Commons:Village pump/Archive/2008/04

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Children's use of commons?

A contributor recently applied a {{copyvio}} tag to an image I uploaded. I dispute that tag application. But that is another matter.

My question here concerns the edit summary, which said:

(Clear copyviolation plus don't upload sick images because children also use Commons.)

This image is in the same position as the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse images. Those images can also be seen as potentially shocking. The Abu Ghraib images are, however, important. And so is the Khadr image.

For the last six years the DoD has been claiming that w:Omar Khadr was shot after he burst from cover, and threw a grenade that "murdered" a "medic". The Prosecution had claimed, for the last six years, that Khadr had to have been the guy who mortally wounded w:Christopher Speer, because he was the sole survivor of the skirmish.

In fact, due to a human failure by a staff member on the w:Office of Military Commissions, a copy of the testimony of the GI who shot Khadr was accidentally distributed to the Press in unredacted form. It revealed the GI who shot him not only didn't see who threw the grenade, but that he shot Khadr in the back. He saw Khadr facing away from the skirmish, leaning against a bush. Khadr was already seriously wounded by the aerial bombardment that leveled the compound where the skirmish took place.

Not only wasn't Khadr the sole survivor the GI's testimony made clear that he had killed an adult combatant after the grenade that wounded Speer was thrown.

Khadr's Prosecution has suppressed exculpatory evidence -- something that would not be allowed in either a civilian court of law or in a court martial.

This image is important because it shows the exit wounds in Khadr's chest, confirming that he was shot in the back.

Obviously if someone advocated that the Abu Ghraib images should be deleted they did not make a convincing case. So, why shouldn't the same arguments and counter-arguments would apply here?

Cheers! Geo Swan 20:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The general rule that applies is very simple: Commons is not censored. Basically saying, there are two inclusion criteria: It is a free image according to Commons:Licensing and it is useful/notable in some way per Commons:Project scope. As for this specific image it is quite clear that it falls within the project scope. I can't tell you whether or not the image is copyright violation. But think of the children is not a valid reason to delete images from Commons. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you telling me since Commons is not censored I can upload extremely dirty porn images or ones showing Western soldiers cut-up to pieces in war zones? My reason started with "Copyrightviolation" and the "children may watch the photo" came last just as a suggestion to you (the uploader). Before you upload such sick images you should have some common sense that children may watch them and will cause problems to them. Unless you don't care about that and just want to do these things for your own satisfaction reasons. The fact is that the photo is a clear copyvio and must be deleted. The photo was not taken by an "unknown GI" but by the press most likely and they own the rights to it...not the Omar's family.--Executioner 17:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
So are we going to delete these Mohammad files? Code·is·poetry 18:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
There are two separate issues here. one is copyvio the other is censorship. Please lets try not to get them mixed up.
Otherwise with regards to censorship I have a question: while it is great (and I think necessary) that commons is not censored, is there, or should there be, tag templates that indicate that an image might not be suitable for all audiences/children? What's your opinion on PICS and mediawiki/wikimedia? Is there policy about this? --Inkwina (talk contribs) 19:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is a good idea to have a sort of warning tag at least for images such as the one mentioned above (Omar Khadr) and eventually also, or a separate one, for sexually explicit images. -- Túrelio 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It would go here but I don't think we need to play mother. It's not our job to decide what may or may not be suitable for others. And where would they see these disclaimers? On the image page? I would support a note of caution perhaps, like w:Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, somewhere more obvious than a little link at the bottom. - Rocket000 04:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Challenger asserts this image was taken by a member of the press. Note: I think this DoD witness statement makes clear this image, and a couple of dozen others, were taken by GIs.
I'd like to ask the challenger be more careful in their choice of language. In particular, I think the following comment sails far too close for comfort to being a violation of the no personal attack policy:
Before you upload such sick images you should have some common sense that children may watch them and will cause problems to them. Unless you don't care about that and just want to do these things for your own satisfaction reasons.
Cheers! Geo Swan 21:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The same user (User:Executioner) has just tagged two other images of the same battle as requiring "Speedy Deletion" for equally spurious reasons. Referring to users as "anti-Islam", accusing them of "stealing the images" and berating me for pointing out the source of the images by saying I am "not an administrator" are all clearly getting out of hand. There is no reason that images like Image:Khadr Medic.png should even need to be censored - when I reverted his changes, he accused me of being a sockpuppet of Geo Swan. rolls eyes. Anyways, there are plenty of "graphic" images of sex or violence on Commons, but they are kept as long as they are scholastic or of historical importance. Sherurcij 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe a warning tag is a good idea if it could be added to images such as this one, I think it's the law in USA to warn the public before they see images that may contain bodies of people in horrible conditions. The uploader here is trying to focus on me instead of focusing on the problems of the image he uploaded. I feel like if he's trying to bully me, by intimidating me not to tag any of the images he uploads. I am not an American and my English may not be so great so please don't use every word I type here against me, that is usually done in courts and this aint a court. Why is Geo Swan talking so much about me in a discussion that is based on deleting a possible copyvio image that he uploaded. The reason why I suspected Geo Swan and Shrurcij to be sockpuppets of one another is because they both show up at every discussion and feel the same exact way about me and the image in question. The chances of 2 separate people from different locations to think of me in this fashion on Commons is very slim and that is why I suspected them. They are like tag team partners everywhere, anyway this is another issue.--Executioner 07:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Point of order -- In addition to several hints that challenger is concerned that Sherurcij and I are sockpuppets, challenger has outright accused us of being sockpuppets -- twice, [1], [2].
  • Point of order -- I do not believe I have mentioned challenger, by name, a single time, in this forum. I dispute I am trying to intimidate him or her. I do not think I need to apologize for addressing the issues that are in dispute, or for asking him or her to respond to counter-arguments, based on policy. Challenger has, I believe, a good-faith misconception on copyright. I dispute trying to engage challenger in a civil discussion is intimidation. Geo Swan 17:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

March 18

New image search interface

I use the image search on Commons a lot, almost everyday for my work. Since a few weeks, the interface has changed and the results displayed are really so narrowed that it has become almost impossible to make a real search. If you know exactly what you are looking for, you'll find it, but if you are making just a search to get ideas, the fishing expedition will be very poor.

I liked it better as it was before. Now, searching images on Commons has become almost useless.

Will there be new improvements? Is this a transition period towards something better? It would be sad to lose the great tool Commons search has been until now.

Thank you! the preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 28 March 2008

You might try a category tree search to see if it meets your needs better. Be aware of the "Category" links (on most pages). They may help you browse the content. Also, you can use the "site" parameter of Google to restrict your search to Commons.
The main purpose of Commons is to support editors of the Wikipedias in various languages find illustrations for articles that they are writing. That said, if we can support users like you as well, that is all to the good. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The search backend has not changed, so there should be no changes in the search. What slightly has changed is how translated namespaces are handled, but as Commons' default language is English, that should not be in effect. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you not used Mayflower? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Mayflower is currently of restricted use as its index is 5 months out of date - the last update was 24 October 2007. Man vyi 13:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the index does not seem to be updated regularly. The Oct 2007 update was done after I agitated about it being so out of date at that time. We ought to think about lowering the profile of that search engine, or perhaps getting another volunteer who can re-index much more frequently. How up to date would eg a member of the press trying to find a photo expect our main search engine to be? 24 hours? Certainly not more than a week. --MichaelMaggs 22:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Grooh. That's so annoying. :( Surely it's just run-a-script type update. I will email Tangotango, although I'm not confident of a response... pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Damn - hadn't realised that. I've often used Mayflower to get hold of images that haven't made it into the "correct" (:)) category yet. Ah well - at least I now know :( --Herby talk thyme 12:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

@original requester: Could you please describe precisely what search function you are using and what you are missing in the new search function ? Are the missing items in the search function itself or in the display of the results ? Would it be possible to give a couple of search examples and commented results ? We would appreciate a detailed specification of your additional needs or whishes. --Foroa 13:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

March 29

What happens in that case?

If a picture on Flickr was CC-BY or CC-BY-SA when it was uploaded on Wikimedia Commons and now with a non-free licence? Like that one (see the warning the author added). I suppose he can't decide to forbid the use of a picture he already released in the public domain or with a free licence but I'm not sure... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

CC-licenses aren't retractable, and releasing an image into the public domain is irrevocable as well. The flickr license has been reviewed, so the image can stay, even if the license was changed afterwards. --rimshottalk 07:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Should we delete the author's comment? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
CC-licenses aren't retractable: this should also be communicated to the author/photographer. -- Túrelio 07:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I will. Is there any flickr template to the effect of "this image was retrieved while it was freely licensed, so even though it had a license change on flickr, the license shown here still applies"? --rimshottalk 09:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to "communicate" this particular effect of the CC license grant to the author. --rimshottalk 09:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure he will read your message since he only edited this picture on Commons. He actually didn't realize there were other pictures by him on Commons. I copied-pasted the text you modified on those pictures. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
CC-licenses are retractable, in the sense that the person can cease to offer it under the terms of a CC license at any time; it is a wikimedia rule that photographer's cannot revoke free licenses, not a legal statement. However, they cannot control distribution of the image under the CC license by other people, such as by Commons. Therefore the user cannot stop us using the previously granted CC license. The change of license is irrelevant as we have the bot confirmation of the original (indeed the photographer's edit adds additional confirmation), so does not need marking. If you want to communicate with the user - do it on Flickr, not Commons, you'll likely get a response then.
However, with respect to this image I wonder if we actually want it. Therefore I'll probably put it on COM:DEL later, as there is no copyright concern so no urgency.--Nilfanion 09:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I've got another question about those cases. This picture of Sophie Ellis-Bextor had been cropped out from a picture available on Flickr that is now tagged with another licence. Since it was CC-BY before, could I make another crop from the original and upload it here with the original CC-BY licence? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
No. The work is unfree now and we cannot use it to generate a freely licensed work now (if we had a local copy we could use that).--Nilfanion 09:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In this particular case, it's not a problem as the uncropped image was uploaded here as well. If that were not the case, it would be more complicated. The original uploader was granted the license for the full image, which should apply even after the licensing was changed. So, the original uploader should still have the right to upload the full image even after uploading a crop. The question is whether uploading a crop under a CC license automatically means distribution of the full image under that license. I guess not, so no, not anyone would be able to just upload a different crop. This would only be possible to those who have been granted a CC license for the full image. IANAL, so the usual disclaimers apply ;) --rimshottalk 09:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

copyright image

Hi, I suspect that this image Image:VvMiramar castle.jpg is violation of copyright. It say self-made, but it seem strange for that there is pattern from print. I suspect that this is image from book scanned. Please how is correct prosedure for to investigating this. Thank you. the preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 23:04, 5. Mär. 2008

✓ Done Deleted 14. March 2008, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:VvMiramar castle.jpg. --GeorgHHtalk   22:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

March 6

>5 MB file size

Commonist currently lacks the capability to ignore warnings... so when I upgraded to a 12 MP camera (which takes photos that skirt about 5 MB), I'm now getting a lot of failed Commonist uploads because of the warning prompt when you try to upload a photo bigger than 5 MB. Might it be possible to increase the file size warning to reflect the ever-increasing power of cameras... perhaps upping it to prompt at 10 MB rather than 5? --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 19:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We can't change it :( It's a MediaWiki thing. I think it shouldn't even exist at all, but I was overruled. But really, if Commonist can't ignore warnings, then it is broken and needs fixing. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Alas, I get the feeling that there isn't much new development with Commonist. Does anybody know how Commonist works, though? If it just automatically goes through upload iterations as if I was doing it myself, perhaps a setting in the preferences could default to Ignore all warnings? --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 02:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, I hope this doesn't mess with Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. Can someone change user preferences on Commons so we can choose to ignore the warnings? It doesn't have to be default.--Pharos 19:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no user preference relating to this tick box. I wrote a bug report asking for one (bugzilla:13514). pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, that plan was rejected, so I tried another one: Increase (or disable) $wgUploadSizeWarning for Commons. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Woo hoo -- looks like that one got approved? If so, it's a small win for a big cause. :) (I just needed to find in some way to work in a horrid and poorly-done pun) --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 02:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah! Tim is awesome. The warning is disabled as of r32488. I think that will tick by pretty soon. (check special:version) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! And just it in time, too. Thanks for pushing this.--Pharos 06:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

March 24

Out of business

What happens with copyrights if a publisher that makes works with copyright goes out of business? Do the copyrights expire after a certain time? Do they pass to the owner of the publisher, or the creators of the work, or someone else? Or it doesn't make any difference, and the copyright belong to the publisher even if it has been out of business since decades ago? Thanos 00:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyrights can be and often are sold, just like any other business asset. If a publisher goes out of business, their copyrights were probably sold with the company's other assets. --Carnildo 21:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
See en:orphan works... AnonMoos 11:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive user

I know we have an Administrator's Noticeboard somewhere, but I never had to find it until now... and now I can't. Could someone either direct me to the right place or otherwise address User:Davenbelle aka Jack Merridew? Nothing but vandalism. Thanks! --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 00:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hooray somebody's already on it. Cheers! --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 01:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You never noticed that "Discussion menu" above. :) It gives you all the links. Rocket000 03:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Heyyy what'dya know... there was a time when I used to peruse through all of the topics in the Pump; now I just right-away scroll down to the bottom. I completely forgot that thing was up there. Considering the frequency of vandalism here, I'll bet it'll be several months before I find myself back here asking the very same question all over again. :P --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 04:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Koalorka/IWI email exchange regarding photo use

Um, what should we do with "galleries" like this: Koalorka/IWI email exchange regarding photo use. (Yes, those images should probably be deleted as "exclusive" rights isn't really what we like). Rocket000 03:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I took care of this issue. The "mail exchanges" are now in the user name space and the files are deleted. I warned the user, but with regard to his log it's the last time. Code·is·poetry 16:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Rocket000 10:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wayne Ray

Is this a user page or what? Rocket000 07:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As the user already has a well filled user page I've deleted it & left a message on his user talk. Thanks scratch that - I am not sure - other opinions welcome --Herby talk thyme 07:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my first instinct, but I'm not sure. Rocket000 07:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
On one hand it's a user page, on the other hand it is related to en:Wayne Ray. It's categorized in normal article categories and in category "User galleries". I don't see a problem with this page. --GeorgHHtalk   09:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit odd, though, to have a user gallery sorted by language or photo proficiency. I think the ph-3 box should be at User:WayneRay only. --rimshottalk 09:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks GeorgHH, useful to see & I agree with Rimshot about the user box --Herby talk thyme 09:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's nothing with it. He's a notable writer and photographer and we're very happy to have him as a user too! It was just the way the page was structured that made me question it. I removed the ph-3 box and other things that belong on userpages, but added a link to his user page too. Also, even though technically it is, I won't consider this a "user gallery" anymore than en:Wayne Ray is a "user page", so I hope he understands why I "de-personalized" it. Rocket000 10:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Approval Poll outcome

(duplicate note for wider awareness, please discuss at the referenced page)...

Please see Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Voting Approval Poll/Results discussion ... I am not sure that we have arrived at a consensus for a change, since no option, even despite urging to select as many as one could tolerate, won a majority of votes for either suffrage or for admin qualification. Typically, no consensus == no change. But in this case, perhaps a longer polling time or some other approach might be warranted. Or not. ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why join?

