencing process on Commons), and ask for explicit permission, including a re-licence according to Commons policies? Let's assume that I were a poster on Flickr, and I would receive an email (or whatever way one communicates on Flickr) to the following effect: "Hi, that's a lovely picture, could be please use it on Wikimedia Commons? before you agree, please note that this is going to entail the following [legal stuff follows]. Feel free to say no if you are in doubt, but we think that it would mean that your picture is likely to be viewed by quite a number of people." I think I would probably be flattered, not anoyed. MartinD 09:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Creative Commons license grants are not revocable. I retrieve the licensing information about Flickr photos through the official Flickr API and store it in a local cached copy of the database. If there is a need to do so, I can provide both a copy of said database and the script that was used to create it, as proof that the image was indeed licensed under a free Creative Commons license when it was uploaded by FlickrLickr. From my point of view, tagging FlickrLickr images with the "change of license" template where needed is therefore fully sufficient. However, if an image is orphaned and the Flickr user who created it requests it to be deleted, we may honor that request in some cases to avoid conflict.

As for images uploaded by other users outside the FlickrLickr process, these users should store a copy of the Flickr description page on their machine when downloading the image. It may also be nice to mail a copy of that file to permissions AT wikimedia.org (IIRC) so that it's stored in the Wikimedia OTRS system.--Eloquence 09:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

They should. But how realistic is this? It's not what I would call a workable solution. I agree the template is OK for FlickrLickr images, it's the non-FlickrLickr ones that concern me. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that image licenses should not be revokable. The clause in the template linked above that WC may honor the author's change of mind shouldn't become a precedent, per Mark. --tomf688 (talk - email) 11:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a larger version of the NewportBeach photo in question when it was up for FPC and I would be pretty sure that it was originally cc-by-sa. I was surprised to see it being listed for deletion. But of course I can not be 101% sure. Its news to me that flickr licenses can be changed.

I also can't think of a useful solution. It wouldn't be easy to store a screen grab to prove the license at the time of uploading (you have to hover to get a tool-tip or follow the license link to see the actual cc license being used and if you follow the link you've lost the association with the original picture). In any case, would a screen grab stand up legally? It would be trivial to alter a screen grab at a later date to 'prove' anything you liked. But the main problem would be that it is just too cumbersome. Eloquence's log trail with the FlickrLickr bot looks like the only sensible way to go, but that would tend to exclude all individual uploaders. Perhaps the solution could lie in a license verification bot that runs as an option as part of the upload process - however, I suspect that would be rather painful too. -- Solipsist 11:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thumbs questions

Hi,

The two following images (both uploaded by myself some time ago) appear to have a broken thumb picture: Image:Quadratic probing png.png and Image:Linear probing png.png. To see this, see Category:Hash tables. When requesting the thumb image using the exact URL, it says it can't be displayed because it contains errors? An other image (Image:Double hashing png.png, which is quite similar, doesn't have this. Any idea how to fix this? Would it have to be uploaded again or did the software here screw something? ;) Thanks, Simeon87 16:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm the problem. The funny part is: all sizes except 120 pixels work fine. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 17:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

July 21

Trains of the world

I think categories

• [[Category:Trains_in_the_United_States]]
• [[Category:Trains_in_Indonesia]]
• [[Category:Trains_in_Portugal]]
• [[Category:Trains_in_europe]]
• [[Category:Train/Belgium]], [[Category:Train/Britain]], [[Category:Train/Cuba]], [[Category:Train/Czech]], [[Category:Train/Denmark]], [[Category:Train/India]], [[Category:Train/Poland]] and [[Category:Train/Spain]]
  

should be renamed to the new "official" denomination [[Trains in XXXXX]]. How can I do this without changing the tags manually? --Jollyroger 11:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Why the "hide bot edits" in recentchanges doesn't hide the MakBot: Changing Category:XXXXXXXXX changes? --Jollyroger 11:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Orgullobot can do category renames. So can MakBot, I guess - apperently, MakBot does not have a bot flag. It should. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am open to an Bot flag for MakBot, but no one has voted on it. MakBot applied for a flag prior to this mass conversion. Commons:Administrators to vote on it. Today is the last day for this mass convert, so it won't be flooding people's watchlists as much. -Mak 16:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Jolly- Though Orgullobot does a great job on this sort of thing and should be considered first, MakBot has volunteered to run these conversions. If there are any more to add to the list, please submit them on the makbot talk page. If I hear nothing more by this afternoon, MakBot will convert what you have listed above. -Mak 16:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked Orgullo for the conversion, but had no response yet. Do as you wish, as far as they are changed :-). The above should be the full list. Thanks for the quick and detailed answer and help, and thanks for the work you and your shiny bot do! --Jollyroger 23:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) (who maybe is late, depending on the time zone of "this afternoon" :-D)

Ok. I started to do this but I don't understand what you want. Underscores are spaces so all the bulletted names fit the Trains in xxxx pattern. The others listed with slashes are articles, not categories. If this pattern is supposed to apply to articles too, then you can just copy the wikitext of those galleries to an alternately named article page. Plus I see a lot of "of countryname categories, but you didn't mention those. I will let Orgullo sort it out with you. I'm baffled. -Mak 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The categories should be trains **OF** XXXXXXXXXXXXX, as you see here. The "articles" are photo collections, so I guess they should follow the same naming scheme. Underscores came from cut&paste, of course they are simply spaces. --Jollyroger 08:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, for the confusion- your wording suggested the destination name would be the "new "official" denomination [[Trains in XXXXX]]". So ok. I get it not. You want Of. Seems fine to me. There is some small benefit of predictability in guessing cat names if there is a uniform rule for preposition selection. The rule proposed in the location scheme is that "of" be used except in cases where it is ambiguous eg. Russian paintings -> Paintings of Russia. Commons has an unusual number of choo choo pictures and really I only know what my children know about them- which more has to do with Thomas the talking train.

For the US and large rail systems as in India and China, there may seem to be no ambiguity, but in Europe you could have lots of situations where a picture of a train was taken "in" Italy, be "from" Germany due to manufacture location, but now be "of Spain" since it's operating company is located there. I have no idea what the railroad experts who created these categories intended or think is best for the organization of their areas.

I would take this offline to solicit opinions on some Trains talk page, but I have no idea where the Train guys talk about this kind of junk. -Mak 17:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly for Great Britain, the form Category:Trains in Great Britain or Category:Trains in Britain are unambiguous and logical. Where trains travel to the continent via the channel tunnel, photos of the Eurostar for example can be found by the categorisation by type (e.g. Category:British Rail Class 390) with see alsos where apropriate. Although a few other British trains do run abroad, this is not what people would expect to find when looking for photographs of British rolling stock.

A difficulty comes with how you categorise the Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland. This caused (unnecessarily) heated debate at en so I will leave it to others to suggest their preferred scheme.

For trains manufactured abroad, e.g. the Category:British Rail Class 185 was built in Germany, pictures of these trains there would still be categorised under the British Rail Class scheme.

there is no central disucssion place for train related topics on Commons currently, hence the category heierarchy is confusing and riddled with duplication. One of the many things on the list to do when I have time is sort this out. Thryduulf 01:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thinking more about the Irish question, Category:Trains of Northern Ireland and Category:Trains of the Republic of Ireland would not fit nicely with something like Enterprise which is a cross-border service operated jointly by Northern Ireland Railways and Iarnród Éireann with each owning 2 of the 4 locomotives and half the rolling stock. Thryduulf 01:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not just put tit in both categories, that way which ever your interested its there, The same would equally apply to all cross border trains services. Gnangarra 03:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the correct name should be "OF". I try to explain this using examples of the categories I use often:

1. rails are operated mostly on country basis, so it is logical to say that ETR500 is a train OF Italy (sth like "product of italian culture and industry")
2. Cisalpino is a train OF Italy, but runs IN Germany and Switzerland. Adding a photo taken IN germany could make it difficult to search for Cisalpino images. I think it should be tagged with the three nations.
3. most of the subcategories now are named OF
4. Category "locomotives" has subcats "locomotives OF italy" and such. Using a different form may be confusing. check this and similar
5. Sometimes trains are sold in their lifetime. Some ALn772 run IN Poland, but they are still trains OF Italy (created by italian railway adiministration). They are OF poland too, of course. tagging a photo of them taken in Poland as "IN Italy" is IMHO wrong

that's my 2 cents. --Jollyroger 11:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikisoure:Image use policy

See wikisource discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Implement_Wikisource:Image_use_policy

Over at Wikisource we're working on developing an image use policy, and we're considering outsourcing all of our uploading to Commons. The question is how everyone on Commons feels about wikisourcians uploading scanned pages of text that are to be transcribed or used to proofread existing Wikisource works (see Image:LA2-NSRW-1-0019.jpg for an example of such a file). Does anyone have an objection to wikisourcians using Commons in this way? Most of the users doing these kinds of uploads will have some experience with wikis and will likely tag and categorize everything appropriately, so hopefully it won't result in more cleanup work. Feel free to comment on the policy, so that we can create a solution that works well for everyone. --Spangineer^en es (háblame) 11:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason not to have scanned text here if it's free and useful for wikisource (and tagged and categorized, of course). But please be careful with mass uploads for a while: start with a hundred or so, and ask/wait for comments. Also, for scanned documents, perhaps wait until we have DjVu support, so you can upload a document as one file instead of one for each page. DjVu support is being worked on by JeLuF, the demo i saw looks quite good already. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Brion announce DjVu support some time ago? I'm pretty sure he did...

Spangineer: if it's useful for wikisource, I can't imagine why we wouldn't support it. I suggest developing a good category scheme that you can encourage people to use. e.g. create subcategories of Category:Wikisource such as Category:English Wikisource or Category:English Wikisource documents. And then create subcats of that for particular works, I guess.

Also I would add guidelines for image naming (eg. "Lastnameauthor, Firstnameauthor - Nameofwork - 001/200" (page 1 of 200). Or some similar format, maybe different ordering.

Also advise that scans shouldn't be labelled with "-self" licenses, ie. scanning doesn't create new copyright. So they should always clearly label the original author and the copyright status of the original work.

Lastly, I assume Wikisource has a CommonsTicker?? pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK really last comment :) Maybe WS would like to wait until after the single login feature is implemented? then its users won't have to sign up to Commons as well. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly discurage the cration of a special category hierarchy for wikisource. Category:Wikisource is for media about wikisource (logos, screenshots, icons, etc), not material used by wikisource. Similar categories for Wikinews have been deleted.

Instead, think of a category scheme for scanned text. As a start, further up on this page a tag was proposed to mark text-only images (i.e. scanned book pages). Perhaps they could be sorted by author, language, time and genre or something - although it may not be necessary to create extra "text"-categories for each "facette". The new categories should be integrated with the existing structure, of course. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 13:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Duesentrieb. See also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:De_Wikisource_book Joergens.mi and Arnomane have worked together to find useful ways for the Wikisource.de upload at Commons. Duesentrieb has no deeper knowledge of the problem (nothing new, I wonder why he was elected as admin ...) and no right to speak for the Commons community --Historiograf 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Then please educate us about the "deeper knowledge". In what way is it useful to organize media on commons by where they are used? Why would it be "wikisource books", not "scanned books" or "historical books"? In any case, I have not claimed that anything I said is consensus or policy. I have state my opinion and experience. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 18:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Ok. You stated your opinion, but collecting information before stating anything is a much better approach.

For deeper knowledge, please look here Definition Book-Templates

• It´is simply called De_Wikisource_book for the following reasons:

de

1. because the text is in the german language,
2. The scans will be used in german language Wikisource

Wikisource

1. that anybody know where this scan is in use
2. where to ask when problem arises.
3. Members of the german language wikisource will take care for these sets of scans.

book simply to indicate that is not a simple set of scans in a courious language but a combined thing called a book.

Whe had a bigger set of discussion some time ago together with arnomane how to organize it. the results of that can be seen here User:Joergens.mi#Scanned/uploaded_Books

Especially have a look at this Rechenbuch des Andreas Reinhard. The professional scan of this has been done in a close Cooperation of the Universit of Göttingen and the Wikimedia Deutschland.

Additional Information to the whole Process can be found in the help pages of the german language Wikisource. Feel free to ask in the scriptorium of the german language wikisource or to contact me at my Talk in the german language Wikisource.

The scan ist not only used to proofread the text, but also to give a view to the used Original for scientific evaluation of the text --Joergens.mi 19:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not totally happy about the idea to upload thousands of scanned pages. The only use I can think of for them is on Wikisource of that language. To upload them on Commons seems unnecessary to me.

Fred Chess 19:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

They are not only useful in that language, as Wikisource is also about translations, and they may be nice as reference points on the other Wikisources. In addition, sometimes it is nice to show excerpts from important historical documents in Wikipedia.--Eloquence 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely necessary to have these high quality scans on Commons the central repository for multimedia files of the WMF --Historiograf 19:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

@ Fred Chess The only possibilty to use sources even on an scientific level is if you have a proof for their quality. and this proof is given by scans. Look at this book Rechenbuch des Andreas Reinhard there are only a few of them available on the world. the only place in the world were an digitized Version exists is Commons in conjunction with the transcription availabe on wikisource. And you are not happy about such a treasure --Joergens.mi 20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, DE as the prefix isn't correct. DE in captital letters represents a state (Germany). Small letters would be correct, as they represent languages. Schaengel89 22:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

@Schaengel89 i would prefer when you would have a close look to the things a they are the Category:de_Wikisource_book is written in lowercase letters. By this your text is simply wrong!. --Joergens.mi 08:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly recomend to discuss the matter of organizing such material in depth here at the village pump and/or the mailing list. Looking at the exising structure and template, here are a few thoughts:

• having a template and a gallery page for each "scan set" makes perfect sense to me. The template could also mention a "maintener" for the scan set, or link to an appropriate project page on wikisource or some such. In future, it may be preferable to have an entire scan set as a singe DjVu file - or maybe not, it's ultimately up to you.
• I don't understand why you would want a gallery and a category for each book, with the exact same title and the exact same content. This seems redundant to me. It also seems to cause confusion, see Category:Rechenbuch Reinhard, Category:Drei Register Arithmetischer ahnfeng zur Practic and Rechenbuch Reinhard.
• The scanned books should be sorted into the existing category structure by creator/time/topic/style etc. Just dumping them into a "german books" category would render them essentially useles, because they would be hard to find by people navigation by topic. This should always be kept in mind.
• Having extra categories for scanned books in a given language seems reasonable. I don't see however why it should be linked to wikisource in any way (except maybe by a sister project link - although I don't know where on wikisource that should point to).
• Generally, categorizing by "where the image is/will be used" is not a good idea - you don't know where it could be useful (see the comment by Eloquence above), so the categorization is misleading at best. I can't see how it would be helpful - if I want to know what images are used by wikisource, i go to wikisource...
• Another minor point: don't use flags to indicate languages in the template. This is inappropriate and has been deprecated after long discussions.

Regards -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 23:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is small mistake in this projekt, which is to be cleaned up. the Artikle is Rechenbuch des Andreas Reinhard and the catgory is Category:Drei Register Arithmetischer ahnfeng zur Practic. The article is intended to give some information on this book. The category is intended to build a ribbon aroung all pages which are part of this projekt. Because of an misunterstnding some wrong items exists. But I´m cleaning up this moment. the structure can be seen on my page the need for the category ist quite clear to get a automatic connection from one scan to the whole book. As long as guys are running aroung ang putting boxes like this

English: This image file contains a scanned text page with no illustrations. Deutsch: Diese Bilddatei enthält eine gescannte Textseite ohne Illustrationen.

into some pages there ist need for tying things together.

--Joergens.mi 08:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

These are all great suggestions.

• Re DjVu; I've never heard of it, but based on these comments, it sounds awesome.
• Re categoization scheme: That's key. I've added a slightly modified version of pfctdayelise's image name suggestion, along with a categorization scheme. It should be fleshed out more though. Assuming we don't use DjVu right away, would something like the following work to categorize Oliver Twist:

Category:Charles Dickens - OT --> Category:Charles Dickens texts --> Category:English scanned texts

If we did use DjVu, we could just eliminate the first category of course. And of course this system can be incorporated into other categories (for example, have Category:Charles Dickens texts also feed into Category:Charles Dickens and Category:Charles Dickens - OT feed into Category:Fiction books).

