Commons:Village pump/Archive/2008/07

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.

Contents

Non-functional link in firefox

I am trying to create a link to a directory on the wiki page at work. The trouble is that this link works only with IE. How can I get it to work with Firefox? I create the link like this: [file:\\abc\xyz\test test page] The text shows up properly but the link does not take me to that location. Please help. Thank you. --apar 13:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I would guess that it's for security reasons that Firefox doesn't allow file:// links. --rimshottalk 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Firefox might be more picky about using correct URLs, which should use forward slashes (/), not backslashes (\). There should also be three slashes at the beginning: two for the file:// protocol and one to indicate the root of the file system. But this doesn't really seem to be a Wikimedia Commons issue. LX (talk, contribs) 16:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I just noticed this works for me: http:\\\commons.wikimedia.org\wiki/Commons:Village_pump :) Rocket000 (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

June 27

Standardize warnings

I created {{source missing}} to standardize the "data missing" warnings on {{information}}, in line with {{description missing}} and {{author missing}}. I proposed it to be added to {{information}}, replacing the currently hardcoded warning (thus implementing the warning in a similar fashion to the other two) but they suggested me to propose this here first, so here I lay this proposal to the evaluation of the community. Have your say. --Waldir talk 10:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea.--Jarekt (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image deleted because of vandalism

I had an image at Image:Nuclear weapon size chart.jpg which had been in place at many articles on the English Wikipedia for YEARS. Someone came along, erased the copyright tag, and then it got automatically deleted. (Nobody bothered to check the history before deleting it, even though it was used all over the place.)

Is there an undeletion protocol? I find this highly irritating. I don't have the original file. If it's gone, then it's gone. Good job guys. --Fastfission (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A bad call there I'm afraid. We all do try our best but we can miss an odd one. Restored with the your licensing now - sorry --Herby talk thyme 11:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
As User:Ahonc in this case deleted an image without checking the edit-history, I suggest that someone goes through ALL of this users deletions of pictures with similar missing license and checks for accidental or deliberate removal of the license. I have myself seen a case where a user while changing category also deleted the license information, only to mark the picture for deletion half an hour later due to that missing license. In the case of the current picture we are lucky enough to have someone who notices it - that may not be the case for other pictures. It is possible to make mistakes, and if they are discovered and corrected there is no loss. Haros (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The information was removed by 12.16.249.2 (talk · contribs) who has made no other edits. Samulili (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that user who tagged image must check history. And sysops delete such images (Unknowns) using scripts.--Ahonc (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but I firmly believe admins must take responsibility for their own actions. I stuffed up today because I did not check. The words required are "sorry" & sort it. --Herby talk thyme 18:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
If that is the case, there is a missing quality assurance step in the process. As I mentioned I have witnessed a case where a (very active) user on Commons did not check, he would have found that the missing license was his own mistake. In that case he relied upon the admin deleting the picture to do the check. You as an admin rely on him doing that check. This is a serious case of making it easy, not safe. Haros (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The admin needs to do the check: The prior steps could be performed by any random vandal or know-nothing. If you're using a script that causes your account to blindly delete tagged things then thats the functional equivalent of running a bot. We wouldn't approve a bot that simply acted on random speedy deletion tags, so you shouldn't be acting like one. :) Of course, errors are made.. but now that we see the risk we should resolve it. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, to check that a file has been tagged properly is indeed the responsibility of the deleting admin. If these scripts used for deletion doesn't allow for a control, then the scripts can't be used. After all, admins have the right to delete because we are trusted to make such controls and judgements - otherwise we could have bot's deleting unknowns after 7 days.Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I use no script, I use the tool BadOldOnes, and I read descriptions before deletions.--Ahonc (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In Ahonc's most recent 40 no-license deletions I found the following that look like they might be problems:

--Gmaxwell (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In the next batch, covering the ones more recent than these:

--Gmaxwell (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

{{PD-USGov-Interior-BLM}}, public domain images

This template is present on a photo I just moved from Wikipedia, Image:Bureau of Land Management horses.jpg. It is not in the Category:PD US BLM though. Any ideas why not? The template seems to have the right code to me.

Also, should we have a category:public domain images? I see that a lot are in that 'ghost' category. Or should it just redirect to Category:public domain. Richard001 (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:PD US BLM is a hidden category, which means that it doesn't show up on the image page, unless you enable showing hidden categories in your preferences. The image does show up in the category, however. --rimshottalk 16:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I can see hidden categories, but this one still isn't showing up. Did you look for it there? Richard001 (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:American Swedish Institute-2007-03-18.jpg

Why isn't the license template showing? Is {{Flickr}} broken? -Nard 01:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The horrors of case-sensitivity. {{Flickr}} uses "permission"; {{Information}} uses "Permission". --dave pape (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales

I noticed that Jimbo hasn't performed any sysop actions in over a year - should he be notified per Commons:Administrators/De-adminship#Activity? :) Kelly (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just drop him an email. But if Jimmy really wants something to get done on the Commons, then he will find a way to do it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, he's no more exempt than anyone else. Going by his de-sysoping on en.wikibooks, he won't care, but he may comment that he thinks de-sysoping for inactivity is a bad idea. I disagree, and so do both the en.wikibooks and Commons communities. Since he's a steward, he can give himself any rights he needs per policy. But he doesn't need local permissions, and we should not exempt him from activity requirements; the same arguments for de-sysoping applies to him as do in general.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Shrug; I never see the point in desysopping over inactivity. That said, if the community wants to I won't stand in the way of it. Email him and see what he says. —Giggy 06:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
One reason for doing it is security. Just as you shouldn't use a computer system as root when you don't need it, we shouldn't give people tools that are more powerful than they need. If you're not using your account at all, chances are you won't notice if someone else does. Another is that users should not be misled to contact inactive admins for help. LX (talk, contribs) 11:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
re. Security; using an account less is actually more secure as it's much more difficult to hack a password that isn't actively being entered. And if it goes on a rampage, we'll know for sure it's been hacked - it's rarely hard to guess (especially with a Jimbo account). The other argument is a reasonable one... I would content that the best way to find an active admin is to look at Special:Log/delete, but of course not every newbie thinks that way. —Giggy 11:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Tools are for using. I get irritated (!) at some of the RfAs that arrive offering to help with backlogs. I've looked at a couple recently. They have done nothing with the tools. Ho hum - otherwise I am strongly with Túrelio - there is always plenty to do for those who work rather than polish trophies. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
@Kelly, if somebody is bored why not go patrolling new uploads for copyvios or work on old ones (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, Category:Images with disputed copyright status, Category:Copyright violations). There has been a lot to do recently and that work might be slightly more relevant for Commons. No offense meant ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For whatever its worth: stewards are now sysops everywhere, they don't even have to grants the rights. --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lunar Chart (LAC) Series

Hello. I found this moon charts, that were published by the Aeronautical Chart Information Center, United States Air Force, between 1962 and 1967. The site is the Lunar and Planetary Institute's webpage. ¿can this images be uploaded here? if so, can be edited?. thanks 200.1.20.227 15:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC) (Spanish wikipedia's comu nacho)

I didn't find a word about free images or so on the whole website, but: ©Lunar and Planetary Institute, 2008. Also, these lunar charts were published by another organisation, as mentioned above. On the other hand they offer them for download. So you might simply ask at rpif@lpi.usra.edu . --Túrelio (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Gracias

A deletion debate that may raise some interesting questions

Commons:Deletion requests/Tadao Ando artwork

I have no comment on the images that were taken in Japan, because I have no knowledge of Japanese copyright law. I am concerned only with the images in the U.S. (two of which I took).

If I understand correctly, Cecil is saying that unless we can find explicit statute or precedent in U.S. law for allowing photographs in public spaces in the interior of buildings, we should delete such images if the building is new enough to qualify for copyright protection. If this principle is accepted, this would mean, at the very least, that we would have to delete all images of church interiors, library interiors, indoor sports arena interiors, concert hall interiors, etc. that were built in the last half-century-plus (and presumably any that were altered in the last half-century-plus, e.g. by the addition of a new piece of stained glass to a church). I'm pretty certain that there is no basis for this in U.S. copyright law. I don't think we should be out there anticipating possible restrictive precedents that a court or statute might set in the future. Is anyone familiar with a statute or precedent in U.S. copyright law that makes this outdoor/indoor distinction as against a public/private space distinction (and I realize that public/private for this purpose has been defined rather differently by the courts than for some other purposes). - Jmabel ! talk 17:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There are just three pictures in that request concerning the US, but to keep everything together it would be better if it would not be discussed here. Probably also somebody can translate the japanese(?) comment. -- Cecil (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

July 3

I don't hear anything

Please try this sound: . Any idea? --Cumeo89 (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just sounds like static noise to me. The unix 'file' utility reports the contents of the file as "Ogg data, Vorbis audio, mono, 44000 Hz, ~80000 bps, created by: Xiph.Org libVorbis I (1.0.1)" LX (talk, contribs) 21:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I hear something like train wheels tada-tada (through the headphones, making the low frequencies apparent). And noise. Aliens? that was yesterday. NVO (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Should we delete it? I looked up Vietnamese Wiktionary and try to find out how the word is pronounced but... I think a sound like this is too difficult for anyone to pronoun. --Cumeo89 (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations from Flickr

Background: We have a lot of users transferring images from Flickr that have been published under a free license. That's good. Unfortunately, a lot of Flickr users upload other peoples works, which means they can't issue a valid license. (Things to look out for and which should raise warning flags are photostreams full of professional shots, magazine covers, screenshots, photos in different styles and from different cameras.) Not everyone remembers to check whether it's likely that the Flickr uploaders are the legitimate copyright holders before making the transfers. That's not so good.

What I've done so far: I thought Commons:Questionable Flickr images was too hard to edit, and there was no consistency between entries, so I created a template to help format the page and made it all nice and tabular.

What I'd like to happen next: bots that help out with transfers and reviewing transferred files should reject images from users listed on COM:QFI. The new format should be much easier to parse.

What I'd like to do next: create {{flickrvio}} based on {{copyvio}}, to be used for images that may have had all information transferred correctly, but where the image is already an obvious copyright violation on Flickr. (Apart from the text in the template, the image would be dealt with the same way as any other copyvio.) Create {{flickrvionote}} based on {{copyvionote}} but with somewhat nicer language. The latter is the most important one. Raising awareness of this problem needs to be quicker than it is today and needs to be done multilingually. Slapping users who make such transfers with {{copyvio}} or {{speedywhat}} is just not very informative.

Any opinions? Other suggestions? LX (talk, contribs) 23:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And more, I have uploaded an image whose license changed and also, I have on flickr changed a license on an image of mine. -- carol (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Seeing no major objections to the proposal, I've created {{flickrvio}} and {{flickrvionote}}. Please improve on them.
Please translate these templates. I've done English and Swedish, which is all I can do without embarrassing myself and insulting others. LX (talk, contribs) 19:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2

Morocco / Western Sahara upload wars

Can there be some kind of overall decision, or at least truce, on this? See the file upload history of Image:NATO_Map.png, for example... AnonMoos (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's make different versions:
Then they can fight it at their local Wikipedia project. Samulili (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, for the names to be descriptive they should be:
Samulili (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The idea of renaming the image makes me wonder how often the rename bot runs. Does someone know? Samulili (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Don't want to single out any one user as worse than the others (because I don't know that's the case), but User:Xiquet has been working away like a busy beaver the last few hours... AnonMoos (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I like Bryan's solution, which took no policy modification to enact, and should work next time it comes up, too. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

International copyright law: photos taken in France by a UK photographer

I've uploaded a series of photographs that I took of buildings etc. whilst I was in France recently; see User:Mike_Peel#France (and I have more I haven't uploaded yet). As I live in the UK, I'm used to the freedom of panorama. However, I understand that this doesn't apply in France (and I assume that photos taken in France have the french law applied to them). So, my questions:

  • How old do the buildings have to be such that I can release photos of them under Creative Commons?
  • Does the same apply to bridges and fountains?
  • How about infrastructure (e.g. canals?)
  • How about spacecraft? Are photographs of those OK? (That may sound odd, but I went to Cité de l'espace and took photos of various spacecraft displayed there)
  • Are there any additional complications introduced by US copyright law?

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you know french, you might ask that at the french village pump Commons:Bistro. Also, User:Cecil is specialized in that question (see also: Commons:Forum#COM:FOP). --Túrelio (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a lawyer, but I can give you my interpretation of what we do here at the Commons. Here's my take:
  • Buildings (including bridges): see COM:FOP#France. In general, if these pass the threshold of originality (have a definite artistic character and are not part of a series), they are eligible to copyright. Copyright vests initially in the architect and runs until 70 years after that architect's death. It doesn't matter that you are British and will publish these images in the UK (or in the U.S. on WM servers): the country of origin of a building is the place where it is located, so that's what's interesting for us.
  • Fountains, sculptures, etc: same thing, copyright determined by death of sculptor/architect.
In both cases, we generally allow images where the copyrighted object is not the main subject of the image, its inclusion in the image is incidental or accessory, and basically unavoidable. If you take an overview image of some square and that happens to contain a copyrighted building and a copyrighted fountain, that's ok. A closeup of the fountain or the building is not. A photo of a square that deliberately includes a copyrighted sculpture when a similar photo could also have been taken without showing the sculpture is not ok.
  • Canals, highways, railway tracks, tunnels: in general, I would think that these would lack the "definite artistic character", though there may be exceptions. Generally ok.
  • Spacecraft, planes, cars, locomotives, bicycles, trams, ... are utility objects; they may be subject to design patents, but are typically not eligible to copyright. Generally ok. Their painting (including e.g. advertisements on a bus) is copyrightable; see Commons:De minimis when e.g. a photo of a bus with ads might be considered ok here. In general: if the bus was photographed to show primarily the ad, it's not ok. A plain side view fully showing the ad is IMO not ok. A front view (typically no ads there) or an angled view not aimed at reproducing the ad but at showing the bus would be ok; in that case, the presence of the ad would be unavoidable and incidental, and through the angled view, it would be clear that the main subject of the photo was not the ad but the bus as a whole. A close up of the driver's cabin that happened to show part of an ad might also be ok.
Also see Commons:Image casebook. Concerning the applicable law: we consider the law of the source country and that of the U.S. The source country for images of architectural works (buildings, bridges, etc.) and sculptures/fountains, i.e., basically anthing that's fixed to the ground, is the country where the work is located. For anything else, it's the country where the work was first published. So for your example bus photo, the applicable source country would be the UK. For your example photo of a building or a sculpture, it'd be France. At least that's what we do here at the Commons. Lupo 07:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
(BK)I would not call myself specialized, but since the huge deletion requests I started a few days ago I learned a lot about that law. I can understand the problem of Mike Peel, since I am used to the FOP-law of Austria (which allows even indoor fotography under some circumstances) and now living in Finnland, where this law is much stricter. To the questions:
ad 1) It does not matter how old the building is. It just matters how long the architect is dead (70 years). But that only applies if a special building is the central motive of an image. Skylines, town impressions and so on are no problem at all. A example would be the pyramide in front of the Louvre. It's still rather new, so making a picture of it, is not allowed, but since it is in the courtyard of the Louvre, it is allways there if you make a picture of the whole Louvre complex. So there where a lot of discussions both here and at fr.WP if a picture of the Louvre is allowed, where finally it was decided that it is, because the pyramid is just a small part of the image and not the main motive (so Image:Louvre Front Courtyard.jpg is ok, but pictures in this category are not ok). Next thing is the threshold of originality. That's a little difficult to specify, since the artistic character of a building is a point of view. That is something you have to decide yourself.
ad 2) I don't know about bridges, but fountains and statues are work of art (sculptures). If the designer is dead 70 years, it is ok. Otherwise not, except if the fountain/... is not the main motive of the image.
ad 3) Don't know, but I don't think that there is much of a threshold of originality with them. They are usually either very old or build just for working purposes where the successfull functioning was the main goal.
ad 4) As Lupo said. But you will probably have to ask the museum/theme park owners if it is allowed to use pictures from the park commercially, because many museums don't allow it.
ad 5) I don't think so. It can't get much stricter than the laws of France and Italy. -- Cecil (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer either; I nonetheless think that most of what has been written so far makes perfect sense. I just have a comment on Cecil's 4): according to Commons:Image casebook#Museum and interior photography and v:en:Museum photography, you (usually) don't really need the permission of the museum. Even though they own the object, they don't own the copyright, so the most they can do is kick you out for taking pictures - once you have the photos and have left the museum, you can use them as you want, as long as you don't breach the rights of the actual copyright owners. Pruneautalk 22:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, guys (and gals?). I was hoping that there would be simple date cut-offs, but I guess that thinking neglected to account for lawyers... I've nominated some of the photos I've uploaded for deletion (see Commons:Deletion requests/Toulouse); I think that the rest are OK, although I'll check them individually. Thanks again. Mike Peel (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Converting flv to ogg theora

How might I convert flv to ogg theora in the most efficient and painless way possible on XP? Thanks. Emesee (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

http://v2v.cc/~j/ffmpeg2theora/ffmpeg2theora-0.21.exe ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Emesee (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Unintuitive Template behaviour

On Category:Created with Hugin the alphabetic order is messed up. First there are entries A-H with are tagged with {{Hugin}}, then all images from 0 through A to Z that use [[Category:Created with Hugin]] directly, followed by {{Hugin}} tagged images I-Z. I am not a template expert, so is there a way to avoid such multiple alphabetic strands? -- Klaus with K (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The files using the template are currently sorted only on the pagename (the template code is [[Category:Created with Hugin|{{PAGENAME}}]]). The manually categorised images ([[Category:Created with Hugin]] in the image pages) has no specified sort order. So the default sort order is used, that is the namespace prefix Image: + the pagename. There are two solution, either use the template for all images, or remove the PAGENAME sort order from the template. /Ö 17:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I tried solution 2 (remove the PAGENAME sort order from the template), but the manually categorised images are still inserted in between. On a personal note, I do not like use the template for all images, but that is mostly to do with the message design. -- Klaus with K (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User Account Question

I use the account Andrew from NC on the English and Simple English Wikipedias. I would like to move images with the propor copyright status from the English Wikipedia to Commons so that they can be used in Simple English articles. However, I do not want these images associated with this account because I want to use this one for photographs I have taken myself. Would it be in violation of the policies here if I create a second user account for this purpose and make it clear on the user page that Andrew from NC is the owner of the second account and it is not a sockpuppet? --Andrew from NC (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be okay as long as it's clearly identified as such and isn't used for decision-making purposes. At least, that's what the policy at English Wikipedia would be (from w:WP:SOCK#LEGIT: "Some editors use alternative accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons: 5. An editor might use an openly declared alternative account to carry out maintenance tasks in order to simplify the organization of such tasks." There doesn't seem to be a separate policy page regarding sockpuppets at Commons, but Commons:Blocking policy says, "It is forbidden to create accounts to evade blocks ('sock puppets'). Such accounts are blocked indefinitely on discovery." Since you wouldn't be using your alternative account to evade a block, I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed. Second, third, fourth opinions? —Angr 21:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I have created a new account, Also Andrew from NC. I have put notices on the user pages of both my accounts explaining the situation. Thank you for your help! --Andrew from NC (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Transparent accounts such as this are no likely to worry anyone much. Always good to know though. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