A simple question that is in the title. 02:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not?
There is certainly nothing forcing you to, in fact I am aware of one user on the English Wikipedia whom is among the more prominent editors but has not registered an account. However, it helps to put some history with the name -- particularly helpful with variable IP's or with people whom edit on various machines. It just helps establish some sense of community. Also, you can use your userpage to describe what your purpose is for being here, and perhaps also add in some language to templates to assist users with recognising which languages you can speak, read, write, or understand. And while the Wiki Foundation doesn't seem to want to officially admit it, anonymous IPs tend to carry some less-than-friendly connotations. Giving yourself a username and making a history of good edits helps to establish you as a trusted user. Becoming a well-established editor makes life easier for people who scan their watchlist for unfamiliar names. I pretty much always check any edits made by an IP or by a username I do not recognise, so a name I have come to respect will mean less time I spend reviewing my watchlist. You don't have to join, but I don't see any significant harm in doing so. Cheers! --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 02:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, you're more anonymous when you register. Contributing as an anon lets everyone see your IP. Registering an account hides that from all but a handful of highly-trusted editors. People seem to totally miss this point. Contributing without an account is less private than contributing with an account. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
With respect to Wikimedia Commons specifically, you can't upload images unless you get an account. AnonMoos 11:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there a page to go to which explains more about commons? Bossi, it seems from your idea tthat it is just to hide the fact of that the person is editing from an IP. Are then any benefits and drawbacks and things explaining about logging in here or welcoming to commons etc? 12:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually now that you mentioned it, I just found exactly that: this article on the English Wikipedia provides good info which is generally true across all the Wikimedia Foundation websites; perhaps moreso here as AnonMoos points out above. Note that everybody currently needs to create an account individually for each Wiki, so registering an account at the English Wikipedia, for example, doesn't mean you'd right-away have an account here at Commons; you'd have to register another account (though you can use the same name if it's available). This link will take you to the account creation for Commons. This help page for commons provides some info, though I've never been a particular fan of the Wiki's help pages... I usually end up needing more help whenever I go in search for help, which is why my next step is to just ask the question here at the Village Pump. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 12:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, if you join and upload excellent images, you may get rich and famous, or at least earn a
-- Túrelio 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll think about it. Thanks for the help. 14:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki links

I recently noticed that the interwiki links disappeared from the left side. Is this a mistake or something intentional? Thanks! --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 02:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

They're still there for me. Did you change something in your skin? --rimshottalk 08:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The links are back. Multichill 09:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Easy questions; easy answers! Bah to me and my bad coding. Maybe next time I won't use the Welcome page as my reference -- that's where I went to confirm that I can't see any interwiki links, when in retrospect I guess I should've used a more typical page. Thanks! --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 12:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Uploading a better version

A file that i created was uploaded onto here from Wikipedia. I have now just finished and am ready to upload a much better version but i just tried this and it would not let me. How do i upload the new version? Image:Grand Central trial route map.JPG is the original file. Simply south 14:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to see that you joined. The reason that you cannot upload the file is that new users (4 days IIRC) are not allowed to overwrite existing files. You could upload the improved file under a different name and ask here to have it overwritten by someone else. You could also just wait a few days. --rimshottalk 15:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll wait and see what happens, so i suppose Sunday or Monday then. Simply south 15:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Che Guevara images by Korda

I'd like to ask for comments on this deletion note from March 22: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Guevarakorda2.jpg. The situation is pretty complex, with moral rights, copyright, and the validity of the {{PD-Cuba}} template all involved. There is some older discussion from 2006 at Commons:Che Guevara/deleted images, and a Wikipedia article about this very image at en:Che_Guevara_(photo). CBM 16:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Upload Error

Hi, lately while trying to upload a JPG file I got the error "Files of the MIME type "application/x-php" are not allowed to be uploaded.". I have never seen those errors before. Any ideas?--Jarekt 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to upload a picture found on another site? (by putting the URL into the "source filename"?) While possible on a number of platforms, doing this often links to the wrong item: a .html or .php page is common, where you meant to upload the picture on that page instead. If you've got a source you'd like someone to look at, post it here and we'll take a look. ~Kylu (u|t) 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2

Rubenstein Public Relations

I have had contact with this PR firm, one of the most influential and largest in the United States, since I worked with them at the Category:2007 Tribeca Film Festival last year (and will again this year). Like any good PR firm, they would like to work with Wikipedia. They realize they should not edit nor change articles to suit their clients interests, but they would like to know what they can do to contribute to Wikipedia. For instance, my work with them at TFF creates for us a lot of GFDL images of celebrities. They would like to forge a closer relationship with the Wikipedia community, and I have gone to a few lunches to discuss with them some ideas. A collaboration with PR agencies can create a wealth of opportunities for Wikipedians in the English-speaking world (such as attending film festivals), put us closer in touch with their clients' perspectives (which would help with some of our BLP issues on Wikipedia), and improve the projects as a whole. If anyone is interested in discussing the possibilities we might be able to have working with them, or have suggestions of things we would like, please leave it on my talk page. Dave --DavidShankbone 17:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place. This is Wikimedia Commons, the image and media repository for wiki projects. I think you wanted Wikipedia: try posting at the appropriate page on the Wikipedia Village pump. --MichaelMaggs 17:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm in the right place, since we have photographers here who might like access to some events. Forgive my laziness that I didn't tailor the message to each project, but I think most people will understand there is a lot we can do in terms of media with a large and influential PR firm. --DavidShankbone 17:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Getting free images of public figures is a continuing issue on Wikipedia, and of course the images should be uploaded here if they're free. This sounds like a great prospect. CBM 18:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that as long as photographers or copyright holders upload images with encyclopedic value, nobody will be asking about who they work for and what the motives are. I think there might be some sensitivity about editing articles in Wikipedia or even adding/replacing images, due to possible conflict of interest and lack of neutrality. But I do not think there would be any objection to image uploads, especially if the account holder discloses his/her association with PR firm. --Jarekt 21:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, right, so Wikimedia can become a free encyclopedic arm for Rubenstein Public Relations. No way. Nobody does nothing for nothing. Engaging them will precipitate a COI nightmare. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

COI may not be encouraged, but it is certainly not prohibited. As far as Wikipedia goes, anyone can edit so long as they provide appropriate sources; and those whom have a particular relationship with a certain subject are generally more apt to know where to find interesting information. One of the reasons I joined Wikipedia so long ago was just to expand info on some of my family members -- I have lots of photos and know where to get lots of sourceable information (as in this article. On Wikimedia, I'd say it's even more important to have partnerships like these exactly because of what David Shankbone stated: these agencies have ready access to imagery and events which most of us may not have access to. If they wish to make it free for use, then by all means we're not going to stop them. Yes, there are few that do something for nothing (which is what I think you meant to say); and this case you are still correct. However, the PR firm is getting something out of it: publicity. Their images become the top-quality images available, make their way onto Wikis in a plethora of different languages, and all-the-while the PR firm's name is but a click away. Now that's publicity. It serves them; it serves us. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 02:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

April 4

Quick advice needed for Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan

Is there some template that can automagically tell me whether or not a category is empty?--Pharos 03:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

New tag {{PD-scan}} for certain scans of PD originals

The discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Images from Darwin Online has shown the need for us us to distinguish between:

  • 1. mere mechanical scans of PD originals - normally labelled {{PD-Old}},
  • 2. scans of PD originals which have been enhanced in some way but not enough to create a new copyright, and
  • 3. scans of PD originals which have been so extensively edited as to generate a new copyright work (allowed on Commons only under licence)

At present images falling under 2. often get labelled {{PD-Old}}, but that can create uncertainty and argument since the enhancements are of course not old, but new. I have created a new tag {{PD-scan}} to deal with this, its purpose being to assert that the image can have no independent copyright as it is simply a mechanical reproduction of an old, public domain image, or – from the available evidence – that it is so similar to such a reproduction that no copyright protection can be expected to arise. This allows the tag to be used in the common situation when the image has been copied from the internet and we don't know whether it is of type 1 or 2. I have also created a proposed set of guidlines at Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. Perhaps feedback could be directed to the talk page there?--MichaelMaggs 12:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox for uploads: not the dirtbox?

I was looking for a way to upload images for test purposes; mainly to see how SVGs will render (they are so unpredictable!) I found the Dirtbox but I could not find a way to upload files to it distinct from the regular upload procedure. I do not want to pollute the server with ten copies of a file. --Adoniscik(t, c) 16:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

May be there should be a way to delete your own older versions of reuploaded files. That would remove the need for dirtbox.--Jarekt 17:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of people

Does anyone know what the rules are concerning posting picture of people on this website. I have pictures about urban exploration that may contain pictures of urban explores, if they saw them here they probably would not appreciate it. What are the rulesAdam.J.W.C. 17:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Insects living in wood

Has anyone found any yellow and black bugs that have burrowed into the wood they've cut? And if so, does anyone know what they are? They look slightly like a honey bee but aren't.

I am not quite sure why this is being asked here. But not all bees are social insects. There are species of solitary bees that lay there eggs in holes they dig. Like social bees they fertilize flowering plants. Geo Swan 03:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

March 23

Anti-nude vandalism

Some IP is currently lauching a mass DR of nude pictures. His behaviour is NOT construtive at all and he seems to be totally unaware of rules on Commons (for instance he re-launches closed DR). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have given a warning to the user and links to Commons:Nudity and our general disclaimer. I'm at work now and would prefer not to open those requests, but I can take care of them later if noone does so before. Patrícia msg 17:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually I'm also wondering if Avron isn't also a vandal. I mean, look at his "arguments" here, it's quite pathetic to me! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have closed all but one of the leftover nominations. What a mess... -- Cat ちぃ? 23:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Anons and Deletion Requests

Think we could set things up so that you need to register in order to post to the Deletions Request page? These IP's that don't even know how things like COM:SCOPE work and our policies are starting to make me a bit mad. That IP mentioned in a thread above me kinda tipped the scale a bit. ViperSnake151 19:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is no good idea in my eyes. If a deletion request shows that the initiator has no experience with commons policies or makes it only "just for fun", the deletion request can be speedy closed. --GeorgHHtalk   20:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have have seen enough valid deletion requests from IPs to say it makes sense to let everyone nominate images for deletion. I concur with GeorgHH, obviously frivolous deletion requests can be speedily closed. --rimshottalk 23:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Anybody should be able to nominate images. We should however discourage mass nomination like the recent case. -- Cat ちぃ? 00:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I always thought users should only get that "nominate for deletion" button when they register. It makes it too easy right now. IPs should be allowed to nominate images, but only if they are serious, which taking the time to nominate things manually helps make sure they are. Rocket000 04:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It is currently given to anyone using Monobook.js. See here to kill two birds with one stone. I'm suggesting that we fix a bug and make that button opt-in (and only for registered users) all at once. There's nothing to stop anons or folks who don't opt-in from nominating stuff for deletion, but they wouldn't have the script which lets them do so at light speed. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

April 5

Uploaded images do not have "pages" on Commons

With one or two exceptions, the image files that I have uploaded on Commons or moved from en.wikipedia do not have associated "image pages," although it appears to me that these are supposed to be automatically generated.

For example, Image:CandidateForCongress1938.jpg is flagged "There are no pages that link to this file," but most image uploads seem to generate a page of the same name at the time of the upload (for example, Image:Briceville-full-tn1.jpg states "The following pages link to this file: * Image:Briceville-full-tn1.jpg").

Why do some files lack "pages"? --Orlady 04:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it not that some licensing templates incorporate a self-referential link to "this file" whereas the PD-USGov used for Image:CandidateForCongress1938.jpg does not? Man vyi 04:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Aha! That explains it... Thanks. --Orlady 14:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet? Vandalism?

A recent new user, Amanda the slayer (talk · contribs), has strangely been focused on one picture and its DR: Image:CurvedPenis.jpg. I suspect him to be a sock puppet of Minicirc (talk · contribs), the uploader-nominator of the picture. Anyway, even if he isn't, his behaviour is not compatible with Commons rules since he's accusing me of vandalizing this picture as I exactly did the contrary i.e. reverting uncorrect changes. The first time it was uploaded, the picture licence was GFDL. Then, for some unknown and strange reason, the uploader launched a DR 2 days later and eventually erased the description and the licence information! Amanda the slayer eventually added a no licence tag (actually I think it's quite strange to see a new user knowing that kind of tag!). I restored the original licence and Amanda the slayer reverted it twice, even accusing me of vandalism! Could someone do something? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - blocked User:Mileshigh000, User:Donna miles & User:Amanda the slayer as puppet accounts of user:Minicirc (leaving that one unblocked for now. Feel free to strike out the comments of the others there (I'd do it but I am literally going offline when I've done this). Any more issues feel free to let us know - thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

April 7

Do we have a notability threshold?

[3]: Apparently 5 images of the same person by the same photographer. Nice pictures, and she's cute & all, but no indication of why this person would be notable. I suspect some sort of vanity thing going on. - Jmabel | talk 05:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I get zero search results for your provided link. Disregarding that, Commons:Project scope#Wikimedia Commons is a common central media repository of all Wikimedia projects spells out pretty plainly that a media file needs to have some potential use on a *pedia article. Personally, I detest "notability" and see no reason why such a thing needs to be brought here. The scope as-is keeps things simple: if you can't name an article a file may be used on then it doesn't belong here. Cburnett 07:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The pictures are currently appropriately categorised and seem to be therefore findable for purposes of potential use in relevant piercing and fashion articles and galleries. How notable does a piercing, scarf or coat have to be? Man vyi 09:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a person doesn't need to be notable in order to illustrate something... Someone thought they would be useful enough to upload them and there's a chance someone else may find them useful. That's good. What benefit would deleting them bring? Rocket000 10:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to nit-pick, but Commons is for a lot more than just the encyclopedia. EVula // talk // // 04:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So, for example, any redhead in Seattle could upload their own picture and categorize it under Category:Red hair and Category:Seattle, Washington (the latter being where I ran across one of these, which is what had me asking)? - Jmabel | talk 20:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume that the fountain feature in the background of Image:Cal Anderson Park, Seattle America.jpg is actually in Seattle (although not a particularly helpful illustration of Seattle)? If that is the case, the picture seems appropriately categorised. Man vyi 06:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I added one of them to labret. It seems like we should use these instead of deleting them. Finding images is easy, finding free images is hard. Lets use the ones we have, unless there's some Notability for free images that I am unaware of. - 04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Nevertheless, we have to take care of personality rights, that‘s some sort of „notability“. Regards, Code·is·poetry 07:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Something which is out of copyright, but which was itself a copyright violation?

The status of Image:Wimpy TJB.jpg is something of an enigma to me. It's a scan of the cover of a ca. 1940 illicit pornographic mini comic book. The comic book is almost certainly out of copyright, since it's extremely unlikely that the formal notification and renewal procedures required under U.S. law at the time were carried out. However, when the comic was first published, it actually would have been in violation of the legal copyrights of the Popeye cartoon characters... AnonMoos 14:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A more recent example is Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wall of shame.jpg, where some elements in the photo are copyright. Also many of our Category:Poster displays contain a element that is copyright. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

rename problem

White Cat (talk · contribs) has been renaming some images which I noticed here, which is Image:WMBarnstar.png renamed to Image:Working Man's Barnstar.png. The history of the original image has not been recorded on the renamed file. The original is released as PD, so this example only constitutes a breakdown on attribution expectations rather than a violation of copyright terms. Still, I think the file history should be recorded, and there may be other cases where the original image is not PD. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

LadyofHats has been kind enough to invest quite some time in drafting proposed logos for the Valued Images project on Commons. Based on the feedback from previous drafts, she has now proposed a final set of sketches from which the Valued Image logo shall be selected. Do voice your opinion about the logo here as well as several other open issues, where user responses on the project/volunteers are requested. -- Slaunger 08:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I want "checkuser" back!!!

why was it deleted, it was next to the history button of files! :- ( 12:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

lol, no it wasn't! – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait, maybe you mean CheckUsage? The tab should still be there for anons... Only registered users can opt out at this point. I'll take a look at the script & see if anything changed. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible rogue user

The IP user is most likely a user who has been banned on the English wikipedia. Mostly likely the entomologist by the name of Andy Lehrer whose has created the family Bengaliidae which is apparently not accepted by the majority of entomologists. He has been renaming image captions and adding redirects to a Romanian article on the family. See and the history for the past of this image. Now he seems to be editing image captions and I do not know what the normal mode of actio here is. Shyamal 14:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - appears largely unconstructive (even incompetent :)). Reverted & warned - cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolving disputes

Hi. I'm mostly active on the English Wikipedia and only visit commons from time to time. I know nothing about local policies and customs. I had a small argument with another editor at Talk:Vagina-the other editor is a conservative person who is strongly against such images, while I'm extremely liberal. Problem is-both of us have been incivil, and I don't think I can just talk it out with him myself. I am looking for some kind of a dispute resolution process, can anyone help? Puchiko 14:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about my idea (the idea after this one?) Fale 15:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It was not a dispute, it was an anonymous user raging against the system. Not a lot you can do there, just give it time to cool down. --Foroa 13:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Puchiko, having read the discussion, I think you have been quite civil in your reply. I suggest you leave things as they are. Rgeards, MartinD 19:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Puchiko has been amazingly civil in the face of out-of-control ranting. Is there any limit to this sort of thing? If someone messes up a page with large amounts of irrational and impolite text, should everyone tolerate it, or could we just delete it? Torve 12:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Did the MonoBook skin change?

On Firefox, the upload file link was removed from the toolbox on the left nav bar. I tried the other skins but don't like the layouts of the few that have the upload link on the left (for the rest it has to be access via Special pages), although Classic is workable. However on IE it looks the same. Or is it just me. BrokenSphere 20:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Caching problem; since resolved. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

April 8

More PD photos on Flickr

Sydney's Powerhouse Museum has released 200 photos of Sydney and New South Wales from the turn of the 20th Century. Arria Belli | parlami 00:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't Find Image File

I uploaded an image file Image:Balancer_with_wine_3.JPG apparently successfully. I can find it with the "My Contributions" link but I cannot find it with Search and it is not found when I try to edit it into an article. How is that? ClarkH 4/7/2008

For me the image is visible and I can use in galleries/articles. The search function on Commons is not up-to-date, it can take a couple of hours till new images will be found. --GeorgHHtalk   11:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If two cities have the same name

Is there any rule or guideline on Commons for the naming of cats for different cities etc. with identical names?
Currently the cat for the East Sussex town of Hove (UK) is named simply Category:Hove.
But the cat for the municipality Hove in Belgium is named Category:Hove (Belgium).
And there is even a Hove in South Australia, currently without a cat on Commons.
Shouldn’t they both named in the same manner? -- Túrelio 06:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually comma used as delimited in such cases. See Category:San Jose, California as example. --EugeneZelenko 15:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no clear rule.
  • The first cat that is created usually wins. The second one with a simular name takes a precision. I suggest to make a disambiguity page (gallery) to document (redirect to the cats) that as it avoids unnecessary fights.
  • I strongly would suggest a comma delimiter as you might have several towns with the same name in the same country, so the name might need two disambiguity parameters, for example "Hove, Antwerpen, Belgium" and "Hove, Henegouwen, Belgium", or as for nl:Limburg, en:Bergen (disambiguation) or the hundreds French city names that exist allover France. This will get worse over time as more and more wikipedia's join commons.
We would avoid a lot of trouble if from the onset, we would integrate all dismbiguity pages from all wikipedia's in the commons. But that is a not a small job. --Foroa 18:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hide category

Several weeks (or months?) ago, I seem to recall a command becoming available which we could add into a category such that it does not show up at the bottom of tagged articles/images. Might anyone recall what that command is? I can't seem to find it. Thanks! --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 04:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You add __HIDDENCAT__ to the category page. Rocket000 07:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 12:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem accessing Commons

Sometimes I can't get on Commons, although the site isn't down as a whole. I don't have the problem with any other Wikimedia site. Maybe it's a particular server? Is there a workaround, like logging on to a specific URL or a secure server or some such? Tyrenius 07:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday is was particularly bad. -- Túrelio 07:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Something's wrong here...