• Obviously, I agree that we shouldn't label these by intended use; hopefully a variety of people will find uses for them.
• Wikisource does have a CommonsTicker, thank goodness.
• Would a separate template be necessary, or would just the category and normal image description template be sufficient? I'm thinking that if the image description includes the title of the work, who author is, the page number, etc. (most of which should be obvious from the image name), that that should be sufficient assuming it's properly categorized and tagged for copyright.
• Anything else I'm missing here? Suggestions are certainly welcome, either here or by making changes to the Wikisource policy directly. --Spangineer^en es (háblame) 02:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

To more completely fracture the discussion, I've posted a potential model for categories at Wikisource talk:Image use policy. Please make any category structure-related comments there here. Thanks. --Spangineer^en es (háblame) 12:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Let us please discuss this here, since it concerns the category structure on commons, which should also be used by other wikibooks wikisource projects.

The page you linked to looks good for a start, although i'm not sure if a category for each book is needed if there is going to be a gallery for each one. But that does not change the overall structure, just the type of the "leafs" of the tree. AS to templates: the ones used by the german wikibooks wikisource encourage rich information, and feature "previous" and "next" links to navigate a book. Seems like a good idea.

I don't think the country of origin is important here, but the language is. The title of the book category (or gallery page) should contain the language, at least if it's not clear from the title itself - i.e. we may have the "Oliver Twist" in English, Chinese and German, the name always being the same. So perhaps use Oliver Twist scan (german); Consequently, there would have to be Category:Charles Dickens texts (german), which would have to be in Category:Scanned German texts and in Category:Charles Dickens texts or directly in Category:Charles Dickens

The categories for scanned books must always be contained in some way in the author's category - which in turn would be reachable by country of origin - i.e. Category:Charles Dickens would be in Category:Writers from Britain

To disambiguate titles like Principia Mathematica, use the full- or subtitle (Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica) or the author (Principia Mathematica (Newton))

-- Duesentrieb^(?!) 13:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

@Duesentrieb: there are small fault in your writing

• with german wikibooks I think you ment german wikisource (german for the language)
• The idea to put the langaguage in to the tiltle is worth thinking of. On the other hand in our articles, there is some more information on the subject, which are also worth to be in the title. I think it schould be either in the title or in the article. Your idea to distinguish between the german and english scan of the same title by that is ok. --Joergens.mi 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, wikisource, sorry - I was writing "book" so many times i got confused. But OTOH, some wikibook may in fact use the scans - which is one of the reasons that "wikisource" is not something that should show up in the names of categories or galleries. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 16:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussing it here is great; the reason I suggested that we discuss categories on the policy talk page is that some people aren't sold on the idea of putting everything on Commons. But on second glance, it does appear that there is broad support for doing everything over here, so I have no problem with continuing the discussion here. --Spangineer^en es (háblame) 17:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• We don´t want to discourage anyone to use this scans, otherwise we wouldn´t put them to commons. The main idea is to make them real public available in commons. But we are working on transcribtions of these scans to ascii (utf-8) text in wikisource, to make them available for generating pdf or scientific research, therefore the information is simply that the transcription is or will be available in de-wikisource. Several of these textes had been only available to a limit set of people, now they are available for all. And we are constantly looking to find more od such books like Rechenbuch des Andreas Reinhard. There has been fault on my side. The scans of this book are the scans of the only existing original handwritten version of the book w:de:Andreas Reinhard, all other books are (only) printed versions. --Joergens.mi 21:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarifiy that I think it's really cool what you are doing, and that I welcome this material to commons. I still don't see any reason whatsoever to mention wikisource in the category name - such information is much better placed in references to a wikisource project in the "book gallery" or on the individual image pages. Categories represent topics that apply to the content of the scans - "wikisource" is no such topic.

That being said: I see this issue only with your "root" category right now - even though I don't like it that way, I can live with it, and it can easily be changed later. I just want to ask you not to create any more like it - until now, the subcategories do not reference wikisource in their name. They shouldn't.

There are people from the english and from the german wikisource active in this discussion - perhaps you could try to coordinate a common structure? Spangineer has already proposed something - together with integrating the language of the scanned text into the category structure, it looks loke a good start. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 22:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think there is no interest to create more categories with the name of german wikisource in it. The reason for the name is simply to say where does the text come from und who can help if any problems arise. If you take a close look to the books already put to commons you can clearly see that the title ist strongly book related. the idea putting the language to the title will be discussed. If you have a look into the category you see the purpose for it, in the small text on top. --Joergens.mi 15:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Another concern has come up on the Wikisource discussion—is there any way for materials used by wikisource to be protected on Commons? For example, Wikisource contains the wikisource:CIA World Fact Book, 2004, including images. Because this is a copy of the 2004 factbook, we want the 2004 map pictures. However, if all wikisource images were hosted on commons, it's likely that someone would come around and say, "Oh! They haven't updated to the 2006 CIA world factbook map yet. I'll take care of that for them", not realizing that that isn't helpful at all. In general, all "image updates" to works appearing on Wikisource aren't going to be helpful, except perhaps for technical improvements to existing images. Even with that it would be better to upload a new version. Fortunately, there are ways to make it clear that images shouldn't be updated (by specifying the year of publication in the image name and image description page, for example), and image undeletion is now possible, but these steps don't eliminate the problem. Has it ever been considered that certain images be protected to prevent accidental/malicious changes? On wikisource, complete and proofread works are often protected, since there's rarely a reason for such a text to be updated. Couldn't similar conditions apply here? --Spangineer^en es (háblame) 18:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I'm a bit ambiguous. Large scale "preemptive" protection of things on a wiki just does not feel right no me. And indeed, the fact the some images should not be "updated" could and should in any case be made clear by the title (i.e. give a date). On the other hand, I can't think of a good reason to "update" a scan of a historical document for example, if it was uploaded in good quality and resolution - from that perspecifve, protecting the image wouldn't hurt.

Perhaps we could have a "please do not replace" tag or something - it should be pretty easy to write a tool that checks if any image marked this way was replaced - and with a bit more effort, even if such a tag was removed; on a second though, this could and should be integrated into CommonsTicker. This would show if tehre even really is a problem to solve. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's already set up in CommonsTicker, and an example of what I'm talking about occurred on July 6. I've since rectified the situation (uploaded the old version to a new file name and changed the image link in the page), but it does happen. Of course, the image should have included the year in the title. Considering all this, I've made some changes to the proposed policy with different suggestions and conventions. Feel free to comment; this will probably moving to voting on wikisource fairly soon. --Spangineer^en ws (háblame) 21:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the issue of where to put these. I created Category:Scanned English texts but then thought that it might be better to include text images produced by other means (like photography). Or is that just another method of scanning? I'm thinking about Category:Digital texts, Category:Digitized texts (though that gets into the British vs. USA thing; scary), or simply Category:Texts. I don't like Category:Text pages; some of the pages aren't exclusively of text. Rather, the term "texts" here means "text-based works" or the like—at the level of books, poems, etc. Any input would be appreciated. --Spangineer^en ws (háblame) 22:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Open letter on censorship - Carta abierta sobre censura

This is my opinion about an act of censorship carried out by user:ALE!

My first gut reaction to what I think is a vile act of censorship on your part by deleting an image of my creation, mac junk.jpg, was of extreme anger, and consequently, it was accompanied by the desire to throw insults. However, I doubt that insulting a person whose brain I suspect must be in the dark confines of his body is useful. For I doubt they could be comprehended.

Your justification that reads “image is an artificial creation used to make a non neutral point, out of scope of Commons” is nothing but a reflection of ignorance and intolerance.

With your Taliban/argentinian military-like criteria, the world of art should disappear, for you should learn somewhere along your life that every image created by man is an artificial creation that makes non-neutral points. An image is a symbol that has a purpose, and that is to communicate an idea. It is the synthesis of a point of view, a philosophy, a thought. An image has the capacity to transport and transform people. Show me a single work of art that does not make a non neutral point.

The flags that you display in your user page are artificial creations that create or created feelings of loyalty/belonging, ideologically charged, symbolizing a political view that I doubt were agreeable to the original inhabitants of your country that sadly, were replaced by the likes of you.

Your voting record in deletions, lame reason after lame reason, should nominate you for Censor of the Year.

This is what I think. Are you going to censor it too?

Esta es mi opinión acerca de un acto de censura por parte del usuario ALE!

Mi primer reacción visceral a lo que yo considero un vil acto de censura de tu parte al eliminar una imagen de mi creación, mac junk.jpg, fue de extremo enojo, y consecuentemente, acompañada de un deseo profundo de lanzar insultos. Sin embargo, dudo que insultar a una persona cuyo cerebro, yo sospecho, se encuentra en los lugares más oscuros y recónditos de su cuerpo sea útil. Dudo que puedan ser comprendidos.

Tu justificación de que la “imagen es una creación artificial utilizada para hacer un punto no neutral, fuera del alcance de Commons” no es más que un reflejo de la ignorancia e intolerancia.

Con tus criterios dignos de los Talibanes o militares argentinos, el mundo del arte debe desaparecer, y debes de aprender en el transcurso de tu vida que cada imagen creada por el hombre es artificial y que intenta transmitir un punto no neutral. Una imagen es un símbolo que tiene un propósito, y es el de comunicar una idea. Es la síntesis de una postura, una filosofía, un pensamiento. Una imagen tiene la capacidad de transportar o transformar a la gente. Muéstrame una sola obra de arte que no intente trasnmitir un punto de vista.

Las banderas que muestras en tu página de usuario son creaciones artificiales que crean o crearon sentimientos de lealtad o pertenencia, cargadas ideológicamente, simbolizando un punto de vista político que dudo eran del agrado de los habitantes originales de tu pais que tristemente fueron reemplazados por gente como tu.

Tu record en eliminaciones, triste razón tras triste razón, deberían nominiarte para el Censor del Año.

Esto es lo que yo pienso, lo vas a censurar también?

--Tomascastelazo 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the Mac Junk image was deleted? It was about time. Commons should not host that kind of obvious propaganda. It is clearly stated at Commons:Project scope.

Fred Chess 19:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fred, Could you please quote verbatim what you say is clearly stated in the Project scope? About time? Should? Obvious propaganda? If those are not argments that any fool can use to censor anything, I do not know what is. Censorship is a big deal.

By the way, please go to Category:Christianity, since you are an administrator, there you will find hundreds of images that fit ALE!´s criteria of artificial creations that make non neutral points, that is, they promote the existence of beings that have never been proven to exist and in whose name, millions of people have died, therefore I propose that they be deleted. They seem to be very, very dangerous propaganda. --Tomascastelazo 20:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The image in question was borderline at best from a copyright and trademark point of view. It was also heavy user POV, and I (and many others, according to the deletion request) don't see any way how it could be useful to wikimedia projects. Samples of propaganda an other non-neutral material have a place on commons to document such propaganda, or as samples of the work of well known artists, etc - but not as personal statements of users.

Commons is not a place for personal image collections. That applies to party and family snapshots as well as to images that illustrate your personal political agenda, or your current art project. You are of course welcome to put images like that on your homepage, on flickr, or whatever. I even agree to an extend with the point made by your picture, but Commons is the wrong place for it. Calling that censorship is quite over the top. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 23:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't see that the use of the MacDonalds logo was anything other than 'fair use', so it had to go. William Avery 12:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: quote from Commons:Project scope: "Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons."

Fred Chess 15:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Fred,

I just want to make a few points.

1. The disagreements, from my point of view, between people can be worked out. 2. I do not take critisism of myself or my work personally, but if I am critisized, I have the right to reply and ask for arguments. 3. I am not attached to the image in question or any other image that I create. In fact, I am convincible when my work does not work and it is pointed out rationally. 4. I am fiercely opposed to censorship. 5. In my non neutral point of view, the Wikipedia project should be approached with an open mind that errs on the side of tolerance, not intolerance. And censorship, anyway you want to dress it, is a sign of intolerance.

Now to business, you quote fro the Commons scope page, but you do not quote enough. I reproduce other parts os the page so as not to base opinions on a very narrow interpretation of a sentence on a page:

Commons quotes in italics:

Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted. – It says generally, it does not ban personal images. I have found countless personal images that have not been targeted for deletion. Why this one? Wikimedia Commons is no web hoster for e.g. private party photos, self created artwork without educational purpose and such. – I say that the image has an educational purpose, as a call to conscience about caring for the environment and as an illustration of a photo technique. I reproduce the Wiki definition of Digital Collage: Digital collage is the technique of using computer tools in collage creation to encourage chance associations of disparate visual elements and the subsequent transformation of the visual results through the use of electronic media. – The image obviuosly rattled someone´s cage, and yours. It elicited a response, and your reaction was to delete, thus committing an act of censorship. However it is allowed uploading in small quantity images of yourself and others as long they are useful for some Wikimedia project (for example an Wikipedia article, a Wikinews report, in a meta article, on a user-page). I want to use the image on my user page – Why deny me the privilege extended to thounsands? In the same page that you quote, I find arguments that support my point of view, in fact, I find more!

This is not about me. This is about bringing to the discussion the issue of censorship.

In my opinion, wikipedia is a great project, and the work of the admins is a great contribution, but we should guard against the zealots that can hinder the search for knowledge and understanding. Who watches out for them?

Censorship, my friend, is the real issue. And it is too delicate a matter to be left in the hands of e-goons. Being computer-wise does not make them: 1. Knowledgeable; 2. Harmless; 3. Right.

By the way, I plan to upload the image again to be used in my user page, well within the scope of commons.

Yours truly, --Tomascastelazo 14:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that we ( users of Wikimedia Commons ) want to "censor" the image in question. I do not believe anyone can claim it to be their human right to have their images here. I think that since we on Commons have already made it clear that we don't want that type of image, it is futile for you to discuss this with us. Perhaps you should try our mailinglist (http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l ) that is read by people from the Wikimedia board. If you get support there (which I doubt) then you can proceed as you wish.

Fred Chess 18:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Tomas, please don't re-upload it. It can be undeleted if necessary. But so far I don't see any support for that besides you. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what this image is about, but the general point I think Tom was making about a limitation about posting such information on Wikis is correct. The general impact of the NPOV policy and collective determination of content means that, were wikis around at the time of Gallileo, then the substance of his discoveries would be deleted in very short order. Similarly, if this were 19th century France, Van Gough would not be able to post his "junk images/ personal artwork" because at the time, it would have been quite correct that no one would have seen any value for them in any online encyclopedias. So Tom, that is really the breaks on contemporary art, or leading edge information of any kind. That doesn't mean that Wikis are bad, it just means they aren't a perfect medium of communication for everything.

That said even if everyone agreed that this was a valuable image that everyone would like to have on commons, we couldn't keep it anyway. William Avery's point is correct. Although artists are entitled to make "Fair Use" of art, Commons does not accept any Fair use images. So to keep it we would have to get permission from McDonald's which from the sound of it they would be somewhat reluctant to give. -Mak 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should clarify my post of the 23th of July where I implied that Commons censors material. I find it obvious that Wikimedia Commons does not censor material, if censor means to remove material that may be controversial. I find this persistant accusation from Tom to be ridiculous. Wikimedia Commons is however not a general image provider, and it deletes images with personal statements because they go against the ideas of an encyclopedia. We have deleted for example "statements about pres. Bush" (several times) and "statements about homelessness", and now your "statement about McDonalds". It is not about censorship, but about the purpose of Wikimedia Commons. I find this matter so clear-cut that I don't see the point in discussing it again and again.

Fred Chess 09:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Pfctdayelise: Ok, I get it, a billion flies canot be wrong....

• Mak: Thanks, you get my point... and if you saw the image, it is no big deal, and that miniscule thing is precisely what makes it a big deal... And I do appreciate the Wiki project and the work of committed people, otherwise I would not waste my time with this. I too want to contribute, even if that means to be stubborn, there is a lesson for everyone, including me.