July 5

Internet Archive compatable with GPL, CC-by-Sa? What license equivalent is this under? --Emesee (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it isn't. It says free for academic and scholarship use only. -- carol (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured media, video and audio

Please see this - closely related to Commons.--Kozuch (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving images to the Commons

Do you think this process will ever get any better? We have so many images at places like en.wikipedia that should certainly be here. Will the process of transferring them get any easier/less tiresome and slow than it is now? I seldom do it because the process is just too algorithmic; I think a program could do almost all of the work, and don't want to waste time if that is a possibility. I think bots should be doing this sort of thing with humans just approving what they do and helping out where needed. To prevent future uploads, perhaps people should be forcibly redirected here if they select a free license, since we now how the global account thing working. Only fair use images should be allowed at Wikipedia etc in my opinion. Richard001 (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That is already the case in many wikis, such as fr:, which advises users to upload Free material here. es:, if I am not misaken, does not allow local upload at all.
The problem with bot upload is that they embrace considerable amounts of non-free images which were uploaded under bogus licences and never challenged. But a semi-automatic process might be an idea, yes. Rama (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, en advises people to upload here too, but most people seem unable to read the message, unable to take notice of it, or just don't care. I realize there are a few cases where a 'free' license there isn't enough to upload here, but in cases where it's certain to be Commons compatible, the only objection is that images may be very specific to the local wiki. I suppose that's something to decide on a wiki by wiki basis though. What I find strange is that I have to save the image onto my personal computer. Why do I have to do this? Surely the file can be transfered internally from one project to another without me having to use my own computer as an intermediary. I will have to try doing more of this sort of thing and collect all the suggestions I can to improve the process. Richard001 (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
If you use the CommonsHelper, you can directly transfer the file. Anrie (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realize it could do that. The process is pretty good actually; I think I'll transfer more files more often. Richard001 (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of people on en-wikipedia who are quite opposed to this. They, rightfully, claim that images get whisked away to commons where they are eventually deleted for no reason. Many feel the idea of deletion because "we already have enough" or "not encyclopedic" are not valid criteria. For example, w:User:SlimVirgin will often pitch a fit if you touch her animal rights photos because she is convinced there is an administrator on commons who likes to delete them. My suggestion is that you grant blanket amnesty to en-wikipedia automated moves and only delete after a successful IfD on the home wiki. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If they're on Commons, the IfD should take place here. 1.) You need a Commons admin to delete the image. 2.) It affects all Wikimedia projects, not just the one it came from. That said, I'm not blaming those that don't want their images move to Commons, although they really have no choice if someone decides to since the images are under a free license. Rocket000 (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

June 30

Should species be categorized to area-specific categories?

I have observed that quite a few users categorize species gallery pages/categories to one or more area-specific categories.

For instance, the gallery page for Lonicera alpigena is categorized to Category:Plants of Albania, Category:Plants of Austria, Category:Plants of France, Category:Plants of Germany, Category:Plants of Greece, Category:Plants of Italy, Category:Plants of Japan, Category:Plants of Romania, Category:Plants of Russia, Category:Plants of Spain, Category:Plants of Switzerland, and Category:Plants of Yugoslavia.

Personally, I find this a little confusing as if I browsed, e.g., Category:Plants of Italy, I expect to only find media of plants from Italy, be it Italian stamps depicting the species or photos of plants taken in Italy. With the categorization scheme used, I will find media from other regions, as e.g., Image:Lonicera alpigena.jpg is actually a photo from Austria! Whereas I see the categorization has informational content it also causes confusion (at least for me). I think it is more logical that it is the individual images which are categorized to the area specific categories, as done in, e.g., Category:Plants of Greenland. If we should have a categorization as in the introductory example, I think it should be to parallel categories with other names like Category:Plants species endemic to Albania, Category:Plant species endemic to Austria, ... or something along those lines. I am concerned though that this begins to mimic the encyclopedic types of information, which really belogs to a species article in a Wikipedia and perhaps to detailed to try and maintain (it will never be very complete).

I would like to hear the opinions from other users concerning this. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I found a related discussion on COM:TOL. That discussion was apparently never closed. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
See June 28. -- carol (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Dead link? But that was not a consensus in my eyes. Just a question and a reply. At least I do not see what the conclusion of that "consensus" is? -- Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Commons, Village pump, June 28, 2008 -- this year and even this week if you count a week as being seven days. The issue is that there are none. It is a tree that exists from Ecozones. It is not complicated to understand. It is useful. The categories are already filled with images that do not belong there, but if everyone puts their images into the correct flora of or plants of or trees of category, or their galleries, there will be a minimum of these. If you would like to have problems, work with Plants of categories and the people managing those galleries and categories. From my experience, this is the way I could have problems when I wanted them. If you would like to upload images and write articles and not kiss a working groups ass the "Flora of" categories are right now that kind of group and I am interested in keeping it that way. Oddly enough, I would like to point out that while the category here which contains North America is not called "Flora of North America" it actually is working with all of North America (with the exception of the southern point of Florida and the southern and coastal states of Mexico which are in environment more like the Neotropic) than the online "expert" flora people who claim to be the flora of that area.
I think that the people who got this going should be applauded for the genuine effort and either joined to complete it or left alone by all others <-- my opinion. -- carol (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
And further, if the gallery that has been made for Afrotropic is not enough information for a "user" to understand what is going on there -- then this is in itself really good evidence that a gallery is not necessarily better for things. Thank you for your attention and concern. -- carol (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this related to my question? There seems to be a lot of resentment in your reply against "Plants of.." users. Maybe I am just ignorant, but I still have not understood what you perceive is the real problem and who these users are. Anyway, the question I am asking in this thread is if species galleries/cats should associate with "Flora of..." or "Plants of..." categories? I guess this can be answered by a simple yes/no and a short clear explanation. As I have stated I am personally concerned about all these associations, as it seems to somewhat redundant with encyclopedic information, but I may be missing a point there? -- Slaunger (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Specifically it was User:Ies and User:WayneRay; perhaps not in the TOL project, but avid gallery makers and equally avid category dismemberers. The first time I heard of that there was a TOL project was from you when your greenland plant was reviewed by me. I learned about it from a response in the review of an image -- well after this whole Category:Ecozones was created and populated and prettied up with image map navigation and such. So, there is a chance that I am blaming a whole project for the actions of a few users, but that is how the whole thing was presented to me.
Redundant, yes and no. It is more peaceful than redundant though and easier to make the separate tree, include the plant pages (some of the galleries are very very nice) than it was to figure out how to include the Trees of and Forests of into the Plants of categories which have some incredibly difficult requirements to put things into them. I really did not want to be involved with the way it seems to work and the way it was presented to me. Also, plants are plants and insects are insects. We have some images here where the insect is on the plant, but the study of them are usually separate and not included (for several probably good reasons) in the Plants of categories. The Flora of, Fauna of and Geography of are all going together towards Ecozones. I did not have a problem with the people who make the Animals of categories, nor the Insects of categories, yet, they too are included into a Fauna of category because there were several different ones of those (even a few Birds of categories, I saw during my construction time).
When you say include the plant pages, do you mean including the plant species gallery pages in the Flora of categories? If yes, why is ot you want to add the species paged in the flora of... categories. Many of the photos in those galleries will not have been taken in that eco-region anyway, and i find this confusing, perhaps even misleading. Am I alone with this viewpoint? -- Slaunger (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
As I said, my goal was to make usable maps for all of the areas of this earth which have had plants, animals and things that are not even considered to be on or another of those but yet still exist. And to be able to start at one larger predefined location (like one of the Ecozones) and get quickly to the plants, trees, animals and geographic images for smaller and smaller areas. The real science of the plants (which I have been writing articles for and reading about) is the environment they live in and developed in. This information is also interesting for gardeners, but for different reasons -- the emulation of micro-environments and stuff. Also questions like "why is this insect colored this way at one location and colored this other way at another location?"
I understand you intentions and the maps are really useful and valuable. the last statement regarding regional variances very well underlines my concern with having species articles in the Flora of categories, and you could have variants/environments shown in some images of the species, which does not really reflect the eco-region the species page may be associated to. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
My first introduction to the project, unless the project includes User:Ies or User:WayneRay, then my first introduction to the project was to have my Categories dismembered without mentioning it to me. -- carol (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is in the same spirit as the initial intent of this topic... but could we use this forum (or create a new thread) to once-and-for-all settle the non-TOL side which seems to agree "everything should be categorised"; vs. the TOL side which continuously decategorises all my images? I'm sure Ies means no harm, but it's a bit aggravating to see my images without any categories. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 02:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So it is not just me then? Were you shown any information about how "they" decided it should work? Does the upper level of their scheme help to understand it at all? To me, and I made this opinion while attempting to work with the resources here, by the time a gallery is more advantageous than a category, it becomes an article and should be moved to one of the documentation sites. -- carol (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Please do not hi-jack this thread for a gallery vs cat species debate. It is OK to discuss that again, but please start a new thread for that topic. We have already strayed off-topic too much already IMO. The question I am raising here is independent of whether species goes in a category, in a gallery or both.

adaptive evolution theory

Evidence presented

While trying to figure out the reason there was such motivation so long ago to have galleries instead of categories, (I would call this guess a "reading between the lines" except that I have not read anything that actually supports the people who feel that they can dismember categories here and do) is that it was because of the wiki search engine which finds pages before galleries and prints the page name either as a populated link or an unpopulated link when it presents its results.

There are a lot of ways to say "our search engine sucks" without actually saying that and voting to make galleries (because it seemed easier for the people to do the work instead of fixing the software) instead seems to say this very clearly without actually saying that. -- carol (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many discussions about this topic around, and many reasons. However, this is not the subject of this thread. Could we please stay on the subject? -- Slaunger (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The reasons that the debate started in the first place, if they are debunked, then the original debate might simply vanish. Origin of the problem, a suggestion to get over it and not let software limitations make silly decisions -- sure, it might have nothing to do with the subject, but are you certain about that? -- carol (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting the original question

Somehow it seems like I have not been able to properly present my question here. I would like to try again. Should species (be it galleries, categories or both if they exist) be categorized to the region(s) (be it eco-regions or political regions), where they are endemic? I would say no, based on the example I gave in the beginning of the thread. My main point is that it will lead the user to images, which are not from the region when browsing down the structure. this is misleading IMO, but what do other users think? -- Slaunger (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The categories Plants of (countryname) are for plant species that naturally occur in that certain country or are long time naturalised there. Data bases are appropriate literature and/or serious websites like GRIN. Therefore images of plants for instance native to Madagascar of course belong to Category:Plants of Madagascar even if one certain image was taken from an alien garden plant in Australia or maybe in a greenhouse in Italy. Categorising thouse images as Plants of Australia or Plants of Italy would be really confusing! -- Ies (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that alright. But I am speaking about something different. Take for instance, Hippuris vulgaris (Common Mare's tail). I photographed that in a medium arctic environment: Image:Hippuris vulgaris upernavik 2007-08-03 2.jpg near the northern edge of its distribution area. But this species is naturally occuring in many other political and eco-regions. If you look at the other photos in the gallery, you will se that this species has a very different appearence in other (warmer) regions (unfortunately the location is nowhere to be found on the image pages of the other images, but I hope you see what I mean). According to your view Hippuris vulgaris should be categorized to Category:Plants of Greenland (and several other Plants of categories). My point is that if I now look into the Category:Plants of Greenland category you are lead to a Hippuris vulgaris gallery where a majority of the photos are from an eco-region which is very, very different from the arctic environment in Greenland. And I find this very, very misleading. Instead if only the image pages of Hippuris vulgaris, which has actually been photographed in Greenland are associated to the Plants of Greenland category, you actually have a possibility of getting only images of Hippuris vulgaris photographed in Greenland by searching for images which are in the Hippuris vulgaris gallery and in Category:Plants of Greenland. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
You can't capture everything in the world in exact suiting categories. Categories always build a compromises that sometimes suit well to some images and sometimes a little worse to others. (They also don't always meet to your particular and personal expectation!) But I see that you already use the advantage of species galleries to make things clear. So why not categorising this gallery as (omong others) Plants of Greenland? Everyone who sees the gallery soon sees that there are different looking plants depending on the certain area, too. Btw, even in a single, small country or eco-region plants of one and the same species might look very, very different depending on altitudinal belt, available moisture, season etc. You can't capture everything ... -- Ies (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, but you could do both then: Associate plant species endemic to a given region to "Plants of (region)" and also categorize individual image pages of plants actually photographed in that region to "Plants of (region)". Or, if you do not want to mix up the two. The one where the species goes into could be called "Plant species endemic to (region)" and a category with images of plants seen in that region could be called "Plants from (region)". -- Slaunger (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Images and species subcategories get removed from Plants of categories and the species subcategories typically get disembled in the process. -- carol (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, there were some States of the United States which had no Plants of categories. I am curious to know if the categories had been disembled or if they ever existed. There is a lot of aggressive behavior surrounding the Plants of Categories, and I wonder if those states which have none were a mistake or if it is a result of an aggressive action. -- carol (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I created a couple of these Plants of (State of the US) categories and filled some more but never found any vanished. I think the categories you're missing never existed. One of the reasons might be that people are frequently interested in plants of foreign, exotic and therefore interesting countries and overlook the plants at their feet that anyway grow there and hence are bland. -- Ies (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

non-TOL v. TOL; categories vs. galleries

This issue has come up time and time again, and is there any chance that we could once-and-for-all settle debate between the non-TOL side which seems to agree "everything should be categorised"; vs. the TOL side which continuously decategorises so many images? I'm sure the TOL folks means no harm, but it's a bit aggravating to see my images without any categories. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 11:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

For those just getting caught up... see also this COM:AN discussion ++Lar: t/c 13:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
To ensure that discussion is easily preserved, it has been moved to Commons:Categories vs Galleries and Commons talk:Categories vs Galleries.

Possibly relevant story from UK on street-scene photographs with potentially identifiable people

According to this article on the BBC web site, Google is about to face a legal challenge to its plans to roll out the Street View feature of Google Maps to its mapping of UK locations. The basis of the challenge is that the photographs used in this feature may accidentally show identifiable passers-by, and that under UK law the use of such an image for commercial purposes requires the consent of those passers-by.

If this is true (and I've no idea if it is), then this surely has an impact on Commons. Commons isn't itself commercial, but we explitly allow (arguably encourage) the commercial use of images on Commons. Indeed an image that is licensed so as to forbid commercial usage is not acceptable for upload to Commons.

Any thoughts. -- Chris j wood (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I just woke up, so maybe if I thought about it later in the day: I'll have a completely different viewpoint. Right now, however, I don't think it impacts us. We are saying that people can use the media for any purpose, it's Britain which is saying otherwise. We're not responsible for people taking our media and doing something illegal. At the most, I think our only responsibility may be to put a disclaimer somewhere stating that British law prohibits commercial usage of personally-identifiable images; but even then: I don't think it's our place to necessarily state every single law in every single country. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 15:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Commons suppose to respect law of country of origin. See Commons:Licensing. So such images are subject to speedy deletion as {{noncommercial}}. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not really true in my opinion. It's much like trademark law. The image falls within our boundaries of "free", but other (non licensing) restrictions may still influence its commercial (or even non-encyclopedia) usage. That is not a direct reason for deletion, but we could consider applying "courtesy-tagging" here. TheDJ (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What thoughts? Most jurisdictions have some sort of privacy protection, nothing new. If the British courts decide to amend (tighten) existing benchmark of identifiability - it has not happened yet. So far it's just a bunch of flies smelling cash. McDonalds yesterday, Google today. NVO (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Since I started this hare running, I've found several references that quite categorically say that there is no UK law that prohibits commercial publication of photographs of identifiable people without permission. The European Convention on Human Rights does give a right to respect for private and family life, but it is unlikely the courts would regard a photograph taken of someone in a public place as infringing that, and if they did it would be immaterial whether the photograph was commercial or not. Whilst UK commercial photographers will often ask for 'model releases' in these circumstances, that is apparantly more to do with ensuring their work is saleable in the United States (where such releases are generally required by commercial publishers) than with complying with UK law. See here, for example. So maybe this is a non-story after all. -- Chris j wood (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a non-story as far as we are concerned. The allegation (which is all that it is) is that Google's technology might break data protection laws. Data protection is not copyright, which is what we are concerned with here. It is correct that in the UK there is no general law which prohibits commercial publication of photographs of identifiable people without permission (subject to libel laws and a variety of other piecemeal measures). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Not sure why you write Data protection is not copyright, which is what we are concerned with here. I never suggested that this was a copyright issue, and here is the Village Pump, which doesn't have any particular copyright agenda. Whilst breaching UK data protection laws may not particularly worry Florida based Wikimedia, it is certainly a very live issue for UK based uploaders. Having said that, my current best guess (and I'm no lawyer) is that this is not a real issue. -- Chris j wood (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Manuscript

I'm working in an article of Wikipedia I intend to make featured, and trying to make sure that all the images used are indeed free, have the correct licence tags and complete and detailed descriptions.

There is this image, an image of a manuscript of historical value, in wich a gathered assembly declared the independence of a country some centuries ago. But, for copyright meanings, it is just a written paper without any "artistic" or commercial purpose, and intended to be of public knowledge by it's own conception.

Wich licence tag is the correct one? PD-old? (life of the author plus 70 years) PD-1923? (published before January 1, 1923). Or simply PD-ineligible? (no original authorship to claim copyright protection)? Thialfi (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Argentina License Information says that PD-old works for any image that is more than 70 years old. -- carol (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

July 6

What to do with this one ? I have to download it to be able to display it. (My Explorer hangs when clicking on it) --Foroa (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously from someone who doesn't distinguish Commons and Wikipedia. The description seems to relate to a Luis Cano who has no article on :es or :en. The pdf is just a 2-page program folder for a play The Pelican by August Stringberg; probably copyrighted. I've put a rfd on it.--Túrelio (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ingrid-Betancourt.jpg

Could editors knowledgeable on copyright please comment on the above? Hopefully we can close this quickly. The image is used on over 200 pages in various wikis and is associated with a high-profile media story. If it's copyvio, it needs to go ASAP because it makes us look bad. If it's good, the status needs to be resolved so our customers will be all right with using it. Thanks! Kelly (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

July 7

Thoughts on galleries/categories

I support the Commons practice of placing all images in at least one category and using galleries for sorted and/or selected media. I have tried to understand the reasons for developing a different practice for media related to living things. The most compelling are:

  • From time to time, species are re-classified. When this happens, all files in a species- or genus-level category need to be edited with the new genus or species category. It is quicker to redirect a gallery page to the new gallery name. Is this a real problem? With modern genetic typing, hopefully the need to rename will reduce!
  • The full species classification is often placed at the head of a gallery page. Is it possible to do this on a category page?
  • Many media file names are not descriptive, so automatic sorting in a category may not be informative. Galleries can have manually entered titles for each image, but that requires work to set up. I would prefer the filename be improved so that the category listing is useful.