I had problems opening User:Klaus with K before, and when it did open, I got a rather vulgar display that crashed my browser (IE7). I thought that this was probably an April Fools thing gone on too long, so I went straight to the edit page. And... it looks perfectly normal. I push preview; it looks perfectly normal. I click the user page tab, and... I get the strange display and IE crashes. What's up here? Thegreenj 03:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

At least with my IE 6.x under Windows 98SE I didn't see any problem with that page, and it hasn't been changed since 26. Sep. 2007. -- Túrelio 06:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks OK to me with IE7 and with Firefox 2. Torve 11:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Works for me in Firefox and IE 6.0.2900, both logged in and not logged in. Perhaps try the ever-so-ingenious tech solution: close your browser and restart; or if that doesn't work, try restarting your computer? What exactly is this "vulgar" display? My concept of what "vulgar" involves may be far pronounced than what I suspect is really just some generic error prompt, and that error prompt may be what helps figure out what is going on. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 19:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, it's working now. I restarted the browser and the computer yesterday with no effect. The screen had been replaced by a pixelated nude image with some sort of really strange, bright cartoon saying, "Welcome to my page Mother Fucker!" Thegreenj 20:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
See the history of Template:BUser: 02:40, 8 April 2008 DavenbelleDickTailedMobyDick (1,983,530 bytes) (for great justice and epic lulz; also, go to http;||blocked,on,nimp,org (a must-see)); maybe that's what caused it ? - Erik Baas 10:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
That's it. How annoying! A good reason to subst templates, I suppose... Thegreenj 20:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I find it surprising that such a widely used template was just sitting there unprotected. I've fully protected it; it's the cornerstone to the babel boxes, so it shouldn't be editable just willy-nilly. EVula // talk // // 21:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you think User:DavenbelleDickTailedMobyDick should get something? Looking at his contribs, it seems pretty clear that he's using this account just to insert his vandalism. Thegreenj 22:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, they've already been blocked. What else do you want? :) EVula // talk // // 04:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Using GFDL images without attribution

This news story [4] is using an image clearly lifted from here Image:Deweybridge.jpg. The image was published by me under the GFDL. There is no attribution on this page and they are claiming copyright over this image. I sent an email to this address (per their terms of use page) requesting attribution per requirement of GFDL, but they did not reply. There is a process for reporting GFDL violations on the english language wikipedia, but I could not find a similar process for the Commons. Advise please?Davemeistermoab 04:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put the "published"-template on the talk pageof your image [5]. The case is the more interesting (and relevant) as, according to KUTV2, this is an Associated Press report. So, if AP has spread your image throughout the media without proper attribution ... -- Túrelio 05:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Then they're in breach of copyright. Send them your invoice. Tyrenius 06:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Poor AP, they couldn't afford to send a reporter to take a photo of the bridge. OhanaUnitedTalk page 08:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I only wrote that the report itself is by AP. Currently we can't be sure whether KUTV2 also got the image from AP or took it from Commons by themselves. -- Túrelio 08:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've checked several other websites with the same prose credited to the AP. This is the only one I've seen using the picture from the commons.Davemeistermoab 15:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Responding to Ohana United, AP would need a time machine to send someone to take a picture of the bridge! (The whole point is that is was recently destroyed by fire). Our picture of the bridge is probably the only widely or freely available one. They should have still attributed the photographer though. It should also be noted that they cropped the picture for their use, not that there is anything wrong with that. Carcharoth (Commons) 15:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, shouldn't we try and get a picture of the burnt out bridge? Maybe that is what Ohana United meant by AP sending someone to take a picture. Carcharoth (Commons) 15:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What is regrettably unclear from our description page is who actually took the picture.
@Davemeistermoab, if you took the image by yourself, that should be entered into the description. -- Túrelio 15:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I took this picture. I see your point, I originally uploaded to the english wikipedia. In the transfer to commons the authorship got muddled.Davemeistermoab 16:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
What stopped you from fixing it? This is a wiki, after all ... --rimshottalk 16:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Cause I'm slow =-). FYI, there are some spectacular pictures of the bridge burning here: [6]. I plan to ask the author if he would be willing to license these photos CC or GFDL.Davemeistermoab 17:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The bridge burning pictures would be a great addition, good luck with convincing the author. --rimshottalk 19:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks everybody for your feedback. It sounds like yes, I can complain to them but am pretty much on my own. In better news, the author of the burning bridge pics has granted permission for one image and it has been uploaded.Davemeistermoab 04:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Davemeistermoab, don't be disappointed. You know about giving legal advice without being a lawyer ... I don't know about Commons, but on :en there is an article en:Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance and en:Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process and even a Standard GFDL violation letter. These are written primarily in regard to wikipedia articles, but in your case it should even be easier as you are the sole creator of that image. -- Túrelio 06:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How to extend scope of licensing?

Currently some of the images I have created and uploaded here are on display on two other websites because I have submitted selected photographs for photo competitions hoping to get a little cash to invest in further equipment... I do not mind that these particular websites and a newspaper site use the photos for publishing on their web site. Nor do I mind if they reprint the photos in hard copy as long as I am attributed. I would like to add a separate statement on the nominated photographs stating that these sites are allowed to do this. All my images are dual-licensed under GFDL and cc-by-sa-all licenses. I am not very copyright-knowledgeable. Could anyone give an example of how I can extend the current dual license? -- Slaunger 13:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that is the effect of your licensing already. Both GFDL and CC-by-SA licenses require the author to be attributed. In the CC-case, the only addition is that the license the image is under must be stated. The share-alike part means that derivative works, in particular images derived from your images, must also be licensed as CC-by-SA. The image can still be used in newspaper on websites and so on, because those are not seen as derivative works (if I understand that part of the license correctly). If you want to allow derivate works to be licensed in any way, while still attributing you, you can change the licensing to GFDL and CC-by. That change should be allowed, as it does not diminish the rights of those who downloaded the images under the older license. Keep in mind, however, that you cannot change it back to CC-by-SA.
If you do not want to change your licensing completely, you can give the newspapers or websites an individual permission to use the image for a certain purpose. By taking part in photo competitions, you usually agree for the image to be used at the web site, or possibly even in printed form - it pays to read the small print. --rimshottalk 14:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi rimshot. Thank you for your reply. I want to keep the existing dual license for all purposes, except when it comes to one of the organizartions I have submitted photos to in a competition. The small organizations in question appear to unaware of details in licensing terms and there is nothing in small print which details licensing in their terms and conditions. One organization will use the winning photos in a printed calender, which will be sold as well as publish them on a tourist site to promote the area in question. The other one is a small local newspaper who intends to promote local photos, print them in the newspaper and publish them online and perhaps publish them in book form. When I submitted the photos I explicitly state the current licensing terms and included links to the Wikimedia image pages. I also wrote that I intended to extend the current licensing such that they could carry on with their business without taking special notice to republishing. I also suggested a wording to use in the extended copyright notice asking for feedback if it would suit their needs. I have not received any feedback on that.
So, in laymans terms I want to extend the existing license on some particular images with seomthing like "Permission is granted to the [Organization] to do whatever they want with this image as long as they attribute the image to the creator, [My Name] and acknowledge that the creator owns the copyright to this image." However, I guess this can be done in a more precise wording. Surely, some other users have some good examples of what to write in such circumstances?
Chances are that nobody would ever find out, but I would like to "protect" the organizations from being accused of copyright infringement. -- Slaunger 19:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
My understanding (which I wouldn't put all that much faith in) is that the holder of the license may make exemptions of any kind as they wish, so long as the exemption softens the license rather than further restricts it; and with the understanding that the exemption cannot be revoked -- unless that was an explicit part of the initial terms. As for copyright infringement accusations: I believe the burden is on the copyright holder to pursue that on the legal end (though others are of course welcome to point such out to the copyright holder). --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 01:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


All images in this category seem to have no thumbnails. Is the software here "working as designed"? Can this be fixed somehow? --Jarekt 16:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The error message is surprisingly precise: Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters or PNG file with more than 12.5 million pixels. The latter is the case, as the images all have a higher resolution. When these images have been processed and split up (every png file now contains several illustrations), they will likely be small enough for thumbnails to be generated. For an example see the other versions section of this image. --rimshottalk 17:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Many files are much smaller than 12 MB. I cannot visualise any of them (except when the thumnail is present). Converting to JPEG format might be the quickest solution. Anyway, this looks like a software feature (bug) to me.--Foroa 17:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not about the file size, like I said, the error message is very precise. It is about the number of pixels. 12.5 million pixels is a lot less than, say, 5,096×6,152 pixels present in the first file of the category. I don't know whether this restriction applies to jpegs as well, but in any case png is the most suitable format for these "raw" files. The processed files pose no problems as they are a lot smaller. --rimshottalk 19:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
If it's the # of total pixels that is the issue, then just like my comment a couple weeks ago about the upload size limit: this feature/bug might become an ever-increasing issue as cameras acquire higher and higher resolutions. My pocket camera hits the 12 MP mark... I hesitate to think of the consequences of when, next year, I splurge on the highest-end SLR I can find. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 01:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
See Wikitech-l Images greater than 12.5 megapixels can't be thumbnailed for the reason why this limit was originally implemented. However, you can upload JPEGs with greater than 12.5 megapixel image dimensions, and they will still be resized (it's PNGs and GIFs whose thumbnailing is limited). AnonMoos 07:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like someone is working on it. Don't hold your breath, though. --rimshottalk 11:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
See also bugzilla:12374 AzaToth 13:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, I wonder why I didn't find it in my bugzilla search. The proposed patch doesn't help much, though. It just shifts the problem to a different place, meaning that any error messages are likely to be less informative. --rimshottalk 14:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC) PS: the ImageMagick documentation describes these parameters. --rimshottalk 15:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Photos of people dressed as the 2008 Olympics mascots

I was at the Torch Relay in SF (as much of a success/bust that was), where there were folks dressed up as 2 sets of the 5 mascots there along with all the protesters. Anyone could pose with them. Can I upload the photos I took of them and would I have to use the IOC license in addition to the CC and GFDL licenses I normally use, or one or the other, or what? There are 3 photos of the mascots that have been around here for nearly 2 years, however none of anyone dressed as them: Image:ShopBeijing2008-2.jpg, Image:HuanHuanBeijing2008.jpg, and Image:BeijingWrongMascot.jpg (this is one is a bootleg of one of them), all from Flickr. I raised the issue re. the logo and toys of the mascots here, but would like further clarification if it's needed. BrokenSphere 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well aren't they derivative works? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That's why I'm wondering why they have been allowed to be on here for so long and not been deleted. How does this differ from people dressed up in costume? BrokenSphere 14:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
They haven't been deleted because nobody has got round to it yet. I've now done it under the Speedy Deletion guidleines (so please don't shout at me for not discussing first). They are indeed obvious derivative works.--MichaelMaggs 18:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Good deal. Perhaps something additionally silly but related - I also got pics of the bags containing the costumes - you can't the see costumes themselves. Those should be good to go, I'd think? BrokenSphere 19:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


How would you name a category for "dogs on the leash" or "people walking with dog" or such theme? There's actually no category for leashes... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is Category:BDSM_equipment... SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos 14:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Look further: Category:People with dogs. Silly (sub)cat displays, slightly improved by now. --Foroa 15:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Please, could anyone expert in PD-US check this image? thanks-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 17:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Flickr source indicates it is from the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian's photo page states, at the bottom: All photographs copyright Smithsonian Institution. Do not reproduce without written permission. I tagged it with {{copyvio}}. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 01:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this made me think... has anyone ever contacted the Smithsonian about making their collection available to the Wikimedia Foundation? And would we be willing to accept such a copyright exemption if they were to concur? I know there's been some talk previously about us accepting such exemptions. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 01:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, for an unknown reason I thought the Smithsonian Intitution was part of the US Gov. -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 16:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Completely understandable -- I actually thought it was, too, up until I read into it yesterday. ...And I live only about a mile away from the Smithsonian; you'd think I might know these things :P --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 19:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

April 10

bug/image broken

At least I cannot see Image:Gtk-dialog-info.svg. If I try to open the image I get the error

Error de lectura XML: prefijo no vinculado a un espacio de nombres
Número de línea 38, columna 7:

this is a very important image (very extensive usage)-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 16:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The image seems to display in Wikimedia SVG renderer, which is the important thing for Wikimedia Commons... However, the way the source code of the file uses explicit <svg: namespace reference is a little unusual. Try a simple text search-and-replace of "<svg:" to "<" and "</svg:" to "</", and see if that allows it to work in your parser. AnonMoos 04:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Contacting copyright owner when re-using content

The page Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia suggests that some users can be contacted by email by clicking the "email this user" link listed in the toolbox on the user page. So far as I am aware, this works only when the person trying to send the email has an account here and is logged in. Is there any way a copyright owner can suggest that an intending user make contact by email without actually posting an email address? --MichaelMaggs 18:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

For my images I've asked for a note on the talk page of the respective image or on my own talk page. -- Túrelio 20:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

April 11


I got an email of a person asking me if we thought of paying our best illustrators. I answered no, but thought I could point him out to this project for which we got that grant to pay for illustrations. I could not find the page. Can anyone point me to the right place ? Also, how is this project going on ? Thanks Anthere 09:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

m:Philip Greenspun illustration project and it should be starting up anytime now... Rocket000 09:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
okay, thank you. I forwarded the information. Anthere

Maps based on aerial photographs

Would it be possible to create SVG maps based on satellite or aerial photos that are copyrighted, i.e. make a print screen of Google Maps and then draw a map based on that. Or would that be considered a derivative work? Väsk 17:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends. You can't copyright natural geography, so if you're using the imagery as a reference to create an otherwise original map (reference meaning to lay out how transport lines, buildings/properties, etc. are all laid out geometrically), then it's not a problem. However, if you're actually using the image itself as a part of your work -- even if it's as a background behind otherwise user-created items -- then it would be a derivative work. Did that make any sense? One caveat is how I said that you can't copyright natural geography. Depending on Freedom of Panorama, artificially-built terrain may be copyrighted -- such as those big palm tree shaped neighborhoods built along the Dubai coastline (not to say that they are copyrighted; I have no idea what UAE's FOP laws are). --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 19:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe I'm thinking of the former. Essentially, I would take an aerial photo from a map service and then paste it into Inkscape to trace the outlines on the picture. I did this with a small village a few years ago (see here), but now I'm thinking of tracing a larger area and I don't want to waste time on something that gets deleted. It would be nice to get a "go ahead". The satellite images are obviously copyrighted, but the question is if you can copyright a tracing. Väsk 21:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that it would be OK per the "can't copyright geography" viewpoint, but I recommend holding off a bit to see if anyone else has any input on the subject. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 22:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This raises an interesting point regarding copyright in a globalised world. If a US satellite takes a photo of the Dubai islands and they are published by an Italian company, whose (FOP) laws, apply? I should, have become a copyright lawyer :-( --Inkwina (talk contribs) 06:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
In your example, the US lack of freedom of panorama laws would apply. As a general case, for anything happening in Earth orbit, the laws of the country where the orbiting object is from apply. Leads to interesting legal situations on the International Space Station... --Carnildo 22:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The object? The ISS is made up of materials from many different countries. The South Korean astronaut may have taken a camera up there from South Korea. Maybe the countries involved have all signed some agreement, or maybe they used common sense and didn't bother? :-) Carcharoth (Commons) 23:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
en:ISS#Legal aspects - There are specific treaties in place regarding the ISS and intellectual property (sp. copyrighted works and patentable inventions) developed there. Any treaty whose table of contents requires a table of contents is, I feel safe to say, inherently complicated. There's a brief overview at ~Kylu (u|t) 19:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

US national monuments

There is a serious debate around Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Boy Scout Memorial-27527.jpg. Patriotic Americans are worried that pictures of their national monuments will be deleted, others cite the lack of FOP in the US. Could someone knowledgeable add some light to the heat? --Simonxag 11:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I added some more information about the circumstances of the commissioning, designing, making and unveiling of the memorial. Whether that is enough information, I don't know, but I hope it provides a bit more lightl. Carcharoth (Commons) 12:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bug in resizing animated transparent GIFs

Take a look at Image:CIE illuminants D and blackbody.gif and you'll see what I mean. --Adoniscik(t, c) 18:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it actually has to do with animation -- on transparent GIFs generally, the transparent area eats away at the borders of the non-transparent area when images are sized down. This is a milder bug than some of the notorious flaws in PNG thumbnailing, which can result in hugely unnnecessarily bloated filesizes for pixel-dimension-reduced PNGs... AnonMoos 07:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

NEW: Category for fakes

Following a discussion[7] at the German Village pump about the handling of some obviously or presumedly fake images on Commons, I've created a Category:Fakes. The questions remains what to do with an image after it has been proven to be faked. --Túrelio 08:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That category seems to be quite vague as currently applied. Is there any useful similarity between the Vinland map (a claimed medieval document which some -- but by no means all -- scholars consider to have been forged in the early 20th century) and the soccer team "Fake flags" (which have been quite openly and cheerfully admittedly fabricated in the last few years for the sole and exclusive purpose of getting around copyright legalities)?? And a "Fake arch" involves no fraudulence of any kind, but is merely a technical achitectural term ! AnonMoos 13:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
True, it was a first try to put those together which seem to have the "fake character" in common. I've removed the cat from the Fake arches. Eventually we should discriminate between images of faked items (such as Image:Crop circle fake swr 17-02-05.jpg and Image:Einhorn-Guericke.jpg) and faked images such as Image:Fritz Todt Grabstein.jpg. --Túrelio 14:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


There is a mistake on this image: Image:FernandoPessoa.JPG [8]. The person who appears is not Fernando Pessoa, but Jean-Paul Sartre. Can somebody resolve the problem? Thanks. Amadís 12:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you absolutely sure about that? (Though I acknowledge that it looks similar to Sartre) --Túrelio 12:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
That is Sartre, plus a google search shows that this is Pessoa.--Yamanbaiia 13:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I´m absolutley sure. Amadís 19:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Plants in xxx

What is the scope of categories such as Category:Plants of Switzerland? Is it only for plants that grow natively and only within that country, or plants that are found in that country as well as others? I try to categorise all my images to include the identity of the subject as well as the location, but recently a user has been removing all my location tags because the subject can be found at other locations outside of the country. Thoughts? --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 20:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen that User:Ies has added many categories. For example for the plant Asphodelus albus there are now the categories | Plants of Albania | Plants of Bulgaria | Plants of France | Plants of Greece | Plants of Hungary | Plants of Italy | Plants of Spain | Plants of Switzerland | Plants of Yugoslavia |.
In my opinion not very useful unless it is used as you mentioned only for plants that grow natively and only within that country. Mentioning the area in a country in the description is very useful. I don't know how your location tags looked like, but removing them is not good because it has been made more difficult for users that search for location information. Wouter 22:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The way I have/had it arranged was that an image of a flower taken in, for example, Salzburg, would be categorised in Category:Flowers of Salzburg. Then when a user goes to Category:Salzburg, a user could branch through Category:Plants of Salzburg to access the Flowers category. I just felt it was a neat concept to have flowers within a city (or country) all grouped together, which could provide a one-stop glimpse of the type of flora in that geographical area. That spares people like me (whom calls any purple flower a "violet") from trying to root through a catalog of taxonomical confusion when we're just curious to see what grows where.
Another example is with the Category:Rosengarten Bern, which is a section of the city Bern in CH which is renowned explicitly for its flowers, so it seemed only logical to put all my photos into a category for that location. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 22:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It would seem to me that the way Thisisbossi is doing it, is the most sensible one. I don't think one should categorize a species category unless that species can only be found in one country (or very few countries). Categorizing single images makes more sense, however, as it is also a way to show variation, which is due to geographic factors, within a species. Samulili 09:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree, but then only for flowers native (not necessarily endemic) to that particular region. Lycaon 10:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
A gallery page is a good way to provide a one-stop glimpse of the type of flora in that geographical area, for example Squak Mountain State Park. Gallery pages allow you to annotate images, organize them in various ways, e.g., by the color of the blossom, and add subheadings that are indexed automatically at the page top. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Categorising of categories is different from categorising of images, and needs to be done with care. I only categorise location according to where the picture was taken, not the geographical range of an animal or plant. In fact, I tend to categorise location, subject and date, though only if the date and location are relevant to the picture. The subject category is the most important one. I wonder if my approach is the same as policy here? Let's look at Commons:Categorisation. That took me to Commons:Categories. Oh good, Commons:Categories#Categorization tips states pretty much what I was saying. Carcharoth (Commons) 11:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How long does it take until images show up ?