• Fred: A refresher on definitions:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

The act of hiding, removing, altering or destroying copies of art or writing so that general public access to it is partially or completely limited.

The practice of suppressing a text or part of a text that is considered objectionable according to certain standards.

Action taken to prevent others from having access to a book or information; a public objection to words, subjects and/or information in books, films, and other media with the idea of depriving others from reading or viewing them.

the means of keeping unpleasant (or unsociable) desires out of consciousness. Censorship is circumvented through dreams, parapraxes (or "slips of the tongue"), word association, and figures of speech.

Decisive acts of forbidding or preventing publication or distribution of media products, or parts of those products, by those with the power, either economic or legislative, to do so.

something that is meant to prevent free expression

--Tomascastelazo 16:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The standard is pretty well articulated. You have to make the case that it would not be unlikely that an uploaded image would be used by one of the Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The act of enforcing editorial standards does technically meet the definition of censorship as Fred's earlier note acknowleged, but that is a technical sense of the word that is indistinguishable from what any good editor or creator does as a matter of routine. You subtract the stuff that is out of the scope of what you are attempting to do. To assert the general sense of censorship you have to show that the aim of controlling perceptions is in favor of one particular value system over another.

Many folks were taking a lot of exception to that perhaps unintended assertion you were making. As stated, personal statement type images are regularly deleted from all ends of the political and social issue spectrum. The only value system being promoted is a very general one- that which is biased in favour of general, collective knowlege over personal knowlege. That is a profound point of immense proportions but is really pretty esoteric that ranges into epistemology. Anyway, at that level, sure- the herd wins in the short term, but so what. Individualistic voices in the wilderness triumph over time. Note that such individuals are probably doing something wrong if they are immediately greeted by the collective with open arms. Because this is a heavily collaborative concensus driven environment populated by oftentimes uninformed and stubborn amateurs (myself included), this particular venue is really a bastion of the collective- so you aren't going to get a lot of traction here for knowlege and messages that are not what you would find in various reference books in the local library. Ok, it is mashed potatoes and there is so much more. But look at where the baseline is. The world has a long way to go in understanding simple collective truths. Guys are walking into cafes and markets and blowing up fellow muslims because their only exposure to the knowlege of the world has been delivered to them by ignorant mullahs. Similar stupidity occurs in the west with much larger consequences when uninformed populations vote for politicians based on other simplistic models politicians project concerning how they want us to think about the world.

Wikipedia and Commons are not BBS's. I don't see why there is any reason to make a big deal about it- those areas are well covered on the net. The wiki foundation wants to do something else, and do it very well. So just as a personal statement article in Wikipedia would be immediately eliminated, the same attitude will greet corresponding images and videos. There are countless flame wars on Wikipedia concerning such "censorship". This discussion really is no different.

The goal of the foundation is to give the world's knowlege to every single person in their own language. That includes visual and aural knowlege as well. That is a pretty fricking huge goal to achieve without throwing personal perspectives into the mix as well. Aren't personal statements part of the sum of the world's "knowlege" too? Well, you have a point there, but I think it is a more manageable goal to focus on collective knowlege presented with a NPOV first.

That is enough to keep us busy for the next 50 years or so. It is a great task to be a part of, but it means that part of what you have to share cannot find a home here. No matter really- there are lots of other opportunities for exposure. Commons is just not the right medium for it.

-Mak 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I was the nominator for this image to be deleted, my original reason was that by manufacturing the image through the addition of the McDonalds sign (its also a logo and trade mark), then by naming the image Mac Junk you have directly atribute to the corporation unsubstanciated alligations from the corporation had a legal right to challenge. Within the image there were clearly identifiable multinational companies for whom the additions of a sign could have been argueable. Additional arguements raised, its not usable on any wikiproject to which you offered to write an article for. Also that you didn't have permission from the corporation to use their logo, trademark. Later during the discussion you added it to the censorship page claiming that Commons was censoring you. I could have at that time just removed it from the page but I chose to move it too the page on digital collage, even though as you arent a notable artist and the subjects construction wasn't sufficiently obvious to demostrate the art form, a credit to your editing abilities. But this is an unwarranted attack of an Admin for doing what was asked and majority of commenators agreed to. Gnangarra 04:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

July 22

Category templates?

I would like to learn a little bit more about templates to tag categories which should be renamed. E.g., there are two categories Category:Flora von Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz and Category:Thomé, Flora von Deutschland within Category:Botanical illustrations; both refer to illustrations from the same book. I put the images in Category:Flora von Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz (which had less images) to Category:Thomé, Flora von Deutschland and put a category redirect template in Category:Flora von Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. However, Category:Thomé, Flora von Deutschland should possibly be renamed to "Category:Thomé, Flora von Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz" (which is the complete title of that book). Is there any template to achieve this?

Anyway, I am a bit confused about the categories Category:Illustrations (which is in Category:Illustration – why?) and Category:Drawings, as there is no clear pattern how to assign these categories to the images. Maybe there should be a kind of definition, say "Illustrations is a category reserved for illustrations (excluding photographs) from books" (or something else) at the head of the category page? Of course, one would have to sort the images in accordance ... Cheers, --Ulf Mehlig 09:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please delete this file

Feel free to delete this file; I tried to make a SVG version but it's not yet fixed. I'll fix it tomorrow (or so) but deleting the previous versions will save Commons some HD space. Thanks, Simeon87 23:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the image by converting the text to paths. There should be a better way though, cause the SVG is now 30 times larger than the PNG. NielsF 23:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's kinda odd, I tried Inkscape to create this but somehow text seems to cause trouble. After some Googling, I stumbled upon this page which describes the same problem (text becoming a black rectangle). I'm kinda new to creating SVG files so I dunno; perhaps some other editor doesn't have this? - Simeon87 09:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Check commons:bugs and search bugzilla: and if your problem hasn't been described yet, please add a comment to an existing bug if it seems related or otherwise start a new one. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

bugzilla:5710 (SVG flow text rendered incorrectly) seems to be the bug because after disabling the the flow-option of the text, it changed from a black rectangle to text. Well, it still refused to place enough spaces between the characters; it did show correctly in Inkscape though - I haven't found a bug in bugzilla that describes that but I'm not sure if it's Wikipedia related. - Simeon87 10:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it would be RSVG-related, since that's the renderer MediaWiki software uses. If you can view it correctly in another program and it validates, I would guess it's a MediaWiki problem. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I viewed the image in another SVG program but in there, it placed all the numbers next to each other with 1 space, left aligned whereas it should display them with multiple spaces in between.. should one place the numbers as seperate text objects or so? In the XML code it does list the spaces but depending on the program (or website, like Commons) used to view it, it either displays them or not. - Simeon87 12:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No panorama freedom in Belarus?

I read carefully article 19 of On Copyright And Contiguous Rights Law and on my understanding Belarus doesn't allow panorama freedom.

reproduction or communication for universal knowledge of works of architecture, fine art, photos, which are permanently located in a place opened for free visiting, except for cases when an image of the work is the main object of such reproduction or communication for universal knowledge or when it is used for commercial objectives;

According to article 7 copyrights cover:

• works of painting, graphic art, sculptures and other works of fine art;
• works of architecture, urban planning and garden-and-park art;

On my understanding modern sculptures and buildings could not be shoot freely. I assume that building/sculptures made before beginning on 20th century is in public domain (most likely authors died 50 years ago).

I’m not a lawyer so I'm interesting in other people opinions, especially of people with legal background. Also will be good idea to see summary of similar discussions for other countries that doesn't allow freedom of panorama.

EugeneZelenko 15:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add your results at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alx/Sandbox Alx has given me permission to make use of his page he is not able to maintain actually --Historiograf 00:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Libelous contributions?

See User:Dridgeisbudgets gallery. I am thinking of blocking him and deleting all this stuff, it seems to me that his contributions are used to make fun of some guy. Will a block be appropriate in this case? Kjetil_r 16:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

They don't look like useful files for any Wikipedia project; I wouldn't mind ;) Simeon87 17:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Slomox took care of his uploads. Kjetil_r 00:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Italy

As regards Image:Flag of Italy.svg, the colors are incorrect.

• The Italian constitution says that the flag is green-white-red.
• The Italian government issued the Pantone textile codes for the textile flags.
• No Italian institution ever issued RGB/CYMK codes.
• No official conversion table between Pantone and RGB/CYMK codes exists

The people behind current version of said image claim that a randomly selected color, close to white but actually a shade of blue, is to be used.

The image colours should be changed, but someone protected the page, even mocking about the "Wong Version". (:OMG, it's not the the wrong version? This is why admins should pick the version they protect totally at random :) -Samulili 20:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC))

What is it possible to do to change the colour to the correct shade?--FlagUploader 13:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's break this up. IMHO:

File:True Flag of Italy.svg

• both versions are argumable correct (or incorrect). Thus, commons should have both.
• what you call them, i don't care. Make it Image:Real Flag of Italy.svg and Image:Correct Flag of Italy.svg or whatever - or perhaps use Image:Flag of Italy (textile).svg or something. For practicle reasons, an existing and much-used file should remain unchanged, an alternative version should get a new name.
• Which version is used where should be discussed there, not here. I think it only really matters in an article about Italy or Flag of Italy - there I would recommend to show both (see right); with a good monitor and a sharp eye, you can thus compare the colors, which would actually be informative.

Regards -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 13:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you mocking me, sir? First you tell me to come here to discuss this matter, and then you tell me to go somewhere else? A bit more of seriousness won't hurt you.

As regards the place where to discuss (and underlining that you told me to come here) a talk page could be not evident enough to show that a dispute is active.--FlagUploader 16:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. I did indeed tell you to bring any ongoing dispute to the village pump. If you can't agree on what version is correct under a given name, don't get into a revert war but discuss here.

BUT I'm telling you that we should have both on commons under different names, so that people can decide on a case by case basis which one to use. That should be debated there.

So, unless you insist to have one or the other version under a specific name (which I find silly), I see no point in arguing on commons, because the solution is simple: keep both. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 18:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dudes, I am on a professional monitor, with colors set to real tints, balanced with calibration cards, optimal brightness and such... and I see no difference at all. Doctor, what's wrong with me? --Jollyroger 15:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

maybe the Flag of Italy has a real pale shade of blue, something like +0,025 B... But you have to look close, very close, and there is no difference on any standard display.

On this laptop, the top one seems slighly blueish compared to the bottom one! David.Monniaux 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The top one is the current image, which was decided upon by Consensus, but the original bringer of the post kept on uploading images without prior discussion. If the central stripe of the Italian flag is supposed to be plain wite, the Italians would have said "Standard White" for their Pantone colors or do not give a white shade for Pantone (like how the US, Canada, Bulgaria and the UK. There is no such thing as a Pantone shade for white, other than "Pantone/Process White" and if there are other colors mixed into Process White, then it will get it's own Pantone code. And since Italy has given a specific Pantone color code to use for white, we will use not, not "Process White." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What are forgetting to tell is that nobody, even Mr. "Consensus", gave a good reason why, of all the RGB combinations, this should be the correct one. And no, claiming a majority is not a way to transform a bad choice into a good one.

As already told countless times, the codes given by Italian Government are textile ones: if Italians wanted to issue RGB codes they would have done.--FlagUploader 21:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Just my luck, Pantone has a sample of Pantone 11-0601 on it;s website in a RGB format. I will go ahead and use that for the white section. It comes out, on my end, as faf5e8. Source: http://www.pantone.com/products/products.asp?idSubArea=7&idArea=31&idProduct=332&idArticleType_Products=0. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

NVM, it came out as a very dark Pantone shade, almost pinkish. I'm launching a few emails now and see how far I get. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Zscout, do you realize the funny part of all this?

When I told you all that the colour you "invented" was uncorrect, you told me that it was the one you derived from Italian government (textile, if I am allowed to add) specifications and from a (rather obscure - still my opinion) website conversion table, so I should bear with them.

Now you find some sort of "official" rgb codes, and you are dubious because it turns out "a very dark Pantone shade, almost pinkish"?!

So, in the end the colour of the Italian flag will not be decided by Italian government, who never issued rgb codes, but by Zscout!!

My congratulations, great display of dilettantism.--FlagUploader 16:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

dear Flag uploader, I'm as much Italian as you are, and I too would prefer to have a "real white" flag, but I'm growing tyred of your childish behaviour, I'm really fed up of reverting you pointless substitution of the "True" flag. I hope you will stop this nonsense and move to italian wikipedia or to category:User it-N in order to look for some consensus. I myself will support you point, but not as long as you continue these nonsense vandalisms. Regards. Paulatz 10:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Paulatz, it is not a matter of nationalism, but rather or dilettantism hurting the quality of WC. You look not able to distinguish vandalism from content dispute. The fact is that you can have an image of a tricolour green-some_sort_of_blueish_white-red, as well as I can have a green-white-red one. The real matter is what of these two versions is the "real" flag of the Italian Republic.--FlagUploader 15:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that from a heralic point of view, both flags are the same. The blasonig does not make a difference between similar colors - white and silver and gray would even be the same. Many states have a more detailed definition of their insignia, that's true. But the flag is the flag, the clours may vary as the medium dictates. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 16:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of true vs. non-true, and I can assure you that I'll prefer to have the true white in the flag, I can also understand that you are pretty much frustated of dealing with people which seem to ignore common sense at all. Still bitching around is not the way you'll get the color changed. I propose that we start a formal discussion in the Bar italiano in order to ask the most involved people to settle once and for all if the flag has to be #ffffff or the odd light shade of blue. In the event the italian commoners will choose the white version (and we both can guess it's likely to happen) you'll just have to ask an italian admin (e.g. Red devil 666) to restore the correct versions of the flags. Paulatz 16:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC) It's odd to write in english, as long as I could write you privately in Italian, but I'll prefer to keep this matter on the village pump to prevent future arguments.

If the Italian Government also comes out with better Pantone, CMYK or hexcolors, we'll use that too. The main problem I seewith this image is not the choice of white at all, but as pointed out before, the Pantone colors are textile colors. Most programs that I have do not work using Textile colors. Many websites give many shades to the same Pantone code, and to be honest with you, it's begining to annoy me. I'll browse around more, but all of my Italian flag contacts have gone MIA. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, there's a discussion going on here, as you cannot understand it I'll write an abstract in a couple of days. Bye, Paulatz 11:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Zscout, if you find that none of your graphic programs use textile colors, and there is no official translation between Pantone and RGB, why don't you suspect that maybe there is _no_ conversion between Pantone and RGB? Is it so difficult to understand that Pantone deals only with physical objects and tries not to decide how a computer should behave? Don't you think that if Italian Government wanted to fix the rgb colors of the flag, it would have been issued them?--FlagUploader 21:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The only three government's that I know that gave out specific RGB codes was Canada (#ff000 for the red, #ffffff for the white), the United States and Bulgaria. I have a sheet from the British Government about what colors to use. I have some more resources I could try to tap, but I need a few days to dig them out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Resolved; using FFFFFF for now, will determine the color status later on a "sandbox" image. See more at [21]. In brief; I am going to write a few letters and prod my contacts again and see what happens. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 09:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

July 24

Theme park characters

Theme park characters: Is there any free license they can be uploaded under? -- Zanimum 15:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Only if the characters are under a free license. In short: no. See Commons:Derivative works. --Fb78 17:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So if someone were to upload the image to Wikipedia, what license would it be? Like, wouldn't suit designs be copyrighten theoretically, and thus a picture like this be against the rules? -- Zanimum 20:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Server-Cache is not purged after SVG-upload?