I support using categories as the primary classification so that we have a single system across Commons. Media of uncertain species can be placed in the lowest level that is certain. Galleries can then be used to select and sort media. Finavon (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Said the recent major uploader who has no clue what the real species name is. Hundreds of misnamed galleries is an interesting idea though.... -- carol (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Category pages can contain any amount of explanatory text/images/etc., anything that can be put on a gallery page. Powers (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved with previous item to Commons talk:Categories vs Galleries. Finavon (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Action needed on Commons:Featured pictures/chronological/2008-A and Commons:Featured pictures/chronological (July)

Every single one of the people who have closed FP debates ending in new FP candidates in May, June and July, with the sole exception of yours truly, have failed to follow the instructions correctly, in that they failed to add the text-description of the closure to the list (or create the list, in the case of the first closure in each of those months). Hence, May and June are lacking a list; July has a list (now), but apart from my entry it consists only of placeholders to give my entry the correct number (12).

The May and June lists, and the proper contents of the July list, need to be added; but I feel this is too big a task for me to tackle on my own, so I'm alerting the community. -- Korax1214 (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You better should have posted this on the discussion side of featured pictures. But I respond here as well. We changed the listing system. The new way is much faster then the old way --Simonizer (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
In which case, the What to do after voting is finished page needs to be edited to reflect the new system. -- Korax1214 (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
That is right ;-) --Simonizer (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A proposal to revise Commons:Project scope

The existing scope page has a number of serious problems, in particular:

  • 1. It includes extraneous material (eg recommendations on file size) which should be elsewhere.
  • 2. It is vague and unclear.
  • 3. It provides little practical guidance in areas of particular concern (eg nudity) which results in arguments being continually re-run in deletion requests.
  • 4. It does not acknowledge as policy unwritten rules whuch admins frequently use to close deletion requests, the most important of which is the principle that it is not up to Commons to decide on content disputes, and that if a file is in bona fide use on any Wiki project then it, by definition, cannot not fail the 'educational' test.

I have set out a proposal at Commons:Project scope/Proposal. Feedback is encouraged from as wide a range of editors as possible. Please comment at Commons talk:Project scope/Proposal. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been some good feedback already, but it would be nice to have more. The wording has been revised, and the proposal now includes pages/galleries/categories. Please visit and provide more comments at Commons talk:Project scope/Proposal. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

More copyedits now done. Additional feedback appreciated. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up - I think we need to update this policy, and the current version is looking like it's just about ready for showtime.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does this happen when updating an image?

Why can't you update an image without having to type in redundant info anymore? Example in this screenshot: http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3813/unavngivetjq1.jpg

All that is already on the file page of the image I'm updating, so why should it be written again? FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Go to your preferences & you can set it so that the old upload form comes up as default.
It seems like every other post here in the VP is regarding the upload form... can we put a big red box at the top of the upload form page and/or the VP which says "if you want the old one, do this" ? --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 10:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
You mean where it says "Use the old-style upload form layout."? I already did that weeks ago, it's not the problem. It hasn't asked me to give a source and license when merely updating images before today. FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
When I enter "A naval action during the siege of Tyre by Andre Castaigne (1898-1899).jpg" as the destination filename, I get a red message just below that input field saying "You will upload over an already existing file. The information you enter in this form will not appear on the description page. Maybe you should choose a different destination filename?", and the form in fact does not require any input. Try a forced reload (shift-reload on FF, ctrl-reload on IE): maybe your browser has cached an old version of the upload script. There were some problems initially with overwrite detection for filenames containing parentheses, but these have been corrected quite a while ago. If the problem persists, give me the details (browser, version, OS, precise input, ...) on my talk page. Lupo 12:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I did the same with another file, and the error didn't occur again, maybe that specific image caused a bug? It hasn't happened with any other images afterwards, so I guess there's no problem. FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Try it with that precise name, but don't specify a source file. (Only enter the destination filename in the form, nothing else. Make sure you don't have a typo in that long file name! :-) Happened to me on my first attempt...) If you see the message I mentioned, it'll work. If you don't see that message, click "Upload". If you get again an upload page that says at the very top that the file was empty, it worked. If both fail, we still may have a stray problem somewhere that I'd need to investigate. Lupo 14:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I already uploaded the image by just filling what it wanted me to fill, as you can see in the file history: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:A_naval_action_during_the_siege_of_Tyre_by_Andre_Castaigne_%281898-1899%29.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I know you did. But couldn't you do the above anyway? It won't upload anything (since no source file is given), but it would check whether there is a problem after all or not. I'd like to be sure. Lupo 21:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not get the message saying "You will upload over an already existing file. The information you enter in this form will not appear on the description page. Maybe you should choose a different destination filename?" when I just put in the filename as the destination without picking a specific file, and when I click upload, I get the same text as could be seen in the screenshot I linked to. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... and if you go to the upload form, then click shift-reload (or ctrl-reload if on IE), and then do the same again? Lupo 18:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Same thing happened... FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Image fork

I guess we all know how sometimes people start revert warring between versions of an image. It's usually a map, diagram, flag, emblem or some other image related to nationalities and ethicities. As we are more than happy to host different versions of the same subject and we don't insist that every image is neutral as long as the image is educational (in the broad sense of the word), I thought this template might be useful: {{Image fork}}. Wikipedia disapproves of POV forks, we don't have to.

Using that as an example, there need not be any problems if insted of Image:Christianity percentage by country.png we'd have Image:Christianity percentage by country according to CIA factbook.png and Image:Christianity percentage by country according to CIA factbook and Eurobarometer.png.

Do you think we should start using the template? It's not enough on its own, of cource, and other measures, like this and this may be required. Samulili (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes revert warring between versions of an image is due to multiple people uploading image with catchy name, for example 3 separate images were uploded as Image:Enigma.jpg. So the template language should be generic enough to cover such cases as well. --Jarekt (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, that's pretty Wikipedia-ish. But we do have {{Disputed chem}}, {{Disputed diagram}}, {{Disputed taxonomy}}, {{Doubt}}, and of course my favorite {{Fact disputed}}. Rocket000 (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

July 8

Questionable labeling of content

There is a an image that is being used as labeled and the accuracy of that label has been called into question. see Image talk:ConfucianismSymbol.PNG I placed requests for the Challenger and and the author to come here and discuss it, but in the mean time I wanted to add a warning template to the image, something like "The factual accuracy of this is disputed.", but I was not able to locate anything suitable at Commons:Templates though there are some close ones at W:Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Is there a standard procedure or template in this case? Jeepday (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There it is {{Doubt}} . --Túrelio (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I posted a message at Commons talk:Templates asking if it should be posted so it would be easier to find. Jeepday (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

See the post above. Rocket000 (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

How do I download a DjVu file so I can upload it here?

I want to upload [13] to Commons but I can't figure out how to download to my hard drive so that I can upload it here. It doesn't seem to have a "Save" icon, and the context menu I get by right-clicking on it doesn't have a "Save" option. I tried right-clicking on the link at [14] and selecting "Save link as...", but that just saves load_djvu_applet.cgi rather than the DjVu file itself. What do I do? —Angr 13:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother. If you look at page 2, it says use is restricted to non-commercial uses, or any fair use. We don't allow "non-commercial only" or fair-use here. Powers (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The book is in the public domain as it is by a UK author who has been dead for more than 70 years. We can safely ignore their copyfraud claims restricting re-use to non-commercial only. —Angr 14:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but someone had to digitize it. Isn't that transformative? Powers (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
No. No creative content was added (except for their creative interpretation of copyright law). —Angr 14:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Powers, take a gander at w:Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Try this. --rimshottalk 15:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
We'll want to edit the document to remove that claim, and perhaps politely let archive.org know that they are in violation of the law. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I tried Rimshot's link, but got "The file is corrupt or has an incorrect extension. Please check the file and upload again" when I tried to upload the same file here. Maybe there's something wrong with the file, since Any2DjVu didn't like the PDF when I tried to convert it to a DjVu. —Angr 16:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Re Bridgeman v. Corel, the book was published in Britain, where Bridgeman v. Corel doesn't hold. But since it's a scan of a book, not a photograph of a painting, it's moot anyway. The copyrightable content here is what the words say, not how they're arranged on the page. No artistic lighting of the pages of this book is going to change the content. —Angr 16:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The scan was performed, as far as I can tell, in the US by US parties who are distributing the work to people in the US. The UK is irrelevant here, since no one would claim the original work is copyrighted. --Gmaxwell (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

34th G8 summit

For me, the most difficult thing about Wikipedia images is defending them against attack by those who either won't or can't explain in words I can understand. For the purposes of this inquiry, let's assume that I'm uncommonly slow-to-understand or that I fail somehow to grasp the obvious when it should be as clear as the nose on my face.

In that circumstance, there must be a way to insist that someone making a complaint make themselves understood to me so that I can either remedy my inadvertent error or, at least, I can figure out how to avert similar problems in the future. I need a template perhaps -- something which allows me to insist that my good faith effort in locating an image, in uploading it, and in trying my best to provide appropriate support is met by some burden of explanation and persuasion.

I registered in advance for permission to download images created by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). My application was approved. I did upload six images to Wikicommons, and I promptly posted them at en:34th G8 summit. If I need to do something different than what I have done, or if I need to document that effort differently, fine -- but the question becomes one of finding out ... and, based my tentative experiences thus far, that may well turn out to be a Sisyphean task.

See July 8th -- Commons:Deletion requests/G8 images

Perhaps the thing to do is to post an open-ended question here? I'm having trouble simply putting my sense of confusion and dismay in the form of a question? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem is the images are copyrighted on the site in which the photo are from. I've found nothing to say that the images are Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 1.0. Bidgee (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The copyright note "Copyright© : Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan" is even on each single photo's page (when you click on a photo).
@Ooperhoofd, therefore I'm wondering why you wrote "The copyright holder of this file -- the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs -- allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted." Did you get a indivual permission from the J-MOFA? (That might not be impossible, but we need the evidence.) --Túrelio (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ooperhoofd, You begin with: "For me, the most difficult thing about Wikipedia images is defending them against attack by those who either won't or can't explain in words I can understand." Well this is where your confusion begins I guess. You are currently at Wikimedia Commons, a repository of images, audio and video that can be used by anyone in the world without significant restrictions. All material in Commons can also be used directly from any Wikipedia version, but Commons is not part of Wikipedia. Your images carry a clear copyright statement by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and we have no evidence that this entity has licensed their material in a way that provides us with the usage freedoms that we require here. If such evidence exists, we need either a link to this statement of the copyright holder, or an email by them that states this needs to be sent to the OTRS. If these are not present, then the images must and will be deleted, because they do not satisfy our core requirements for contributing. Please see also Licensing. TheDJ (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Belem hafen.jpg

The image file is missing but it wasn't deleted. Is it recoverable? -Nard 11:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a weird situation. I was having this problem once while I was uploading. I also think that I have had the reverse happen, where I uploaded the image and it displayed but said that the page did not exist. -- carol (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It's there now (or at least something is). The image was a deleted version, but there was no deletion log... no idea what the issue might be. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Still needs a source though (original upload log from pt.wp to start). --SB_Johnny | talk 12:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Was actually a de.wiki image, (which explains the german file name). Source fixed and license changed to PD per original. /Lokal_Profil 13:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion template deletion


Non-free image posted as free

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Annie_Sprinkle_Neo_Sacred_Prostitute.jpg

I see this as a significant issue. I communicated with the owner of this image; It is virtually her trademark, and it was never given into the public domain at all. And of course the document that says it was is not available for public viewing. Could somebody please fix this error??? --BenBurch (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image is tagged for speedy deletion so I'll say I will be gone within the next 48 hours if the OTRS proves to be incorrect. Bidgee (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like no. I suspect this will become a court matter. --BenBurch (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
No legal threats.png No legal threats please. Use the procedure at COM:OTRS to verify your claims. Otherwise there's no way to prove you aren't a random Internet nut. -Nard 02:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please. We got solid OTRS confirmation. If the copyright holder has an issue with it, she can contact us. Rocket000 (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Extensive details at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Annie Sprinkle Neo Sacred Prostitute.jpg. See y'all there. --AnonEMouse (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't bother. It's closed. Let's do something productive. :) Rocket000 (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible to upload djvu page as ordinary image?

Marasmius oreades James Sowerby 1789

Similarly to the previous question, I am interested in how to make a djvu page into a Commons image. For instance page 717 from James Sowerby's "Coloured figures of English fungi or mushrooms.djvu" (at right) which was uploaded by Hesperian. I couldn't work out how to make a link to the picture without showing it. Here the original work, the scanning, and the djvu format are all free, aren't they? But there would be a lot of advantages in making it into an ordinary .jpg image page or similar. Is it possible to convert a page of a djvu book into a .jpg file? Strobilomyces (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have almost the exact same question s:Page:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.djvu/9 (along with others) is showing a message "This page consists of an image that needs to be cropped or cleaned up, and uploaded to commons." I have it displayed at s:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc and would like to clean up it and the rest to include in the story as well as a gallery. So can you point me to the how to directions please? Jeepday (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Mediawiki server is automatically converting the image to JPEG on the fly. Do you have a need for a permanent copy of the JPEG to be uploaded? --InfantGorilla (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in order to use the pages as images so they can be cropped, labeled and other wise used as image i.e. in Gallery

<gallery>
Image:Wiki.png
Image:Wiki.png|Captioned
Image:Wiki.png
Image:Wiki.png|[[Help:Contents/Links|Links]] can be put in captions.
Image:Wiki.png
Image:Wiki.png|Full [[MediaWiki]]<br />[[syntax]] may now be used…
</gallery>

They have to be converted to normal images. Jeepday (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Does right-clicking on the Mediawiki preview image (jpeg) and saving it to a file give you a copy with high enough resolution to crop and upload? Sorry I don't know the djvu format, just how it looks on the screen. --InfantGorilla (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, We can probably do that, save it to the users computer, edit and crop as required, then upload it back to commons with a link to the source and DjVu page. Does that sound like a solution that will work with the requriements for licensing and such over here? Jeepday (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a series of distinct issues here. Firstly, any page of a dvju can be displayed simply by providing a |page= parameter to the image syntax, as demonstrated above; so there is not need to upload these pages as separate images unless they are to be cropped or otherwise enhanced. Secondly, it appears to be impossible to link to a page of a djvu file. Putting a colon in front in the usual way results in page=717|this :-(. There needs to be a bug request submitted for this. (DONE) Thirdly, pulling jpeg images out of a djvu file can be done but it is non-trivial. Briefly, it requires downloading the entire djvu file, using a djvu processing library such as djvulibre to extract the page of interest, decoding it into an image, and then possibly converting it into the desired image format. I have offered to do it in this case, if Strobilomyces is not interested in taking it on him/her self. Hesperian 01:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

July 9

Public Domain pictures

Hi, I'd like to now how to search only PD photos. I'm looking for some landscape in PD licence. Do you know where to go for that? Ajor933 (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

All images, that have a PD-licence are sorted in this category, but since there are nearly 200 different licence-types, that will not help much. You probably will be faster by going through the landscapes and checking the licence of the ones you like. Or you specify a not so general filter, because currently your definition probably includes several hundredthousands of pictures. -- Cecil (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
You can use CatScan. It shows pages that are sorted in both categories specified by you. For example "landscapes" and "Public domain". Direct link for that is [16]. It stops after it has found 1000 pages. If you want more, you have to specify more specific searches. --Slomox (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, this catScan seems to be exactly what I'm looking for... Ajor933 (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

July 10

Is this image usable?

I was looking through the Creative Commons search database when I found this image of Eminem, from Flickr. It appears to be under the CC Attribution 2.0 Generic licence. Since this would be for me the first time that I use Commons tags, I have two questions:

  • Can this image be legally uploaded on here?
  • If yes, who would I have to give attribution to? Is a link to the Flickr user that uploaded this enough?