How long does it take until images show up as a search result ?
I just can't find the relevant information in the help files or faqs. I have uploaded a few files ..[9].
They do show in my contribution list, but won't come out on doing a search nor in the corresponding category.

The images are shown in the category. Find the images via commons search can take a few hours - it's a cache issue. --GeorgHHtalk   18:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

images from

I have already seen some pictures from that site, for example Image:Oxhill 196911 fabbeb0a.jpg source.

Since that site allows Creative Commons cc-by-sa, I think they can be allowed after a review similar to those from flickr. ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 22:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They also require that commercial use be permitted... so cc-by-sa and no nc: can't say I see any problems with using them, provided we share alike & attribute. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 22:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Images from the Geograph project are usable for us indeed, please use {{geograph}} to identify them as such. Regards, Finn Rindahl 22:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

April 13

Was my user page deleted?

Am I going mad, or did my user page get deleted? I'm sure I remember adding a gallery of images I had uploaded plus a copyright statement, but there was nothing there now, and nothing in the deletion log either. I notice that some of my earlier uploads also don't show up in the logs, so perhaps they have been pruned? Can someone check this for me. It is quite possible that I am mistaken or that I created a similar page on another WMF project and am getting confused. Thanks --HappyDog 14:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see your userpage, so... you're confused, I think :) – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition to what Mike said, you've only got two deleted contributions (both of them being you tagging duplicated images), so I'm guessing that you're mistaken. EVula // talk // // 23:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediawiki and exif comments

I have for a while put author and license information into the exif comment field. I notice that the tool used to create smaller versions of the image does not preserve that information and some other information in the exif. You can see that e.g. from the full size image Image:NH11India20080212-02.jpg. In the full size image exif the comment is present, while in the image shown on the image page that information and exposure information are gone. (For this picture the latter could also be of interest as it was taken from the side window of the car as we drove by.)

Is that really a behaviour we want? An easy way to copy a picture to another site is to save the picture from the image page. If that picture preserves the comment field, the pictures would themselves indicate that information in my case and anyone else that did the same. Haros 21:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

April 14

GO TO valued image candidates

Valued image candidates waiting for YOU

There are several Pending valued image candidates waiting for your opinions, comments and votes. --Túrelio 09:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


What's to be done about such images? --Eleassar (t/p) 16:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking the uploader to provide the missing information. The depicted died 1970, so the photographer can't be dead for 70 years. --Túrelio 16:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
All 19 uploads seem to be missing author information and are mostly undated. The {{PD-old}} license cannot be verified.[10] Unfortunately, all of the contributions may have to be nominated for deletion unless justifications for the claimed PD-old licenses are added. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message at the uploader's talk page in the English Wikipedia. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia logos in a browser screenshot

I assume most of you know that the Wikimedia Foundation logo and logos for particular projects (such as Wikipedia and Commons) are trademarks of and copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation so, how can the screenshoot of a (free as in speech) browser showing the main page of Wikipedia be free? This goes against the Commons policy of only free content; moreover it can confuse potential users who would want to use a browser screenshot. Has anybody (from Wikimedia) taken any decisión or given any advice on this? If not, I think it should be strongly recommended to use a public domain page when taking screenshots. --FedericoMP 19:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We have {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} for Wikipedia screenshots and {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} for other files which contains a wikimedia/wikipedia logo. --GeorgHHtalk   20:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly the problem. Template explicity says The Wikipedia logo (if it appears in this screenshot) has not been released under any free license, so the screenshot is not free because it includes not free material (the very same happened to Firefox in Debian —if a file is not free, the entire project/package is not free). The casual user should first delete Wikimedia logo to reuse the image, moreover he should remove all text because The actual contents of Wikipedia are licensed under the GFDL if he wants to avoid using two different incompatible licenses when republishing a simple screenshot. FedericoMP 21:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the owner of the license may make exceptions for specific purposes or to specific organisations. Therefore, the Wikimedia Foundation may have an areawide permission for usage of its copyrights within the scope & context of the Wikimedia Foundation. From another viewpoint: the Wikimedia Foundation is owner of the copyright and the respective Wikis are also Wikimedia Foundation, so the image may also be uploaded by a user authorised to represent the Wikimedia Foundation. There may be different levels of authorisation; not necessarily the same level of authorisation as a paid employee or a legal representative would receive. Rather, administrators or potentially even regular users may be authorised to utilise Wikimedia Foundation copyrights on the Wikimedia Foundation websites. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 02:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the WMF can choose to give permission. However, strictly speaking they never have, since the WMF licensing policy on logos remains unresolved more than 2 years since initial drafts were suggested. At present the logos are used throughout Wikimedia projects with what one might call implied consent, since the WMF has never generally told people to stop.
More to the point though, if Commons is really committed to free content, it shouldn't host unfree content even if it were given permission to do so. Personally I think Category:CopyrightByWikimedia should ultimately be emptied. The frivolous and low-priority stuff might be copied to Meta now. The widely used logos and the like probably have to remain here until a better technical solution is available, but I don't think those files ought to be a part of Commons either in the long run. Commons should be for free content, not free content plus whatever the Foundation chooses to put here. Dragons flight 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to make sure I read your comment correctly (because I don't think I have), are you saying that in the long-run: all Wikimedia Foundation sites should be devoid of any Wikimedia Foundation copyrights? Seems kind of odd for an organisation's product & website to be lacking in any identification with the organisation. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 03:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you missed my meaning. Commons, in particular, is intended to be a repository of free media. Therefore, my position is that Commons should not have unfree media sharing the same file space as the free media. Obviously, the WMF should retain the brand features, logos, etc. appearing in the interface. However, I believe that everything you locate at pages of the form Image:ABCDEF should be free content. Right now there is a substantial amount of unfree content on Commons in the Image namespace that belongs to the Foundation. My immediate feeling is that a significant portion of that could be moved to the Foundation's dedicated wiki, which would eliminate the possibility of it being confused with free content. Dragons flight 04:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but don't forget we put Wikimedia projects first when it comes to storing and suppling images. We exist mainly for them, and Wikimedia logos and such have very heavy use—free or not. Removing this content or moving it to Meta would diminish Commons' role in the Wikimedia community. We're not just some random free image repository. Outsider users of our content will just have to put up with it.. I'm sure they understand and we make it very clear when something isn't free. Rocket000 10:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Very clear? Like Image:02-wikiedycja.png, which has a half dozen copyright tags, at least two of which are mutually inconsistent in their text. That's only the first image I clicked on. Some time ago, I did a brief sampling of Copyright by Wikimedia and found a substantial fraction (like 30%) were being used only 0 or 1 times across all the WMF projects. The need to preserve images like that here is silly. I understand the argument about the widely used logos and such. Right now there is no practical alternative for widely used materials, however there is no technical reason there couldn't be a seperate file repository for WMF copyrighted materials. You may think moving that material off Commons diminshes Commons, but personally I think it elevates Commons by showing that we are really serious about making this into a generally useful free image repository. Dragons flight 18:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, things like that are kinda ridiculous, but still the © does stand out. Rocket000 03:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
So, as far as I can see, options are: 1. to delete all media that is not free because of Wikimedia logos (discouraged because of mass destruction), 2. add needed templates to existing media (and pray for users to understand how to comply with each license and that they have to remove wikimedia logos), 3. edit screenshots of browsers to replace the viewport part (the part where actual web pages are displayed) with something under public domain (like a white square) but in this case original works that are not free would need to deleted from history to avoid potential use of it. Moreover we should really encourage to use a blank web page (or a PD page if anyone knows one) to take screenshot; this is important because if the screenshot shows text from an article of Wikipedia the distribuitor will have to link to that article and in some cases he would not know which one it is (especially when it's a language that uses characters outside ASCII o whichever character set distribuitor uses) —and do not forget GPL for the Wikimedia software. By the way, Image:02-wikiedycja.png has to be edited (I'm gonna to do it) because it incluides the Firefox non free logo. FedericoMP 00:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
What is the correct template to use for wikimedia project screenshots? I just uploaded Image:Testbox.PNG with template:Wikimedia project screenshot - which is probably overkill since there is no logo in the screenshot. I did not see any consistency in which template was applied for other screenshot images. --mikeu 03:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That template is not correct, since there's no logo as you noted. Probably, GFDL alone will suffice here, unless the two images have different licenses. Superm401 - Talk 09:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

April 3

Valued images

The official Valued image logo

Finally, the Valued Images project has an official logo! Thanks to the creator LadyofHats and for the users passing by on the project talk page to voice their opinion. It seems like the Valued idea has spread. A Valued Pictures Proposal has just been published at WP:FPC. -- Slaunger 09:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. It's good see something originate on Commons and spread to Wikipedia (as it's usually the other way around). Good choice in the logo. Rocket000 13:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well it seems like, the WP:VP idea has had its off-spring independent of COM:VI. And as a matter of fact there seems to quite an opposition on WP on the idea to host a Valued image project on Commons. -- Slaunger 19:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Untranscluded templates

Don't know if it's only on my browser but in Commons:Deletion requests/2008/03 the last 10 days don't display and instead there are just links to the subpages in the bottom of the page. Looking at the pagecode there is nothing different with these subpages compared to the ones which display ok. Is there a MediaWiki restriction on the maximum number of kB that can get transcluded to any page or any similar explanation? /Lokal_Profil 09:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a restriction. I can't remember it off hand, but the solution is to have some of the debates closed, I think. giggy (:O) 10:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Note the warning "<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->" in the source of the page. Basically, too much data was being transcluded, so it cut off further transclusions. In the past, excessive use of templates has brought to the servers to a crawl, which led to these limits being imposed. Superm401 - Talk 11:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
"Post-expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes" It can use an archiving. That may help, but we may just have to split it up. "Served by srv168 in 25.839 secs." That's just way too long. Rocket000 13:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Is the archiving bot out of order? Some of these requests have been closed for a month ... --rimshottalk 14:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hm, it is archiving, apparently. Is there something wrong with March? --rimshottalk 14:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It dies on the fact that 2008 is a leap year. I'll check on that later. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Should work now. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Images from (coats of arms)

After a long discussion on Commons and the Dutch wikipediaon images taken from, agreement was reached on images actually made by me. This deals with approx. 700 images and a template ngw was created. So far so good. But... there are over 6200 images taken from my site, and none is crediting the proper source, many are accredited to me (not by me !, see and for this I made the template Ngw2. I basically made that template to make people aware that the licensing is not correct. I have seen already that at least one German uploader made changes and added a proper source (whether that is correct I don;t know, he just put the name of the author of the book, but I am pretty sure he did not ask the author, he just copied the name of the book, the actual author of the image is someone else...), see

If you would really be correct, all images, except the ones from my hand, should be deleted from commons. And that are about 5500... A search in commons of shows 6207 hits just now, of which are about 700 that are with the ngw template and only maybe 100 with the ngw2 template... I changed many from Brazil; an example is where the uploader added a license that he did create the image himself... he actually only made a png out of a jpg. There are at least 50 more Brazilian ones like this that I did not yet change.

Another large group is the Norwegian series, an example is, where I supposedly gave permission ( I may have but did not recall and I was not involved in Wikipedia and thus also did not know the consequences), which should also be properly attributed to the author. Unfortunately I took all from a webpage which does no longer exist. What to do there ?

There are also thousands of German ones, like, again, these are all scans and should for commons be properly attributed.

What to do ? Add the ngw2 template everywhere to show that the license is not correct (which may result in another wrong license as I amentioned above) or remove all ? Which is not too good for commons, but maybe the correct way. And how to find all those images ?

I'd like to help if I can, but someone on administrator level should make the decision. In many countries coats of arms are Public Domain, but still the images are drawn by someone whi thus is the copyright owner... Knorrepoes 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the deletion request. I will see if I can make a list of all such images with AWB shortly. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 11:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I am adding them to the category with template ngw2 : which may helpKnorrepoes 11:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

April 15

Adding photos with permission

There is an existing Wikipedia article about a person, with no photo. I have a photo of the person, which I'd like to add. The photo is not my own work, but I have contacted both the (amateur) photographer and the subject by e-mail, and they are both happy for me to slap a free licence on the photo and add it. Can I go ahead? Torve 11:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend to consent in advance with the photographer about the license, i.e., which one (for images, the best ones are Creative Commons, for example CC-BY-SA 3.0; BY means with every use of that image the photographer must be named (so you also should ask the photographer, how he/she would like to be named in the image description, John Doe; John Doe, Chicago; J. Doe; etc) and SA (share alike) means if somebody makes a derivative of that image he has to share it under the same license, so he cannot retain the copyright for himself. If all that is agreed about, you can upload the image (choose "It is from somewhere else" from the menue) and then paste the resulting URL of that image into the text of the permission email template you find here Commons:Email templates and mail that to the copyright holder. He/She then has to sent that text back to OTRS ( in order to demonstrate his/her consent. -- Túrelio 12:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive reply. I have already explained CC-BY-SA, as I understand it, and asked about the name he wants to use, so those things are agreed. He doesn't have a lot of interest in all this and he may roll his eyes at getting ANOTHER message on the same subject when he's already kindly given permission, but I can try... Torve 12:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand. But this one feedback is necessary. You may tell him that he my get famous with so many people viewing his image ;-) -- Túrelio 12:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This one ended happily, he agreed to send the standard permission form to, so I think it's all done. Torve 20:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, especially after we're loosing currently some images[11]. Is the image already uploaded? --Túrelio 20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

April 9


12 hours ago, I uploaded an update to a map in SVG format (with an embedded picture, so it is slightly larger...ok, it's 1.7 MB): Image:Chemins-Saint-Jacques-PM-en-France fr.svg. Looking at the image page, I still see the diminished preview image of the old version. I am pretty sure that I have emptied the cache on my local computer, so this should be really a server issue.

I know that rendering of fonts in SVG graphics is a intricate issue - that is what the difference between the two versions was about. So I made up a test: At User:Hk kng/Rendering Test you can see the map first with the same resolution as on the image page, and then slightly larger. For me, their fonts are looking different.

Is this a server caching issue? When should I expect the preview image to update? What has the file size to do with it? --Hk kng 15:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now it has changed. If anyone knows could you none the less explain what has happened? --Hk kng 18:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The caching or old image version persistence could have happened at anywhere of several levels, from your local web-browser's cache on your computer's hard drive, to Akamai-type intermediaries, to the Wikimedia servers themselves... AnonMoos 04:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Starting from scratch avoids copyright?