Using the standard image-link directly below the image on an SVG-image page does not return the most current upload. For example:

• standard link returns old SVG-image
  • http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/A_Yin-Yang-Yuan_Symbol_-_Triality-One.svg

Adding ?action=purge to the URL

• returns newest SVG-image
  • http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/A_Yin-Yang-Yuan_Symbol_-_Triality-One.svg?action=purge

Any ideas what the cause is, and what can be done about “this bug”? -- ParaDox 18:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The server cache is purged after upload of a new version (well, sometimes that fails, but that's quite rare). What is not purged is your browser cache. Hit Ctrl-r when looking at the image (well, that's for Firefox - find out yuerself for other browsers). -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 19:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You were right, thanks. What does puzzle me is that emptying the complete cache in browser preferences has no effect, and only when looking at the image does Ctrl-r solve the problem. Oh well ... -- ParaDox 23:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Licenses in the upload menu

Why are only the most recent versions of the Creative Commons licenses listed? It's kind of annoying to have to go back and edit the uploaded page to fix license versions to that used by the original image creator. Morven 19:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Just use no license in the menu and write {{foobar}} directly in the description! It makes sense that the menu (used by beginners) only reflects the most common choice for newly created photos (when it had more exotic choices, a lot of people chose bogus licenses). David.Monniaux 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

July 25

I'd like to create a box in hungarian wiki for the featured picture here. How could I do that? Thanks. NCurse 09:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't, as Commons templates are not available to the other wikis. Platonides 09:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Adjectival placenames- second pass

I don't think many folks are especially interested in this conversion, but for the few who are, here is an update. In the first pass, approximately 60K pages were updated, and 2040 categories were renamed in the first pass completed last friday.

The second pass will be smaller. There are 1400 straggler categories I missed in the first pass that have adjectival placename appearing names, of which I estimate at least 1000 will need to be changed. It is slow slogging through the candidates since many are uncommon locations. I am running across a surprising number of mispellings and will be correcting those.

In the second pass, I shall place a warning note 1 week prior to the next sweep. A few people responded to the warnings but the volume of folks with issues was fairly small. Since these renames are simple to revert the waiting period for the second pass will be shortenned from two weeks to one week. -Mak 09:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Uploads by Litta

I'm sorry if this isn't the correct place to bring this up, but I suspect User:Litta of using erroneous licence information, most of the users contributions are of images that clearly are copyrighted (i.e. the Janice Joplin album cover, and the bookcover of the dog Tassen). Could someone please take a look at these images (I suspect all of the user's uploads are given under false lisence), and delete those that are clearly copyright violations? I have tried to warn the user on his/her Norwegian user discussion, but I'm ignored. Opus 09:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

All of the uploads have been tagged. Siebrand 11:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this permitted?

Hi! I'm fairly new to this and I find the licensing rules very complex. I recently uploaded a GFDL image from the English language Wikipedia site, because I wanted to use it for a Swedish language article. (See Image:Nfpony.jpg). I have stated the same license as the original image, plus where it was posted and by whom. Before I start uploading other GFDL images, I wan't to know whether this is correct procedure! If it's not, I'd like to know if you can really use any images that aren't your own in the first place!

--Wilma Sweden 17:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

On a first glance, everything looks ok, but not quite so on a second look. Here are a few things to improve and keep in mind:

• also mention when the image was uploaded

>>Done!

• make sure that the original description page contains all the information required, including
  • The License (ok in this case)
  • The creatore of the image (missing in this case)

>>Also missing from original image on Wikipedia-en in that case, I was assuming uploader = creator

• • If not self made, the source and some way to verify the license (also missing)

>>Uploader added image to article at date of upload (11/6/2005), over 1 year ago. Image remaining in article ever since.

• check if the information on the originla description page is believable:

>>No reason to disbelieve original description.

• • See if the user is new. New users often uploade mistagged files (knowingly or unknowingly). (in this case the user is new: [22])

>>New user??? This upload is over a year old, as are his edits to article where image is included!!

• • If the image is claimed to be self made (and recent), it should usually have high resolution (in this case the image is a bit suspicious - could be copied from a website somewhere)

>>Original user had contributed 4 images, all with similar metadata indicating camera "Sony Ericsson K750i". That is a mobile phone, which together with age accounts for low resolution!

• Ask the uploader to provide mre information if everythign is missing

>>Can't, because the user account appears to have expired. Since the idea was to use the image for exactly the same purpose as original uploader (wikipedia article illustration), I thought this would be OK!

Hm, this has gotten longer tha I intended - basically, it's more or less common sense: The GFDL requires the creator to be named explicitely - this is missing here. So, please ask the uploader. Keep in mind that if you upload something to commons, you should do at least a sanity check on the information provided.

>>See above. Uploader can't be asked, account appears to have expired.

Generally, when uploading images to the commons, please remember to put them into a category and/or a gallery page. Images that can not be found in the category structure are essentially lost and useles to others. See Commons:Categories for some more info.

>>Image has been categorized sensibly now.

>>One final comment: After I had copied this image from Wikipedia-en I found the initial Welcome/Help page on my own user page, with tips like "If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper". That makes me wonder: In what context would this be helpful? To whom?

>>Finally: is there a template for creator info when creator is known, has given permission but delegates to me to upload? '

Thanks for contributing, and sorry for all the mess and beurocracy around here :/ -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

>>Yes, it is a mess! People are encouraged to publish images here because then they would be accessible to all the language version wikipedias, rather than publishing them on each individual language-version wiki, but this amount of red tape kills that idea, I think. I'm not in any way trying to dispute your policies, but to understand them, and the easiest way to do that is by way of example. Please bear with me! ;-) --Wilma Sweden 22:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, sorry for my wording: The user is not new, he was new when uploading. In fact, he was not even active for a full hour in the wikipedia, ever. That does not necessarily mean that the images are copyvios, but it does not inspire trust either.

The remaining question is: may we assume that this is the uploaders own work? If yes, that should be mentioned on the description page. Generally, Commons requires an explicite statement of who created the picture - not sure if/how this could be waved in this case...

The general problem of commons is: we try to be open and welcoming, but we want and have to be very strict about copyright. The two are not easily combined... -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 23:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

To Wilma: not everyone transfers an image to Commons from another project as their very first edit, you know. And now you know for next time, right? pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

July 26

favicon is still broken

As I reported back in april, the favicon on the commons is broken. All that needs to be done to fix it is to make sure the mask is opaque and that there are multiple versions available (both 8 & 32 bit) to work on all favicon supporting browsers. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

searching for my uploaded image

Hello all, I recently uploaded a image but when I do a search for that image using part of the name as the search criteria it does not come up in the search results. Any suggestions?

Thanks

Please sign posts with ~~~~ (4 tildes). [23] says it's Image:MonmouthBattleField.jpg. The search function isn't always up to date though, so adding a category and/or using the article in a gallery page might help you (and others!) to find the image. NielsF 18:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cafes and Category:Cafés

Only the names of that categories are different, i think. But which is the right one. Please, can anybody make a category redirect? Thanks. --GeorgHH 18:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. NielsF 18:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked, "Cafés" is not english, as so this cat name is against Commons' language policy which states that category names must be english (for now). At least stick to Ascii- it makes it easier for folks who don't have those particular accented characters on their keyboard. -Mak 06:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah fine as well, as long as there's only one category. Although Cafés/Cafes, which one, see [24], [25] and [26]? NielsF 11:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure there are tons of loanwords in any english dictionary- eg. sauté, roué, café, touché, fiancé, crème brûlée. Of course it is useful for english speakers to know what the correct spelling and pronunciation is, since so few do. What would be best is if we had a phonetic interchange language for world communication that did use diacritics, but I digress.

In the meantime, accent acute is not here or

Or here, or here or here.

• Croatian [27]
• Danish [28]
• Dutch [29]
• Finnish [30]
• German [31]
• etc. etc. etc.

On the other hand, maybe it would be good to be Inaccessibly Correct, a style of thinking that would insist on the most proper spelling even if most people of the world can't type it. English only issue aside, common typability is important. Let's stick to the symbols on the standard qwerty keyboard. -Mak 16:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me, although I have no problem with typing é, ë or è on a qwerty us-101 keyboard, but that's a software issue. I'll instruct Orgullobot to swap the categories. NielsF 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably irrelevant but those pictures aren't worth much. There is accent aigu and grave in Finnish/Swedish keyboard (´ `) as well as circumflex, diaeresis and tilde ^ ¨ ~. -Samulili 08:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is trivial when you know how on Macs and Windows boxes. Cyrillic is regularly typed on my keyboards- and all but one are standard qwerty. But for someone without such a characters in their language- the knowlege is arcane. -Mak 00:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you select Latin on the dropdown combo on the edittools, you have all the accents (and in general, you should find the strange characters for the language you're typing).

And if you don't natively have the character you need, do as everyone else: search for it and copy & paste, or use a character-table program. Platonides 14:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem with autogeneration png thumbnails from svg.

Hello I have problems with thumbnails of Image:Utricularia_trap_expansion.svg and Image:Utricularia_traps_(sketch).svg. I made both in Inkscape. --Petr Dlouhý 19:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:DarlingtoniaZones.svg have same problem. Inkscape, Opera, Konqueror show images correctly. --Petr Dlouhý 22:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have find another image with same problems. Image:Intrastate Interstate Highways.svg --Petr Dlouhý 22:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem was on your side. There were several references to images on your own hard disk in the images, probably a .gif or .png you used as an example to make the file. With the Darlingtonia, you used flowed text, an Inkscape function which isn't supported by the standard SVG-format and/or the MediaWiki-PNG-renderer. See Commons:Bugs as well for more known issues with SVG. I've cleaned them up, so they work properly now. The other (intrastate interstate) probably doesn't thumbnail properly because it's huge (40000 px and more). NielsF 00:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Petr Dlouhý 02:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Those .png images in SVG was images of daphnia. I think, that it is important for this schemes. Look at Image:Utricularia traps (sketch).gif and Image:Utricularia_trap_expansion.gif. Is here some way how take .png images into SVG? Thank you for answer. --Petr Dlouhý 03:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Finaly I have find it. In inkscape is it Effects -> Images -> Embed all images, if somebody will be need it. --Petr Dlouhý 02:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

July 27

Photographers/ Color accurate folks- your opinions?

[copied to Commons talk:Color accuracy by Wikipeder 10:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)] Please make responses there. (Mak)

A color calibration target is used for including an object with known colors in a photograph so that it is possible to adjust the delivery display (or printer) to reproduce the photograph's colors with the highest accuracy.

It would be nice if we could have some sort of suggestion for folks who are going out shooting objects where color accuracy is critical (cultural artifacts, paintings and so on). I guess the pro way to do scene matching would be to recommend taking the image with a color bar in the scene, eg Kodak Q-60 Q-13, GretagMacbeth ColorCheck, or even some Pantone based target.

That way, a hundred years from now, folks will be able to look at a Commons image shot in 2006 and have a pretty good idea of what the colors realy were because there are known colors in the scene. But those are proprietary. I suppose we could use a SMPTE color bar, but color spaces of various devices are hugely non linear, so really that is probably not enough data points. Can anyone recommend a public domain color bar target for this purpose that would be readily available to anyone doing some Museum shooting? -Mak 22:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My thought is that we suggest folks use either the Kodak or ColorCheck targets, and cut the target up so that is is one long band, then photograph the object with the target at the edge(s) of the frame with the most representative lighting. Prior to upload, the photo is cropped so just a few pixels of each color is visible on one of the sides of the photo. This way, there is no motive to crop out an extraneous color bar because it shall not be noticable. A comment embedded in the EXIF metadata note which color target was used.

Commons will then be able to host authoritative images of paintings. Folks making prints of Commons images, or displaying images on electronic screens will be able to calibrate their output so that they can have color accuracy that is simply not possible without such a practice among commons volunteer photographers.

Of course the big problem is how to hold up a color band in the Louvre without the guards getting freaked out. Cameras are so small that they are easily concealed- but for low light, a wheelchair would be ideal for excellent stability and concealment of even the most bulky digital with a big light gathering lens- then take very long exposures, but I digress. But how to conceal that color bar? Hmmmm. Perhaps a helper who stands in frame with a Q-60 banded walking stick?

Joking aside, I suppose really we don't need Q-60 or Pantone ColorCheck targets. They are rather pricey ($60 USD) and possibly there are rights issues. All we really need is an image that a person could take to a photo finisher and have reproduced accurately. The spectral values can be specified extremely accurately in photoshop, so if we give them the correct values, they should be able to use a colorimeter on the prints until they get it right. Or would that wind up costing $60 for the resulting print? Humph. -Mak 19:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The practical truth about color targets is that they can only be used under very controlled conditions. What I have done in the past is to take two shots, one with the color target and one without... I adjust the image with color target and then transfer the the adjustments to the one without. As long as the image is digital, the color information is in the file and you just have to pray that the photofinisher is well calibrated. One hundred years from now the color will not change. Color calibration is a pain, it varies from monitor to monitor and output devices... In the absence of any calibration device, for output purposes, try a woman... due to the fact that women are not color blind or color biased, train them in detecting yellow/magenta/cyan bias. On the practical side, I eyeball the image I put out in my printer and tweak it... when I take to photophinisher, I ask them to run a test print and calibrate according to their machine and print my image without adjustments. If the image is not right, I adjust in photoshop and reprint. On another hand... worry not too much about color reproduction... most people do not notice....--Tomascastelazo 00:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom, the issue I am addressing is not about small variations of color. Without a known color reference in these images, it is impossible to correct the image, or know which one is closer to the truth. I wish this were an uncommon problem, but take a coffee table art book to a museum sometime. Ok, most aren't as bad as the heavily red shifted one illustrated here, but it is absolutely reprehensible what these printers do with colors. I mean, they aren't even vaguely close. Worse, even if the color is close, you are obligated to be skeptical. One might assume that there was a printer error (eg on a Lautrec, where in fact the painter really did put green cast in the flesh colors. Anyway, regardless what the file says the recieved light colors were, the camera does not know what type of light (or possibly what goofy filter) may be screwing with the real colors. My thought was that only a known reference color will take care of this problem.

I know it is way over the top heavy accurate, but Jimbo at the wikimedia talk in Boston challenged us to crank up the quality rather than the volume. This will address that issue. Commons art should be highly highly color accurate. That is something that Britanica really gives short shrift to. The way to do it is to stop scanning books and get good photos in museums. Otherwise we will be stuck with image choices like these.-Mak 02:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any background in color calibration, but I take a lot of photographs in museums, so I'm interested. I gather that shooting paintings (for insurance demands, for instance) is a pain in the ass for many professional photographers. I'm not sure we can take really accurate pictures of paintings in usual Commons conditions (no tripod, no lighting system, etc.). It often happens that lighting is not homogeneous on the same picture: a dominant of tungsten light on one part, a dominant of natural light on one another. I'm not sure a color chart would help us in that case.

Now, we can still improve tremendously the quality of our pictures if we use these kind of charts. As for myself, I now use I collapsible white chart to correct the white balance before shooting (I never got any problems when holding it before an object, though museum guards tend to watch me closely in case I start frothing at the mouth). I shoot in RAW and then tweak the white balance if needed. The results are quite satisfactory while the process being easy (even if a bit tedious) to manage. If you explain to me how to use a color chart, I will certainly try it.

That being said, a lot of Commons users do not even change the white balance setting on their camera, so there's still a lot of education to be done. Jastrow 08:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The color charts are used in high quality reproductions. The charts are known values of color. The idea is to place a color chart someplace next to the subject and take the picture. This picture is then taken to the photolab where they analyze the colors of the chart and give you a filter correction factor. Then you go back to your subject and reshoot with the exact conditions and you are supposed to have a perfect color reproduction. This was during the slide era. Now what you can do you open the digital file, analize the colors of the chart with photoshop, for example, and adjust color so that you get the correct amount of magenta, cyan, red. If you adjust one color of the chart, theoreticaly all should fall automatically into place. That is a quick way of doing it and you save on the reshoot. That guarantees that at least the digital information will be correct, but there is still the problem of the output. You can have a digitally correct file that will not look good in the monitor and will not come out with good color reproduction. You have to calibrate for light temperature, exposure (because even slight over/under exposure will alter the color balance, and not at the same rate for different colors), monitor and output device. And even if you get all things aligned.... the display light will alter it! So, in practice, just shoot with good exposure and eyeball the output to avoid magenta, yellow or blue bias.... Unless there is a strong cast, most people won´t notice anything.--Tomascastelazo 18:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Image with colors pretty close to the colors as printed in the art book

Certainly in studio conditions like Tomas's scenario, a color target only offers miniscule difference when used by professionals who already are pretty close because they understand white balancing issues and exactly control and understand the color temperatures of their lights. I am not discsussing use by professionals but amateurs, and if we were talking about small variations, I would have zero interest in this subject. I am talking about huge differences in evidence in practically every duplicate image we have of art paintings. Editors are left wondering. Even folks who have seen the originals may not recall well enough the particular hues.