Thanks in advance. Udonknome (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(I would like like to avoid {{Flickrvio}} here, that's why I'm asking.) Udonknome (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm just getting Google search results, so I don't know, but don't trust that search, it's wrong a lot. If you find an image, you must find where it says the license. That will give you a valid source, the author, and all that info. Rocket000 (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Uploads from flickr are not guarrenteed but using the {{Flickr}} and getting the license from the page that it points to will assist people (and bots) which look for license problems. I uploaded an image from flickr and the license changed inbetween the upload and a (at least) third review of the license status and the image was simply deleted from here -- no big deal in the "big picture". If that is the only license that you can find for that image and unless there are strong doubts about if the photographer and the uploader are the same and if you have no problem with the image being managed according to the original license (the link to the flickr page should help with that), just upload it....
Flickr users and the flickr gui does not understand always that the cc license is not supposed to change, but even I have changed the license of one of my images (within only a few hours/days though) there -- so whatever! -- carol (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, this is the actual image link. The license is there too. Udonknome (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that license is allowed. As to whether or not the Flickr user really took those photos is different story. It doesn't look promising, but I couldn't find any evidence he stole them from some other site. Rocket000 (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind. It was just there on the Flickr page itself[17]. >< Yeah, don't upload anything from this guy. Rocket000 (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You should add the Flickr user to Commons:Questionable_Flickr_images#Flickr_users so that if someone else isn't so careful in the future we'll eventually catch it. --Gmaxwell (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Added. Thanks, I thought about that but forgot to actually add it. Rocket000 (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Olympic rings

I'm working on a proposal at en.wiki that would put an image of the Olympic logo on the Main Page for the duration of the Beijing Olympics, but am utterly confounded by the licensing of Image:Olympic rings.svg. It is listed as {{PD-old}} as its creator died 71 years ago AND has a {{Copyrighted IOC}} tag, linking to the IOC's statement, "All rights to any and all Olympic properties, as well as all rights to the use thereof, belong exclusively to the IOC, including but not limited to the use for any profit-making, commercial or advertising purposes." Is Image:Olympic rings.svg a free image? - BanyanTree 09:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's likely that the country of origin of the flag is France. Pierre de Coubertin died in 1937, so the design of the flag became Public Domain in most jurisdictions on 1 January 2008, including France and the USA. Since the design is Public Domain both in the country of origin and in the USA, you shouldn't have a problem using it. It isn't unusual for people or corporations to claim copyright over Public Domain images, but you can ignore those claims. Pruneautalk 10:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I would have thought, but the weird thing about this situation is that there is an Commons template basically stating that the image isn't free, which was valid up to a few months ago in the case of this image, and it's not a deletion tag. I'm so puzzled by this that I've started a deletion discussion over the IOC tag. - BanyanTree 11:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Category Sorting

I'm having major category sorting issues. I've been trying to fix the sorting in Category:Canon digital SLR cameras. Is there a special way to get it to sort numeric keywords in the right manner (1->9->10->99->100->999)? Or do I have to prepend 0's to the keywords? I think I am screwing things up :-(. Look under 4 to see what I'm trying to fix. --Dragon695 (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed the 30 and 40D model - better now ? (clumsy). --Foroa (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes! Thank you! --Dragon695 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Default signature

Is there any reason the default signature here on commons doesn't link to the user's talk page liked it does on en.wp? It's kind of annoying. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Because you never asked! :) Should be good now; MediaWiki:Signature. giggy (:O) 10:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a multilingual wiki. You cannot hardcode English talk. Please make this something language-neutral. --::Slomox:: >< 14:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
How about ✍ symbolizing write me? --::Slomox:: >< 14:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I kinda like that. Soxred93 (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
See #Multilingual_templates, we could make "talk" show up in every language based on the user's interface setting. Rocket000 (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
That character shows up as an empty rectangle in my browser... AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Changed it. And seems to work. --Slomox (Diskuschoon) 13:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it does not work. Replaces the string with the preferred language of the saving user. --Slomox (Diskuschoon) 14:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The software seems to expand all curly bracket stuff in signatures regardless of how you include it. --Slomox (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I changed the signature to the symbol ✍. But I inserted a CSS class, that makes it possible to include the line
 .signature-talk:after { content: " talk"; }
in your personal Special:Mypage/monobook.css, which will show "talk" appended to the signatures (or whatever string you like, just replace the word "talk" with what you want).
Perhaps it is even possible to include some string in the common CSS to automatically insert the relevant "talk" string for the user language. --Slomox () 16:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I really like the idea, but ✍ is a poorly supported character. It shows up as an empty rectangle for some (as AnonMoos pointed out). Maybe there's other options out there. Rocket000 (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I would be ok with {{int:SignatureTalk}}. Sure, it won't be recognizable to most but I don't think it's really important what it says anyway (thinking of all those customized signatures). Rocket000 (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
But {{int:SignatureTalk}} won't work. It will be replaced with hardcoded talk for users with English set in the preferences and hardcoded Diskussion for users with German set in the preferences etc. Okay, if you know that the first link after the username links to the discussion page, it is not necessary to understand the link text, but if it doesn't matter what the link says, where is the problem with the writing hand (the empty rectangle)? Quite easy to remember: empty rectangle = talk page (and an empty rectangle is much shorter than the word talk, we would save screen space! yeah!).
And the empty rectangle had the advantage, that you could customize it by CSS. If you want the links to be meaningfully captioned, you can achieve that easily. With that solution you can even change the caption at any time and it will have an effect even on signatures set in the past (well, from this day on or from the day at which the CSS class will be implemented).
With some extra code in the common.css or common.js you could also localize the text shown after the empty rectangle for all users. (For the new users, who are not aware of the "first link after username is talk page" rule.)
Sadly there is no way to determine the language of the interface language set by the user with CSS (although this would be easy to implement). A CSS solution would be perfect. But the interface language is available to JS. A JS solution would be possible right now. --Slomox (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I meant I would be ok with hardcoded talk in various languages, however, "Talk" is probably ok even for those that don't speak English. It's a common enough word on wikis, like "[edit]" or "Image:". I don't really see it as a language barrier. Empty rectangles or ?s or squiggly messes (what it looks like in my edit window) aren't ideal either. People will be like wtf is that suppose to be. Something must be wrong. What about {{#switch:}} in for all langs (e.g. if uselang=x do x)? Or that be too hard on the servers? Rocket000 (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Where do you want to place that {{#switch:}}? In MediaWiki:Signature? That won't work. That would mean, that the whole switch would be inserted every time you sign a post.

Instead of the write symbol, we could make the link empty (without rectangles, question marks, squiggly messes or whatever the browser shows for the write symbol) and fill it per CSS with the localised string. That's the same as my previous proposal, but without a default. Would work for most users, but not for the few users, that don't have CSS activated or otherwise cannot use that replacement method. --Slomox (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nevermind. It was late. :) Rocket000 (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
If we add
function locSig() {
  var spans=document.getElementsByTagName("span");

  for (var i = 0; i < spans.length; i++) {
     if ( spans[i].className == 'signature-talk' ) spans[i].className = spans[i].className + ' ' + spans[i].className + '-' + wgUserLanguage;
  }
}
addOnloadHook(locSig);
to MediaWiki:common.js and
.signature-talk:after { content: " talk"; }
.signature-talk-nds:after { content: " Diskuschoon"; }
.signature-talk-de:after { content: " Diskussion"; }
.signature-talk-en:after { content: " talk"; }
.signature-talk-ca:after { content: " Discussió"; }
[... other languages]
to MediaWiki:common.css and change MediaWiki:Signature to
[[User:$1|$2]] {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|User talk:$1|([[User talk:$1#top|<span class="signature-talk"></span>]])|([[User talk:$1|<span class="signature-talk"></span>]])}}
that would show the localised string for all languages which are present in the code added to MediaWiki:common.css, "talk" for all other languages which have not defined a localised string or Javascript turned off and nothing for all people who have turned off CSS. (If we added ✍ in MediaWiki:Signature by default, those people with CSS turned off would at least see that symbol)
At the moment it is not possible to do this without Javascript. But if we could convince the developers to add a CSS class specifying the user's interface language in the HTML body tag, we could even avoid using CSS. We just need to change the CSS code to something like:
.interface-lang-nds .signature-talk:after { content: " Diskuschoon"; }
.interface-lang-de .signature-talk:after { content: " Diskussion"; }
.interface-lang-en .signature-talk:after { content: " talk"; }
.interface-lang-ca .signature-talk:after { content: " Discussió"; }
[... other languages]
What do you think about that solution? --Slomox (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It sounds promising. You convinced me that CSS is the only (practical) solution. I'm ok with doing it with the JS. Anything that involves "convincing the developers" is not something to wait around for. I wish others cared about this to give some input, but that's how it goes on Commons. I say let's go for it. Rocket000 (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Plants of vs Flora of

I am confused about the "Plants of..." and "Flora of..." categories, e.g., Category:Plants of Greenland and Category:Flora of Greenland. For me, these categories are just different ways to say the same thing. Am I right? If yes, one of them is redundant and should be removed. It seems for me like the most dominant naming scheme used today on Commons are the "Plants of.." categories. Thus, I at some stage moved the media pointing to Category:Flora of Greenland to Category:Plants of Greenland and made a category redirect to plants from flora. This was reverted, and on enquiring the editor I was told by the editor that at least one other user preferred the "Flora of..." category notation, see the thread User talk:Multichill#Flora vs Plants. I am not convinced though, that we have community consensus on this issue, so I would like to ask here. Personally, I think we should go for "Plants of..." as this seems to be most used naming scheme. Any other opinions? -- Slaunger (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we usually use common names or scientific ones? Personally I like "Plants of". Do we have "Fauna of" or "Animals of"? That would seem to be a precedent. (and what about slime molds! Aren't they both? :) ) I do agree one or the other, not both... ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
We use scientific latin names for the species and higher taxa. Both "Fauna of..." and "Animals of..." are used, but again, "Animals of..." seems to be the most prevailing type of category. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Just like most others probably feel, I'm fine either way so long as we're consistent. I agree that "Animals" is the more prevalent as compared to "Fauna" (which doesn't even, technically, exist), so I'd say we use the similarly more prevalent "Plants" rather than "Flora". --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 20:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The second level political divisions in the category tree lack the consistency that "we should be". The "Natures of" categories are an example of an interesting category (kind of touristy in the way it collects things for the area it is for) and almost complete now as when this category did not exist, I made one. If it is consistency that you want, you should probably start somewhere else, not for the category tree that leads up to the Ecozones. -- carol (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Another observation is that we have a Category:Plants by country, but not a Category:Flora by country. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC) categories
Please move this to where it was started on June 28. I am sorry that interest in this is only sporatic and fleeting and when the discussion starts, enthusiasts are not around, but this is an old thing and the plants of and the flora of exist together, the people who populate the categories are two different groups. Flora of people have a firmer grasp of the reality of software and of a previous consensus that was made. Plants of people have a lot of maintenance that needs to be done to upgrade the existing galleries (in my opinion). Do stop kicking this dead subject.... -- carol (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You are basically right in that the words plant and flora are roughly the same thing. Flora means the 'plants of a region', the more general word being 'biota' (which would include slime molds). This is a good question... I can see many 'flora of' and many 'plants of' categories, so it seems to be split pretty evenly. The word 'plant' is more commonly known, which is especially good for people who are not native speakers of English. I must have known what a plant was since I was very young, but it wasn't until I was 12 or so that I learned what 'flora' and 'fauna' meant. Based on this, I would recommend standardizing everything to 'plants of (region)'. Looking at what our big brother Wikipedia does is another idea. It seems to exclusively use 'flora of' and never 'plants of', so maybe we should follow suit? Consistency across projects is a good idea.

It would be good if we had an active biology project to discuss these things. Perhaps we should merge all of the biology related 'WikiProjects' here into one biology/tree of life project? Richard001 (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The management of the categories are not "roughly the same" though. The management of the Flora of categories feels that both galleries and categories can exist together and occasionally there are people who show up with the wikilink to where there was a consensus made that supports that software fact. The plants of category people do not agree with that consensus and software facts and they have their own tree that gets some of the maintenance it demands to verify that. -- carol (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be addressing the people who do the work rather than the names themselves. I'd like to see the names be consistent. One or the other, but not both. I only marginally care which one wins but laymen (and non english speakers) may well know Plants better than Flora. Once merged, if social issues remain with the groups doing the categorizing we can sort that out. But first let's sort the merge. ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It is how they are communicated with though. Also, there is no war so there is no 'winning' possible. No reason for the merge either, the projects seem to have different goals, one ending in a big Plants category or a Perennials category -- very admirable goals! The Ecozones (and Flora of and Fauna of and Geography of) is an attempt to categorize the natural world in which all of these things exist natively in it but that are studied differently. If "merge" is a development environment that you are interested in and not necessarily an opinion based on attempting to use the information here to write articles for the encyclopedias and elsewhere; might I suggest that the merge needs to start a little lower within the category schemes. Flora of contains not just Plants of but also "Trees of" categories and "Forests of" and "Flowers of" categories -- which is one of the reasons I am suggesting that the goals for the "Plants of" categories are very very different and fall short of being useful for a category-tree based on the geographical locations of the world. -- carol (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware of the ecozone thing carol had been working on. I do think her work makes good sense, and with the explanation that the flora of and plants of categories are really not redundant, but flora of is a higher level category, containing both plants of, and trees of (and perhaps forests of). That means both can exist. Still unsure about the practise of associatng species to any of these cats though, see thread below. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
But hey, a tree is really a plant, isn't it? If yes, the two cats are redundant, aren't they? Unless, of course Fungi, which are Eukaryote and not part of the plant kingdom are those considered as part of "Flora of..."? -- Slaunger (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
There is an avoidance of those questions built into this tree. The taxonomy navigation manages those problems. If anyone builds a Fungi of category it should additionally find a category for where the different species occur natively. -- carol (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
And as you are aluding to (whether it was your intentions or not), the "merge" needs to happen lower in the Ecozone category and also lower than the Flora of categories. -- carol (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you try to give a specific example of how you envision a category hierarchy can be implemented which merges the ecozones work into the existing category structure and what type of material should be in those categories in your mind? Right now, it is all a little too fuzzy for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Please. Am I just stupid since I do not understand how the structure should look like according to your proposal? -- Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Restarting the original question

This thread seems to have gone haywire with no clear resolution. Let's try again: From the discussion above it seems to me that the "Flora of..." and "Plants of..." categories are indeed redundant. It also seems like most users favor to keep the "Plants of..." categories because it is easier understtod in a multilingual environment. However, some good and valuable work has also been done by carol concerning ezo-zones and regions, all based on categories named "Flora of...". This category structure should be merged into the existing category structure, but how? -- Slaunger (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If they are to be kept separate, there should certainly be an explanation for this at the highest level categories so that the distinction is clear to viewers, including editors. I don't really think there is a great deal of difference between the two. Richard001 (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons users are "officious jerks"

User:Redvers/Say no to Commons. Kelly (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to think of us as pedantic jerks. Well, I'll speak for myself: I'll cop to being a jerk. I try not to let it show too much, though.
It seems like Redvers has misinterpreted cleanup tags on the images themselves as being directed at the uploader, because the statement that "These templates never begin 'thank you for uploading...' simply isn't true for the message templates that are directed at the uploader, such as {{please link images}}, which he blanked from his talk page and which begins "Thank you for providing images to the Wikimedia Commons." Admittedly, we don't thank good uploaders enough, but if you're contributing to any Wikimedia project just for the praise, you'll probably disappointed.
I think it's pretty cool that we have so many people taking care of three million files that people have contributed, putting them into a structure and continually improving on the existing structure. The people who do that probably don't get thanked as often as they deserve either, but again, that's hardly unique to Commons.
Some say imitation is the highest form of flattery. I'd say it's other people improving on what you've begun. LX (talk, contribs) 23:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
To set things straight, I've put him 5 examples of Commons-templates that say "Thank you" on his rant page.[18] --Túrelio (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
When one's right, one should not let facts interfere [19]. Rama (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to point out one fact wrt. to your diff. :-) He moved the comment to the talk page, away from the user-subpage, where he was/is writing an essay. Haros (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I am sure that he also corrected his essay, thanked Túrelio for the information and appologised for his unfair criticism. How courteous and sportive of him. Did he not? Rama (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Those who points out facts to someone and expects answers that acknowledges factual mistakes and/or thanks for the information and/or apologies are usually not rewarded. Not so in this case either, at least not yet. Haros (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
@Haros, don't take literally what Rama wrote. Take it as a retort to Redvers' allegation that Commons templates never say "thank you for uploading..." or "can I help you with"[20]. Of course I didn't expect anything from Redvers. --Túrelio (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What I mean to say is that it is easy to prohemently bolster grandiose accusations on the first page, however unfair and disconected from the reality they can be, and relegate corrections to a discreete place. See [21] for a typical historical example. This is a despicable tactic. Rama (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
What I don't understand is what happened that pissed him off so much. He writes, "I've watched as my images were endless[ly] shunted from one category to another category to another category, each editor somehow getting it wrong, but then writing to me to complain that I wasn't perfect first time" but in fact, his talk page here at Commons has only been edited once, and that was more than a year after he had already basically given up on Commons. During the entire time he was active at Commons, from January to October 2006, he never received a single message on his talk page. No one ever wrote to him (unless it was by e-mail or at his Wikipedia talk page) to complain that he wasn't perfect first time. Or for any other reason, for that matter. Then, 13 months after his last Commons upload, he gets one message asking him to categorize an image (using a template that begins, "Thank you for providing images to the Wikimedia Commons"), and then, 6 months after that, he suddenly writes this essay accusing us of always sending him nasty template messages that don't even say "thank you". WTF??? —Angr 18:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe his e-mail preferences were set to notify him when his watchlist images were edited, and he got mad about the e-mails when people edited the images to change the categories? Kelly (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
imo, there's some truth in this [this-way: unacceptable] editor's misbehaviour. --WeHaWoe (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW: What "terrible_stuff" did thatone ever contribute? ;))bb -- WeHaWoe (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
"he never received a single message on his talk page." (Angr) - 1 message, actually. —Giggy 08:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I wrote, "During the entire time he was active at Commons, from January to October 2006, he never received a single message on his talk page." The one message he received came in November 2007. —Angr 12:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I understand the thing about templating for not categorizing images. Personally, I never do that. What makes it the uploader's job anyway? They may know nothing about the image—just being the transferrer (with upload bots and everything). It's a wiki, people who love categorizing should be categorizing. It's like if they started an article on WP, you wouldn't template them for not categorizing it. Of course, the criticism makes no sense coming from where it does, but it's always good to be reminded not to overdue the template thing. I find custom messages work better anyway. Rocket000 (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's worth templating people who don't seem to care (copyvio uploaders and the like), and even then it's often worth spending an extra minute or two writing out a message yourself. Templating solid contributors is rude. None of which is to say that Redvers doesn't look like a drama-monger, but whatever. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

After reading through this conversation, and with the utmost respect to all participants intended (save myself :) ), I am forced to opine that I'm not sure that it hews as closely to the spirit of COM:MELLOW as it could, nor does it, by being a bit defensive, dispel the notion of officiousness :) ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that. It is frustrating, though, to have an administrator at the English Wikipedia publish such an essay, and then decline to specify any issues so that we can fix them. I don't know about other projects, but there are several users at en, some of them pretty prominent, who further a meme that images at Commons are deleted randomly or capriciously, or that policy is not stable. For instance, see [22]. I try to counter this when I can, but I can't determine the source of this attitude. My guess is that the people complaining are not necessarily knowledgeable about copyright, and copyright isn't particularly well-enforced at en Wikipedia - so a copyvio can survive for years at en Wikipedia whereas it gets detected and deleted more quickly here. But that's just a guess. Kelly (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

He just explained this on Lar's talkpage. There are a number of issues. First, why does it matter if commons has enough of a certain media? I never understood your point on this, guys. It doesn't save space, since the SQL table still exists. What makes people on en mad as hell is when their media gets transferred here only to be speedy deleted because commons has enough. That practice must cease if you want to improve your relations with en contributors. So, please what is the actual harm that is caused by having too many images, other then not liking it personally or finding it disorderly? Media is a very finicky thing, everyone has different tastes. What is beautiful to some is ugly to others. I feel that the community and sister projects are better served when there are more choices, not fewer. So what is the point. Second, he objects to Commons editors coming to fix philosophical differences that exist between Commons and en. That isn't how it works, en is not Commons and has different goals. As some have already found out, marching over there and stopping so-called fair-use abuse only makes matters worse. There are roughly 1,500 Administrators and at least 10x as many active editors. This is a battle you are not going to win, you are vastly outnumbered by the cultural enthusiasts. So why not just worry about Commons and not bring the unneeded freedom pedantry to en? --Dragon695 (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I've never seen images deleted with "we have enough of them" justification, with the exception of penis pictures. Are there any other examples? Kelly (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe one example is "almost duplicates", images which are a little different in color, are cropped different, or has other small differences (and sometimes big differences). An example is the map in en:Weddell Sea which was replaced by a larger resolution file with a different cropping, and then deleted. There are many other cases were such files have been speedy deleted. The deletion reason "duplicate, although NOT exact duplicate" almost says that there should be only one version of each image. /Ö 19:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