I realized there are some coats of arms which don't have free versions (i.e., en:Image:Gloucestershirearms.PNG). If someone takes the non-free image as example and starts say an SVG from scratch, can that image be free licensed and uploaded here? (And, is anybody interested in creating the aforementioned image? :) ). Thanks, Malafaya 21:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That image of the CoA couldn't be used to create a free image (it would be a derivative) however the free en:blazon of the CoA could be used to create a free image. That is the en:blazon (official wording describing the CoA) define it but there can then be different (copyrightable) interpretations of that blasoning. Hope that helps./Lokal_Profil 00:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's how I explained it before:
In more traditional European-based forms of heraldry, where each coat of arms is based on a textual description or "blazon", and many different artistic renderings based on the blazon might be considered acceptable as a version of the arms, then if you make a new visual rendering of the coat of arms based on the textual blazon, you would own the copyright to your particular rendering. (However, the use of the arms might be restricted in some jurisdictions by non-copyright requirements -- see Template:Insignia.)
But if an emblem is tied to one particular official rendering, and no artistic variations are allowed, then the copyright situation might be different. As a practical matter, Wikimedia Commons seems to allow all national flags and national coats of arms or country emblems to be uploaded (even though the formal legal basis for this might be murky in some cases). However, subnational emblems (such as coats of arms of provinces) don't get the same free ride. AnonMoos 04:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

April 16

SVG image won't update

So I created and uploaded Image:LaunchLoop.svg, saw that I'd misplaced the image frame slightly, and immediately uploaded a new verision that fixed the problem. When I use the image in articles the thumbnail that's generated looks perfectly fine. But the version that's displayed on the image description page appears to be stuck in the old misframed form. Is there a way to tell the wiki software that this needs to be updated? Or is it already in some job queue somewhere and tomorrow everything will be well again? Bryan Derksen 11:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cache problem, should be working now (?) Finn Rindahl 13:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup, looks fine. Thanks. :) Bryan Derksen 17:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Getty images suing for unlicensed image use

According to a report on Spiegel online as of today, Getty Images is suing website owners in Germany on large scale for allegedly using Getty images without a license[12]. We have at least one image Image:Dv285080.jpg with Getty Images named as source. Could somebody check whether the "Autorisation n° N4586028062007" on the image page is really valid. --Túrelio 16:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Getty images does not usually give away images (even for money) with a GFDL-license. The image was uploaded with the notice "Utilisable sans usage commercial", that means, no commercial use. You could speedily delete it, I think, but as it is used a deletion request would probably be better. The uploader might then give some more information about the permission. --rimshottalk 17:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I find it unlikely that a user with one single contribution will respond. That picture is used on French Wikinews, and the uploader stopped contributing there too the next day. Haros 17:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted Image:Dv285080.jpg. It's for commercial use available amongst others at and --GeorgHHtalk   18:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That was really fast. --Túrelio 18:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry folks, but there are more images with a Getty Images credit. Of these, the following may also be problematic:
Image:Jzabel Goulart2.jpg,
Image:Antrel Rolle...destroying the Bungles... (2049366174).jpg,
Image:Rondo.jpg (already under DR). --Túrelio 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jzabel Goulart2.jpg is the only upload of the person releasing it, Image:GohTong.jpg does not have any license info and Image:Antrel Rolle...destroying the Bungles... (2049366174).jpg was likely not uploaded to flicker by the stated author of the image. All those images are likely problematic, but at least they mention the source. --Jarekt 18:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing the source websites, I've put all three on speedy deletion. --Túrelio 20:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What about these:

  • Image:Suzann Pettersen 2.jpg GFDL tag, uploader says permission by her manager was aquired per email, no OTRS number and the EXIF data says "Photo by Scott Halleran/Getty Images".
  • Image:Davidmurdoch.jpg, PD-self by cs:User:Fab, who was only active for two days. EXIF data says "Photo by Elsa/Getty Images".
  • Image:Tan white2.jpg, tagged as PD-self by User:Garmold (half of this uploads were deleted, the remaining look suspicious), EXIF data says "Photo by Ron Hoskins/NBAE via Getty Images".
  • Image:Johnnnn.jpg, uploader claims to be the author, only contribution by this user, EXIF data says "Photo by Chad Buchanan/Getty Images".
  • Image:Downloadfestival1.jpg, copied from Flickr (one of 4 photos from different evanescence concerts uploaded by the Flickr user under a CC license, flickr user does not give his name), EXIF data says "Photo by Dave Etheridge-Barnes/Getty Images".
  • Image:Forest.jpg, uploaded by User:Andersandersson who claims to be the author, EXIF data says "c) Darrell Gulin/Photodisc Red/Getty Images".

-- 01:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. IMO it looks like those should be deleted, and the users at least warned-- if there is no plausible explanation or reason to think it was an honest mistake, the uploaders should be blocked. (Other uploads by the same users should be seriously questioned as well.) -- Infrogmation 01:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Any image here by Getty is almost certainly a copyvio/non-commercial only, and should be tagged {{copyvio}}. I've tagged the ones listed above already. However, there's no need to panic just because of some story in the news. Wikimedia is protected by DMCA safe harbor. Superm401 - Talk 04:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... Do we have a DMCA page on Commons ("this is how to contact us")? I couldn't find one. Samulili 06:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
What is "DMCA"? --Túrelio 06:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
en:Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It's important for Commons because it limits the liability of Online Providers (such as Commons) from copyright infringement by their users. Samulili 07:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. And this Commons:Contact us is probably what you asked for. --Túrelio 07:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It is really a horrible experience how many "contributors" knowingly upload images clearly marked as copyrighted and then even claim them to be self-made. This also shows that our flickr-review procedure is insufficient. --Túrelio 06:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

All users involved in uploading these images need to be banned, and the rest of the images they uploaded without cast-iron sources deleted. We simply cannot give the benefit of the doubt to contributions from users who upload images from places like Getty.
Delete them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Megapixie 06:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Some of the problems were not with Commons user but with flicker one. Image Image:Antrel Rolle...destroying the Bungles... (2049366174).jpg came from where uploder claim he is the author and also provides name of the real photographer from Getty. Than our bot "verified" that there is a page on flicker with a proper license. As Túrelio already pointed out, this example shows a weakness of our flickr-review procedure which does not take into account copyvios on flicker. The only way we know about it is that flicker user knew and was honest enough to list real photographer's name. I assume that in most cases that would not be the case. --Jarekt 16:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The bot is not supposed to catch these issues. It's designed for when the Flickr user really does own the copyright. In that case, it checks for an acceptable license, and archives the result in case it later changes. But you're right that we have to check for copyvios by the Flickr users manually (just as we handle most copyvios manually), and that's understood. Superm401 - Talk 10:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Image redirects

Just to note that image redirects does now work!

That means, if an image has a bad filename, e.g. ‹"Image:PIC1234.jpg" we can now create a redirect page "Image:This_is_a_more_descriptive_filename.jpg" which redirects to "Image:PIC1234.jpg". The name "Image:This_is_a_more_descriptive_filename.jpg" can now be used in gallerys and normal wiki pages.

This can be an intermediate solution until a real file moving will be implemented (I have heard some rumors that a developer is working on that...). Raymond Disc. 18:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Great news. --Jarekt 18:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice! Popperipopp 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused... if I upload a duplicate with a better filename than the original, then why can't we just tag the original with {{badname}} to have it deleted; and send a bot to fix the pages that link to it such that they now link to the replacement? ...Or am I missing the scope of the redirects entirely? --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 21:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The advantage to this new method, if I understand correctly, is that the badly named image can be deleted immediately and changed into a redirect. Thus, we no longer have to wait for the bots to finish doing their rounds. Superm401 - Talk 05:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Superm401 pointed out one advantage. Another advantage: It is not longer needed to reupload a file with a better filename. Just redirect from a better filename to the bad filename. Background: Every reupload needs space on the hard disks. Deleted files are not really deleted, they are stored eternal and allocate spaces eternal. If we redirects now from a better filename to a bad filename we can move them later once real file movings are possible. Real movings allocate a few (kilo)bytes only instead of megabytes for a file. Raymond Disc. 05:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There are many advantages to redirects. Old pages versions in Wikipedias and other projects will not contain broken image links for renamed or duplicate files (this is important for the 'permanent link' feature of Wikipedias). And it will also not break links from sites to image descriptions here, which is important for reusers of Commons files (In (as an example) the same way that Commons want for links to Flickr images to keep working so that licenses can be checked). Really bad names should of course still be deleted without redirecting, but that should be done as soon as possible, before the image is used. /Ö 08:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea to redirect from a good name (say "Image:Eiffel tower at sunrise.jpg"), but leave the actual file at something unacceptable, like "Image:IMG23434.jpg". The real file name still needs to follow naming conventions. It's not true that deleted files are eternal. Deleted files don't necessarily last forever, though regular deleted text edits do (or at least, they're supposed to be kept). Superm401 - Talk 10:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you link to the bugzilla entry or technical announcement, so we know exactly how this works? Superm401 - Talk 05:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Bugzilla:4470. Raymond Disc. 05:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I am missing, how does one create an image page without uploding an image. --Jarekt 17:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The same way you create any other page. --Carnildo 19:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello. How can I find out if someone else has opened up an account in OTRS under my name and made damaging comments with the account. I suspect that someone has done this. Adam.J.W.C. 06:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't create an account in OTRS. You need to be approved by the OTRS admins. See m:OTRS. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If you suspect something, the best person to contact (IMO) is Cary Bass. giggy (:O) 09:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A flag I'm looking for...

I'm 100% positive I've seen a flag of the fictional Allied Nations from the game Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction here on Wikimedia Commons. I can't seem to find it now though. Does anyone know if it was deleted or where it is here? It's not in Category:Special or fictional flags either. It looks similar to Image:Flag of the United Nations.svg, but has differences.-- 19:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh here we go the flag looked like the flag in this pic on the helicopter.[13]-- 19:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Manhattan! photo contest results

Photographers on scavenger hunt for the 'pedia.

This event (the first of its kind anywhere) was held on April 4, and we now have all photos online and illustrating articles.

We got photos for 92 specifically requested sites (90 separate articles), nearly half of the 188 on our list. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan on English Wikipedia for a list of all the articles we illustrated, and photos of our uploading party.

Check out Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (which is really cool). If you're interested in holding one in your area, see Wikipedia Takes The City, and I'd be glad to offer any advice on an individual basis. Thanks.--Pharos 02:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Contributing to Commons obviously can be fun. --Túrelio 09:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a great project, but do we really need the "this is location number X" photos e.g. Image:WTM by official-ly cool 003.JPG? I can see how they were usefull during the competition but are they still usefull afterwards? Anyhow very well done on getting lots of original photos for Commons/Wikipedia. =) /Lokal_Profil 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I was going to ask the same. It seems to me like they aren't really within the project scope. Samulili 17:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is how to take photos of the requested subjects in such a way as to fulfill both the contest guidelines and keep them usable for other projects later on. This usability factor knocks out all the ones where people held up post-its of the codes to quickly ID the subject and those were the only photos of said subject that they took. A couple of ways this could be remedied:
  1. Write down the # given by one's digital camera to a photo in addition to the code # and the subject. I do something like this (minus the code #, of course) with my travel photos to keep track of them later on in a stenographic notebook. However since this is a 1 day contest that is likely a time consuming and cumbersome process since you would have to go into view mode and go through each pic right after it was shot. A faster way is to have all the code #s pre-listed with a description for each, then just write in the photo #s using a formatted chart or the like. This would work well with 2 people: whoever has the best camera takes the shots, reads out the photo #s, the other person records. The recorder could also function as a navigator.
  2. Take 2 shots: 1 with the post-it listing the code #, then a followup shot without.
BrokenSphere 17:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Number #2 is actually what we did, taking at least 2 shots for each location. There were no locations where we just had the post-its.--Pharos 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a Wikipedia project/meetup, so it's inside of project scope. --GeorgHHtalk   17:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that is the idea behind keeping all the photos. We're both illustrating a fun meetup, documenting a process that might be replicated in future, and creating an exciting and interesting gallery that's of publicity value.--Pharos 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Question:If I take a picture of a road with cars in it do I have to blur or blank out the license plates? Bsrboy 14:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It'll be good idea to care about other people privacy. --EugeneZelenko 14:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Do I have to blur out the faces of people under the age of 18? bsrboy 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We have COM:People, which can give you some answers, although it't not really a policy. As a rule of thumb that I would like to give, is to ask yourself if you think these people would be oturaged if they knew about these photos and that they are spread around the Internet. Samulili 16:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Real birds in category "AVE"

All material should over the Spanish high speed train "AVE". AVE is bird in Spanish. There are however 3 pictures off real birds in the category. I am not a bird specialist. Could someone place the birds in the correct bird category?


Smiley.toerist 09:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, I've recategorized them according to their descriptions/file names. --rimshottalk 09:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Another Player for Videos on Commons

As the headline says: I'm searching for an alternative player for Videos on Commons.
The current player is, from my point of few, useless, because it doesn't show you how much of the video you can see without a loadingbrek. Moreover the player loads the video everytime if you click on play.
Even I don't like that you can't start the video anywhere, I prefer the player on youtube.
If there is any Playeraplication I can download, please tell me.
--D-Kuru 15:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Panoramic Thumbnails

Recently I’ve become interested in taking Panoramic images, so decided to navigate to Category:Panoramic to pick up inspiration from other peoples panoramic images.

Unfortunately when I got there all that greeted me was rows of tiny thumbnails, some only 3 pixels high (e.g. the thumbnail of 2005-10-25_Doerflingen.jpg this can be viewed here: [[14]]) which made identifying an interesting panoramic image a little hard.

I navigated through some of the panoramic categories and the same problem prevailed, until I came to Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas, in which 1 panoramic thumbnail is set to 1 line. This makes viewing a panoramic image thumbnail incredibly easy. I understand that what I’m about to suggest may not be easy to implement, but would it be possible to change the code of the wiki so that when an image thumbnail is over a set aspect ratio then it is increased in size, or at least any categories which have been identified as mainly containing panoramic images be set to the same format as Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas?--PureCore 17:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point. I've filed a request for improvement as bug 13802. Superm401 - Talk 18:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

April 20

Adding a category to an image already uploaded

I know I am just plain missing something here, but I need to know the shortcut to add a category to a .jpg file I have already uploaded to commons. I can't believe that I appear to be too dumb to find it myself, but it seems I am. Appreciate somebody drawing footprints on the floor for me. Thanks!--RogerR00 03:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The long path isn't all that long: just edit the Image description page and add [[Category:Category name]]. For the shortcut, activate "hot cat" in your preferences under the Gadgets tab. This will give you a small (+) at the bottom of the image page, which you can use to add categories. --rimshottalk 08:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Screwed up on an image name again

Sorry, I screwed up the name for an image but I forgot how to move the page. Could someone remind me please? The image is Image:USS Sierra AD-19.jpg, the 19 should be an 18. Thanks, Gatoclass 11:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, someone fixed it. Gatoclass 11:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

External image resources page

I can not find a page that does hold notable external image resources. Am I missing something or do we need to create a page like that? Thare are tons of quality images under acceptable CC for example on Flickr ([15], [16], [17], [18] etc.).--kozuch 16:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Free media resources? Man vyi 18:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Or Commons:Public domain and free image resources, since they need to be merged. Superm401 - Talk 18:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Do duplicates really matter?

That is the question. Simply south 20:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the context of your question. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 21:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the question is "Is it really worth the time, effort, etc. to delete duplicate images?" On bad days, my answer is "No." But most of the time, yes -- duplicate images make it more difficult to find what you're looking for. Cataloging the wiki's contents is an issue both here and at my home wiki. Duplication of content dilutes search results, increases the volume of maintenance tasks and generally makes the wiki messy. See Commons_talk:Deletion_guidelines#Deleting_duplicates for a discussion of this in more depth. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to prserve the history and the new version does not do that though and looks strange means that maybe both should be kept. I hope i'm not sounding random. Simply south 12:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
All the text history will be preserved when you redirect it. Keeping more than one version of the file itself doesn't really serve a point if they are truly duplicates. Rocket000 16:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The power of Saxon Genitive

Forgive my intrusion, I need some advice, since I'm Italian and my grasp of linguistic subtleties is very feeble (an I'm a Common Newbie too ^__^. As I created this category I stumbled upon Category:Saint Stephen's churches. I noticed that almost any category here has no saxon genitive, while Saint Sebastian and Saint Stephen have it. Here's my POV, but Saint Sebastian's Category had no image or page, on the other hand Category:Saint Stephen's churches has a subcategory and many images. Before wasting my time I'd like to know if my edits ar correct and how should I go on... Thank you. - εΔω 21:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, "Saxon genitive" is not any kind of standard grammatical terminology used in the English-speaking countries. If you mean the ending which consists of apostrophe+"s" (or sometimes "s"+apostrophe), it's much more commonly called the "possessive suffix" (and a word or phrase to which a possessive suffix is attached is often called a "possessive form"). In any case, I do see some other possessed forms in the subcategories under Category:Churches_by_patron_saint -- Category:Saint Columbanus' churches, Category:Saint Margaret's churches, Category:Saint Peter and Paul's Churches, Category:Saint Mary's churches, Category:Saint Sebastian's churches.
I'm not sure what to advise you on the category-naming issue -- names of churches often take the possessive suffix in the singular ("St. Patrick's Cathedral" etc. etc.), but it sounds a little odd in the plural. The safest would be to use "of": "Churches of St Stephen" etc... AnonMoos 01:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
(The "possessive" in English is also sometimes called the "genitive" to emphasize that it has meanings other than possession.)
To me, either "Saint Sebastian churches" or "Saint Sebastian's churches" is fine. Left to myself, I'd write "Churches dedicated to Saint Sebastian", but that seems to have been too pedantic for the people who have named the categories so far. —JerryFriedman 01:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

April 21

Change of the kind of license

Dear friends, I've just uploaded this image:

Flag of the Serbian Volunteer Guard.jpg

But instead of the original GNU 1.2 license, I put PD, by mistake. Can you tell me the procedure to the right license?

Thank you very much, --Ivanov id 11:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just correct the licence by editing the description? Esby 13:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hy guys

I uploaded image but with wrong name. Can you please rename my image from Diesel process.gif to Sabathe process.gif, because it is that in reality. New image with Diesel name on it will come. In case that you have another solution, please contact me. Thanks. --Armchoir 15:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just upload it again with the correct name, than add {{badname}} to the original. - Jmabel!talk 17:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Commonist can't log on a 2nd time

Did something with Wikimedia change around the first week of April? When uploading with Commonist, the first upload works fine; but if you attempt a second upload: an error message comes up stating that it cannot log on to Commons. One has to close Commonist and reopen it to upload again, but as before: only one upload at a time and then it has to be restarted. This all began somewhere around the first week of April. The specific error received is net.psammead.mwapi.ui.UnexpectedAnswerException: unexpected response data (UiSimpleActionBase) and there's a small discussion here. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 11:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the same problem today. --MichaelMaggs 21:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Darkness falls

Del Cowie 02.jpg

Recently, for the first time, I've been doing my graphics work on more than one system, and I've noticed something I never really thought about before: one display may be a LOT brighter than another. For example, the image I've shown here looks appropriately bright on the system I am now mainly using for graphics, but I just had occasion to see it on a different monitor and it is barely discernable.