To illustrate- I carried out the procedure of eyeballing the white balance. THe results illustrate why a digital camera with manual white balancing will produce much inferior results compared to a process using a color target.

Using an art book image as a stand in for an original painting, I made 3 images. The first on the right will give you a fairly close idea of the original colors if you have a calibrated monitor. It was scanned on a flatbed scanner and I compared the original image to my calibrated screen. Pretty close. Ok. Next I took a photo from tripod using incadescent light and the camera on auto white balance. The results are the photo on the right. I knew it would be bad, but didn't expect it would be this far off. Now. If a color target with known color hues were present in the image, anyone other than the original artist could color correct it. We don't have to know anything about the light source to make the adjustment.

On the image page, you can see the information that the camera stated about the image. Pretty voluminous, but on the critical white balance value it says nothing- merely that it was automatic. Ok. Being able to eyeball the results on the lcd on the camera, I could tell it was way over the top too warm. So I went to manual and cut it down to 2500Kelvin.

Manually controlled color temp.=2500Kelvin
Closer, a pleasant enough image, but only problem- it isn't a very accurate reproduction, and gives the viewer a way different impression of the intent of the painter.

This is the result. Problem is- it looked pretty close on the LCD but not on the monitor. You tell me. Is it close enough? I don't think so.

We aren't talking about small degrees here. We are talking huge differences.

If I may, we could do a do it yourself, poor mans solution where the final output of the digital file is as close to the original we can get without going to expensive professional techniques.

1. Download and print out a color chart with a gray scale similar to professional color targets. It doesn't matter how crappy the printer is, or how far off the original is from the print.
2. Scan the print out.
3. Adjust the monitor so it is as close to possible as the scanned color target. (Including contrast on the gray scale range). Result of this step is you have a pseudo calibrated monitor.
4. Take a picture of the subject and include this printed out taget in the image.
5. Using photoshop or Gimp or whatever, adjust the image data until the taget on the screen matches the color on your physical target.
6. The result of this step is a pseudo color corrected image.
7. Uploader certifies as part of the Image notes that they have used these steps (or better).

Result- a low cost, non technical trust based calibration scheme.

Granted- Tomas wasn't kidding- there are a huge number of other challenges to getting colors close to the original. It is true that without hard core calibration techniques, the resulting image will still be noticably different from the original.

But you won't have the egregious differences we saw in the first two Eckersberg images.

What do you think? Am I high?-Mak 05:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think having a colour target in art images is a very good idea. It seems the only way to easily insure colour accuracy, given that the vast majority of monitors, printers etc. that display the images will not be colour managed, and the bulk of cameras, scanners and imaging programmes creating the image neither.

I suggest a different approach: A simple but standardised card with a black and a white target to be put next to any colour crititcal object. This will have the advantage that

• instead of subjective white balance, the white and black points can be set by a defined target using e. g. the GIMP's pipette.
• colour errors from manual or automatic colour or contrast correction are avoided. A problem with reproductions is that the brightest areas on a painting do not at all need to be the 255 bright white that contrast junkies like humans or their computers' algorithems usually try ty achieve.
• the white and black points can be set (and corrected!) by anybody who has the image on his screen, not just the photographer. The burden of dealing with colour accuracy is thus shifted from the army of amateur photographers to those who bother and to colour management experts.

A print-out-yourself card will not do, I'm afraid. There are tremendous differences in colour composition (black target) and reflexion depending on the type of paper, ink and printing process used.

The A and B field of a Q-13 grayscale will do. I don't see a problem with copyright there: It's just shades of gray, no proprietary colours like in the Pantone sortiment. --Wikipeder 08:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I own a reference card which looks like the one you're talking about, but I've never used it. If you could just write a little tutorial about how to use it with the GIMP, I'll go to the Louvre this week and try it. Jastrow 09:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't got GIMP around here, I'm afraid, but I'll try to tell you what to do as good as I can. Maybe someone can look over this?

Tutorial for a RefCard and GIMP

1. In case you have a spot meter: When taking the picture, put the RefCard in exactly the same lighting as the object you want to take a picture of, and spot-meter frontally on the middle, gray target. Use the exposure value for your shot of the object.
2. In case you can influence your camera's white balance: Manually set your camera's white balance with the RefCard's gray target in the exact lighting the object is. If you can't do a manual white balance, select the most suitable of the pre-defined white balance modes of your camera.
3. Put the RefCard next to the object, making sure it's in the same lighting condition as the object and that it is frontally facing the camera. Take your shot.
4. Load your image into GIMP, go Tools-Color Picker and click onto the white target of the RefCard. This will show you the actual RGB value of this target. To realistically depict colours, the value needs to be L 97, a 0, b 0 in Lab color space, which GIMP doesn't offer, so we'll use the RGB equivalent, which is 246,246,246.
5. Then, open the curves tool (Tools-Color Tools-Curves) and in each of the RGB channels horizontally drag the upper right hand control point until the color picker will tell you that the value of the white target now is 246 in this channel. Unfortunately—as far as I remember—, in GIMP the color picker does not work simultaneously with the curves tool, so you will have to switch back and forth.
6. Do the same with the black target of the RefCard. It needs to be L 15, a 0, b 0 in Lab color space, or 38,38,38 in RGB. Voilà!

This procedure is a lot easier in Photoshop, admittedly. Once you set the general white and black point value to L 97, a 0, b 0 or L 15, a 0, b 0, respectively, you simply click once on the white and once on the black target for this manoeuvre. The link you supply offers a good tutorial on what to do in Photoshop (in French).

--Wikipeder 16:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Mak, you are correct. That is one way to do it. In fact, I use a very similar method. Just be careful with the settings in the scanner. The best way is to override all auto settings, that includes exposure and color balance, operate in full manual. From there, you can do two things, 1) adjust in photoshop the color bias or better, adjust the scanner settings to eliminate the color bias. I always prefer to input the image as close as possible to the real thing. A good image will require less work than a bad image. A lot of people think that you can alter images with impunity, but that is not the case. Color shift of YMCK does not occur in parallel with exposure variations, that is, if you alter, for example, exposure by 10%, you would expect that the relationship between YMCK to vary accordingly, that is to vary up or down in the color values/relationship, but that is not the case. The best way to get into this is by learning the zone system and move on to color. To calibrate a scanner for exposure, make a gray scale of 10 steps in photoshop, print it, scan it and adjust so all 10 steps show. Make sure you adjust scanner first, not the monitor. You will have then two files to compare, a digital original where you can read values and compare to values of scanned image. If you want I can make a gray scale and send it to you with instructions.

Jastrow, best thing to do is to determine light source, read camera manual, experiment with color temperature settings, determine the best one for the particular environment and expose with an 18% gray card. In museums you don´t have much choice. If you really want perfect color reproduction, you must photograph under very, very controlled conditions. The 18% gray card exposure method will start you off with assuring an exposure that encompases the tonal range of the image, if it within the dynamic range of your equipment. Shoot one in the middle and bracket up and down by 1/3 stops. You may have to take a lot of pix for each painting, bt htat´s the way it is.... and at least it is digital. It is really nor complicated, eventually it becomes second nature, just like riding a bicycle.

If you shoot in Museums, do the following: 1. Determine exposure wth an 18% gray card. The card must receive the same light as subject. Even is the exposure readings vary once you point toward subject, use the info provided by gray card. Learn about it. 2. With the exposure information, take a picture of a target with a known value (rgb, etc). 3. Take picture of subject without target using the same exposure. 4. In computer, analize pic of target and adjust. Take note of adjustments. 5. Apply adjustments to pic of subject.

--Tomascastelazo 15:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The advantage of using a white and black target instead of a gray card (or in addition) is that you also know about the absolute tonal range. A white on an old painting with patina is actually rather a dark yellow sometimes, and a defined white target that's on the image, too, can put this in relation. --Wikipeder 16:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am stunned by the excellence of these responses. For the benefit of others, it would be nice if we could pull these together into a guidelines page for folks who are into making high quality museum photographs. I wonder if you folks would be willing to contribute your thoughts and knowlege to such a thing? Both an easy to do, low cost approach for folks on a budget and not interested in gearhead settings that many folks don't have on their cameras, as well as one for those who have the tools and the inclination to pursue an even higher level of accuracy.

Good luck on your experiments Jastrow. At my location we have works of less general interest, but the museums aren't buttheads about tripods either. On the other hand, it would be fun to do some guerrila photography- bypassing the Louvre guards by using a wheelchair as a makeshift tripod. I wonder if you can do better than the Yorck project CD ROM version of Le radeau de la Méduse. As I recall, the lighting there is from the side and uneven. Who designs these Marquis de Sade lighting schemes of these museums anyway. Some are almost deliberately designed to produce wierd reflections so the only way to view them is from the strange angle. -Mak 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Point to consider, these types of instructions can also put people off providing an image as they find that meeting the colour criteria beyond the capabilities of their equipment or themselves. Reading the discussion so far it sounds a complicated requirement to adhere to, when the opportunity to photograph is restricted either by time or equipment limits(storage space). Commons would be better served to have some way of identifing images that need to be recreated in a higher res, colour balanced. We want in the first instance a useable image of xxx, if you can do x,y,z then thats a bonus. Then we highlight that an image exists of xxx but we would appreciate another taken using the coonditions x,y,z. If quality is the general concern for improvement currently we load images from sites like flickr maybe to improve quality we set minimum requirements from these type of sites. Gnangarra 17:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a very important point. The answer to that should be a two-step approach as I outlined above:

1. The photographer simply sticks a RefCard or standardised grayscale next to the object so it will be on the image, too. Nothing more (except proper exposure) will be required from him.
2. An image editor will adjust colour representation in the image with the help of the RefCard/ grayscale that is in the image.

Photographer and image editor may be the same person, but they need not be. This way, photographers do not need to bother about colour management and tricky image manipulation. As long as there's a RefCard or standardised grayscale in the image, after they uploaded the image, image editors hanging round at the Commons can easily replace the image with a colour corrected and possibly cropped version. Anybody whishing to verify the accuracy of the colour rendition can just go back in the file history and re-check with the uncropped version that still has the RefCard/ grayscale on it.

--Wikipeder 23:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest the use of an 18% gray card because by only using a black and white target does not necessarily render white in its "correct" zone in the gray scale, while the 18% is a known reference value as far as density/exposure is concerned. This is very important when you consider the color variations possible due to over/under exposure. Regardless of the method used to color balance, exposure is definitely a must first step. It makes things a lot easier down the line. This, of course, is for color reproduction purposes. Worry first about exposure, second color balance. Those are the two variables to consider. Instead of a spot meter under these circumstances, I would use an incident light meter in order to avoid wrong readings.--Tomascastelazo 17:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right about the importance of a gray card for correct exposure. I just think it should not be used instead of a standardised grayscale or RefCard, because it does not allow for adjustment of tonal range as described above. --Wikipeder 23:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Radeau de la méduse is exhibited on the first floor of the Denon wing, where it's now forbidden to take pictures :-( Jastrow 17:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How to make a gray scale in Photoshop

1. Creat new document

2. Size: 2000 x 1500 pixels, 300 dpi is a good start.

3. Pick gradient tool, white on one end, black on other.

4. Click on one end, drag to other end horizontally.

5. In menu bar go to image – adjustments – posterize

6. On posterize, type in 10 in the levels box that appears.

7. There you have it, a 10 step gray scale. You can calibrate monitor for exposure values with this one, print it and use to calibrate scanner.

8. Once you have calibrated for exposure, calibrate for color using methods described earlier.

I have uploaded a gray scale at Image:gray scale.jpg --Tomascastelazo 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Gnangarra- I was imagining completely optional measures that a person could take if they were motivated to do so. It certainly would not be a requirement.

If a person had taken these steps, they would use a template something like the following:

-Mak 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipeder - The gray card should be an 18% gray card, it can be bought in photo stores, it is designed specifically for exposure, it is a known value. Of course the use of a Mcbeth color chart would be nice too. Ideally, I would determine exposure with gray card, shoot a pic with color chart in image, take color chart off, reshoot. Then analyze in computer. It may sound complicated, but it is not. I´d rather have one good picture than two bad ones. It is worth the time and effort.

Mak - Crutches give you a higher point of view too... they make good monopods :o)--Tomascastelazo 04:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tomascastelazo: I am trying to think up a workflow that would allow very accurate colours while putting as little a burden on the photographer as possible. The idea is to not deter people but to have them simply stick a RefCard somewhere in the image so others can do the colour correction. One shot, if there is a RefCard on the image, it not yet colour corrected, if it is cropped already, it is.

Personally, I would do something different, too, ideally: shoot RAW, exposing right, with a colour chart and grayscale on the object, then take the shot with the same exposure values but without the charts.

On a guideline page, we should probably have both outlined, the at-least-stick-a-chart-somewhere approach as well as a guide to an excellency. Where would we best put such a page? --Wikipeder 08:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

---

[End of copy to Commons talk:Color accuracy Wikipeder 10:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)]

Could you guys take this elsewhere now? It could be quite valuable to keep as reference. Commons:Photography colour calibration or Commons:Colour calibration just Commons:Photography tips or something, please? pfctdayelise (translate?)

There has been developing an extensive guide at Commons:Quality Images, How about moving this onto the discussion page for Commons:Quality images guidelines once finalised it will become part of the requirements for QI portraits any way. Gnangarra 08:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipeder - Thanks for the link... great one. We are basically suggesting the same thing. People then could upload both images and have someone color correct them. Maybe we can upload an example. However, I do not think it should become policy, only suggestion, and at the begining have it for artwork reproductions. I will try to get a color chart sometime next week and we can run the experiment. The lengthly discussion was necessary to bring light into the subject. --Tomascastelazo 13:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's take all further discussion to Commons talk:Color accuracy Don't post responses here in VP anymore but in Commons talk:Color accuracy. OK? See you there. -Mak 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

New to Group, Easy Quesiton

I often browse stadium pics on the site, I have several personal pics that I would gladly upload to fill in holes on the site (lots of stadiums have no pics). I don't want to link, but upload so anybody can use. Where do I upload?? What is the process. Thanks.

See Commons:First steps for a tutorial. Kjetil_r 00:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

MakBot on hold

Could someone wake up one of the bureaucrats up so that MakBot can get a bot flag? There's 9-0 supporting since I put that up for a vote July 14th.

I am holding of on the next wave of adjectival placename changes until this is approved because the volume of MakBot's changes is effectively making the "recent changes" list useless for folks. -Mak 06:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot of a game modification application?

I'm trying to upload a screenshot I took of Guerilla.exe, a tool used for modifying content for Halo: Custom Edition, for use in a tutorial on a Wikimeda Wiki. I'm having difficulty figuring out the correct license(s) and tags to use. The program states that it is (C)1998 Bungie Software Products, Inc. The application is free for download and use if the user has a copy of Halo: Custom Edition installed. Halo: Custom Edition is free for download and use if the user owns a retail copy of Halo: Combat Evolved for the PC.

Am I allowed to upload this image? If so, what tags and license do I select?