July 4

Searchfield

Since a few days a new feature was enabled in MediaWiki which allows sorting of the sidebar elements (navigation, toolbox, search). I think it is a good improvement to show the search field as first element. I have edited MediaWiki:Sidebar now. Hopefully you like it. Raymond Disc. 19:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'm not sure about changing the default, though. Almost everyone who comes to Commons is familiar with MediaWiki wikis and are accustomed to the (poor, IMO) location of the search bar. Anyway, let's leave it this way for awhile, at least to see what people say. What we really need is some checkboxes under the search input to check if we want to search for images, galleries and categories, and/or everything else. Rocket000 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Not to be cranky but I don't like the new setup, the other one was just fine and better if you ask me. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
NOooooooo, the virus is spreading...... Att-dislike.svg Multichill (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC) (I dont like it at the nl wikipedia and i dont like it here)
I'm guessing most Commons regulars are going to oppose the new location (based on discussions over at en.wp). Personally, all I want is a toolbox link to Special:Search. I almost always need the options. Before I go looking for one, does any one have a simple script to remove/add links? Rocket000 (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I really hate this new way!! StewieGriffin! (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I ♥ it, it's great! Most people probably come here to search for images, so search is the first thing that should be offered to them. It's probably going to be this way in MediaWiki by default anyway.[23] --Para (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Socond Para. The move is great. Hiding the search box further down was a bad design decision to begin with. Ah, well, with all major changes there is always some vocal disagreement. And I frankly don't understand how the term hate can come up regarding such a topic... --Dschwen (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It does look strange to me, but most people in the world look for the search box first...and they're the largest part of our readership. Also, this makes sure that search is first on portable devices with much smaller screen size... Bastique demandez 00:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree that it's the most logical location but I would say the largest of our readership (more like viewership) consists of wiki editors from other projects and that's not where they look first. Meh, the more I look at it, the more I like it. Let's keep it. Rocket000 (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I really like it at the top. A clear, logical position: 1) logo 2) search bar 3) then all the text links :-) --Überraschungsbilder (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it, but as the rest of the internet has the search box on the top, for most people search at top is the most logical location. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding watermarks to images already at commons

I notice that User:Hornman who provided a set of good pictures showing examples of old cars [24], after a year added watermarks to all his images and since then is reverting the attempts to correct the images (see Image:Ford capri mk2 1977.jpg). Can user insist on keeping watermark (advertising a website) on his images on commons? I am not sure what is the proper procedure here. --Jarekt (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think {{Watermark}} is pretty clear about that. --Dschwen (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't add {{watermark}} if there's already a version without it. The tag is used in hopes that someone will remove the watermark. No point in asking cleanup if the job's already done. :) If it looks like he's ready to upload-war let an admin know. Rocket000 (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, yeah. I wasn't suggesting to actually add the template, just to read it :-) --Dschwen (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Not you. :P (Some of the images were tagged.) Rocket000 (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The saga continues, after all images with watermarks were reverted to non-watermarked versions then the user overwrote all his images with thumbnails of the original images. --Jarekt (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that. I also notice his recent message on his userpage: Les images mises en ligne par Hornman ne doivent plus être modifiées (which is something like "The images put online by Hornman should not be modified any more"). What's worse, though, is his talk page.. It doesn't seem like anyone tried talking to him. (I'm not even fr-0.5 or I would.) Rocket000 (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, my pages apparently says fr-1, so I gave it a shot ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

July 11

Video conversion

Does anyone know of software to convert video from .WMV format to Ogg/Theora? Kelly (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried VLC media player? VLC supports WMF v9 and supports encoding to Ogg/Theora. --Dragon695 (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Huh - I gave it a try, but unfortunately the program errors out and closes on my Windows PC when I try to convert a WMV file to OGG/Theora. FYI, I'm trying to convert this short video. There is a lot of other video on that site that is potentially useful, but it's all in WMV format. Kelly (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You could try Avidemux, which is also a pretty decent video editing suite in addition to being able to transcode. It takes a little getting used to, though. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Also you could try searching on Google, MSN, Yahoo ect and type .WMV to .OGG converter. I did find a program which was good and also how I turned a video into an audio file (Image:Thunder.ogg) but can't remember what the software was called but I know it was freeware. Bidgee (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
For a tutorial on how to convert video using Avidemux, see this. Just substitute formats in the guide, it is essentially the same process. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately it doesn't look like Avidemux supports Theora format. :( Kelly (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Tryed any of these programs w:Theora#Encoding (other then VLC)? Bidgee (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't get SUPER to work for me, either. I'm afraid this is just too complex for me, I'll have to leave the video encoding to others until someone invents an interface for computer-illiterate morons like me. Kelly (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, can you upload that wmv temporarily somewhere so I can download it? I'm going to give you directions on using the command line ffmpeg to do what you want. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's take this to your en talk page, we can work from there. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Turns out the pre-compiled versions of ffmpeg for windows can't encode theora, but I did find a solution on wikibooks called ffmpeg2theora. I just tested it and it works fine. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Just used it but commons will not let me upload .ogv :( Bidgee (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok converted it in VLC to a .ogg file Image:Tropical Low George.ogg. Not sure if it works though. Bidgee (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Link to Wikipedia

I want to link to a Wikipedia page from my Wikimedia User page. Can I do that? If so, how? Morri7 (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Túrelio (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, I want to find photos of the Water Spider and specifically the Japanese Water Spider that are in the public domain. Morri7 (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Image:Araña_de_auga_GDFL.jpg is GDFL. Finavon (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Searching for a cat

Street sign in Hamburg, Germany, that cites Wikipedia as source

Do we have already a fitting category for media/images that show citation of Wikipedia (articles) as a source, such as this one? --Túrelio (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Though it's from the German Wikipedia, this would be highly relevant for the en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media page, which contains many categories of mentions outside press use. Is a new category for "Wikipedia as a source in signs" needed? :) --Para (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I put it on en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a source‎. --Túrelio (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

July 12

Pictures from the Web Gallery of Art

A number of pictures on Commons come from the Web Gallery of Art and bear the mention "the Web Gallery of Art has agreed to the use of images on WP" or something to that effect. As anyone ever heard about this? Am I correct in thinking this is a "Wikipedia only" clause, and that we cannot keep that content here (except for PD-Art pictures of course)? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Xenophobic nationalism

What do you think of such a cat? Its creator seems to do many non-neutral stuff (see Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Vulgar image on Wikimedia Commons for instance) so I wonder if that is OK. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Doubts about own picture

I have some doubts about that picture I uploaded (a long time ago):

  • Is there a problem of derivative work with the advertising or does FOP apply?
  • Is there a problem of copyvio with the building? It's not older than 70 years for sure but I don't really know Bulgarian law for that.

Anyone may launch a DR if it's necessary. Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarias FOP-law is rather strict and only allows non-commercial or informational use for reproduction by photographic , cinematographic or similar manner and they also put architecture under copyright [25]. On the other side at least the building looks like a 'Plattenbau' (prefabricated slab-construction building?) and definitely does not have any threshold of originality. So the problem is more the poster and if it counts as central motive. -- Cecil (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Will be good idea to blank advertisement. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Well this might be a better idea to delete the picture completely because it was mainly interesting to show the contrast between the communist architectural heritage and the modern advertising. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia (and Commons too) is not a place for advertisement.--Ahonc (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't try the stuff they advertize. Never. Hits like a triple dose of homemade. BTW, the caption is grossly incorrect. Mastica moonshine was commonplace in Bulgaria throughout the soviet bloc period - and far more common then than it is today. Papa Zhivkov was wise enough to play it down. NVO (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not incorrect since there might not be any big advertising like that one during the communist period and surely not with a girl in bikini! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Key word is 'mass'. There was mass production/consumption with no/minimal advertizing. Now there's mass advertizing and minuscule sales. Girls don't help. NVO (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Autosuggest in search field

Is there a reason that only gallery pages, and not categories, come up the search field autosuggest function? There are many subject areas where we have category pages in lieu of gallery pages. Kelly (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories do come up, just type Category:... in the searchfield. --Dschwen (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that...however, if I want to search for "Bob Johnson", it would be nice if Category:Bob Johnson came up as an autosuggest in the search field if I typed in the name. Kelly (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and it would also be nice, if the suggest list would expand vertically. I'll take a look at that code. --Dschwen (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The vertical expansion is a good idea - thanks! Kelly (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Names of the Romans in English or in Latin? What gives?

Hy there, from time to time I try to sort images into the correct categories. As I trying to sort an image of Gaius Julius Caesar I noticed a little funny box inside of Category:Roman Emperors that said that all its categories should use the Latin names instead of the English ones (I deleted it, perhaps I did wrong). However at 'Commons:Categories' and at 'Commons:Naming categories' it very clearly says that English names should always be used (unless it a scientific name for a species (I don't believe this is the case (?). So have I missed something somewhere, or have I stumbled upon a (honest) mistake? I wish to make clear that I believe that the sister-commons (in this particular case the Latin one) are suppossed to translate this stuff into other languages already.

In the case of a honest mistake can someone tell a bot to fix this? (If needs be I will fix it, but it is going to take quite some time). Thanks Flamarande 17:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons duplicates at the en Wikipedia

On the advice of en admin Wikidemo, I am inviting comments from Commons users who are also en users at discussions on the en Wikipedia here and here. Also, there is an applicable proposed template deletion here. Kelly (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

July 13

Category:Viola (plant) and Category:Viola

I removed a seecat template from Category:Viola and started to populate it. A few simple reasons that I did this. 1)there were no images in Category:Viola, 2)Not much activity since the redirect was made on 8 September 2007. 3)Category:Viola (plant) breaks the taxonomy naviagation template and templates made that use this template.

I suspect that the redirection was added to reflect the articles which are at English wikipedia. I have no evidence of this, it just seems to be the only actual reason to do this (when considering the number of images of the instrument compared to the number of images of the plant and if you are not in the mood to count the number of images, just the number of species). If there is a different reason, I would be glad to know it.

With a kind suggestion that a lot of decisions get made when the images total in the hundreds that perhaps the same decisions fail when the number of images begins to total in the millions; perhaps reflecting everything that one of the wiki's does is not such a good reason -- especially since this wiki seems to be managing other things like interwiki links to articles that use not only different names, but also different linguistic scripts.

Also, are there any software writers available? In what I can see, there seems to be a blurring between writing machine text and bullying people into doing the activity. I have been doing many things that a software could do; much of what I am doing would also need phishing (getting information from other web sites) -- I have seen some big problems that get created from doing that within the subject I have been working with. Both from human phishing (me pasting) and from evidence of software phishing.

In my history with modern computers, I have been more successful in describing what a good software would be than I have been at (perhaps) having my actions emulated -- without communication between me and the writers. This is a fact.

Management systems can be voted on and implemented but this does not insure the success of the system. Personally, by the time I have enough experience with something to make an opinion on it, I don't care about the opinions of anyone else unless they have similar experience. I apologize to all of those people who have opinions yet no experience and who still express those opinions anyways. Please make a list of anyone who would like a personal apology for that, my intention is not to offend you.

Any place lately where there is a discussion of "Flora of" vs "Plants of" categories -- there is a limitation of descriptive words, no more abusing these words by relating them to anything other than the little usually green things that mostly started life in the ground/soil. The plants of people seem to have software that aids in making galleries or are so used to bullying people into uploading their way or such a determination for what their goals are. I have a lot of respect for all of those things with the exception of the bullying part. Good reliable tools (software and not abused people) and keeping goals in mind is a great thing -- I have few of those myself. I am not certain what the goals are, I have seen opinions aplenty for how things should be accomplished, but not for reasons. With the exception of the abuse of some words.

I think that sectioning the world into a few larger chunks and then each of those into similar in area and environment sized chunks and ending into the political divisions (which exist in reality for simple reasons like data collection points and such) makes sense to me. The kind of "sense" that cannot be voted away and the kind of sense in which user ease should possibly show the sense of.

The environmental facts; rainfall, dried up river beds, canyons and rocks, deserts, permafrost -- these things change much more slowly than the political divisions; as shown by Russia, all things Czech and others. Even in a well defined political grid like United States has, school districts change (get larger or smaller depending on many many weird social things). I tried to build a category tree that keeps all of that at the "home" category.

This dissertation started as Viola (plant) vs Viola. There are more categories like that I have seen which just don't make sense. Category:Victoria is one of those. Might I add this editorial about the problem of having commons reflect English wikipedia which was authored by someone not me: http://xkcd.com/446/

Thank you for your time. -- carol (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Some svg's aren't visible

Hi. The description page of the following pictures says: "SVG file, nominally 0 × 0 pixels". The thumbnails aren't visible. Klick on http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Dolce_-_il_pranzo_%C3%A8_servito.svg you can see it. Who can repair it? Thanks --Heiko (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Image:Dolce - il pranzo è servito.svg Image:Frutta - il pranzo è servito.svg Image:Formaggio - il pranzo è servito.svg Image:Pasta.svg Image:Pollo.svg


That image has the same problem as the SVG discussed on Commons:Graphics_village_pump/May_2008#SVG_error.3F -- it's in the UTF16 character encoding format, while Mediawiki only understands UTF8. It's fairly easy to fix for someone who has the "iconv" program (but to use that program, I would have to reboot into Linux...). AnonMoos (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Shit, pukes, dead bodies etc.

Hello, where is the policy to forbid image uploads like this? Yes, I made a deletion flush request of it... Thanks anyway for the link of the chart if it exists. Star Trek Man (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops (or, I need a bot to fix my mistakes please)

I've uploaded a pile of images from Geograph.org.uk (would be nice if there were a bot to do this like the Flickr one ...), but I only found today that there is {{location}} data for the images I've been omitting. It seems like it would be easy enough for a fairly stupid bot to collect the missing info and add it.

Take Image:Packhorse Bridge, Romanby.jpg for an example. The {{geograph}} license tag has two parameters, $1 is the photo id, $2 is the copyright holder. For every image, there is a page http://www.geograph.org.uk/reuse.php?id=$1 - in this case http://www.geograph.org.uk/reuse.php?id=358262 - and on that there is a line ^{{location|stuff}}. I must have uploaded coming on for 2000 of these without the {{location}} template. As am I usually about as smart as the average bear, there are likely an awful lot more in the same state. I didn't find anything like Commons:Bot requests, so this seemed the obvious place to ask.

Is there a bot can fix these up? If there isn't, does someone fancy writing one. And before you ask, no, I don't. Angusmclellan (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just to clarify, you uploads do contain the {{geograph}} template, but are lacking {{location dec}} (or {{location}})? --Dschwen (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they have {{geograph}}, but they are missing {{location dec}} (missed the dec bit out). Angusmclellan (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The bot is running. Looks like there are about 5000 images to fix (other people seem to have forgotten the Location template as well). Please check Special:Contributions/DschwenBot and tell me if it looks alright. --Dschwen (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC), P.S.: it's a pitty that those images all seem to be so small... --Dschwen (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! It seems to be working perfectly. So, instead of adding all those tags, I'll get back to copying over the last few hundred Geograph images left on enWP. Geograph resize all images so that the longest dimension is ~640 px, which is indeed a bit of a shame, but still it is very useful indeed. It's just rather annoying that Geograph's coverage of Ireland is very poor compared to that of Britain. I could easily use a lot of Irish pictures! Anyway, thank you again for fixing this, and so quickly too. All the best, Angusmclellan (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to add a parameter to {{geograph}} for location data, or would people object to this as mixing descriptive and license data. It doesn't seem like a problem to me, because all geograph images are apparently cc-by-sa. Superm401 - Talk 22:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It might be better to point uploaders in the direction of the reuse pages on geograph as those have fairly complete - apart from {{en}} in the description and the categories of the image - cut and pasteable descriptions as well as the location data. I have to say I uploaded endless images before I ever actually read the reuse page. Could have saved myself a lot of typing! Angusmclellan (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, please don't mix those two. It makes reuse of the coordinate data more difficult. We worked hard to get the number of coordinate templates down to the bare minimum. --Dschwen (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, looks like the bot is done for now. The images show up in the Commons:WikiMiniAtlas. I updated the WMA so it now displays thumbs of images below 1MP only half as wide on the map. The UK is probably one of the most densly covered areas now. --Dschwen (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Help needed for some special cases

The bot fixed a little over 5800 image pages. These few remain to be fixed by some avid geograph.org.uk using commoners:

Just remove the ones that are fixed from this list. Thanks guys! --Dschwen (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Para did the detective work. This means for now all geograph images are up to speed. --Dschwen (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Merchandise displays

Are pictures of merchandise displays allowed on Commons? By this I mean displays like a row of food at a supermarket, or a collection of clothes in a clothes store, or a display of books in a bookstore, or a collection of shoes in a shoe shop, or a collection of hardware in a hardware store, or a display of electronics goods in an electronics goods shop, or a display of DVDs in a DVD shop, or a collection of merchandise in a specialist merchandise store (in this case, a store selling Tintin merchandise)? Any advice would be appreciated, as would advice on whether I can upload a picture I am unsure about, and leave the license tag off until I have had a chance to show it to people and ask their advice. Then I could ask for it to be deleted, or add the correct tag. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I think Commons:De minimis would apply. If a picture shows a whole bunch of products by a whole bunch of copyright holders, then each copyright is just a tiny portion of the overall photo. But IANAL and all that. Kelly (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That would apply if the copyrighted parts are a small part of the picture, and if they are different copyright holders. I'm less certain when the copyright holder is the same for all the objects (in my example, all the merchandise is Tintin-related, which is unsurprising because it was a Tintin shop), or where the entire shot consists of copyrighted stuff (eg. a display of tins on a supermarket shelf or a display of books on a book shelf). Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Where the bloody hell are you?

Looking at Category:Users by country, one would get the impression that there were a total of five people here who are from the US, and only two from the UK. Please, add yourself to an appropriate country category. This is especially useful if you want to ask people to take photos at a specific location in a certain region. (The title is from this). Richard001 (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe ;-). I have arrived. Lycaon (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Nice. I'm adding interwikis to relate them to the (often much larger) categories at the Wikipedias. The category will be renamed Category:Users by location. Richard001 (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ik would indeed seem that Europe is a terra incognita... OK, I'll add a category or two. Good idea! Regards, MartinD (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A solution to the {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} mess.