Is there somewhere a sample image that is an equivalent of an "18% gray card" that we can use to work out what qualifies as median brightness? - Jmabel!talk 17:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at w:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Is my monitor calibrated correctly? --MichaelMaggs 21:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Maps for the North Spanish FEVE network

I have found a map in the English wikipedia (w:Image:FEVE map.png) but its not in the wikimedia commons (I cant find it there). Can this map be transferred?

From de Feve website (horarios and precios) I can see railway map (under flash player)? Can I make a map out off it? And if I do, do I have to have permission? There is also a schematic map on paper off the cercanías lines (RENFE and FEVE) with the tariff zones for Asturias. I haven't found it as yet on the web. Can I generally use publicly available maps, as public transport maps?


Smiley.toerist 18:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: I will be upgrading the Dutch FEVE article.

The map can be transfered if it has proper license, but this seems rather unclear:
Anybody else have a guess if this is a valid license? --Jarekt 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I could draw my own map, but it seems such a waste off time. What is the best way to make such a map? (I wil keep it fairly schematic). In the meantime I wil describe the different lines (around Oviedo it gets complicated). By the way: I created the category: "FEVE train" and EuskoTren in the commons.


Smiley.toerist 08:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

April 22

Please delete old file revision

Hello, can someone please delete the first uploaded file of Image:Traditional Lithuanian dress.jpg? The second one is right and should be kept. My Internet browser crashed like five times trying to upload the file and somehow in the mix I uploaded some 13th century map... Thank you! Renata3 09:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Matt314 10:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


I uploaded the wrong file to Image:E-ticker.jpg. Can anyone revert me? Migdejong 10:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Try to be be more careful with warning messages ;) --rimshottalk 11:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Permission to upload pictures of a website

Is it possible to uplaod pictures of the website on Commons, as it's written under each photo "Terms of Use: The only condition we place on the use of our photographs is to place a link back to us somewhere in your site. Place a link like: "Courtesy of"". And if it's possible, which licensing should I choose and where should I place the link "Courtesy of"?--Wikipedro 13:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The web site does not explicitly mention derivative works, that means new works based on these photos. It also doesn't mention commercial use. Just to be sure, you could email them and ask whether they indeed mean to publish these images under a license like {{attribution}}. If that's the case, you should write {{attribution||text=[ Image courtesy of]}} If they didn't they might be willing to give permission to publish them as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. The permission email should be forwarded to COM:OTRS.
Note that something like this pottery image can't be uploaded unless the potter agreed to the license as well. --rimshottalk 14:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Images ripped from Google Books

I'd like to use a public-domain image from Google Books. (It's an illustration by John Tenniel for use in en:Self-parody.) The GB document starts with a statement that it's public domain but "We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes." Should that stop me? I hate to get GB mad, since I've used their service so much for WP and other things.

(I'm also going to ask at WP. Sorry if anyone sees it twice.) —JerryFriedman 01:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Any works by John Tenniel (d. 1914) published during his lifetime are public domain. Mechanical reproduction of public domain material generates no new copyright per US and UK law. Intermediate sources don't affect the copyright, whether you scan it yourself from an old copy in a library or reuse someone else's mechanical reproduction. That said, it is a request, not a legal requirement by Google Books; up to you what you choose to do with it. -- Infrogmation 02:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. You can use the licence tag {{PD-scan}} if there is any suggestion that the image may have been slightly enhanced. --MichaelMaggs 06:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to both. I saw no hint of any enhancement. I'm more concerned about the possibility that, if this happens a lot, GB will retaliate by making images unviewable. As Infrogmation said, my own feelings of gratitude and wishes to comply with the request are up to me. JerryFriedman 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Instant focus on the text field when editing

Is there any way I can turn it off? I really, really dislike it. A gadget would be best, so that other editors who prefer not to immediately have the focus jump can turn it off.

For those that are curious as to why, it's because I like actually previewing when I hit the Preview button; I don't need the focus shifted back towards the text. EVula // talk // // 05:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Focus is not set initially when previewing. [19] It is still set initially when opening a page for editing, and also if a selection in the dropdown in the edit tools (the buttons at the bottom) is made. Lupo 06:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, groovy. I'd still prefer it not do it at all, because having the focus on the text field makes it impossible for me to use key commands to navigate between tabs, but that's just my personal preference. EVula // talk // // 18:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I didn't notice that. On my system (FF/Win XP), I can still use Ctrl-Tab to navigate amongst tabs, even if the focus is set. But then, I don't use keyboard shortcuts that often. Could you please double-check (or maybe describe better which key commands on what platform used to work and don't anymore)? BTW, the change to set the focus in the first place was made because someone complained that the focus used to be set, but wasn't anymore.[20] Anyway, if your problem persists, I can add a configuration such that you can switch the focus setting off in your monobook.js (or modern.js). Lupo 22:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm on a Mac; command-shift-left/right navigates between tabs, but if the cursor is active in a text field, it instead selects all the text from the insertion point to the end of the line. It's very frustrating, primarily because I'm very keyboard-based when making multiple edits, and the forced focus makes me use my mouse.
If you want to skip straight to installing an override in my monobook, that'd be plenty fine with me. :) EVula // talk // // 23:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, added the switch[21] and switched it off for you. Let me know if you still got problems. Lupo 10:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
After a purge of my cache, it works like a charm. Many, many thanks. :) EVula // talk // // 21:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Cropped versions

I received a notice on Image:Greil Marcus 17A.jpg complaining that it is "an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of: Image:Greil Marcus 17.jpg. I'm not sure I understand: it is cropped, lightened, and the background is lightened further to better bring out the face. My usual policy when I use GIMP or a similar tool to enhance a photo is to upload both the raw photo and the cleaned-up version. When cleanup is significant, I often upload an intermediate version (e.g. one that is merely cropped, one that is further enhanced), though I did not do so in this case. I was told to do this over a year ago, though I no longer remember by whom. Is this inappropriate of me, or is the person who tagged my image incorrect? - Jmabel ! talk 15:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a duplicate, and the tagging editor was mistaken. I've removed {{duplicate}}. EVula // talk // // 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree. I think this is a good example of case where having a choice of two versions (more or less tightly cropped) is fine. -- Infrogmation 01:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Different question: what's with the orange tint? Can't we get rid of that? Lupo 06:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Antoin Sevruguin images from Smithsonian

54 Antoin Sevruguin images from the Smithsonian collection (eg Image:Antoin Sevruguin 49 2 SI.jpg) have recently been uploaded to Commons with a PD-Iran license. Can that license still apply with the Smithsonian's copyright claim? The Smithsonian have added a heavy watermark and require attribution to the Myron Bement Smith Collection or Antoin Sevruguin Photograph collection. Finavon 20:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Im not a lawyer, but the Smithsonian can't claim a new copyright just because the digitized something. That is what Bridgeman v. Corel Corp. was about. The original photos were created in Iran and thus falls under Iranian law which stipulates that the copyright for photo lasts for 30 years after publication. Since Sevruguin died in 1933, they would certainly be ok now under Iranian law provided that these photos were first published by himself. Not sure what applies if this material has never been published before. Valentinian T / C 01:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

April 23

images only for wikipedia

I wish that images only for wikipedia are permitted. -- WonYongTalk 05:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't fit in our scope. But you might try to upload such images on your local wikipedia. --Túrelio 07:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
"Permission for Wikipedia only" goes contrary to the standard scope all Wikipedias subscribe to. If this is your position, fair enough, but in that case your image(s) are not allowed on Wikipedia. If you upload images under such licenses, they'll simply be deleted again. Valentinian T / C 10:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Map labels

I would like to create a labeled map, similar to w:Template:Earth Labelled Map, but it seems that the required templates (Image label begin, Image label small, Image label end) are not found in Commons. Are there equivalents, or should I copy these from Wikipedia? - Itai 11:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a very interesting way of labeling images with interactive links but the labeled image is no longer in the image: namespace but in a template: namespace. If we start using this approach than it is unclear to me if we can point to it from other wikis. Still I think it would be great to have such labeling capability. --Jarekt 16:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearing wiki cache

Is there a way to clear the cache of earlier versions of an image? I took the border off Image:Southern Ground-hornbill (Bucorvus leadbeateri) -side upper body.jpg and uploaded it under the same name. Viewed today the image page still has a border, but the full resolution copy is fine. I would have expected the cache to have cleared by now. Finavon 17:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Go to "Page History" and change "history" to "purge" in the URL. You may have to clear your browser cache as well. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

improperly licensed license plates

As far as I can tell, all the images at the English Wikipedia pages en:U.S. license plate numbering and lettering and en:Vehicle registration plates of the United States are currently housed here on Commons; they're all improperly licensed a number of different ways (self-releasing to CC, GFDL, PD, etc.) I started to individually go through and nominate them for deletion (again), but doing so is very tedious and can probably be done in a more efficient manner (see Commons:Deletion requests/2008/04/03).

How should I go about this? Keep on truckin', or is there a different forum/project page I should look into? Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really helpful for you, but I've left notes on EN informing people of this discussion and pointing out that these images will need to be locally copied with appropriate fair use rationales if they are going to continue to be used there. Dragons flight 02:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the tags could be replaced with something more appropriate? Surely license plates can be illustrated and represented on Wikipedia. QQQQQQ 03:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
They can, under fair use (e.g. w:WP:FU). However, Commons does not allow fair use, hence those files must be uploaded on Wikipedia directly and cannot be stored here. Dragons flight 04:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There should be indeed a basic resolution (and documentation) of what is possible with Category:License plates of the United States and related categories in stead of tackling each image one by one. --Foroa 06:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Would that be discussed here or elsewhere? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Anybody? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The discussion could be either here or in Commons_talk:Licensing. It's probably best to continue it here. Samulili 06:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Are there Commons pages that dictate standardized licensing for certain image types? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The license plate design is not copyrighted, and by its very nature is public domain. The photo that someone takes of a license plate, that would be copyright to that person. --Plate King 23:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
What aspect of "licence plates' very nature" dictate their copyfree status? On the contrary, without explicit licensing to the contrary, state governments' work do not fall into the public domain; you may be confusing that with the US federal government's opposite copyrighting SOP. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
A lciense plate with only plain text (e.g. NY-3-73-2228-TL.jpg should be PD-ineligible but an image such as e.g. Svenne.jpg is clearly not only text and a s such is copyrighted by the state. /Lokal_Profil 16:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've created Commons:Deletion requests/License plates 2 addressing all of the license plates from US states that include non-trivial imagery. Dragons flight 07:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If anybody would care to contribute here, I would appreciate it. Plate King (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs) are both arguing the intrinsic copyleft nature of license plates, taking little notice to the inputs of User:Dragons flight and I. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) incorrectly moved Image:Munch_vampire.jpg

I believe Image:Munch_vampire.jpg should have remained on english wikipedia as while it is public domain in the USA (date of first publication plus 95 years), it is still under copyright in Norway until 2015 (life of author plus 70 years), and therefore unacceptable to Commons. Please could someone check I have this correct. It seems Magnus Manske probably did not use the bot for this move. The bot page states "If some image with questionable copyright was uploaded, don't come to me." and from the talk page it seems difficult to determine who uses the bot in any particular instance. I am leaving this message on the Magnus's talk page. I do not want to see that image deleted, just moved back to where it came from. Maybe with the template {{Do not move to Commons}}, to prevent it being moved again. Compare with The Scream which has such a tag. Can anyone help with this? -Wikibob 17:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

PD Smithsonian images on Flickr

The Smithsonian seems to be poised to release at least 2,000 public domain images into Flickr. Arria Belli | parlami 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this leads to many more from them. BrokenSphere 23:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

April 17

MIG15 bis model

I am an aircraft historian and model manufacturer. I recently started a MIG15 bis model but I would like to know what the (bis) stands for. Please respond via this commons village pump service. Ol' Hegs

Mig 15 doesn't say much about that matter, but a quick google search tells you that it means improved. This really isn't the place to ask these kind of questions, though. You'll have more luck at the reference desk of the English Wikipedia. --rimshottalk 16:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Bis is actually Latin for "a second time, twice", and has been used in street addresses of some countries (what would be "1234A Oak Street" in the United States might be "1234 (bis), Rue du Chêne" in France). The series in Latin runs semel (once), bis (twice), ter (three times), quater, quinquies, etc. etc... AnonMoos 21:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The original MIG-15 - a prototype stemming from 1947 I-310 - used RD45F engine (aka R-R Nene II). The first serial MIG-15 was produced 1948-1950. In May 1949 MIG received orders to change main engine to VK-1. After tests in early 1950, on June 10, 1950, the aircraft was authorized for mass production - with a change in engine (VK1 instead of RD45F) and cannon (HP-23 instead of HC-23). This second, and far larger than first, production run (1950-1955) was officially designated MIG-15bis. So if fact MIG-15bis is the MIG-15 as most people know it. Additionally, small numbers of MIG-15bis were converted to ground attack, recon etc.; these spinoffs are also known as MIG-15bis bis with lesser-known suffix letters. More here [22] - NVO 22:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

April 18

To crop or not

It has been suggested at Category talk:Historic American Buildings Survey that Library of Congress images shold not be cropped because they are historic images. What do others think? Finavon 19:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as we're not uploading the cropped version over the uncropped, I don't see what the problem is. A historic image of a particular subject is one thing, but a historic image of a particular subject with lots of easily removed unrelated stuff isn't particularly illuminating for the article it's placed in. EVula // talk // // 21:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The cropping is merely to remove a black border that appears to have been placed on the image to allow cataloguing. Because the border is not rectangular a small amount of the image is lost. An example of an un-cropped image from this source: Image:A Photograph of an Original Door from the Bolduc House in Ste Genevieve MO.png. Many of these images are marked with either {{RemoveBorder}} or {{crop}}. I have been uploading the cropped versions as new versions of the same file. Earlier version(s) remain in the file history. Should I continue? Finavon 23:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say crop and upload under the same name, but others might have a different take.--Jarekt 02:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If it improves it for whatever it's used for, then do it. Users can find the unedited versions in the history (or by following the LOC link). I hate how the images have those borders, anyway. Unlike the Library of Congress, preserving history is not our main goal here. Rocket000 15:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've cropped the borders of all the LOC images I've uploaded. In addition to the borders, they may also have a color reference scanned next to them, again probably for archival purposes. IMO both this and very distinctive borders are distracting for encyclopedic purposes. BrokenSphere 15:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Spelling redundancy

There's both Category:Humor and Category:Humour... AnonMoos 00:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest "Category:Humour" be made into a category redirect to "Category:Humor". (For the record, I'm fine with either UK or US spelling, but suggest "Humor" be the target category because it is both older and more populated.) -- Infrogmation 01:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Another argument for "humor": it's spelled like that in Czech, Polish and German too. -- Prince Kassad 15:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
...and Danish...and... -- Slaunger 06:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

en:Image:Flag of Comoros (1975-1978).svg

Could anyone transfer this flag to Commons? (with the same name) I don't know how to do that. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ever tried CommonsHelper? --rimshottalk 20:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

April 12

Clothing by colour + gender

Hi everyone. I've started a discussion on Mattes's talk pages and I'm copying it here so that you could give your opinion about it --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you should rename such categories like that: Category:Female red clothing (or Category:Red female clothing?). And create a category:Female clothing by color (same for male) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, what's better Female red clothing or Red female clothing or the exisiting Red clothing, female? - I dunno but I think the latter is more useful, because the color is more important than the gender. But you can give me some reasons to think about your suggestions as well. We can disuss about it.
Female clothing by color and Male ... sounds good. That creation takes a while because I have to recat the other existing clothes by color and gender categories first... --Mattes 13:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well IMO "Red clothing, female" is not correct. It doesn't matter that the color of more important: it's just not really correct to write "Red clothing, female", grammatically speaking (and I'd say logically speaking!). And tell me if I'm wrong but I've never seen any other category using a coma... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I have seen such comma uses at Category:German Democratic Republic stamps. I'll have to check Commons:Naming categories. --Mattes 11:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I like "Female clothing, red" better, then "Red female clothing", and "Female red clothing" the least. The order of adjectives in English doesn't go by importance (and is fairly complicated). Anyway, I don't think of clothing as male or female. I'd really prefer "Women's and girls' clothing, red" or "Red clothing for females". (This ", red" business would be ungrammatical in prose but seems fine to me in titles.) —JerryFriedman 20:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the word woman (pl. women). That hasn't become politically incorrect, has it? Samulili 08:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have chosen "female..." because clothes of children (girls) are included that way, too. --Mattes 00:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
OK well we might stay with Category:Red clothing, female then... Does it actually that matter?! I may have launched a useless debate! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


I am trying to upload an image, but it says they cannot upload it because the image is senseless. How do I fix it? -Spazmilk72

Can you provide error message? I never heard this one. --Jarekt 02:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Image name is senseless. Change the Destination filename field to a meaningful text. (That is, "A_cucumber.jpg", not "SDFSG525.JPG".) - Itai 11:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this an actual MediaWiki feature? I could see how regex could be used to detect standard digital camera names (IMGxxxxx.jpg, DCxxxxxx.jpg, etc.), but I didn't think this was actually being done. Superm401 - Talk 23:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's done - try uploading a file with a default camera name and see. pfctdayelise (说什么?)

Just a thought now that we are at over 2.5 million media...