Unless Halo is released under an open source license such as the GPL, it's not free (as in speech) software, so screenshots are not free either. Therefore you should upload screenshots to your local wiki if they accept fair use images. Typically it would need a template like {{Screenshot}}. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Location of Canary Islands

I and User:Satesclop disagree on the location of Canary Islands. I hope that those of you who have atlases could say your opinion on which is closer to the truth:

• CIA-version
• CIA-version modified by Satesclop

-Samulili 08:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

These two versions also have a difference wrt to Montenegro, but that can be fixed. -Samulili 08:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The first is closer. See these maps:

• 
• 
• 

Sanbec ✉ 09:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not just. I don't speak English (this text is an automatic translation). I say in my defense that in the original map of the CIA THE CANARY ISLANDS DON'T APPEAR ([32]). Someone added them, and I have made them proportional (because others were too small). Which is the problem? Are they too much separated from the continent? So to bring them over more. Satesclop 15:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have placed the Canary Isles more near the African continent ([33]). Is it correct? I hope that this one problems has been solved. Satesclop 15:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

date categories

Want we use categories for a exact date (without fixed importance) on commons, e.g. Category:29 May 2005? I think this is not convenient. An user added around 30 categories like this. --GeorgHH 10:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want them. -Samulili 10:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

ACK. Bad idea. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Extremely useless overcategorization, nobody is going to look for an image taken on a particular day. NielsF 13:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have the categories orphaned, the images moved from the categories and the categories marked for speedydeletion. --GeorgHH 20:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now deleted all categories marked by Herr GeorgHH. Kjetil_r 23:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for reference, it is better to categorise by the event that makes a day significant rather than the day itself. although we have Category:9/11 (maybe lazy Americans don't want to type! :P) it would be better as Category:September 11 attacks. Hm I just noticed Category:New York City from 2000 to 2004... I hope someone's maintaining that. :o pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that Category:September 11 attacks is better category, too. And we can mark it with a redirect to Category:9/11. In principle the event that makes a day significant should named of the category. --GeorgHH 08:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Where to ask for the protection of an image?

Where is the correct place on commons to ask for protection of an image?--FlagUploader 13:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Here would be a good place to start. I guess it's about the Italian flag again? I was about to protect it but didn't see any difference in the versions you and Reisio uploaded, so please explain. NielsF 13:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My version has white, his a blue-ish shade of white. The point is that the two flags are different, and should be both kept so that users (here and on Wikipedia) can choose which to use.

On a side note, Reisio is writing on his talk page, about the reason why we should have both images that:

It's irrelevant anyways. I am both a user and contributor here at commons and at en and various other Wikipedias, and it's my right to revert your idiocy (my emphasis)

Is this display of arrogance and uncivility tolerated? In that case I would like to say to Reisio what I think of him.--FlagUploader 13:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus, he is still reverting Image:True Flag of Italy.svg, thus making it a copy of Image:Flag of Italy.svg.--FlagUploader 13:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I downloaded both the current version and the one before that and they both had pure white colours, so that's why I asked. I've protected the page for now. I've also asked Reisio to keep the discussion businesslike. NielsF 13:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that the folks involved in this dispute are serious about the situation, and so apologise for this comment, but does the commons have an equivalent of W:WP:LAME? This dispute would seem ideally suited - revert wars over a shade of white that is near indistinguishable unless the two shades are lined up side by side! SFC9394 14:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Commons has no free content?

Check out this search.

Very oddly, there is exactly one wikimedia page that google recognizes as having free content. Similarly with *.wikipedia.

There is something on this page that google is recognizing. Whatever it is- we need to get it on all relevant wiki pages. -Mak 20:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe both Google and Yahoo! spider the rel-license microformat. For instance, Wikitravel, which uses this microformat, is fully recognized as free content. I'm not sure if either search engine would recognize the GFDL as a free license, and supporting template-specific license attributes would be a bit tricky.--Eloquence 23:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Right you are. In fact if I had not been so lazy, I would have openned the HTML, because they commented heavily what they were doing with the required rel="license" html.

Not sure what you meant about it being tricky to add for templates. The html is about as simple as it comes. Extensions to add such html is straightforward- you drop an xml file in the extensions folder, set a hook for the parser, register the extension in the configuration file and away you go. Maybe there are issues about adding extensions on commons I don't understand though. I added iframe support and a few others onto my site. Even if there is a concern about links to unsupported locations, the xml could support operands eg cc2.0, cc2.5 that would generate only the supported urls. So you just plop one of those on the correct PD-Template and you would be good to go. If no one is interested in implementing it, I'll do it. -Mak 02:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what this involves, but please use extreme caution when editing the license templates, especially the heavily used ones. I suggest trialling it on a less-frequently-used template and confirming with a dev that the changes should be fine (if staggered). pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

An extension to support rel=license wouldn't be too hard, I suppose. If we do that, we might think about other useful microformats, and possibly even make such functionality part of the standard MediaWiki link syntax.--Eloquence 21:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo appears to be doing more than recognizing the rel="license" microformat. Searching on image [34] gets you 617 hits, and they aren't using that microformat.

The microformat seems only to be for Creative Commons licensed content. Google explicitly states they are only covering Creative Commons licensed content: "The "Usage Rights" feature identifies websites whose owners have indicated that they carry a Creative Commons ( http://creativecommons.org/ ) license." [35]

The problem them is that a whole lot of our content use templates like PD-OLD, not Creative commons. So we wouldn't get any hits unless it is permissible to include this HTML for pages using those templates as well. Anyone have any opinions on that? -Mak 22:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Any idea if they recognize the Creative Commons public domain deed?--Eloquence 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. They could do whatever they want to do in the code. According to the microformat spec for license, the following are acceptable for example:

<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" rel="license">cc by 2.0</a>
<a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" rel="license">Apache 2.0</a> 

Presumably, the google spider is going to handle the second case different from the first. The resilient approach would be just to look at the domain and accept any link creative commons as validating the google statement that they only recognize Creative Commons licenses. However, they might get real pickey about it and specifically validate against the known locations for the 1.0, 2.0 and 2.5 licenses. Their code would break easier that way, so the conservative thing from an engineering POV is to do the minimal- just validate domain.

If this particular page did work, could we use that on our PD templates? If so, then I am motivated. Best way would be for me to just stick the following on a private Mediawiki page I own that I know is spiderred and see if google recognizes it. -Mak 21:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/" rel="license">Creative Commons Public domain deed</a>

Featured pictures

Could somone give me hand with categorizing featured pictures for June and July? I've added count summaries and (not) featured to the templates, but I'm leaving on holiday tomorrow and will be without internet for about eight days. The templates can be found here: Log/June_2006 and Log/July_2006. Howto is here: "What_to_do_after_voting_is_finished". Thanks. Lycaon 22:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

{{PD-Iraq}} again

Referring to an old talk about PD_Iraq template here, and as suggested by pfctdayelise, it is now agreed on en.wiki that {{PD-Iraq}} should not be used. Next is the text now in :w:Wikipedia:Public domain#Countries_without_copyright_treaties_with_the_U.S.

Countries without copyright treaties with the U.S.

In brief: use such works under a "public domain" claim only if the copyright in the country of origin has expired.

According to Circular 38a of the U.S. Copyright Office, Afghanistan, Bhutan, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Nepal, San Marino, and possibly Yemen have no copyright relations whatsoever with the U.S. (Eritrea isn't mentioned at all.) Works originating in one of these countries thus are not copyrighted in the United States, irrespective of the local copyright laws of these countries.

On Wikipedia, such works may be used under a "public domain" claim only if their copyright in the country of origin has expired, even though legally the work is in the public domain in the U.S. Jimbo Wales has expressed a strong desire that such countries' copyrights be respected. Furthermore, it also avoids future problems with images on Wikipedia if some of these countries should enter a copyright treaty with the U.S., because then suddenly such works will become copyrighted in the U.S. by virtue of the URAA (see above) if they are still copyrighted in their country of origin. Previously uploaded images might then have to be reevaluated. As an example, consider Iraq, which is, despite all the political and military confusion, a WTO observer and is in the process of applying for WTO membership. If and when Iraq does become a WTO member, the URAA suddenly will apply, and Iraqi works that are copyrighted in Iraq at that time will become copyrighted in the U.S.

Any one against freezing template PD-Iraq here. --Tarawneh 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree: all images using that template have to be re-evaluated. It's also consistent with out policy to always look at the laws of the country of origin first. If it's not PD there, it shouldn't be tagged PD here. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 17:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Images from Livius.Org

A lot images from livius.org are marked as copyvio and already deleted in the past days. This was ok based on the known information but now we have new information from livius.org. Please stop deleting, I will provide the release this evening (UTC+2). For user with OTRS-access: See ticketno. 2006072810003788. Thank you. --Raymond ^Disc. 06:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We have got this confirmation:

Von: "Jona Lendering" <adsl294196 (at) tiscali.nl>
An: [[:de:User:Carbidfisher]]
Betreff: Re: Change of copyright policy
Datum: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:35:52 +0200

Dear Christian

I would not care too much about this. Just use what you have; consider
this message as an official confirmation. I will one day study Creative
Commons licenses and so on, but for the time being, the photos on my
website can be used by everyone; a link back is nice but not an
obligation. (I only charge money from official publishers, who can buy
really big files.)

Best wishes,

Jona

I think, this confirmation is clear enough to remove copyvio-marks and restore already deleted images. Meanings? --Raymond ^Disc. 21:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Great that Jona is flexible there. Unfortunately, however, this is far from what we need as a clear licence:

1. It is not clear what licence he is talking about. Copyrighted free use? A CC licence? Which?
2. He says the licence (whatever it is supposed to be) is for the time being. This is incompatible with policy – licences cannot be revoked. It also appears as if Jona is not quite aware of this.
3. It is not clear what images he is talking about. Not all of the images on livius.org are made by him, some are by his partner, some by third authors. He can only licence the ones he authored himself, we need to know which ones these are. The images uploaded here don't make this difference either.

I think we do not have a valid licence to use the images.

Could you possibly make a list of all the images we have/had from livius.org, mail it to Jona with a clear text licencing for Creative Commons and ask him to remove the images he did not make himself and mail it back with the signed licence? That's the only thing I see working.

--Wikipeder 21:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"I only charge money from official publishers" :( It doesn't sound like Jona intends to make these files free content. --Gmaxwell 06:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Note who can buy really big files. We don’t (or didn’t) have any really big files. -- Carbidfischer 16:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

USERNAME variable

This doesn't exist yet, as we know, but we'd like it for those pesky -self templates. m:User homepages appears to describe an extension that adds such a variable. Anyone want to take a look at the code and maybe convince the devs to add it? --pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want a link to a user page you can use something like [[Special:Mypage|your page]], it will render as "your page". I don't see that this username variable is really useful, most logged in users already know which user name they use. And I think that the -self templates should tell the name of the author, not thewho is currently looking at the page. /82.212.68.183 10:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Note bugzilla:4196, such variable would not be probably implemented because of caching. --Mormegil 10:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It would have to be implemented as an immediate SUBST, like the way ~~~~ works. Still, I don't see what huge functionality this delivers. -Mak 16:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

They would be useful to use in PD-self, GFDL-self etc templates, where when the image page appears in other projects it typically says "I release this image..." with no indication of who the "I" is. Either a USERNAME variable, or transcluding of the upload history is required. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The alternative to create individual user licensing templates aka what I've be toying around with here User:Gnangarra/Sandbox... As cc-by-2.5 does specify that Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. , its then only reasonable to include the Author in the license template thoughout wiki projects anyway. Gnangarra 01:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Use {{self|author=~~~}} - simple enough, no? -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 07:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So how do we get users to do that automatically? Trust me, doesn't matter how many nested templates you use... those stupid tildes can't be tricked. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Default would be the current wording and then If the User want to have their name in the licensing they would remember. Gnangarra 00:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Page-duplication at Commons:Village pump archive-30

This protected archive page has its entire text except for:

{{Village pump archives}}

duplicated. Can some admin fix this? -- Paddu 09:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

List of countries whose money doesn't protected by copyrights

Do we have somewhere list of countries whose money doesn't protected by copyrights, so coins and bills images could be Commons material?

And related question. What is copyrights status of Transnistria money? I tried to Google something about Transnistria copyrights law but unsuccessfully. From other side Transnistria independence is not recognized, so Moldova copyrights law should be applied (where money are not protected by copyrights). From other side Transnistria money could not be recognized by Moldova as money. Any comments?

EugeneZelenko 14:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be very helpful to have lists of copyright issues by country. Panorama freedom would be especially useful. Jkelly 17:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll check some places out, like Belarus (so I can answer yall's detailed questions). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I Need HELP Categorizing my Uploaded File

Hello, I am a new "Wiki" here and I need help categorizing the file that I uploaded to Wikipedia and the Commons entitled " Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration.ogg " so other people and Wikis can find it and use it if they like. The file is currently being used on the " Ejaculation " page at en.wikipedia.org. I would like to enter it into the Categories of Andrology, Human Biology, Male Reproduction, Penis, Semen, Sexology, Reproduction, Video, and any other Category that would be appropriate in both Wikipedia and the Commons. Thanks For Your Help, ima_learner Ima learner 18:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You can find useful information at Commons:Categories. Please use the most descriptive categories available, and also consider adding the file to article pages. Thanks for contributing. Jkelly 18:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem with large 1 bit PNGs

Large 1 bit (black & white) PNG files cause a problem. They are only shown non-antialiased on their corresponding image page, and they do not show up at all when embedded in another page (e.g., this image). This problem did not occur until a few months ago. I was obliged to scale down one of my images which had worked fine until then, because suddenly the thumbnail was blank. Is this a known issue? --Phrood 00:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's general problem with big png images, big meaning biggern than 3500x3500px or 12.5megapixels, see Commons:First_steps/Quality_and_description#Quality. --Tomia 18:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please move another category

Category:Native Americans flags to Category:Native American flags -- Himasaram 11:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I did it myself, manually... Feel free to delete the empty category. -- Himasaram 05:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

July 30

Template:GFDL

What exactly is the point of the self-link at the beginning of the text? It just shows up as bold-text GFDL: and doesn't really seem especially helpful for anything. Can a administrator possibly remove that? -- San Jose 13:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm yeah, that was kinda useless. NielsF 23:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Need help in blocking a vandal using the commons to attack an en-wp user

Darth Vacatour (talk · contribs) is uploading images to the commons to solely attack en:User:The Wookieepedian and his pages, and I cannot find the equivalent to en:WP:AIV on the commons. Ryulong 23:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You've found the equivalent! Anyway blocked the user before you posted this comment. Cheers. NielsF 23:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

License: Can I upload very simple logos from GPL-organisations?

Hello,

I would like to upload the logos from en:X.Org (like this one) and from the en:freedesktop-Foundation (like that one). They are very simple (e.g. the X.Org logo looks exactly like Image:X11.svg only with an arc around the X) and the organisations make free software (GPL). I haven't found any copyright information (except of this secretary mail which of course says it's logos are property of their owners). In the de:German wiki, there's an image template for logos that aren't complex enough (Threshold of originality), but I haven't found any common thing on the commons. Is there any opportunity to upload these logos, maybe as GPL? --Sven 20:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Logos of free software/content are not automatically free - prominent examples of non-free logos of free projects are the logos of Mozilla, Debian and the Wikimedia Foundation. Please upload logos only if they have been released explicitely under a free license.

If "simple" logos are copyrightable, and how to define "simple", is a matter of debate; On commons, there is however traditionally a strong bias against logos -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Who to contact for fixing Mediawiki messages in Bengali?

Some of the mediawiki messages in Bengali language have wrong spelling, or not consistent with common usage of terms. I'm not an admin here, so can't edit the mediawiki messages, but can an admin please help me in doing that? Thanks. --Ragib 23:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Note here the related MediaWiki messages and the correct translations. Me or another admin will update them. --Raymond ^Disc. 06:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Also will be good idea to update translation file in SVN. So you changes will be shared between all Wikimedia projects. --EugeneZelenko 14:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Bureaucrats!!!

I know you must be on vacation getting some much needed rest, but MakBot needs a bot flag, and Panther needs his Admin flag. Those proposals are over 2 and 3 weeks old. I put the Bot on hold since it looked like folks prefer their RC list not getting flooded, but there are quite a number of tasks backing up for it to do....

So put down the Mai Tai for a second and take a look at Commons:Administrators. Okay?