Okay, here's my idea, we draft a new policy:

Images containing content copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation should only be used in images specifically illustrating Wikimedia business or sites, and not software or situations which are specifically about something the image is included in.

or something around those lines. That way, we can still keep Wikimedia images on here and still encourage Free content. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(Why do you say it is a mess? There are hundreds of images in Category:Copyright by Wikimedia. Oh - I see - hundreds of non-free images endorsed by Commons.) Perhaps we do need the restriction you suggest in a policy page. See Commons talk:Project scope/Proposal if you haven't already. --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Shepp's Photographs of the World

The following out-of-copyright work was just posted into Project Gutenberg:

Shepp, Daniel B.; Shepp, James W. () Shepp's Photographs of the World, Philadelphia: Globe Bible Publishing Co

Some of the images are a bit damaged, but many can be useful for wikipedia. (For example, Image:Golden gate circa 1891.png, showing the strait before the bridge was built.)—RJHall (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Great pictures! And, except for their grain, most other artifacts can be rectified - Badseed talk 04:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

July 15

Template requests?

Where should I make requests for templates, in cases where I'm not confident enough to make them myself? en.wikipedia has template requests, but here there is no such page or any requests page besides media. Should we create a 'miscellaneous requests' page (templates will be too specific and be very inactive, no?) for such requests (it would include all non-media requests, such as galleries and categories too)? Or should I just post them here or somewhere else? I have a couple of requests I can think of, although I could probably attempt them myself first. Richard001 (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You'd probably have better luck just posting here. Rocket000 (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wallpaper

Are we still tagging {{WideCommonsWallpaper}} and {{Wallpaper}} on featured pictures? Or we stopped doing it? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, from the lack of response, it seems like we stopped tagging those FPs which fall under the wallpaper requirements. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Marking pictures for 'Selected picture' an similar on other wikies

Hello everybody,

I have done a large work on the Selected picture @ Portal:Denmark programme (SP) on EnWiki. Amongst that is, marking the selected pictures with a template on their talk-pages, which has also been moved to Commons (Template:PoDaSP) and used on some pictures discussion-pages. Now i have run into a dilemma of sorts:

  1. There doesn't seem to be any similar templates on Commons and it doesn't seem like this is common practice on Commons. I can't find a place that states that this isn't recommended, tolerated, accepted, allowed etc. Is this behaviour on Commons accepted?
  2. If yes to the first then: After having placed the template on 20-something pictures i thought: Should this really have been done on the image-pages instead of the talk-pages, so that i could make i fine category for pictures that have been SP on P:DK at EnWiki?

--Hebster (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if that helps, but the template {{Published}} for Commons images that have been used by the media, is also placed on the talkpage of the respective image. --Túrelio (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Well - it did help a little. I'm not any wiser though. I have browsed a little through Category:Marker templates and some templates i.e. WikiProject Birds and Projet Blasons are placed on the image-pages. They aren't as "flashy" as Template:PoDaSP though. For now i think i'll down-flash PoDaSP some and place it on the image-pages. --Hebster (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this video PD?

According to w:List of countries' copyright length, cinematograph films become PD 70 years after publication and television broadcasts become PD 50 years after making. Given the date, I'm guessing that this is a cinematograph film, in which case the film became PD in Australia in 2004. This is after the URAA date, so the film is probably not PD in the USA. Pruneautalk 12:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, Commons goes by country of first publication, right? So it could theoretically be uploaded here? FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"Uploads of non-U.S. works are allowed only if the work is covered by a free license valid in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work, or if it is in the public domain in both countries." (Commons:Licensing#Interaction of United States copyright law and foreign copyright law) LX (talk, contribs) 15:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Woah... So basically everything uploaded to Commons which is PD, but has been created in countries where copyright expires in less time than in the US, should be deleted, or am I wrong? FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not a question of the length of the term, but what the copyright status was on Jan 1 1996 (or the respective URAA date). There is and will be a significant chunk though, of works which expired afterwards which are now locked in, USA-wise. --Padraic 15:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, so that video should had been created 70 years before 1996 to be uploaded here then? And when does it become PD in the US? FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I think for that case, 95 years after publication. See here. --Padraic 16:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

virus

My Kaspersky virusprotection says that http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/Szachownica.svg/160px-Szachownica.svg.png contains virus Virus.DOS.PS-MPC.Dick.1242 and blocked access.. Theo (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Szachownica.svg this one? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Szachownica.svg.png doesn't exist. rootology (T) 18:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
That file is generated by the wikimedia server and could not have been uploaded manually. 99.999% sure this is a false positive. --Dschwen (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Which implies that Kaspersky is wrong in this case? I get the viruswarning every time I click the link I posted above.. The links submitted by Rootology do not result in a warning... Theo (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Kapersky is wrong. And of course you get the warning every time, computers are deterministic. Rootology misunderstood your question. His links have (as far as my reasoning goes) nothing to do with your question. --Dschwen (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

July 16

Need video ogg help

Would someone very knowledgeable in these mind emailing me via my account? I've been fighting with this one for weeks on and off, trying to figure out whats wrong with it, and why it won't upload--it's my first one. rootology (T) 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OGG is just a container format. Make sure you used the vorbis and theora codecs to do the actual video encoding. Plus your file size cannot exceed 20Mb. If you still need help, reply and I'll email you. --Dschwen (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try reencoding it again just to make sure I didn't do anything silly and let you know. :) rootology (T) 06:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the Commons Helper

Commons Helper moved Image:Wikipedia vandalism.PNG for me, but it has a couple of problems: the English description is not showing up (is it just the length?), and there is a messed up bit of template/code below the heading 'license information' that reads:

{{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}}

I think it did this with a couple of other images I uploaded a while back, but I forgot to ask about it then. Can anyone see what is wrong? It seems to be calling {{tl}}, but without any parameter. Why is it doing this? Richard001 (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The {{en}} template seems to have a problem with URLs which include a question mark (in this case, the diff URL). I don't know how to fix it, though. Pruneautalk 09:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You may use {{tlx|en|1=whatever}} when there are those certain characters.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 11:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe it's the equals sign, not the question mark, that's the problem. --Carnildo (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Problems with AutoWikiBrowser

Last few days I have a problem with using AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) to modify pages on Commons. It loads the page in full (as far as I can say), than something "times-out" and then keeps on reloading the page for forever. It seems like AWB thinks that it is not done loading the page and some connection times-out. I am a new user to AWB and it worked fine for a while until yesterday. Is this AWB problem or Commons problem? Any ideas on how to overcome it? --Jarekt (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an AWB problem or an issue with your connection. Restarting the job usually solves it. --O (висчвын) 19:37, 17 July 2008 (GMT)

3 Million Files on Commons

I just thought I'd quickly notify everyone that Commons hit the 3 million file mark a few hours ago!! Keep up the good work. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this (including trying to find out which file was the 3 millionth) at Commons:Village pump#Approaching 3 million. Pruneautalk 18:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
We'll probably have a billion one day. Richard001 (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
In a few years time. Bidgee (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

File size limit for photo submissions?

I just talked to a friend of mine who is not a Wikipedia editor, they just use the site for reference. The person tried to send some photos to photosubmission ATwikimedia.org, but the message was rejected by the Wikimedia mail server due to file size (the person thought the e-mail was about 6-7 MB in size with the attachments). What is the limit for e-mails sent to Wikimedia? Should it be disabled for photo submissions? Kelly (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kelly,
I'm not sure of the answer, but I emailed your question to the communications committee mailing list, to see if someone there knows. They know about the photo submission queue. cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 17:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

July 17

Images within images

I'm not sure about the copyright status of this image: [26]. I can see that it's not Commons compatible, but my question here is whether it could even be uploaded if the photographer released their rights: it contains a projection of the subject (Morgan, the one sitting on the left), which itself is bound to be copyrighted. Would this make it impossible to license under Creative Commons at all, or is copyright law on that sort of thing less rigid for photographs that include projected protographs? Richard001 (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:De minimis... AnonMoos (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

French Foreign Ministry licensing

I just created Template:French Foreign Ministry to standardize the messages used on several Commons images when I noticed that Template:FrenchMinistryOfForeignAffairs was previously deleted after a deletion request. I would delete the template I just created but it appears that the wording that caused the old template such trouble ("toute utilisation commerciale de nos photographies est strictement interdite") has since been removed from the Ministry statement. What do people think? Do I need to start a new deletion discussion to see if this change makes these images acceptable? - BanyanTree 03:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Images of this type have been deleted before if the license does not expressly allow modification. You could ask the ministry to find out whether they do allow that. If they do, welcome to a whole bunch of new images. One thing, though: my French is a bit rusty, but doesn't Les photographies ... sont libres de droit à l’étranger mean that the images are free for the foreigner? What about French people? --rimshottalk 06:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I sometimes get the impression that the people responsible for image licensing for government agencies have never actually seen an image license before. I re-read the deletion discussion and found that the "non-commercial" wording was not in the actual license but was the response of the Ministry after a user emailed them for clarification. The wording on the website has not changed. <sigh> Redirecting the new template to Template:Copyvio...
On a purely academic level at this point, the wording sont libres de droit "free of rights", would certainly appear to mean "free use". The addendum à l’étranger "in foreign countries" would appear to be added because some image rights are irrevocable in France, or it may be something entirely different. The et in et peuvent être reproduites avec la mention obligatoire is a bit ambiguous and several images on Commons read this as meaning "free use outside of France AND reproducible anywhere with attribution", though it could also be read as a caveat to the first thought, "free use outside of France, with the additional restriction that attribution be given". Like I said, it's amazing that someone got paid to write such things. - BanyanTree 06:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid these images cannot be used on Commons. In this FAQ, we can read "Les photos sont libres de droit pour un usage non commercial à l'étranger" (The photos are free for a non commercial use out of France). This licence is not compatible with Commons policy. Sémhur 06:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for finding a webpage with the relevant information. - BanyanTree 07:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Low quality ??

Someone is adding {Low quality} templates to a number of my pictures, but I thought they can't all be that bad... Funny thing is that he only edits my pictures, plus one I that I have worked on in the past. He also added Category:Faded images to this, this and this image, which I think is not correct at all. This same person changed an image on nl-wiki this morning, which was a new upload by User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT. And only yesterday I removed a watermark from one of his images, and corrected the perspective on another one... Coincidence ? Would somebody please try to find out what's going on ? - Erik Baas (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkusers could confirm if the IP is that user, but its pretty obvious in this instance that they are - and checkusers would likely deny a request for that reason. I've warned the user and reverted the IP edits.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. - Erik Baas (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
<offtopic>You should really warn about spider pictures... :)</offtopic> Samulili (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I'll try to remember... ;-) - Erik Baas (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Erik, it seems like your corrected the perspective on Image:Wemmel E1 JPG.jpg got reverted. User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT had much more positive reaction to my removal of his watermarks: he upload original unwatermarked images under new names and deleted the old ones (see Image:Villers-la-Ville JPG00qia.jpg. A response we would hope from all authors uploading watermarked images. --Jarekt (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Wemmel" was not reverted, he saved a new version in which he made the correction in another way, but less radical; that's allright, in any case it looks a lot better now than the original did. Pity about the traffic sign, though... About the watermarks: I'm glad he's doing that; working from the original file it wil probably be better quality, I didn't look that close (Image:Han-sur-Lesse JPG01.jpg). - Erik Baas (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Auto correction of words ending with ux

Why do words ending with u x x show up as ux, and words ending with u x show up as ŭ. This automatic correction do not obey nowiki tags. For example in image Image:Electrolŭ Vacuum Cleaner.jpg the word Electrolŭ has to be spelled with 2 x's to show the link correctly (Image:Electrolux Vacuum Cleaner.jpg). But it is not the filename of that image. This is very confusing. Does anyone knows what is going on? --Jarekt (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you are using the Esperanto magical conversion gadget. It makes such corrections to make writing esperanto easier. If you don't write esperanto it is probably not so useful, so you can disable it in the gadget section in your preferences. /Ö 13:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes I did have check next to Esperanto gadget (no clue how it got there). Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

How do I change the username?

In an attempt to change my username from Eivindghoel to Eivindgh I only achieved to make a second userpage, not an effective move of the user account. How do I do this? --Eivindghoel (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

See Commons:Changing username. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mass deletion request needs more eyes

Commons:Deletion requests/own photographs violatoing COM:FOP - some are statues and obviously copyrighted, but I can't see photos of utilitarian bridges like Image:Wiki electro bridges from south.jpg being a problem. Can somebody with more knowledge than me of COM:FOP please evaluate this? --NE2 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nick Jonas.png

I am not 100% sure if this is a copyright violation or not. In the past, I accidentally uploaded two copyvios. Can someone who knows more about such things look at the image and see what you think? Thanks. J.delanoygabsadds 19:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is published as {{CC-BY-2.0}} so is fine for Commons, even cropped. Finavon (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
What I meant was, do you think the Flickr guy actually took the image himself, or do you think he lifted it from somewhere else. That's how I got burned before. J.delanoygabsadds 04:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd guess it's a safe bet he did. Look here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/oneidaprincess/page2/ The photo isn't out of line with the rest of his photosteam. rootology (T) 05:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Images with intentional borders

Is there consensus for intentional borders? I recently removed the border from this image and had the edit reverted and the image moved to this new category. Finavon (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi. It was I who created this category and the accompanying template {{Border is intentional}}. The uploader of this image has fought for at least a year with people who want to remove the border from this image, as you can read on its talk page. If he wants a border on his file, why is that an issue for you? The file is used that way in 3 different wikis, and if you want to have a borderless version in your wiki it would be painless to upload it with a different filename. This very image has been discussed before without much consensus. I believe this author should be able to have a useful image with a border hosted on Commons if he wants. -Nard the Bard 21:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I had missed the earlier VP discussion and wonder if we will get closer to consensus this time. The main issue is lack of consistency, which is likely to lead to the repeated addition of {{remove border}}. Your category and template will put off some editors - harmless unless it sets a precedent. Finavon (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

July 18

What to do about two similar categories?

This relates to Charles Darwin's book Insectivorous Plants (see Category:Insectivorous Plants, the name of which I am also unsure about and think a '(book)' at the end might be clearer). My last project was to upload the figures from The Expression of the Emotions, and this is the next book he wrote, so I thought I would upload scans from that next. I uploaded the first one, however there is a German category which I at first missed called Category:Insectenfressende Pflanzen (Darwin). This contains full page scans of the whole book in German. I had in mind only uploading the figures, but these were also uploaded, and are (now) in a subcategory Category:Insektenfressende Pflanzen (Darwin) (k instead of c; this naming seems kind of workaround-ish and should be altered, and its placement as a subcategory might also be rethought). They have captions in German, but are still the same pictures, so I don't see much point uploading another set. Perhaps I could make higher quality versions but I'm more concerned with just getting images up than making them perfect. So what should I do? All the other Darwin books are named in English, so/and I suspect English readers will have trouble finding this one. The captions should also probably be cropped out as I did with the English ones in Emotions, to be replaced with text in the description (which can be translated into different languages). I don't really know what to do about the naming though. The category for the scanned pages should stay in 'de' because the images are of German text. However, the figures category might be better renamed in English for consistency, and seeing that the book was originally published in English, and English is the more widely spoken language. I suppose a gallery could also be made; that was my original intention at least.

I haven't come across an issue like this before so I want to try to get some input on it.

As an aside: Concerning scans of full pages like that, is there much point in making those? They aren't searchable/copy&pasteable (something I hate), take up more file size/bandwidth, and probably have other disadvantages. Surely it is better to upload as text to Source/Gutenburg etc rather than here as images? Richard001 (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If the images and page scans needs separate categories, I think there are better ways to name the categories. Maybe "Images from ..." or "Page scans from ...", or maybe the images can be in a category with the English title "Isectivorous Plants (Darwin)" and the German page scans in a subcategory. Page scans are used for proofreading texts at German Wikisource, so there is apoint in having them at Commons. Djvu may be a better format for books since all pages can be in one file, so that no page scan category would be needed. /Ö 09:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Books made in the 19th century - public domain?

Is it possible to put Category:Books made in the 19th century in Category:Public domain books, or would that be too much of a generalization? How far back, if any amount, would we have to go before we could say a book and all its content was certainly public domain? Richard001 (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

For example, en:The Time Machine by H. G. Wells was published in 1895 and is in the public domain in the United States, Canada, and Australia, but does not enter the public domain in the European Union until 1 January 2017 (1946 death of author + 70 years + end of calendar year). Similarly, I'd have said, for The Invisible Man and War of the Worlds, but for the category it depends whether one is talking about cover art or texts, so it is difficult to generalize. Man vyi (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Pornography and sex industry related lated pictures in the Commons

I just resently discovered that Wikimedia Commons is widely used as a picture repository for sex industry workers (example Category:Porn actresses from the United States) were many pictures seem to advertise the service they are selling and glorify sex industry as a work for women. Am I the only wikipedian who does think this is unappropriate? I am trying to found out if the Wikipeda community has any policies about this, but I only can find this sentence: "Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such." Can you point me to some resouces/discussion etc about whether to allow porn industry selling material here in Wikipedia? I know the porn industry is very powerful and will surely like to influence potential customers but to many of us this industry is at tha best humilation and exploitation of women and children and at is worst extreme sexual violence,slavery and human trafficking.

I have also noticed that is seem to be accepted that some users load up lot of extreme close ups of mutilated female sexual organs and I tried for the first time yesterday to request delation of one such images. Very soon three users had voted for keeping the pictures (one of whom almost loads up grossly vulgar picture of women sexual organs )and an administrator declared the discussion over. Here is the discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bui Clit.jpg What kind of fake discussion is this? In whose favor is it that these kinds of pictures stay in wikipedia?