We're now at 2.7 million media. A lovely collection, and my impression is that the image quality is getting better over time. (Perhaps to be attributed to digital cameras getting better?) I dont know how much disk space the entire colllection takes up, but would it be an idea to start "weeding out" images of a lesser quality, if there are also better ones of the same subject? See, for instance, Category:ING House, now containing 11 pics. Image:ING House Amsterdam.JPG is clearly, in comparison, by now deficient in quality. As far as I'm concerned, we could, by now, do without it. Of course we would have to check which articles use it, and change links in those articles to other images. For the record: I'm the person who took this picture, so it's not a matter of trying to throw away somebody else's work. I'd like to hear your views on this. Best regards, MartinD 20:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting images wont clean up disk page, it just makes the pictures inaccessible for normal users, so i dont think this is a good idea. Multichill 21:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've often pondered this same thought... but some media may be worth keeping for historical purposes. As an example, an image of the same streetscene each year may look redundant, but if it's kept up for 50 years it could provide an interesting insight into a region's growth & development. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 21:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this proposal could be compared to a proposal to remove media with non-descriptive names and without any meta data. Both are pointless. We should try to enrich anything that falls into our scope. Specifying additional criteria for deletion does not contribute to what we are. Cheers! Siebrand 23:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It is to be expected that images will increase in both quality and size over time because digital camera resolutions will continue to improve. However going through and eliminating lesser quality images of a subject unless this to check for dupes seems to be a misplaced effort when there are other continuous, ongoing issues such as checking for copyvios and handling backlogged xFD requests. BrokenSphere 23:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that deleting images does not clear them from the disk? Is it a design decision or a software limitation. It sounds like a lot of disk space could be reclaimed that way --Jarekt 04:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

One reason is that images are being undeleted all the time. If they were physically deleted, that wouldn't be possible. In a wiki, one important concept is that (almost) any action is undoable, deleting is one of them. For bit-wise identical files, this doesn't make much sense, of course, as nothing would be lost by deleting them. --rimshottalk 11:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Rimshot is correct: the images never get "deleted" they just become unreachable to a User. This was confirmed by User:Gmaxwell because people were changing (cropping, etc.) my images but then uploading them at lower resolution "to save disk space" - but all they did was make the high-res version unavailable while taking up more disk space. Besides, disk space is not an issue - don't make it one until the WMF tells you it is. It simply is the last problem the Commons has, and Kat Walsh (User:Mindspillage) confirmed that. Upload all you want - we'll make more (disk space). --David Shankbone 11:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
3M pics at 1M average at 3x copies = 9000 G. It's not a big cost these days. NVO 16:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
We are growing at 100 to 200.000 pictures per month. Cleaning of lower quality pictures would allow to gain maybe a few hundreds pictures per month with a lot of hassle and discussions: for me, Image:ING House Amsterdam.JPG, although of lower quality, is visually the most appealing picture of the series. I think that we can do more constructive work. --Foroa 17:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, all of you, for your comments. I didnt know that deleting am image did not free up any disk space. In that case, my suggestion would merely result in a waste of time.;) Foroa, it's very kind of you to say that my picture is the most appealing one, especially since, in my humble opinion, it isn't.;) BTW, should I ever manage to obtain permission to take pictures of the interior of ING House, I will do so, as the inside is even more spectacular than the exterior. But I doubt whether that will be feasible: apparently, architects object to having photographs being made of their creations. Best regards, MartinD 18:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting works within project scope just because they're not the highest quality is a bad idea. Not every work here needs to be best of breed; the important thing is that it's useful. Superm401 - Talk 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

April 24

Vectorizing maps

I have been asked to vectorize a map from this document [23] (page 2). Would it be a copyright violation? I can change colors, fonts, style... but I can not change the shapes in the map. Would that changes be enough?Chabacano 02:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If your map is a derivative work, it can't be on Commons. It's difficult to say for sure whether it would be, though. Superm401 - Talk 23:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Renaming images

What's the proper route to take to rename images that are on the commons? --AeronPrometheus 04:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

{{rename|new name|reason}} --GeorgHHtalk   09:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. --AeronPrometheus 21:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Charles Darwin's illustrations

I have found a website spearheaded by University of Cambridge that uploads illustrations drawn by Charles Darwin (the person who wrote The Origin of Species). I have found some images, such as this one, the Grey-bellied Shrike-tyrant (Agriornis micropterus), to be very useful because we don't have the image of this species as well as many others on commons or Wikipedia. The only roadblock is their terms of use. It stated that "These materials may be freely used for non-commercial purposes and distribution to students; republication in any form requires written permission. Contact: Dr John van Wyhe" and reproducing their image requires yet another process.

My question is: "How can they place copyright or terms of condition on images that have been released into public domain? Since Charles Darwin died in 1882 and all of those images are drawn by him, the website cannot be the copyright holder even if they are the ones that uploaded the images." I would appreciate your views and comments. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see here and COM:SCAN. Lupo 19:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The image you have mentioned and many others from that site are acceptable here if suitably tagged {{PD-scan}}. --MichaelMaggs 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
So I guess it's ok then. Thank you for prompt replies. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Another question, what do we need to do with the copyright notice at the bottom of the image? From the link given by Lupo, it seems like they don't have the copyright. Should I remove the copyright notice prior to uploading it or just leave it intact? OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Please remove it before uploading. Images that don't attract copyright should not bear copyright notices. --MichaelMaggs 06:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh crap, I already uploaded a bunch. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Just upload new versions with the notices cropped out. BrokenSphere 16:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

April 25

Wikimedia Radio

As those who follow foundation-l will have seen, there is a proposal to work on a Wikimedia Radio project. The main discussion of this is over on Wikinews, here. I'm now discussing with the developers of a variety of the required components about the 'missing software components'. Looks like in short order we will have the pieces to run IceCast and Liquidsoap from a schedule on a wiki in fairly short order. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Subcategory add

Hi,I would like to add a subcategory on a wikipedia page. But when I tried it, only the languages list could be completed. Should I ask a webmaster.Thanks, Andrea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you want to create a new category within an existing category? To do this, in the search field along the left side of your screen: type in something like Category:Blah, where "Blah" is whatever name you wish to give the category. At the top, click on create this page. Here, you will add [[Category:Blah2]] in the code field, where "Blah2" is the name of the parent category that you want to add the new category into. Did that make any sense? You may wish to consult our guide to categories here. Cheers! --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 00:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers to you too. Andrea

Part of the Image has VDA

In Commons:Licensing#Scope of licensing "if the artwork is not the primary content of the image, in that case, usually only the creator of the resulting picture (recording, etc.) holds a copyright (...) The distinction however is not very clear."

The images in Category:Pokémon Jet represents a Airplane with a Pokémon (copyrighted). The primary content is airplane ? And in Image:Myusukai 0210.jpg ? Could I paint a Pikachu (or any other image copyrighted) in my car and upload a photo (the primary content is the car) ?

When an image is primary or secundary content ? I could upload many photos, but I want to know this first.

Rjclaudio 02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Some anime at SF-bok - GBG, 27 mars 2007.jpg, Image:Anime DVDs.JPG and Image:Cosplay Naruto Anime Expo.jpg are Free ? The primary content is the general idea (store and the convention) but they have many parts copyrighted. Rjclaudio 02:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Creative Commons 2.0

Image:Cosplay Naruto Anime Expo.jpg is under Creative Commons 2.0. Can I cut a group and ilustrate articles about w:en:Naruto ? Rjclaudio 02:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

April 26

EXIF information

It is possible to falsify it? I have terrible doubts about two pictures, uploaded by a user: after I explained him why the pictures taken from his flickr account were not valid (they were clearly taken from some website and they had wrong date info) he has uploaded two pictures that again look... bad. But this time they have good date information.-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 commons es 09:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The date information in the EXIF is easy to change. Haros 09:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, great. Then EXIF data is not my friend :(-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 commons es 10:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
All the information in EXIF can be changed. Superm401 - Talk 16:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems as though the Wikipedia "puzzle globe" logo has become popular enough to get derivatioves being used in other situations. When I saw the logo for the aiim roadshow 2008 my first thoughts went to Wikipedia. Probably not close enough to be a trademark infringement but I'm sure I won't be the only one making the connection. /Lokal_Profil 11:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Wikipedia wasn't the first to create a "puzzle globe". Heck, I made an animated one for a NASA video years before Wikipedia even existed [24]. --dave pape 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a Dutch saying that "plagiarism is the most flattering for of theft". I suggest we leave it at that.;) MartinD 11:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The English saying is, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". --Brian McNeil / talk 07:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

March 27

Usurp or not usurp accounts with useful contributions

There are several usurpation requests on Commons:Changing username#Current Usurpation requests where people want to usurp existing accounts with useful contributions because of SUL. I don't think that absence of activity is right justification of usurpation. It'll also cause problems with images attributions when images will be used outside Commons. We can't blame owners of existing account that SUL was not implemented for 2 years and usernames was not unique for all projects.

We didn't usurp accounts with useful contributions in the past. And I also think it's bad idea from moral point of view.

Just question to usurpation requesters: do you want that somebody take your name after you'll leave Wikimedia projects?

EugeneZelenko 15:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea is that once you have a global account, it will not be possible for someone to usurp your name. I've also seen comments that forced renames of non-globalised accounts will eventually take place regardless of individual project policies (if you object to this, please don't shout at me, I'm just reporting what I've seen said elsewhere). The place I saw it was here: "This should really be discussed at m:Help:Unified login. As long as I have followed this, the plan has been to eventually make the tough decisions and fully unify the login system. The current plan is: "Accounts that have not been merged after a certain period of time will be forcefully renamed by the software. The date for this is not yet finalised." " (en:User:CBM - 11:42, 25 March 2008 - at en:Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Usurpations) Trouble is, I have yet to track down anything official about that. One thing is for sure though - Commons will bear the brunt of this, as it will have the most accounts of people with the same name from many different projects. For the record (as a disclaimer of my interest in the matter), I currently have a usurption request open. My opinion is that reasonable efforts should be made to contact inactive users, and to welcome and help any that return after a usurption or renaming has taken place, but that some global policy is needed, rather than individual projects diverging on this issue. Carcharoth (Commons) 16:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Meta is also having issues with it, as it is also a "global" project - we gave all the stewards bureaucrat rights so they could easily deal with requests there. I think that it is more of an issue with image uploads. Eugene asks if you'd want somebody taking your name after you've left - if you've left, why would you want to keep the name? If it was my name, I'm not sure many people would want it anyhow. But I think it is probably best to forcibly rename users who are inactive. You don't have the "right" to keep a name, and in some situations, it is better to just do it than to argue about it. I'm pretty glad I have a pretty unique username that I happened to register across all the large projects at some point, so I do own every instance of Majorly across Wikimedia. Majorly (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If you rename an account, signatures inserted in pages by the old account won't be changed. Which might be a problem for our images, if the say "Author: [[User:XYZ]]" or even {{PD-self|author=[[User:XYZ]]}}. Hence say no to ursurping accounts with contributions. (Unless and until that issue can be fixed somehow.) Lupo 16:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
We shouldn't accept such a usurp until the contributor (1) is inactive (2) doesn't answer any usernames agreement request. I think negociate usernames is a better solution than wild renames. So just use this solution in very last solution. --Dereckson 16:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Every effort should be made to contact the user and maybe ask them to change names... but, it seems like the usurpations are just going to happen and they probably won't create too many problems... gren 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If the usurped username has no won images then from a Commons point of view ther isn't a major problem. If on the other hand User:Example has uploaded several own images under cc-by and requested attribution as User:Example (with link to commons user page) then usurping that name surely violates the license of the original images. /Lokal_Profil 17:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, the user name is changed in the pages histories. If signatures in pages or picture data are a problem,it should be possible to change all occurrences of user:XYZ that occurred before a given date to user:XYZ_old_account to which it was renamed. This should be easy with a bot, and can be done at any time. There can be a warning on the userpage as well, saying that user:XYZ has been moved to user:XYZ_old_account (which will be necessary if old user XYZ tries to connect again after a few years).
As to the argument "my contributions are under the wrong name", this is already the case, and the question is now how to fix that problem. My "Michelet" userid has ~ 16_000 contributions on fr:, but another "Michelet" has made some 1700 contributions on es:, and 29 on Commons as well, and is now inactive - this is why my local user name is "Micheletb" on Commons (and es:). When the principle of unified login will be generalized, who will be the "real" Michelet in the wiki projects? And anyway, when a picture I uploaded on fr: is transferred on Commons, how can a confusion be avoided between the two identities? Either one or the other of user names is changed (by consent or usurpation or ...), or the problem of a user name that corresponds to two different persons will remain forever.
Michelet-密是力 06:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. And the image pages should be changed to show the new username when a usurption takes place. It shouldn't be technically difficult to do that. In my case, if the usurption request goes through, there are 18 images from one Carcharoth to be attributed to a new name, and the 23 that I have uploaded will still be attributed to "Carcharoth (Commons)", which will then redirect to "Carcharoth" after the usurption (if granted). I'm not trying to discount the licensing concerns - just pointing out that the developers should implement technical fixes, though ideally they would have had those ready before rolling out unified login. It is only administrators at the moment, but there will be more problems like this when it is rolled out to everyone, so a lot of work needs to be done. Ultimately, though, as Micheltb says, it should avoid problems in the future. Carcharoth (Commons) 09:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but usurped name is not name chosen but uploader. Again, SUL doesn't require you to usurp existing accounts. All new accounts will be your and it's reasonable.
Images transferred from French Wikipedia suppose to attribute your account on French Wikipedia.
EugeneZelenko 14:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Could you or someone else rephrase this? I'm not from the French Wikipedia. Attributions can be changed, and in cases of pseudonyms (ie. user names that are not real names) there is less cause for concern. In case it is not clear, Carcharoth is not a real name, it is a pseudonym that I and at least one other person have used on the Wikimedia projects. See en:Carcharoth. I only have two accounts on the Wikimedia projects, plus transwikiied edits to some projects where there is no corresponding account (why is no-one worried about the legal issues there?), so ultimately, if the usuprtion requests fails, I will consider asking for a rename here and at en-wikipedia, but will have to check whether that is possible. Carcharoth (Commons) 10:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, one solution would be for Michelet and me (and others) to rename themselves, and create a global account with that new name. But this can cause problems when some people have thousands of contributions, which is why the principle of those with fewer contributions being renamed applies (and please don't anyone get upset by that, I'm not suggesting more or less contributions actually means anything - it is the sum of everyone's contributions that is important). Carcharoth (Commons) 09:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that thousands of contributions doesn't seem correct measure of contribution. And it should not be used as usurpation justification.
As you told sum of everyone is important. So why not respect inactive contributors?
EugeneZelenko 14:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I read somewhere (probably on fr: or meta:?) that the SUL policy was that usurpations were to take place according to the respective contribution, and I read somewhere (maybe on fr:) that a name change is refused when the number of contributions is greater than ... 10_000, is it that? for technical reasons - the correction of past contributions would be a heavy server load.

So, What do we do? Am I stuck? I can't change my user name on fr:, because I contributed too much, and if the principle of usurpation is refused on Commons (and es:), the only solution left to me is to start afresh with a new user name, abandon the idea of making a clear link to my past contributions, bear that the "Michelet" contribution can be attributed to me or to my spanish homonym, and note that anyhow, this homonymy will remain unsettled forever - why?

...When the alternative is simple enough: check which one has the less contributions (which minimizes server load), rename the current Commons:user:Michelet to Commons:user:Michelet_es (for instance) and allow SUL to be possible for one or the other.

Or...? Any idea? What are the alternatives? Should I switch to "Micheletb" on all wikies, simply because my homonym dosen't answer on the project any more? Should we toss it on heads or tails? any idea, somebody? Michelet-密是力 18:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read that too (that there will be forced usurpation in the future). It does not eliminate the core of the problem that Eugene is referring too. I'm not sure how technical the problem is.
Upon renaming, all contribs and user-specific settings are moved, but not the attribution names on uploaded media pages (I'm not talking about page history, but rather what is shown on the page itself). This can of course be solved by a bot changing all such entries. But what happens with media that has already been reused outside Wikimedia? They have attributed (correctly, hopefully) some image connected to a certain username. If the person behind the username changes, there is no clear indication of this anywhere. Can this become a legal problem? This is a problem specific to projects containing media uploads, and a very relevant one to Commons, then. I believe that this problem is very limited in the case where users have not contributed with a lot of uploads, but it doesn't mean that it's negligible (in fact, it's impossible to know its real extent).
So, I beg for some understanding about hesitations bureaucrats may have in doing such renames. This is not an easy task and there are no good answers, as far as I know. Should there be a note on media description pages that the username was used by a different person until XX-XX-2008, please see Special:Contributions/NewUsernameThatWasThisGuyBefore? What are we going to do? Patrícia msg 14:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
(a) I doubt exported production can be a legal problem: homonyms have always existed. Anyway the user's name has no legal significance, since it is arbitrary: it is not the (legal/official) designation of a person, but a coded conventional identity, the meaning of which is only known by the password owner. (b) Technically, a simple answer can be to post some kind of permanent warning on the user's page, saying that the name has been used by two different persons, and that contributions made before date X now refer to the renamed account Y. I don't mind a warning on my userpage. (c) I do understand hesitations, no problem... this problem will probably be addressed on other wikies, and a unified solution is desirable, so take your time ;) Michelet-密是力 17:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand your problem. You already used different accounts names, so why SUL suppose to change everything?
You'll get Michelet name on all wikis where this name was not taken (because of SUL) and you could usurp existing accounts without useful contributions without permission and account with useful contributions after permission of owner. I think it's fair.
EugeneZelenko 15:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I never was happy to use different names, but then, it was different wikies. With SUL, the standard on wikipedia will be that a user's name identifies him throughout all wikies, which is why I would rather unify my user names if possible. When the usual rules can be applied, the situation is quite fair, of course; my problem is that es:Michelet (the Commons "Michelet" user) dosen't contribute any more, so he won't give any permission! Michelet-密是力 17:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe get a bot to fix up signatures and user name references? If someone agreed to a usurpation the signature thing would be a problem too, so I'm not seeing it a reason to not allow forced usurpations. But meh. We do need some policy in this area. we had been winging it... (that was me :) ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

If it means anything to my request, I will be happy to go through and adjust all the signatures to the new account to ensure licensing and context isn't lost. Daniel 00:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Me too. In my case, it is only a few images, and I would be happy to have a permanent notice on my user and talk pages explaining what happened. What I don't want is for this to drag on and on. I don't know how large the community is on Commons, but this thread doesn't seem to be getting much input. Is there a way to schedule a decision rather than just have discussion die out and nothing get done? Something should be sorted out before SUL is rolled out to everyone. Carcharoth (Commons) 10:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree it's a serious concern. But Commons tends to discuss things slowly... 4 days so far isn't bad. I'd favour manual fixup of sigs, contribution records, etc, I think. ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It is now over a week since the last comment here, and similarly at my request. What happens now? I'll go back to working on images, but I'd like to get some answers to my unanswered questions, rather than things just tailing off into silence. Carcharoth (Commons) 23:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I admit I left this one to others... can someone try to summarise what are the issues and choices to be made? That might help. Reading the thread again I'm a bit confused. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


Summary: Due to SUL, some users need accounts moved to unify their accounts. These accounts have existing edits e.g. Daniel (talk · contribs) and Woody (talk · contribs). This would provide attribution problems if the accounts are moved. A bot, or a manual sweep would need to be done to fix signatures etc. We might also need a permanent link on the usurped page.