I left messages for Dbennbenn and Andre Engels on en:wiki where they have made recent edits, but if I hear nothing in a few days, fair warning- I am going to have to release MakBot again with or without the flag.-Mak 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Italian Government Public Domain Images

Commons needed an additional template for Italian Government works. Consider the draft template at Template:PD-ItalyGov, and make corrections or discuss on Commons_talk:Licensing#PD-ItalyGov page as necessary. -Mak 04:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [[Category:]]

{{PD-Italy}}

I reworded {{PD-Italy}} to better explain what a simple photograph is in Italian law in contrast to a photographic work. See also Template talk:PD-Italy. --Wikipeder 16:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Photos transformed into 3D model

I have seen experiments with this out of universities, but apparently, we will be able to use this soon to construct 3D models of objects using a series of photographs of an object. This is very cool for taking pictures of sculptures and cultural artifacts found in museums and of very high value for our wikis. [36]

• the article notes: "photo-sharing websites will be early-adopters of this technology".
• I wonder what format Commons accepts for 3D display engines? I know there are a few open source tools out there, but the only good engines that work off the net are proprietary. -Mak 21:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

mediawiki:Sitenotice

Please add the following to mediawiki:Sitenotice/ar (I think)

<center> تم فتح الباب [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Election_candidates_2006/En لقبول مرشحين] و ذلك [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Elections_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_of_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%2C_2006/Ar لإنتخابات مجلس الإدارة] الخاص [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home بمؤسسة ويكيميديا فاونديشن].<br> سيتم إغلاق باب الترشيح يوم الإثنين 28 أغسطس 2006 في تمام الساعة 23:59 بتوقيت غرينتش </center>

Thanks --Tarawneh 21:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[X] Done. --Raymond ^Disc. 22:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I switched to Arabic interface, but the note was still in English!--Tarawneh 02:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Same problem with the German interface... I have asked at the tech-channel, it is a known bug. --Raymond ^Disc. 06:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Project PLANTS Gallery

Has anyone (other than myself) thought of systematically mining the pictures in the USDA PLANTS Gallery into Commons?

Pros:

1. Option to fetch only the non-copyrighted, free pictures from the gallery
2. 10,622 pictures, between illustrations and photographs, as of August 2006
3. Species are fully identified
4. Most images not on Commons right now
5. Many photographs of seeds, useful for field identification

Cons:

1. It's a lot of work (but isn't that what we're here for?)
2. Some pics require cleanup

User:Franz Xaver had asked me to put my personal pictures up first, but now that I'm done with mine I've taken PLANTS up once again. The process I use is as follows:

1. Visit the gallery methodically requesting only non-copyrighted pictures (right now I'm on page 4 of 213 50-pic thumbnail pages)
2. Search the Commons for the scientific name of the plant - sometimes I find the image already here, other times I see there's no need for the USDA picture because there are equivalents (and some times I find copyrighted, non-free pictures from PLANTS and I act accordingly, requesting deletion here)
3. Clean up the picture:
   • for JPEGs I trim black slide borders, if any, and perhaps auto-correct light
   • TIFF drawings are always edited for dark spots, most often thresholded into black and white, sometimes the background (i.e. white not inside plant drawing) is turned to transparent, always converted to PNG
4. Register the information for future upload using the file upload script (I could just as well upload it using the regular form)
5. Run the file upload script when there's a nice batch of images

Would anyone think of sharing this work with me? We could split based on first letter of latin name: I'm doing A right now. By all means stay with your projects, if you're busy with something else or find this too complicated (or have no particular interest in plants.) Let me know otherwise, either here or to my talk page. – Tintazul ^talk 05:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You may want to announce this at Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life. Their aim is to have an image for every species on earth. Personally, I'm trying to find images for all Tree-of-Life articles on the English wikipedia. I've found a lot of good images at the USDA, but if an article already has a picture, I don't upload the image here. Eugene van der Pijll 17:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought many of those pictures aren't usable because of the license as they require non-commercial use? -- Ayacop 10:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

All images at USDA-PLANTS are available for non-commercial use, but many of them are copyright-free. You can select the copyright-free ones at the selection page [37]. Eugene van der Pijll 17:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate categories in two different languages

Both Category:Coats_of_arms_of_Sweden -- Category:Escuts de Suècia and Category:Coats of arms of the United Kingdom -- Category:Escuts de Gran Bretanya are duplicates in English and Portuguese respectively. They should be merged somehow. -- Himasaram 13:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. -Mak 19:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

bot software needed

I am looking for bot code to replace images in articles. Once we get a feed from CommonsTicker we replace the photos manually. This is OK, if the photo was used in two or three pages. When you have it in more pages then things tend to get annoying somehow. I use Python. Any suggestions. --Tarawneh 16:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Myself and Orgullomoore use the Pywikipedia python framework. It is far from perfect, and can be a devil to install but there is a support community and it has some decent safety features in it. -Mak

Thanks, I have modified the replace.py and it is working fine. --Tarawneh 01:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Creating a WikiProject practices page

I've been working on cleaning up some of the year categories and related material. I'm interested in starting something for years similar to the WikiProject pages on en:Wikipedia-- where interested editors can discuss the best way to set things up and what reccomended practices should be. (There have been some serious differences of opinions between various editors, so some sort of discussion is needed.) As I don't see anything like Commons:WikiProject existing at present, could someone either point me to the Commons equivilent, or make suggestions on how to start such? Thanks. -- Infrogmation 16:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great. The nice thing about no infrastructure for Wikiprojects is that there is less bureaucracy to trip over. I'll join. How about Commons:Wikiproject Time? -Mak 20:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a start at your suggested title. Participation by others interested is encouraged. -- Infrogmation 18:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

(To infrogmation) See Category:Commons projects, which is a jumble of stuff including some wikiprojects. Commons category schemes can also be considered to be the domain of such projects.

Just dive in and create whatever you like, but keep in mind a few things like - minimise rules and bureacracy - Commons has few dedicated volunteers so the KISS principle MUST apply - multilingual concerns. My point is... having 20 very well defined and strict guidelines is all well and good, but users are going to jump in without learning them, and we have to work with that, that's reality.

What kind of things did you have in mind, specifically? pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree, things should be kept simple. There has been disagrement over some pretty basic stuff (eg, including images from other years in article about one specific year), therefore the need for something-- and I hope such a project can improve the Commons chronological organization in general. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Gallery&Category merge in the pipeline?

Some time ago I came across a discussion about possible ways of unifying Categories and Galleries to avoid the duality Category:XYZ and XYZ. Prompted by the action of some users a few days ago (now reigned in) of "transferring" entries from categories to galleries which included removal of the category tag I have the question of whether there are some wiki-commons-software changes in the pipeline to merge or unify these two entities. Has the discussion continued unseen by me?--Klaus with K 17:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Many people believe that the so called duality is good- myself included. If the software ever could support such a merge, I personally doubt that anyone could pull together a concensus on adopting it. It is way too controversial, and there are deeply entrenched positions on this issue. -Mak 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge there has been no further development on that issue. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures with the same name

I'd like to insert the photo Image:Cnr.jpg from commons.wikimedia.org in the article CNR. Unfortunately it seems, that there is already another Cnr.jpg in en.wikipedia.org. How can I insert the other image? I personally think this might be a candidate for the FAQ...(?) --84.226.159.166 18:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would move the Image from the enWP to the commons and delete it then (Nowcommons & Delete template) --Stefan-Xp 19:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I created an account here now. I also already thought about this. Then I just make a reference to this user on en.wikipedia.org (author) in the author-attribute? Because if the orginal picture will be deleted, there might be no reference to him anymore and I absolutely can't grant that the picture has the indicated license (which might be a problem with this user if you take a look at his talk page)... --Valio 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Use the CommonsHelper, that'll make copying all the information easier. See Commons:Tools and en:Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons for details.NielsF 20:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Classroom posters

Most North American classrooms have posters on the walls that present various types of at-a-glance information. From what I've seen in Canada, the most common subjects are:

• Colours, numbers and other basic vocabulary in kindergartens and second-language classrooms.
• The multiplication table.
• The standard periodic table, annotated with mass numbers, states at SATP and other basic properties.
• Maps of the world, the continents and Canada, both physical and political.
• Historical timelines.
• Diagrams of plant and animal cells, the biogeochemical cycles, and the food chain.
• Colour theory.
• Music notation.

From what I've seen, these posters tend to be very expensive and go out of date quickly (particularly periodic tables and maps). Furthermore, I seriously doubt they're available in the developing world or in all languages. Hence, I think it would be a good idea to produce open-source alternatives so that:

• They could be locally printed in the developing world, as soon as a printing press became economical.
• It would be easier to keep them up-to-date, correct errors, and translate them into underserviced languages, without relying on market pressures.
• School boards could print their own posters, send them out to schools, and save money.

Thus, I suggest we start a project to create scalable posters and wall charts for use in the classroom to present important facts in as many subjects as possible, from kindergarten through university level. Seahen 01:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I know the charts you mean, I have one for weather in Chinese. :) [BTW, the periodic table goes out of date??] I suggest that you just start up a project (commons:WikiProject School Charts or similar), whack together some guidelines, spam some people who might be interested, and start creating. wikibooks: may have some interest in this too, or more specifically, Wikijunior. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea, Commons:Quality Images has only pd-self images all in details capable to being printed clearly in large size. Gnangarra 10:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There are some kinda similar charts at http://www.allposters.com/ (look under 'Education'), although they have a lot of random inspirational picture posters too. A pro-quality world map (+country maps) would be a pretty awesome thing to be able to brag about. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This image would have to be one the first posters created Image:Ant worker morphology corrected.svg Gnangarra 11:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Manual thumb syntax

Error creating thumbnail:

I just became aware of this today.

[[Image:Casa Romana Park 04.jpg|thumb=Anchovy-thumbnail.jpg]]

-->

Nothing special? Click on the image, and see where it takes you.

OK obviously abusing this syntax to unduly surprise the reader is a bad idea, but this can be useful for situations where the automatic thumb image is not very good quality. I remember an example of this on the VP a while ago. Well actually, I guess this is the only legitimate use of this syntax, since "surprises" like my example are denying access to the copyright information of the "thumb". pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This is great. Thanks. I have often rejected an image because the thumbnail version of it was so awful. Not only does this make it possible to tweak out any scaling artifacts, but it is possible to crop out non essential material from the thumb. -Mak 05:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Watermarks on images

Is there any policy re: watermarks on images? en-wiki forbids it on user-uploaded images (see en:Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created_images). It would make sense for Commons to have something like that too, but I was unable to find any such policy description via the search engine. howcheng {chat} 17:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess there isn't a policy at the moment that forbids it, but it is or should be strongly discouraged (see here). There's also a discussion on Template talk:Deletion requests going on. NielsF 17:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like en.wp forbids it on user-created images, which makes rather more sense that user-uploaded images. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I still find it an interesting thought to have illustrations in WP Watermarked "not free copyright until:--." Illustrations are useful to save some hundred words. The illustration maker may not be available. Personally I will submit illustrations to live their own Wiki-life. In order not to be anonymous ( Wp.no reg.user) i sign Bjørn som tegner

Where is "Vandalism in progress" (COM:VIP) link?

There seems to be an active Matt314 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user who is tagging things for speedy deletion, as the deletion process seems to be undergoing some automation, the vandalism is probably harder to catch. These images and probably many others, are in use, as CheckUsage plainly shows. Therefore, marking them for speedy deletion is obvious vandalism. --Connel MacKenzie 04:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I did mark some images as {{Morguefile}} yesterday which redirects to speedy delete, please see en:Template talk:MorgueFile. Sorry, I was not aware that these images are heavily used, but since there were a lot of these images that I found via Special:Linksearch I checked usage for only a few. --Matt314 07:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Listed them at Template:Deletion_requests#Images_from_Morguefile. --Matt314 07:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, marking used files for speedy deletion is OK if they are clear copyvios or or clearly against policy. However, in the case of images that have been around for a while, with their license status being disputed, a regular deletion request would of course be better, and unlinking would be good too (preferrably with the help of the local communitites).

Calling this vandalism is a bit far fetched; As far as I can see, the images have to be removed. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 08:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Characterizing it as "vandalism" is perhaps less than productive. But your new template "morguefile" is a new twist, and quite unfamiliar. Having read the above pages, it is completely unclear if the name "morguefile" refers to "dead images" or to some website, or both.

I still don't understand commons. Why do you do this to sister projects? You've got that cached "red X" replacement method you can use if you're not going to ever use the CheckUsage tool. The same links to commons don't exist when there is no image.

The reason this (or, rather, these images) don't meet commons' criteria is still very unclear to me. Does tagging it with 'morguefile' somehow magically identify a copyright violation source? Why doesn't it identify that source? The veracity of whether it actually is a copyvio can't even be checked. The template name "morguefile" implies only that the image has already been orphaned (which obviously is not the case!)

Commons' policies again seem to be exceeding their remit. Even with some sister projects using CheckUsage to identify major errors on the part of commons' sysops, the knee-jerk reaction to identified problems is unacceptable. This image was re-vandalized and deleted without a replacement placeholder, nor without being orphaned. The overall policies that commons are permitting are completely out of hand.

How is it that any commons sysop actually believes actions like this are helpful? There can be no such thing as a speedy delete on commons. Replacement of images with a cached placeholder sidesteps all the problems your current abusive policies permit. Why is commons so resistant to doing things right?

Perhaps you don't believe that these policies are frustrating, infuriating and disruptive? Do you (collectively) just not see the problems this causes? --Connel MacKenzie 16:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Morguefile used to identify images from http://www.morguefile.com/ which was believed to be a free source. After several discussions (including as linked above), it was decided their license was not sufficiently free. The terms of use are not acceptable. So Morguefile images should not be used.

The template was thus deleted which is rather unfortunate as non-admins cannot now see its history. It was recreated as a RDR to template:noncommercial to alert users who tried to use the template, that it was no longer acceptable.

This is a pretty standard process that I don't see much wrong with. We have to be flexible in response to changing understandings (and also changed licensing terms).

User:Matt314 is not an admin. I'm not sure if you're angry about the tagging he has done or deletion someone else has done. If it's deletion I suggest you approach that admin directly.

Commons has to balance copyright concerns against the desires of the projects. It's an extremely long, unfun and involved process to not upset anyone. With all due respect, no copyvio would ever be deleted if that was our only concern.

I'm pretty sure we've never claimed to be perfect or above reproach, either. So we make mistakes, we're human, sorry we haven't solved that one yet and managed to run the Commons solely on bots. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that human sysops should be perfect (obviously, I am far from it.) I'm saying that something is still systemically wrong with commons. Note also, that I'm not asking you to balance copyright concerns against anyone's desires. I'm only asking that images not be deleted when not orphaned. This can be accomplished a variety of ways. But I still think the best method offered to date, is to replace the copyvio images with the red "X" image. That way, image linkages on sister projects would be able to find the page on commons.

Take me, for example. I contribute content to commons, in the form of audio pronunciations I record, properly categorized through the commons' maze. I also upload occasional pictures from my digital camera (again, properly licensed, properly categorized through the commons' labarynth.) I focus my efforts in the area where I can help the most: the Wiktionary written for English readers. With about 50,000 manual edits in my main account, and many thousands more edits from 'bot accounts, one might say that I really know my way around en.wikt:. I helped get Commons Ticker turned on, on the English Wiktionary. But I, myself, am flummoxed, when it comes to finding a commons conversation about an image or audio file, if it is linked from en.wikt: but deleted on commons.

Am I really that poorly informed about how commons works? I'm sorry, but I have to doubt that conclusion. Is commons really that poorly organized? Well, no, internally it is mostly self-consistent. The only major, wholesale problem with commons is that sister projects don't have any of the needed, proper links to commons' discussion pages. Once an image or sound file is deleted, the only links that remain on sister projects are to LOCAL upload pages. Finding your way to commons then, is nightmarish, to say the least.

For other sister projects, such as the English Wikipedia, where no CommonsTracker is possible, the difficulty is increased dramatically. Especially if, like me, you are not a regular contibutor there.

The one single most helpful thing commons can do, is to replace files, instead of deleting them. The continuous stream of commons admins claiming that it is difficult, implies that commons admins don't participate in sister projects anymore, at all. I don't understand the resistance. There simply should not be a delete function on commons (except for previous revisions.) But the delete function, as it is used today, causes more problems than it solves.