Most of the sexual and sadistic pictures in the Commons demonstrate women being tortured. Hereis an example Category:BDSM Drawings

Also while some of the pictures are disgusting and show deep contempt for women and are used as a tool for opression it is even more sad that I have encountered more than one instance where picture of children were exposed in sexual surroundings. Two examples of this is in this picture gallery Category:Peter_Klashorst. While the picture of children are not sexual them selfselves they became a part of a sexual exploitation of children when they are part of such catagories. Please help me fight this kind of evolution of the Commons. Freedom is not narrowly defined as the right of one group of society (male) to oppress and harrass other groups. --Salvor (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Only issue I have is if it's a copyvio image or shows any violence then it should be deleted. I've looked at some photos in the above links and I fail to see the issue. If you don't like it don't look at it. Commons and most if not all Wikimedia projects are not censored. Also in what way does it become "part of a sexual exploitation of children"? Look at docos on TV should they be banned as well? Really this sounds like someone with a religion point of view which is one of my dislikes. I will not be supporting you on this unless I find an image in which has broken a policy. Bidgee (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Most of the pictures in Category:Porn actresses from the United States are used to illustrate articles in Wikipedia about those porn actresses. They are not advertising, nor is Commons glorifying any aspect of the porn industry; our role is to provide free and legal images which fall within our scope. Again, these images illustrate articles on notable people, and that is enough to show that they are in scope. You may not like these people's activities or the fact that they are notable, but Commons is not censored (this link is probably the policy you were looking for). In general, if you want to get a photo deleted, you are going to have to show that it either poses a legal problem (e.g. non-free license, breach of personality rights) or that it is outside of scope.
I suppose that the Peter Klashorst images you are referring to are Image:Expirimental.jpg and Image:Werkpauze (photo by Peter Klashorst).jpg. I fail to understand how these are "a part of sexual exploitation of children". I also don't see who is "harassed" by the presence of the images you mentioned. It's not like we are putting them up as Picture of the Day: the only way you are going to see them is by looking for them. Pruneautalk 18:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Photos of porn actreses who are just posing for publicity shots (i.e. the photo itself is actually not pornographic) are really not controversial here, and you won't get anywhere by opposing their presence on Wikimedia Commons. Furthermore, the other type of image you were referring to are not in fact "mutilated female sexual organs"; for those, see Category:Female genital mutilation.
I'm actually moderately sympathetic to the view that someone who goes on a scummy third-world sex tourism escapade, and takes photographs of the rather young (maybe sometimes borderline too young) prostitutes whose services he purchases, shouldn't have his images remain on Commons merely because some people consider that their photographic artiness outweighs the ethically questionable circumstances in which they were obtained. However, to get such images deleted, you're going to have to articulate specific cogent factual arguments, and not merely express general moral outrage... AnonMoos (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
"porn actresses who are just posing for publicity shots". That is NOT what I am talking about. I have no problem with photos of famous people even if I am horrified and shocked by the work they are famous for. But these picture repositories I am talking about are not that kind of material. These are deliberate attempts to use Wikimedia Commons as an outlet and medium to advertise sexual services and promote prostitution.
Take for example Category:Vanessa Blue, all these photos are from user Vanessa Blue and link to a porn site http://www.vanessablue.com/ with the services she is offering. Many of the picture repositories are explicity showing the girls in working cloths of the porn industry and they are posing in a way they would be posing for costumers, often with emphasis on the deformed breast area (implants) characteristic of female sex workers. Some random galleries to explain my point: Category:Cindy Crawford (porn star), Category:Demi Delia, Category:Sophie Dee, Category:Aurora Snow, Category:Abbey Brooks, Category:Vanessa Blue.
--Salvor (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Also about the Peter Klashorst gallery, I read the earlier discussion from May 2008 where user Ribi says:
What gives Peter Klashort the right to post pictures of 50 poor Thai and African women's genitals for all the world to see? Just because he paied them 20 euros to have sex with them? These same pics HAVE BEEN DELETED FROM FLICKR for inappropriate content. Please do check!!! I ask that Peter Klashorst be asked to produce release forms from his models. Isn't that the law in Europe? or does it not apply to poor girls from Africa and Asia?
User Ribi says s/he is friend of one of the girls and Peter Klasthort has payed 20 euros for pictures.
It did not take much effort to search the web and find some traces pointing to that the User Ribi had a point. Sex tourism can also be disquised as being an artist. These pictures seem to be product of sex tourism in poor countries. I do not think Peter Klashort himself has posted the pics on the Commons or linked to them in his wikipedia page, some admirers that share his view of women probably have but he has a blogspot blog where he aired his views about prostitution of underage girls, he calls it [sad but voluntariy sadness.]
--Salvor (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thats just Ribi's word which could be incorrect and just trying to give Peter a bad name since he can't defend himself here on Commons and also who is to say that the above blog is Peter's? Anyone can start one and even under his name. I'm not defending him but we can't just give anyone doubt when they're not here to defend themselfs. Bidgee (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Salvor, while I appreciate that you are personally concerned about the moral issues surrounding some of these issues, please understand that as long as they are within the project scope and provided under an appropriate license there is no reason to delete them. You bring up a good issue about personality rights, but the fact is that we have a limited amount of information to go on when it comes to vetting these images. Obviously posed pictures (i.e. images where the subject is fully aware they are being photographed) are generally treated much more favorably than candid snapshots, and professional-quality images by artists (i.e. images that can reasonably be expected to see release) are generally given more leeway than images by unknown users.
More to the point, I think you should consider what it is that you are railing against. To me, it seems that your beef is less with Commons as a media repository and more with body piercing and sexually-themed images in general, and that you are simply using Commons as a forum to air out those frustrations. Needless to say, this is not the appropriate venue, and as a Wikipedia bureaucrat you should know that soapboxing is generally disruptive and unproductive. Finally, if you are concerned that the sexually-themed content is skewed against women, then I would suggest that this is due to simple systematic bias and encourage you to help correct this imbalance through file uploads rather than attacks. --jonny-mt 06:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Salvor's position. See also recent contributions by someone called Thirdship. His userpage consists of nothing more than "geile fotos" (German for "randy pix". I don;'t think that anything he has uploaded so far has a significant encyclopedic value. I suggest that we advise him to upload his pictures somewhere else. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Why are you inclined to agree with an point of view when we should all be following Commons policys and guidelines in which the photos/images are not inbreach of? With Thirdship if any images prove to be unencyclopedic then maybe those photos should be deleted but only if they have NO encyclopedic value. Bidgee (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
My point is that those pictures have no encyclopedic value, and that this uploader no doubt will be able to post them somewhere else.~Best regards, MartinD (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you prove that Thirdship is or will use them elsewhere other then Wikimedia projects? Bidgee (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I can't. I actually have no idea why he has uploaded them. MartinD (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I deleted most of those photos as lacking permission, and tagged the rest as requiring OTRS permission. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia projects include more than just work that is "encyclopedic"; Wikibooks has guidebooks, manuals, etc, that go to a higher level of detail than WP proper. One can imagine a textbook on the sex industry needing more and different images than WP would want. Stan Shebs (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Or tutorials about erotic photography. Rama (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've said what I wanted to say. I think that if someone wants to "geile fotos" he should it somewhere else. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So what if they have "geile fotos" on their userpage. It doesn't mean anything it's just words. If you have an issue then thats your problem and not the Wikimedia projects, so it's best to treat Thirdship as someone who is here to improve all projects. Bidgee (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It is a bit sarcastic that Commons discourages people to upload personal photo gallerys/party photos but there seem to be no policy against people uploading and making galleries of dehumilating sexist photos and very openly sexual workers advertise their services on the Commons.
MartinD, I looked at the uploads of user Thirdship. It is only recently that this user started to upload this very sexist photos. Perhaps because this is tolerated here right now. I looked at the upload history of some of the persons that violently opposed my opinion when I tried for the first time to request a photo deleted. One of those user:Lamilli almost entirely uploads pictures that most people considered pure and vulgar pornography. I fail to see how those pictures can be userful it Wikipedia. I know there need to be picture in Wikipedia of female reproductive organs but this user has uploaded at least 18 pictures of vulvas and most of them very pornographic. Randomly chosen example of this user work is is :Cola bottle and vulva.jpg and :Me and my Chucks.jpg. There is somethinf fundamentally wrong in the decision making of Commons if votes from users like this which seem devoted to using Commons as a medium for pornography and themselves upload photos that no medium channel I know of will other than Commons or sex industry websites will tolerate are the only persons that decide whether to keep that kind of pictures in the Commons.
It is also sarcastic how undemocratic the socalled discussion about to keep a picture in the commons was and how biased the Commons administrators are towards my point of view. I guess all of us who work in the Commons share the belief of freedom and many of us look upon Wikimedia as a social movement against oppression. But why should we not listen to those that point out that the mechanism of the Commons right now are adding to the oppression of some groups - women and children - and by advertising sexual services the Commons is aiding to the exploitation of very vulnerable social groups.
--Salvor (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Lamilli seems to have some kind of piercing fetish, which leads him or her to upload many dozens and dozens of similar and somewhat redundantly repetitive piercing pics, but most of them are not really pornographic as such... AnonMoos (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
So? Doesn't give you the right to make a statment to say that they have a "piercing fetish". If the photos are not causing any issues then I don't see the problem unless we are going to name people that people have a fetishs which this project is not about. Bidgee (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Neither Wikipedia nor Commons are "a social movement against oppression". They are an encyclopedia and a media repository, respectively.
"I know there need to be picture in Wikipedia of female reproductive organs but this user has uploaded at least 18 pictures of vulvas and most of them very pornographic. Randomly chosen example of this user work is is :Cola bottle and vulva.jpg and :Me and my Chucks.jpg."
Yes, I've though about that myself, why do we have over 200 photographs of kittens? And why are some of these images gratuitously cute, like kittens in mugs?
"mechanism of the Commons right now are adding to the oppression of some groups - women and children - and by advertising sexual services the Commons is aiding to the exploitation of very vulnerable social groups"
Where have you seen images advertising child pornography? This would be illegal, so if you see some, please do report them; if this is just an outrage figure of speech, please come to your sense and tone down.
As for women, you should know that there are respectable trends of though that regard prostitution a legitimate business, including feminist ones. From this point of view, your charges against pornography, assimilating it with sexism and minority oppression, is unacceptable. They attempt to destroy a legitimate industry, and are a moralistic backlash against sexual freedom.
You are free to hold whatever opinions you want, but please don't attempt to force them of other people. Rama (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
How on earth is it aiding to the exploitation of people? Nor does it want me to use the sites listed within the source of the images and again Commons is not censored. Whats interesting is you're only going on about women and children so what about men? Bidgee (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I seriously believe, that you got things mixed up a bit. You might have your objection against pornography and sex biz which is none of my business. Go on and fight your battle if you like. But what on earth is your problem with body piercing. What's exploitative about an image which shows a piercing. By the way, you even wanted pictures of male genital piercings (on an adult male) to be deleted, what has this to do with the oppression women and children???? I just don't get it.--Lamilli (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to weigh in on one aspect of this: several wikipedias have articles on Vanessa Blue. Most, perhaps all, pictures we have of her on Commons are more chaste than the pictures of the average female rock singer in concert. Certainly they are appropriate pictures, assuming the articles are appropriate. If anything, I'd expect to have something additional more in keeping with the specific fact that she is a porn star. - Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Russian PD law change?

Image:7.62-cm-Pak-36r-ammunition.jpg Check out this incomplete deletion request. Whats that about? rootology (T) 00:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Riel

is it allowed to charge the banknotes of the Cambodian riel ? (http://www.ccb-cambodia.com/index.php?q=main&p=banknotes) Zastava S. Jugoslavije.png Szajci reci 08:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

deletion requests from FX - I question the action of Mr. FX

Mr,. FX made that action.

Sir FX did not consult the Brazilian laws to determine what by protected copyright or not. A layperson in Brazilian laws who uses as argument the wheel foot that wounds the proper law.

I need help from another Admin please. Please holp my pic under roles of Commons not FX roles.

Marcio Benvenuto de Lima (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

  • All web sites are on domain publish (have extension GOV) in the same way that its content, to sir FX can' t deleted all pics or one pics using arguments of protected by copyright(content under law of Gov, domain publish laws), documents or archives of domain publish are on extension GOV acquired by law to all the Brazilians and foreigners.

Marcio Benvenuto de Lima (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

@Marcio, it is LX not FX. Though everybody might err sometimes, LX is an experienced admin and probably correct in his deletion request. For example, the website http://www.juquitiba.sp.gov.br/ that you named as source in Image:Rio2 - Juquitiba.jpg, says: (C) Todos os direitos reservados, suggesting its content to be unfree. But you might ask User:PatríciaR who is a Portuguese-native speaker and eventually knows the specialties of Brazilian copyright laws. --Túrelio (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So sorry about it "FX", my bad...Túrelio I know PatriciaR, but the problem is the laws and actions from LX, I from Brazil too and then sometimes the web sites have extension GOV use "all rights reserved" but that web site under domain publish laws and can't use "all rights reserved" becouse that domain publish, look's lake City office New York have "Copyright 2008 The City of New York" but all Americans know, have Fair Use laws, Gov laws, look's lake in Brazil too, but the problem is that...wbe sites have extension GOV can't use "all rights reserved" that web site is domain publish and all things have inside of that web site.

Then if you don't know that and only deleted by on ways or personal action and... don't ask someone about it, I thing Sir. LX make mistake about law of Brasil and hit my works in Wkipédia PT, I holpe Sir. LX can know that and look for another ways to work, I work too in here and I tray don't hit anyone by my action you kno, but sometimes you can't be sweet wich all.

I am only look for my rights inside of the Commons project, for me it is so difficult for look for pics of "Vale do Riveira" you know and then Sir LX deleted all pics and hit my work in Wikipedia PT, "lol" I see that and look for how did that? my first ask...1 pic I can see one good person but 20 or more it not fanny too my work in wikipedia PT, that funny for someone not me, sorry say that but all time I always speak with the heart. I holpe you can help me, I don't want fight, but I want "fight" for the right of the pics not fight for my ways or actions.

Marcio Benvenuto de Lima (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Toolserver down?

Is the toolserver down, or is it just me? I'm unable to reach Flickr upload Bot. This link was working fine until today... Kelly (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. The link has apparently changed to http://toolserver.org/~bryan/flickr/upload. It seems to be deathly slow, now, though. Kelly (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
That link also doesn't work. I know that my DNS and 256/64 ADSL connection is fine. Bidgee (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Toolserver appears to be a bit overloaded atm. It works for me though. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

July 21

For template lovers: Template duplicate

The {{Duplicate}} template does not work as good as the badname template when using with categories:

  • it does not display properly the category name
  • it does not put the referrred category in the duplicate category

An example can be found in Category:Schloss Morsborich where I tried all sorts of category syntaxes. I tried to change the template, but I have not sufficient experience nor time. --Foroa (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a relation with cats using the "category redirect" template as can be seen here. --Foroa (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That template's wasn't really made for that. (Besides, things like "This image is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of:... There should be only one exact copy of an image" don't make sense for non-images.) I suggest maybe using {{speedy|reason}} if {{badname}} isn't appropriate. Rocket000 (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
And now {{category redirect}} says the right thing. Rocket000 (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I know, but many people seem to use that for categories and those usages stay there as they are not detected nor grouped in a cat. Could the template not be improved upon so that in the long run, it is no longer used, and if it is used, it gets deleted anyway.
I noticed that {{Seecat}} is used very frequently in stead of {{category redirect}}. Is there any place that contains an overview of those templates and a documentation of their parameters as the interfaces are sometimes slightly different. (Especially confusing with the move cat and the syntax for the commons delinker) --Foroa (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
{{Seecat}} redirects to {{category redirect}} so it doesn't matter which one is used. They are the same thing. Both have the syntax {{template_name|new_category}} (actually, it has a few redirects). I made {{duplicate}} categorize everything for now. Rocket000 (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Back to {{bad name}} and categories. As Rocket000 pointed out this template at present is a bad fit for categories, but I agree with Foroa that it should be modified so it can work with them. Or if there is a better template for this purpose ({{speedy|reason}} ?) than the instructions on the {{bad name}} page should be modified.--Jarekt (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm.. I would modify {{duplicate}} to work for non-images but the template would pretty much need to be completely different depending on the namespace. It's possible to do, but a separate template would probably be better. I'll see how it goes now that the instructions on {{category redirect}} have been changed. Rocket000 (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion nomination incomplete through pop up blocker

I am under the impression that deletion nomination fails to complete when a popup blocker is present (thereby generating incomplete deletion nominations). Is this documented somewhere ? --Foroa (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think if you have your browser set to not allow links to open in new tabs that will break it. It shouldn't pop-up anything, only open new tabs. Rocket000 (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Robotech mechas

May I upload images of Robotech mechas found here? --BokicaK (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

May be, but you'll have to use search option "Permits Commercial and Derivative Use". --Túrelio (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
They look pretty derivative to me... Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 00:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

hi

HI, i have a problem uploading an image for a battle article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hyrba, i followed all the possible rules, and it still says you must provide a worthy source and license, i dont get it, here is were i got the image from (http://www.geocities.com/indo_european_geography/) and this this the source filename, i think (this is the pic)(http://www.geocities.com/indo_european_geography/kurd.jpg). If you can upload this image for the battle in the top of page of the article over were it says date, and put the text for the battle which is (en:Nearest place to the unknown location of Hyrba), under the pic, Category:Battle of Hyrba, and the name of the article on wikimedia commons ,or this place, is File:Battle of Hyrba.jpg. I would AMAZINGLY APPRECIATE IT! THANK YOU SOO MUCH!!!--Ariobarza (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

What is the copyright status of images made in Afghanistan?

What is the copyright status of images made in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan is not a full signatory to the Berne Convention. According to w:List of parties to international copyright treaties it does not seem to be a full signatory to any other international agreement on copyright.

COM:L#Afghanistan directs readers to w:Afghanistan and copyright issues, which starts:

"As of 2005, Afghanistan has no official copyright relations with the United States, resulting in works created in the country not being copyrighted in the United States, regardless of the local copyright laws of these countries."

So, what does this mean for the liscensing status here on the commons for images made in Afghanistan?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This came up recently in connection with a deletion request (that I can't now find). The conclusion was that, as far as we are able to ascertain on the web, Afghanistan currently has no copyright laws at all. So, photographs taken of sights, posters, murals etc should be OK to upload here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
It sounds to me that Afghan images do not enjoy copyright protection in Afghanistan and in US, so for the time being they should be OK on Commons. If other users agree than we should have a template saying something like that. My only concern would be that new copyright law, which will be written in the future, might be retroactive (as latest Polish or Russian laws were), and the images might be deleted anyway. --Jarekt (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Approaching 3 million

Well, we're about 15,000 uploads away from 3 million items on Commons - anyone want to guess approximately when we'll hit that target? And is there any kind of news release or publicity planned? Kelly (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you find out about how many uploads there is? Also I think it could be a day or two away (Don't forget copyvio images when deleted brings the number down a little but maybe not by much). Bidgee (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The number is on the top of the Main Page. Kelly (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
aarr so it is! I quess you can tell I don't visit the main page often. :P Thanks for that. :) Bidgee (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should arrange special recognition for the uploader of the 3 millionth file - though given the odds, it will probably either Magnus' or Bryan's bot. :) Kelly (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Past 3 million media files on Commons now! :) I was wrong about a day or two days! :P Bidgee (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
So what picture made no. 3.000.000? :) --Hebster (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Just did a little count on Special:NewImages. Currently at 3.000.471, i counted 471 pictures back and ended at Image:Market Place and Church of St. Mary, Cracow.gif. It must be something in that vicinity. --Hebster (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Problem is copyvio images before (if not deleted already) the 3 millionth media file so that could change. Bidgee (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Taking into account both the upload and deletion log, I get the 3 millionth media file to be Image:Haishan-Station.JPG by Mailer diablo. (I started at 3,000,520 and went through the Log, counting -1 for every upload, excluding new versions, and +1 for every deletion, until I hit 3,000,000.) Pruneautalk 14:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
(reset Indent) If you really want to find the 3 millionth uploaded file, you'll have to go back weeks (I'd guess). Really Special:Statistics is saying we've got 3mil files in total now, but that is after all the deleted files. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. What I meant was that when Image:Haishan-Station.JPG was uploaded, the counter hit 3,000,000. Pruneautalk 17:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Logo vs. Category:Logos

Category:Logo is a disambiguation. As it seems, images depicting logos should be listed in Category:Logos, and 451 of them can indeed be found there. Still, 130 other logo images are listed in Category:Logo itself, where nothing should be. Can someone easily fix this using a bot? :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You could use {{category redirect}}. Other problem, that many logos there are copyvios. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, it seems to me that Category:Logo is an attempt at disambiguation between Category:Logos and Category:Logo (programming language). Therefore the disambig notice and Category:Logos and Category:Logo (programming language) as subcategories. Right now Category:Logo (programming language) was erroneously removed from Category:Logo and added to Category:Logos; I undid this. However, I'm not sure that "disambiguation categories" are a good idea at all, as often things will get added to them without checking. But as it is meant as a disambig, I don't think {{category redirect}} would be the right option. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages refer to other categories, they never include them as subcategories. --Foroa (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that redirect cats and disambiguation categories are not very efficient as they "attract" items with the wrong category. Categories that are not really used should not exist and show red links. Meanwhile, I made a similar Logo disambiguation page. --Foroa (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Having a Category:Logo is clearly too confusing. It needs to be deleted, or at least redirected to Foroa's Logo page. Powers (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Redirecting a category to a mainspace disambig page doesn't sound good. I'm for deleting it straight out or adding {{category redirect}} so bots can keep it clean. (I have SieBot on the job right now.) Rocket000 (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Image talk:Unicorn-and-arm-of-god-1.jpg

Is this page in scope? --Jarekt (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No...  :) Rocket000 (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The image pages seems to be lacking in description; is that what was on the talk page? Powers (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Talk page had pages and pages of biblical explanation of the significance of the "unicorn" that some sees in the image written by the uploader. --Jarekt (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-public people in a public event

I've uploaded some photos recently. Copyright is OK, they are free, taken by me and released under a Creative Commons license. But I would want to get opinions related to this notice in the upload page: "Compromising or embarrassing images of non-public people taken without their knowledge are often problematic. Use good judgment".