  • Issue: Do we want to usurp users who have contributions?
    • If we do:
    • Should their be a limit on the number of contributions the usurped user has had?
    • Do we need templates saying they have been usurped?
    • If the usurped user has accounts elsewhere that have been abandoned and usurped, does this affect things?

That, I think summarises it, feel free to add to it. Woodym555 18:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To-do list

  • Copy the exchange on meta:Help talk:Unified login as a comment to meta:Help:Unified_login#Someone is using my name on another wiki, how can I get that account? to provide interwiki feedback.
  • Suggest a coherent renaming policy (for instance, rename XXX to XXX_fr if the user's main page was on fr:)
  • Discuss the possibility of a renamed_user template to redirect to renamed accounts.
  • Ask (bot programmers / Mediawiki programmers?) if all signatures linked to a user (esp. picture uploader designation) can be changed when an account with significant contribution is renamed.
  • Discuss the legal risk of changing the account name of a contribution when this contribution has been exported elsewhere under the GFDL licence and attributed to the original account name.

As for a conclusion, the :meta "rule" is "Subject to local policy, the bureaucrat may be able to rename the target account." - so here we are. Michelet-密是力 06:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I have not provided more feedback in this thread; thanks to Woodym555 for the summary and Michelet for the suggestions.
As far as I know, changing signatures on media pages is trivial: a bot can do that in minutes or hours, depending on the amount of changes, or it can be done manually. So I don't think that's even a problem, it can be easily done.
I have been going through mailing lists and documentation on Meta about SUL, and yes, there is a lot of hearsay about how accounts are going to be usurped by force in the future, but no clear indication from the devs that this will in fact happen.
There is no global policy and there is no easy or consensual resolution. We have to decide what to do locally on Commons. So.
I think the first thing to be done is to ask our devs in a clear, unambiguous way, what are their plans to unify accounts; if there is going to be "forced usurpations" or if there will be an alternative way (an "alias"; see also this thread on foundation-l) which will identify global accounts and still allow local "conflicts". This is a technical issue, nothing else.
If there will be forced usurpation in the future, then I believe we should:
  • Attend all sensible usurpation requests, moving the usurped accounts to "username at Commons" or something like that (personally, I have been renaming usurped accounts to "Username (usurped)", but I don't think that's nice for people with valid contributions!).
  • Ask the usurper to change all links from contributions of the usurped account;
  • Then proceed to the second rename;
  • Add (as Carcharoth suggested above) in the user page a note about attribution of media before date X to his username. This could be a template, a transcluded subpage, a line somewhere, whatever, the form is irrelevant.
  • These must be preceded by efforts to contact the usurped account holder for an extensive period. With no edits for more than a year, and no replies whatsoever for several weeks, we could go on agreeing that the user will not oppose at this stage.
  • I wouldn't touch any usurpation request where the account holder has valid contributions less than a year ago.
Note again, this is for the case where we would have confirmation that there will be forced usurpations, forcing us to come up with manual solutions before the software causes Armageddon here :). If there are no plans to do forced software-driven usurpations, then there is realistically no basis for usurpation requests for users with valid contributions.
Maybe I am being too simplistic here, but I am trying to sum up some sort of guidelines we can all agree on and move on with the requests on hold. Comments? Patrícia msg 15:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'm happy to wait until August to see if the other Carcharoth replies, or uploads another picture from a trip to the mountains! Good luck in getting a clear commitment and answer from the devs (though kudos to them for doing SUL in the first place). :-) Carcharoth (Commons) 23:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I support the guidelines that PatriciaR is suggesting. I especially agree that the usurper ought to be the person that cleans up all the bad links to the usurped name, that is, do this as a two step process with a pause in between... Cacharoth's idea about noting the user page is also a good one. I'm sort of counting on this scenario... a person (call them user "JFredBloggs") coming back after 2 years, trying to log in under the old ID, it fails, then maybe after trying an "email this password" either posting on one of our discussion areas, or checking out one of their old images... as soon as they saw that, they'd see the contribution was attributed to "JFredBloggs (Commons)" instead of the ID they thought they had... visiting THAT user page would explain what happened. Not perfect but better than nothing. "Extensive period" for contact should be at least a month, if not two. ++Lar: t/c 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. (a) The two-step process is indeed a good idea, but IMHO it should not be a matter of principle to have the cleaning been done by the usurper himself, which may be tricky for inexperienced users. (b) The template note indicating that the account has been renamed is clearly a necessity. (c) Please note, however, that most commons users are active contributors elsewhere, so when the "home base" can be identified (:it, for instance), there should be a request posted on that wiki as well, and the remaining pattern should be Carcharoth (it) instead of Carcharoth (Commons), since if a renaming is also required on :it the new name will never be Carcharoth (Commons), of course... Michelet-密是力 07:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Time to change Commons:Featured pictures

Time to change Commons:Featured pictures to Commons:Featured media. Scope should include images, animations (gifs, oggs), and audio as well as any other file. -- Cat ちぃ? 11:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you want to start commons:Featured rich media? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to expand the restrictive scope to include all media. -- Cat ちぃ? 16:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

When wire services claim credit for public domain images

I have come across about a dozen instances where a freelance photographer or wire service has claimed they owned the rights to public domain images.

I have found what I am sure is another instance.

Image:Camp x-ray detainees.jpg was taken by Petty Officer 1st class Shane T. McCoy, U.S. Navy.

Image:First 20 Guantanamo captives.jpg was explicitly credited to the DoD. The Miama Herald says it shows the first twenty captives at Guantanamo.

And Image:Guantanamo captives in January 2002.jpg is credited to "Ron Sachs/CNP/Corbis". It is almost certainly either the same photo the Miami Herald credited to the DoD. It is almost certainly taken by Shane McCoy.

However, if one took the credit it was published with at face value it would not be eligible for inclusion here.

I welcome comments on this. See User:Geo Swan/first 20 Guantanamo captives to see the photos side by side.

Thanks! Geo Swan 13:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I see ... I can't seem to access DVIC or at the minute. Also see Megapixie 14:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Geo Swan 00:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured images on English wikipedia that needs to be moved to commons


  1. en:Image:Zabriskie Point-Panarama-edit2.jpg
  2. en:Image:Xvisionxmonarch.jpg
  3. en:Image:Whiteshark-TGoss5b hf.jpg
  4. en:Image:Wasp morphology.png
  5. en:Image:View of Woolworth Building fixed.jpg
  6. en:Image:PSP 001764 1880 cut b.jpg
  7. en:Image:PIA09102PIA09102 Liquid Lakes on Titan.jpg
  8. en:Image:Moon Crescent - False Color Mosaic.jpg
  9. en:Image:Magpie Goose taking off.jpg
  10. en:Image:MRO image of Mars North Pole.jpg
  11. en:Image:London , Kodachrome by Chalmers Butterfield edit.jpg
  12. en:Image:Lava channel with overflows edit 4.jpg
  13. en:Image:Lange car.jpg
  14. en:Image:Injector3.gif
  15. en:Image:Horseanatomy.png
  16. en:Image:Greatwall large.jpg - needs information about the author (name, time of death) Provided
  17. en:Image:GGB reflection in raindrops.jpg
  18. en:Image:Dragonfly morphology edit 3.svg
  19. en:Image:Conf dead chancellorsville.jpg
  20. en:Image:Citricacidcycle ball2.png - needs information about the author
  21. en:Image:CharlesGriffin.jpg
  22. en:Image:Catoptrophorus semipalmatus edit.jpg
  23. en:Image:CalvaryCemeteryQueens edit.jpg
  24. en:Image:BlueMorningGloryClose.jpg
  25. en:Image:Bezier All anim.gif
  26. en:Image:Apatani tribal women.jpg
  27. en:Image:Alchemist's Laboratory, Heinrich Khunrath, Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae, 1595 3.jpg
  28. en:Image:Airfield traffic pattern.svg
  29. en:Image:20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4)-edit3.jpg
  30. en:Image:2004 Indonesia Tsunami edit.gif


  1. en:Image:Victoria Crater, Cape Verde-Mars.jpg
  2. en:Image:VanGogh-starry night ballance1.jpg
  3. en:Image:USAF F-15C fires AIM-7 Sparrow 2.jpg
  4. en:Image:Tecumseh sherman.jpg
  5. en:Image:Surfer in california 2.JPG
  6. en:Image:Sundogs - New Ulm-Edit1.JPG
  7. en:Image:Stomoxys calcitrans on aloe vera leaf.jpg - Moved from Commons to English Wikipedia for some reason
  8. en:Image:STL Skyline 2007 edit.jpg
  9. en:Image:Romea.jpg - not compatible with Commons - still copyrighted in country of origin
  10. en:Image:Prairie Dog Washington DC 1.jpg
  11. en:Image:Podiceps-grisegena-008.jpg
  12. en:Image:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg
  13. en:Image:Hitlermusso2 edit.jpg - copyright status not really clear, possibly still copyrighted.
  14. en:Image:Hitler and Mussolini June 1940.jpg - maybe PD in the US but not in country of origin, not allowed on Commons
  15. en:Image:Grand Central test.jpg
  16. en:Image:Early flight 02562u.jpg/Set - All the images were moved to commons, but some Galleries are on Wikipedia only.
  17. en:Image:Crystal Mountains CA02 edit.jpg
  18. en:Image:Anschlusstears.jpg - probably PD only in the US. Copyright status in country of origin unknown.


The above list should be reviewed. These images are featured on English wikipedia and are not hosted by commons. I guess they are all freely licensed but a review can't hurt. -- Cat ちぃ? 16:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to show that a picture on Commons has been potd on en:wp? Finavon 09:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I could replicate that template too but thats a different animal. -- Cat ちぃ? 13:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see: (Comments moved to list) 00:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

-- 16:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about project scope.

Earlier today, I was checking some of the latest files uploaded to Commons and I bumped into these images, which has some nearly pornographic material: Image:PICT0123.JPG, Image:Intimrasur Frau.JPG, Image:Sexy woman.JPG, Image:Hot Woman.JPG, Image:Blowjob sexy.JPG, Image:Hot .JPG and Image:Blasen.JPG, all of them uploaded by Wert123. Now, I place {{speedy}} on all of them, with the reason of "Out of project scope" based on my interpretation of Wikimedia Commons is a common central media repository of all Wikimedia projects, subsection "Private image collections". But, reading some more, I found no policy forbidding the upload of pornographic material. So, did I make the right call placing the {{speedy}}s?. I have no problem with explicit images when used for illustrate some encyclopedic matter like Image:Foreskin Penis Descript.jpg on en:Penis, but I don't see any encyclopedic use for the images uploaded by Wert123. In a stretch they can be used to illustrate some article related to sex; but I see it like a bit of a long shot. So, please tell me if I took the right decision. Cheers, --KveD (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  • My first instinct says you did the right thing... I contribute heavily to en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography and their policy (which I have in part contributed to) regarding pictures states that "images should not be explicit in nature". The image in question is of a (presumably) non-notable person and we probably already have clearer images on Wikicommons that would be usable in the generic articles (and some of those images are of presumably notable people such as Kelly Madison, Melissa Wolf and Keeani Lei). Tabercil 00:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • There is a guideline regarding nudity. I have reverted the speedy deletion tags, as potentially being out of scope is not a speedy criterion. If one believes that some media is out of scope, please make a deletion request. 哦,是吗?(висчвын) 03:31, 27 April 2008 (GMT)

Wouldn't these sorts of picture not need a Model Release form, to make sure that the model is aware that her pictures are published? --Mdebets 09:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think they would. Samulili 11:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Then I would say that they should be speedily deleted, as they could as it could leave Commons open to a lawsuit if the model doesn't know or doesn't agree with these pictures being uploaded. If the photographer has the permission of the model, he can re-upload the photos together with the permission. --Mdebets 13:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Irrespective of other concerns, I at least nominated Blowjob sexy and Blasen for deletion, as they're both digitally altered such that pretty much any potential appropriate use for them disappears. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 15:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree those two were out of scope. They were just some porn {which we don't keep records for which would be required by law) with crappy photoshop filters applied to them. Completely useless. As for the others, nudity itself is not a reason (even if it's suggestive enough to be considered porn). They could be nominated of course. Rocket000 16:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think these images other were already removed. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 7#Yet another porn uploader. Will be good idea to CU User:Wert123. --EugeneZelenko 16:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
No CU needed, I think. Blocked indef, all uploads deleted. Lupo 10:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

April 27

April 28

Image:Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant 1.jpg

There seem to have been two discussions relating to the proposed deletion of this image, both which seem to have ended in confusion and the deletion tag is still on this image. While the film may be public domain, I agree with Ross that this is a separate issue to photographs which is what this clearly is (it isn't a screenshot) so I'd appreciate if this could be sorted out. Gustav VH 18:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Video game console

In Commons:Derivative works "Photographs of copyrighted, non-free two- or three-dimensional works of art must not be uploaded to Commons."

Why images of video game console (such as PlayStation) are free ? The console is copyrighted, right ? Rjclaudio 02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As René Magritte would say, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe.". The photo of a PlayStation is not a copy of the hardware device; it lacks several important key features of the game console (the ability to load and play games, to play DVDs, whatever).
However, the primary key feature of a "two- or three-dimensional work of art" is most likely the visual appearance, of which a significant portion will be repoduced by a photograph.
Now, a photograph of a game scene on the PlayStation is an interesting problem: it reproduces the visuals, but does not provide the interactivity of the game. However, since the graphics may be a key element of the game, screenshots may indeed become a problem. However, I guess that very little is done against use of screenshots; a large nunber is present on the 'net and in magazines and, after all, it's free advertizing! -- 19:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we execute such screenshots without trial. The law is clear about this. The answer to Rjclaudio's question is that a video game console is not a work of art. It's a functional item. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Images forbidding nofollow

The license for Image:Personal trainer assisting and correcting a client during a fitball stretching exercise.jpg is somewhat odd. The license is:

"Online use: ok to use provided is linked back to via a link that does *not* have the rel='nofollow' attribute (wikipedia excepted). Offline use: the following text must appear under the photo "Photo by:"

I don't think this fits our criteria, does it? CBM 19:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think so too, this is more than what would be acceptable attribution requirements. Apart from the attribution template, the file was also licensed under GFDL, so technically it should be ok. I don't think this was the authors intention, though. --rimshottalk 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't look ok to me; that's not a requirement we allow. Request, sure, but not a requirement. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
What is word use means? Ask this site to use on of Creative Commons license for avoid ambiguity. --EugeneZelenko 14:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This rules out any uses in a file format (dead tree included!) that does not support links with "nofollow" attributes. This restricts re-use to web pages, which makes it non-free. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes it non-free and not-allowed. No exclusive rights for Wiki*edia. Rocket000 19:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

DR filed. Rocket000 19:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

April 29

Does commons have a noticeboard of free images that need to be uploaded?

I sometimes find free images with encyclopedic value on flickr or other sources or even take some myself and put them on flickr but can't be bothered to upload them to commons.

Is there a noticeboard where I can place urls to free media that needs to be uploaded/tagged where others who are less lazy could do this? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There are Flickr upload bots: User:Flickr upload bot etc. AnonMoos 16:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand, if I wanted to do this manually I'd write my own bot to do it. What I'm suggesting is a page where I can say " has some nice PD images of tanks" or "my flickr page at URI has images of some landmark"". I could add such requests in 20 seconds and not the 20 minutes it would take to construct an upload queue, tag things appropriately and have a bot upload it all. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If you find a good source (not just a couple of individual images) you could list it at Commons:Public domain and free image resources. --MichaelMaggs 17:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agriculture or not?

When I uploaded Image:Life in Manastirea Humorului.jpg and Image:Goose in Manastirea Humorului.jpg, I added the category:Agriculture in Romania, but Olahus has recently deleted this cat from those files, pretending it wasn't agriculture. So I'm spoting this message to ask what other people think. IMO, the first one represents daily life of farmers on a dray plus a cow, and the second one represents goose breeding not far from a farm - since animal breeding is part of agriculture, it's logical to speak about agriculture IMO. Olahus answered me that seeing those animals on those pictures wasn't representative of agriculture, that we don't see the farm on the second picture (well in my memory I think the building WAS a farm but now I have doubts!) and that "we must see the way their are reared"... Well I quite disagree. A picture of a field doesn't always teach anything about how the farmer care about it and it is agriculture. As for the first picture, the farmers on their dray IS a description of how they work. I might be able to accept that the second picture is not really an illustration of agriculture but not the first one. What do you think? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, Farming might be a better cat, but it does not exist for Romania. --Túrelio 06:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I must say I agree with Olahus. IMHO these pictures don't show agrigulture. The first one shows a street with houses and a cart with horse, a cow and a dog. Even the description doesn't say anything that the guys on the cart are farmers. If you would have only the cart, the horse and the two guys on it with a description lik "two farmers on the way to the field", then it could be classed as agriculture. So however it's just a picture of a rural street. --Mdebets 14:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

May 1