A recurring theme I hear espoused on commons is that sister projects don't participate in commons activities enough. I think it is clearly because the links don't work. Commons Ticker is of interest only to the small handful of people involved with it. But almost all pages are affected by commons activities. If you'd like more participation from average user, then please do something to make commons accessible. The links can work properly, if you replace files instead of deleting them. And if the links work, you may find out just how many are affected by deletions.

Thank you for your patience in reading this. --Connel MacKenzie 19:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is very hard to find an image that was deleted on Commons, from redlinks on local projects. However I see this as a fault of the poor software. It should be trivially easy to provide a link to the Commons deletion log for pages in the Image: namespace. I actually opened a bug about this recently but unfortunately bugzilla: is throwing errors at me. If you can access it, search for "redlinked images" and you should find it.

I'm only asking that images not be deleted when not orphaned. Well, actually, I think that's a reasonable request and it is a practice I and many other admins choose to follow. It's not policy, though. I will ask about it on the mailing list (commons-l) and we will see.

However I strongly disagree that a better solution would be to replace images rather than delete them. Masses of extra work and double-checking is not going to help out our backlog any. And I am not sure why you see it as a better solution! Take Image:Vatican coa.png. It has been 'crossed' since 21 July. But it is still used in at least 5 wikis! Isn't this cross equally damaging to the projects, left in their articles, as a redlink from a deleted image? I don't understand why a deletion is more damaging. They seem the same to me. So... is being a Commons admin just doing this dirty work, manual labour? If so, I think you will understand why Commons admins don't support it!!

Thanks for this patient and calm post. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In the example, Image:Vatican coa.png, the projects using the image now have a direct link to the commons page (from where you can find the COM:DEL discussion.) While it is true, that the red X appears on the rendered project page equally as disruptive as a broken link, the linkage it contains is invaluable. --Connel MacKenzie 17:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

See my post to the mailing list Deletion of still-used images. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is good good practice to delink images before deletion. So there should be no redlinks. But you claim also, that it is deficult to find out why the image was deleted. Well, not that difficult: You can copy and paste the image file name from the article history into Commons and then read the deletion log, which usually gives a hint, why the image was deleted. Or you can use "What links here" and you will surely find out. So, where is the problem? --ALE! 09:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have to agree, it is pretty difficult. On en.wp and I guess all projects, when you click on a redlink image, it actually takes you to the upload page. So first it takes some manouvering to check the logs. (For many users even this much would be impossible.) Then if it's not in the logs you guess it must be a Commons image. If you're not an admin, you won't see the nice deleted edits here, which can give a lot of information. Many reasons given in the deletion log are pretty cryptic. And if you are deleting from a discussion on COM:DEL, you can hardly summarise the whole discussion in the reason. So looking up the discussion, possibly in the archives, also takes some hunting. I think this is a fair criticism: there are definitely ways to improve the software to make all these things link together better. For example I think the local project deletion logs should also contain a link to Commons deletion logs. That would be a good start. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• ALE!, that is precisely the point. Most things in Wikimedia just work. How often do you cut-n-paste into a search box on a sister project? Even in IRC I don't do that; the links are clickable and go right to the proper page. But, using your method, I'm still not going to find a page that has been deleted. Finding the COM:DEL conversation from there (when you don't even know that the shortcut is "COM:DEL") is more than a little frustrating. Likewise, finding the deletion log. Don't forget, the mediawiki-savvy users will already be frustrated from having spent some time looking for the image on their local project. None of these steps should exist. When a person reading sister-project article encounters a red X, they can click it. With all those linkages in place, they will soon see the tag on the commons image page, and its link to COM:DEL (usually also with a sufficient explanation right there.) That person reading the entry can then click [back] and get to the broken article. From there, they can ask sensible questions and search for replacement images.

But when the image is simply deleted/missing, the scenario is different. Clicking the image link brings one to a local image upload page, without the filename. Cutting and pasting from the URL/location bar, a computer literate person can then get the url-encoded filename. Then, from memory, type http://commons.wikimedia.org/ (since there is no link, remember?) and paste the url-encoded filename into the search box. When the search finds nothing, the person can correct the url encoding and still not find the page. Cutting-and-pasting the title-name, they can then find "Special pages" and from there find "Logs" and from there find "Deletion log" and enter the proper title name in the third box on the right. At that point, they may discover (if every previous step was followed perfectly) only who deleted the image, but usually not why. Following the ever darkening trail, they end up at that users talk page, only to discover that it is a 'bot account "owned" by someone else. In a few more 10 second page loads, they may then find their way to some admins talk page. That admin will invariably have no recollection of deleting the image in question (how could they?) After a day or two, that admin will reply on their talk page with a link to COM:VP and COM:DEL. If the user (who has followed every step perfectly so far) manages to return to commons two days after that, (nearly a week elapsed in real-time, now,) they can finally find the original nomination for deletion. The original nomination for deletion was probably politely worded, and nominated with a very reasonable justification. But in the meantime, the sister project has not had its image (in fact, has had its pages mangled inexplicably) for over a week. An "undelete" request at this point will often fall on deaf ears; the time for discussion has long since passed. Sister project sysops (such as myself) may now be involved in the process, perhaps trying to find a replacement image. But they probably never saw the original image, and have only a rough idea of the replacement image desired. So they embark on the nightmarish foray through the commons: categories to find a new image. With luck, the sysop will be able to break out their camera, go to their local zoo, and take a picture of the Puma themselves. Then, they need to learn the commons' uploading license requirements, the commons' categorization requirements, and their own project's linking requirements to get the replacement image properly back in place. (That is, of course, assuming every step above is followed *perfectly*.)

Note also, the more common occurence: the drummer from a band finds a Wikipedia article about his band, but three out of five album covers are broken links. The drummer is high on heroin, and starts several flamewars on Wikipedia before being blocked. One week later, the same is repeated. Several months later, someone realizes that the stoner had a legitimate complaint to begin with...and then start the above detective work.

I understand perfectly, that it is a pain for commons: sysops to upload a small dummy file. It can add minutes to a routine deletion. It can slow a 'bot down to 1/10th its original speed. But that small upload will save multiple people hours of frustration, days/weeks/months of elapased time (where the final rendered page is broken, for all to see) and spread good karma far and wide. People previously unheard from, (perhaps the original photographers who don't understand mediawiki very well) would now suddenly have a voice on commons. This would facilitate the goal of encouraging sister project participation enormously. --Connel MacKenzie 17:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got two words for everyone: CommonsTicker :) -Samulili 18:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

But, didn't I mention a couple times that I use CT? Let me say it again: I do use CT: how else would I have any idea about where stuff happens in Commons:? --Connel MacKenzie 08:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I encourage everyone here to vote and comment on bugzilla:6909: "Redlinked images shouldn't go to Special:Upload" - I really feel this technical shortcoming is the major part of this problem. And also note some of the responses to my mailing list post such as Raimond's excellent point that we gain a lot of moral upper ground by being able to say, "We delete copyivos ASAP". If we delay deletion, we cannot say that. I still oppose totally the 'cross' method. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

But, why? --Connel MacKenzie 08:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally acknowledge User:Pfctdayelise! And with the regards to the CommonsTicker. I did not know it. Very useful. It should be shown on any edit and upload page for images. --ALE! 07:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Connel MacKenzie's idea, applied literally, would in my opinion not work because it is not possible to see reverts onto image on ones watchlist. Within minutes, someone would have gone to the images and reverted the newly uploaded red X, and we wouldn't spot it.

However, it would theoretically be possible to upload a red X, then delete the old revision, leaving the image description page intact. I guess we could implement this system, if the admins are prepared to do it, and -- more important -- the projects support it. I can only speak for myself as an admin, and I am willing to do it when deleting images on the commons:deletion requests: if I don't have to orphan the image, it might save 30 min. / image.

Fred Chess 00:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not know that file reversions behaved that way. That sounds like a separate bug. The second method you suggest seems very reasonable to me. You are able to restore deleted old revisions right? If so, then your method sounds optimal. --Connel MacKenzie 08:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Have you experimented with the "save 30 minutes per deletion" method you described, yet? Did you get positive results from that experiment? --Connel MacKenzie 07:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Erin Silversmith's conduct

I didn't want to report this here, but I'm left with no alternative.

Erin Silversmith replaced Image:Yes check.svg with a new graphic that she created from scratch. I preferred the original image, but I didn't feel that it was my place to revert (thereby unilaterally declaring that the previous version was superior). Therefore, I decided to upload it under a different name: Image:Green check.svg.

A short time later, Erin deleted this image as a "duplicate." Obviously, it was not a duplicate, because it was no longer available for use under its original name.

I responded by politely requesting on Erin's talk page that she restore the image. This led to a discussion (partially quoted below) that she then removed in its entirety.

Erin indicated her unwillingness to allow both icons to co-exist (referring to my desire to do so as "idiotic"), and she reverted to the previous version of Image:Yes check.svg (implying that I was too stupid to figure out how to, despite my explicit indication that I didn't want to). She stated that "if [I] can't accept an improved version and insist on multiplying junk, then [she]'d rather the slightly inferior one remained as the sole version." Instead of restoring the proper description and licensing information, she added the statement "Gregory Maxwell's version has been reverted to to please User:Lifeisunfair."

In response to my request that she reduce the image's size by removing extraneous information (which she previously mentioned doing), she replied that she "won't make any more improvements to the image, as there is the risk that [I] will persist in reuploading old versions under new file names and [she doesn't] want to have to follow [me] around with the delete button."

Meanwhile, a related deletion discussion produced this exchange, in which Erin was similarly rude.

I don't know about the Commons, but this type of behavior isn't tolerated at the English Wikipedia. I'm an administrator there, and I would never abuse my tools in this manner (by unilaterally deleting an image in favor of a different one of my creation), nor would I dream of addressing another user with the incivility that Erin has displayed.

I've attempted to resolve this dispute amicably, and I'm posting this as a last resort. —Lifeisunfair 06:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If Eryn's only complaint was that the old version was bloated, someone could go back to my orignal and change the stroke width by hand... My orignal was around the size of her improved version but someone later loaded my file into an editor to change the stroke width and in the process bloated the file. Really though, size shouldn't be a concern... we don't send the actual SVGs to the users, and someday when we do we will be sending them gzipped. --Gmaxwell 06:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Erin believes that her rendition looks better. She described yours as containing "strange flat bits," but I don't see anything "strange" about them. In my opinion, her icon's shape is peculiar and unconventional. (Checkmarks usually aren't so rounded and uneven.) Nonetheless, I was more than willing to allow both files to remain, and I even allowed hers to take over the original name. To Erin, this was utterly unacceptable. She felt that the idea was "idiotic," so she reverted from her "superior" version to "please" me. —Lifeisunfair 06:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think she's only some kind of ignorant... have you ever tried to contact some of the other admins who could talk to her? Usually, normal admins shouldn't act like this... --Sven 20:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I posted this in the hope that someone (perhaps an admin) would intervene. —Lifeisunfair 23:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As I read it, the image policy says that you don't overwrite a file, unless it's a very minor correction. Re-drawing the image in a different style is not such a case, so overwriting the image is the wrong thing to do. However, jumping up and down about it is also the wrong thing; I'm going to upload Erin's version as Image:Green check.svg and let both versions exist. Alphax (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not "[jump] up and down." I calmly and politely raised the issue on Erin's talk page, and I attempted in vain to reason with her until she removed the entire discussion. I turned here as a last resort, but it seems as though Commons sysops are free to behave however they please with impunity.

I wanted to allow the two images to co-exist, but Erin indicated that this idea was "idiotic" (preferring to remove her version instead), and she threatened to "follow [me] around with the delete button." —Lifeisunfair 00:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Erin has nominated her own image for deletion, and she's pretending to be entirely unaware of the reason behind the new file's existence. —Lifeisunfair 02:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Going by what is stated at Commons:Deletion guidelines one should not speedy delete images based on ones perception that it is superior to another. Personally I would say that artistical creations, such as "Yes"-signs, have all right to exist in multiple versions if they are different. But I can't view svg files on my computer and so I can't tell how they differ...

Fred Chess 21:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

One has a straight left edge, the other has a curved left edge; one has one slope, the other has another. Firefox 1.5 can view them. Alphax (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Commons and multilingualism

In my opinion languages on commons are badly supported outside standard help pages. We have categories in different languages, mostly in english. Categories are limited through mediawiki's implementation but normal image pages for example are not. Everytime I upload a picture, I have to decide which language I should use. Recently I am deciding in favour of german, as it is my mother-tongue and there is no point in making understanding harder for my fellow wikipedians. I could write in different languages but I don't wanna be bothered with missing support or unreachable documentation. And please don't ask me to fix anything myself, cause I am only using commons instead of local (german) wikipedia. All I say is: I would help ppl with other languages to understand my pictures, if there would be an easy and satisfying possibility to do so. What is unsatisfying?

1. Documentation on the upload page how to specify descriptions in different languages.
2. Including different languages in general (technicaly impossible to tell which language is used cause no xml-lang tag is used).
3. Only displaying local language and ignoring other languages on display.
4. Handling of discussion threads in different languages ("Hey guys I don't understand what you are saying, please speak english")
5. Support of non-english-speaking ppl on pages like deletion request and so on. I might be wrong here, but a often heard complaint on the german version of village pump is that the requester needs help with something cause he doesn't speak english well enough.

I don't wanna blame anybody with this, just wanna point out some problems of an average user. If there are easy solutions for my problems, I would be thankful for any hints. --Chrislb 18:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• There are varying Multilingualism philosophies. It is useful to keep in mind that not everyone has the same goals or approach when they discuss multilingualism.

Regarding point two, perhaps you are unaware of the way you can indicate language using a language template like so:

Français : Je parle français en petite peu.

• Issue- the more languages on a page, the more the visual clutter. Commons is on a bit of a grand adventure regarding omnilingualism. Consider the image Image:Hitler and Mussolini propaganda Luce photo.png. Let us assume the world 10 year from now, and each of these captions where hand created describing the particular scene of Hitler and Mussolini's meeting in Rome. (In this particular example, these actually aren't and are topic sentences copied from the wiki articles on Hitler in Mussolini from the respective language wikis). A question that immediately hits you is: What if most of the languages were represented? Look at the number of interwiki links on the sidebar. What if every single one of those languages had a caption? The description would be enormous.
  • One solution advocated by some is a text folding feature. Right now, if your browser supports stylesheets (nearly all do), then the individual users can customize their view of the articles to hide all text marked with the language templates (eg {{fr| text}} for languages they are not interested in. The problem with this is that it is a bit of a hack and is not a solution for casual visitors to commons. There are other solutions for text folding, but would require non trivial changes to the mediawiki software. Since this change would primarily only benefit Commons- and then only the few pages that have large numbers of multilingual passages, that positions the feature pretty low on the priority list.

• This is a frequently discussed subject so perhaps some of the old timers can fill in more here. -Mak 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Chris, Sorry for my late reply, but here are some thoughts. We don't want to add too much information to the Special:Upload page, because it becomes bloated and most users don't read it anyway. We have a Commons:Help desk (as well as this village pump) where you are welcome to ask questions.

As Mak said, the best way to add descriptions is to use language templates like {{en|this (insert caption here)}} -->

English: this (insert caption here)

These templates have the SML language description stuff built in, so they should be easy to use. To show only certain languages using these tags, add this to Special:Mypage/monobook.css:

.description { display: none; } 	 
.en { display: block; }
.de { display: block; }

This would show only English and German tags. Keep in mind many people don't use the tags at all and if tags only exist in Spanish, for example, you wouldn't see anything at all.

You are frustrated at the multilingual support, I have to say we are too, and most if not all of the troubles are software/technical. (The majority of admins are not native English speakers.)

For discussion such as deletion requests in multiple languages, you are of course welcome to discuss in any language, but I don't see any way to support this better unless you suggest we all learn German, and Spanish, and Chinese, and Italian, and... If you want more German discussion I guess you simply have to kick the German-speaking admins up the butt and get them to help out more. You're welcome to do that. :P

I hope this helps a bit. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer but I guess the developers have to work on that till everybody can be ok with it. As long as we have the state now we should urge everybody to learn more languages, what's not a bad point anyway ;) --Chrislb 06:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)