There are non-public people in my photos. But I've taken those photos in a public event, at a public street in Madrid (Spain), and I was definitively not the only one taking photos, there were many people, lots of professional photographers and mass media taking photos as well, it could be argued that those people were aware of that. So I *think* it is OK to publish them. Please take a look at this photos:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by R0b3rt0 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 21. Jul. 2008 (UTC)

Those images look fine to me--it's a street scene, which means what they were doing was public anyway. Commons:Photographs of identifiable people states specifically that "unless there are specific local laws to the contrary, overriding legal concerns (e.g., defamation) or moral concerns (e.g., picture unfairly obtained), the Commons community does not normally require that the subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded". None of these look unfairly obtained, so unless there are Spanish laws governing the photographing of people in a public place, you can rest easy. --jonny-mt 13:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. They look fine to me, too. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your responses, I will continue to upload such images. R0b3rt0 (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Pictures with no copyright

Hello! I wanted to upload a picture of Swedish comedian Calle Norlén found here, where the information tag states the image has no copyright. Wikipedia currently has no image of Calle. Since it's not released under a license I don't really know how to tag it here on Commons, is this free enough or do we need something more? Thanks! Axelv (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can't find a copyright page/information then I would assume it's copyrighted therefore can't be used here on Commons. Best bet is to email them (if possible) and get them to send an email to OTRS. Bidgee (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
One of the photos does have some copyright information: it states "Fotograf: Jack Ristol; Ingen Copyright" ("Photo: Jack Ristol; no copyright"), without any further details. But since the owner of the copyright (Jack Ristol) is not the owner of the website, I would still advise to go through OTRS. Pruneautalk 16:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is the photo I'm refering to. Although, since this is a well known Swedish public figure I think it's safe to presume that the copyright info on his official website is correct and released by the photographer. The other pictures has contact information to their respective photographer but this hasn't. The real question is about tagging, I think. The upload page has a drop-down menu with availible licences, but none of them seems to suit the situation. Does that mean I have to find contact info for the photographer and have him release it to a suitable license or can I tag it in another way? Axelv (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I uploaded the image to Image:Calle_Norlén.jpg. Please tell me if something needs correction. Axelv (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Gallery Tool

I would like to propose an extension to User:Duesentrieb Gallery Tool. Currently Gallery tool shows images of users which are the last uploader for a given image. I believe that by default, it should be showing the images which were originally uploaded by a given user. Current setting should be also allowed, but as an option. Lately I am helping out with removing watermarks from images, which requires me to reupload corrected images, and as a result my gallery tool shows 100's of files I do not know much about. At the same time some of the galleries of original uploaders are empty, for example according to edit counter user:Spot_Image has uploaded 201 images but his gallery shows only 5. This does not seem fair, and makes finding images harder. --Jarekt (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems like good idea. Samulili (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:EU on kosovo independence.png

Greetings. I need a third opinion here, possibly administrator's intervention (hope not), perhaps just good ol' noninvolved person's persuasion.

My position in this is: we need accurate, nonpartisan, verifiable sourcing and current-affairs map graphics that reflect it. If such can be produced that as of 21 July 2009 Slovakia officially does not recognize Kosovo's independence, by all means, let's color it red on this map, as is Spain, Cyprus and Romania.

But I object to "slippery slope" type maneuvering, based on POV-selected media quotes from February, as Slovakia officially was to undertake a 4 month review and then issue its position. The start of this period was uncertain, in the words of the country's President. The results of this review, in my internet/media watch, have yet to be announced. Ergo, I insist on coloring Slovakia yellow for now, like Greece, Malta or Portugal, which are in similar suspended state w.r.t. Kosovo. Thank you. --Mareklug talk 19:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture of the Day in minor wikis

File:POTD.png
This should always show the picture of today.

I want to start using the Picture of the Day on nnwiki. That is, I want to show the same file that has been elected on commons also on nnwiki. I want no administration costs, the change of pictures has to be done without any actions on nnwiki. One way of doing this is to create a dummy file for the Picture of the Day (f.ex. [[POTD.png]]. And a boot that copy the picture from {{Potd}} to [[POTD.png]] every night. Is this possible? If so, I can refer static to [[POTD.png]] on nnwiki. -- Hogne (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Image redirects? I dunno how they work with parser function; I assume they don't -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You might want to copy the system from nl wikipedia. Check out nl:Sjabloon:POTD and nl:Sjabloon:POTD onderschrift. It's probably even possible to use a bot to do this automaticly. Multichill (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What I want is not a redirect but a rapid changing file that is a copy of the picture of the day-file at any time. Every day at 00:00 (UTC) the new picture is copied to [[POTD.png]]. The solution from nlwiki will reqier much more administration and will not be suitable for smaller wikis. Hogne (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

File:POTD
Test redirect from Image:POTD
Unless there are different caching problems, I think a daily updated image redirect is a better solution than uploading a new copied file every day. I think it is easier for a bot to change the target of the redirect than uploading a new file each day. Redirects will also avoid problems with POTD with different file types, since a redirect can lead to a file of a different type. You also avoid potential problems with a copied file getting deleted because of being a duplicate. I put an example redirect on Image:POTD, so you can see how it works. /Ö 21:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are caching problems. The image shown here was not updated when I changed the target for the redirect. So I have to do action=purge or edit this page to see the correct file. Are such caching problems avoided when uploading new versions of a file? /Ö 22:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
File:POTD1
Test redirect from Image:POTD1
Could anybody make a bot for maintaining Image:POTD? It's a fine start for our wiki. I tried to make Image:POTD1 work, but it didn't. (#REDIRECT [[Image:{{Potd/{{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY2}}}}]]) Any suggestions? Hogne (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Duesentrieb has a script that does this kind of thing. Information at meta:User:Duesentrieb/POTD. Note that you will need to use the complete URL and <img src="http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/potd/potd.php/commons/200x150"/> syntax, rather than [[Image:foo.jpg]]. Pruneautalk 15:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to display the dynamic image represented by <img src="http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/potd/potd.php/commons/200x150"/> at a wiki? Hogne (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Taxonavigation

Could an admin please add the Smith System (for ferns) to the list of taxonavigation template? It is locked from editing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps try a different approach. Make the template and then request that it be added to the existing template.... -- carol (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It isn't a template that is needed, but merely the appropriate redirect added to the template's list, which now seems to have been taken care of. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I have been observing the trail of EncycloPetey here at the commons; not an avid follower of it but as one whose own trail crosses that path occasionally. My question is this: did the few days of not having the link on the taxonomy template page inhibit your activities regarding that taxonomy template? (It is the source of my misunderstanding of the situation which caused this request also as I have been using the template without reading the template page for a very very long while.) -- carol (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

July 19

policy about mass deletion

Is there a policy about mass deletion, there are some good reasons to delete an entire category but the aftermath of mass deletion is disorganization and painful tasks to fix the links. An image is information, remove an image is removing valuable information(= quality), gradual removing of images from the all *.wikipedia.org *.wikibooks.org *wikiversity.org before launching the commondelinker bot would be the best response. Some local wikipedias (like en, fr, etc) accept deleted images from commons, the idea is warn people (even non english speakers) before mass deletion to organize copies, moves like put an (automagic)message in all involved local village pump (checkusage button). Greudin (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No. We have legal obligations, and we also have a mission to be a repository of free media. For both these reasons, we can't host copyright violations forever (or for as long as it takes for people to move the stuff they need to local wikis, which if we're going to be honest, amounts to pretty much the same thing). I suspect you're referring to this, given the hissy fit you threw about it. I'll note that you had two weeks, in what was a very clear-cut case, in which to move some of them (not a mass move; you greatly misunderstand fair use if you think this is appropriate) to local wikis. Given the way that the deletion request was zerg-rushed by irrelevant comments, I suspect the local wikis knew about it as well, yet chose not to do anything. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 04:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not the same things, local wiki accepts this medias and it's not clear case (it's not in real life trials either) look at the long discussion about Arche de la Défense. But the point was not the reason of deletion but a comprehensive way to ease the move of this *mass* deletion of media. It can be done smoothly to others wikis. The domain name is still commons point wikimedia.org so take in scope the need to not desorganize articles later Lewis. Greudin (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Stats

This statistics could kill faith in humanity... :-) Could we filter out sex related topics? No because of censorship, but to highlight "noise" of other topics. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed :) thankyou so much, Melancholie! pfctdayelise (说什么?) 17:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one to find it strange that Special:Contributions/133.38.242.20 comes in at the 63rd place, higher than more important pages such as Commons:Village pump and Image:World naked bike ride 3.jpg? Pruneautalk 19:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
@Pruneau: You can use the form at the very bottom of the list to check why this is the case. Maybe spamdexing is the reason. Maybe I will filter "Special:Contibution" subpages one day...? @EugeneZelenko: For Commons I will publish more than top 500, I think; will take some days though (I first need an accurate monthly dump). --- Greetings, Melancholie (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

July 22

Editing the template at the bottom of your contribs page?

At the bottom of my contribs page (and, presumably, everyone else's) is a horizontal template with "Subpages - Edit count - ..." etc. What is that template called so I can edit it? Specifically, I want to replace Image:Icon tools.png with Image:Icon tools.svg. Thanks! It Is Me Here (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a MediaWiki: namespace page, so you have to be an admin to edit it. But User:O has now done it for you on the footer for logged-in users, and I've just done the same on the footer for anons. —Angr 15:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, cheers guys! It Is Me Here (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we delete all images from the National Portrait Gallery, UK?

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/National Portrait Gallery images (first set). This affects at least 500 images, probably twice that in actuality. Kaldari (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

July 23

Thirdship

Can someone do me a favour and get User:Thirdship's attention? I've left messages on his talk page about OTRS having a permission statement on the DirtyBob permission statement, but he's doing a mass revert and not seeing the messages I've left on his talk page stating that it's not necessary to revert my actions; that or blatantly ignoring them. Tabercil (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind... Tabercil (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Retirement

The Kenney

I ran across this when uploading two images of The Kenney, a non-profit continuing care retirement community in the Gatewood neighborhood of West Seattle. Category:Retirement is dangling out there with no parent; I couldn't find anywhere to stick it because we seem to have no categories related to old age, continuing care facilities etc. Is this a massive oversight due to how few older participants we have? Or am I just failing to look in the right places? - Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually we do have Category:Nursing homes and Category:Retirement homes. --Túrelio (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
And I see now we have Category:Geriatrics. But that's a very medicalized term. Any idea where Category:Retirement belongs in the hierarchy? - Jmabel ! talk 22:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Category:Old people? Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Category:Work, Category:Rest, Category:Personal life... Man vyi (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I was thinking of things like formal retirement ceremonies... - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

July 14

Cannon 450d

Cannon 450. Good shot guaranteed

Hi, I am not sure if this is the right place to ask but I am thinking about buying a cannon 450d, the latest version so I can take better pictures for this website. Is this a good camera and are there any featured pics taken by the EOS 450D. If this is not the rite place to ask, then where can I ask. Cheers Adam.J.W.C. (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Despite the headline I assume you mean a Canon ;-) Though I've no personal experience with that model, I know that Toronto Filker Debbie Ohi is still enthusiastic about her Canon EOS 400D (also known as Digital Rebel XTi), see her Blatherings website or her Flickr site. --Túrelio (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Having just scouted that particular market segment, I finally settled for the Nikon D60 instead, but they're both very capable cameras, and in the end, it's mostly down to personal preferences and priorities. Canon's dust removal technology supposedly tests slightly better. Nikon is able to boost the sensitivity slightly higher. The 450D has slightly faster continuous drive and live view, but a greater crop factor and at a slightly higher price. In the end, I made my choice by comparing photographic tests. Have a look at DP Review and see what they about the 450D and the D60. LX (talk, contribs) 09:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Go for it, but be warned that a decent lens will cost far more than a starter kit. That's how the mill works: first a 'cheap' kit, then a decent lens, another one, then a mid-line body like 40D... // PS. Sounds obvious but first borrow a Canon DSLR (450, 400 etc. any starter body) for a whole day to test if it's really comfortable for YOUR hand and eyes. Small bodies and small viewfinders aren't for everyone. Just another reason why people upgrade to expensive bodies. NVO (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
And do bear in mind that the camera doesn't matter. Just saying... Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 12:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Right. Try taking pictures in a dark room without any way to adjust the shutter speed and tell me the camera doesn't matter. Maybe at the high end, but there are some things you just can't do with a disposable. Powers (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that Canon owners have more fun. -- carol (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

One guy I know that takes photos of burlesque performances swears by his 450--he said it was one of the best he'd ever had. YMMV, of course. Agreed with what was said above, too--the lenses, for good ones, will ding you on the price. I shoot with a lowly Canon powershot a590, and am thinking about finally getting the adapter for some extra lenses, and would love to be able to afford a higher end camera like this. rootology (T) 16:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Canon's as a digital camera or a DSLR are awesome. Love to have a Canon DSLR but too pricy for me but may get one later. ATM I'm trying to get a Canon digital camera as a back-up or use when I don't want to lug my Pentax DSLR around. Only issue I have with DSLR is dust. Bidgee (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if you want to see good examples of what that camera can do, click here, and scroll through the "now showing" drop bar. rootology (T) 17:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane track images

My understanding is that any replacements of images should constitute minor changes which will have no impact on the usage of the images on the various projects where they are used. However, I have recently become aware of some hurricane track images which are being frequently updated with changes that are far more drastic than I can consider appropriate. Where these images are being used on the various projects these big changes can be quite disruptive. For example, one of these images is used on a Wikinews article about a particular storm. Since these images are constantly being replaced the image appearing on that article is now no longer relevant. I would be reasonably confident in saying that this same problem will effect other projects as well as captions are written and become invalid when the replacements are made. Instead of constantly replacing a single image with the latest we should have separate unique filenames.

I'm currently unsure as to how this problem can be resolved and as an interim measure have fully protected some of the images I found to be relevant so that this doesn't continue to get worse before this can be discussed. Adambro (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a further comment on this. As the central repository for all Wikimedia Foundation projects we have a responsibility to all of them. It should be reasonable that if an image from Commons is used by someone on a project somewhere that they can expect that the image will still look as it did when they first used it later on. Adambro (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, we received complaints all the way back in 2005 about littering the image namespace by uploading a new filename every 3 or 6 hours, and having the vast majority of those images remain unused. Additionally, uploading versions of a track map removes the problem of having to make dozens of useless edits across several Wikipedias (because many Wikipedias use these track map images with the understanding that it points to the latest information from official sources) three to six times a day just to update a picture.
The problem you present of captions being outdated is just a hypothetical: most Wikipedias use a variant of {{Infobox hurricane current}}, which doesn't use captions, and these track maps are only used while a storm is active; they are almost always replaced by something from Tropical cyclone tracks once the storm dissipates. And if Wikinews requires a particular revision to an image to illustrate an article, its editors are perfectly capable of uploading that particular revision, instead of forcing everyone to upload images that will never be used.
Again, I ask you to lift the protection, as it is not justified under the protection policy, and it is actually disrupting our ability to update several articles with the latest information possible. Titoxd(?!?) 18:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Unprotected. Adambro (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Titoxd(?!?) 19:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Eh, wish we had image rename/copy, then the latest could always be there but the record of images could be preserved. In general I agree it's policy not to upload substantially different images on top of the same image name... but perhaps this is a special case? Let's lift the protection (thanks for doing that Adambro!), work through what the right thing to do is and not worry too much about the short term, we can sort this out long term, ok? ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to note, that if we uploaded every track map under a new name for a current long lived storm like Bertha, we would have 81 separate images of which 80 are not used and have no value. -CWY2190 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Would it help if the naming convention was something like Image:2008_02L_latest_5-day_track.gif or some such, to give a hint that it is subject to regular change?--Keith Edkins (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
How about we create a template along the lines of "this image represents the latest information available about current event X. It may be updated when new information becomes available. If you wish to link to this specific version, you should re-upload the image under a different name." Pruneautalk 23:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I like that idea. Titoxd(?!?) 22:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember that we have image redirects now. You can easily rediret "Latest path of hurricane ....jpg" to the latest relevant upload. TheDJ (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We have image redirects? If so, and if they work cross wiki, I like that idea even better! ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

July 20

Can you read Japanese ?

If so, there is an excellent exercise in categorising the many Japanese images on Images eagerly waiting to find a home category. There are categorisation exercise opportunities in other languages too. Enjoy. --Foroa (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you user:Igno2 for your help. --Foroa (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Some questions regarding UK

I'm taking pictures in UK at the moment and will upload to commons, but would like to have some comments on some issues.

  1. I have made ready pictures of the roof of the nave of Ely Cathedral, 12 in all, one for each panel. I think that having as many details as reasonably possible is worthwhile, but I'm willing to revise my view if Commons thinks othervise.
  2. I have taken pictures inside a number of churches. My understanding of the freedom of panorama leads me to conclude that for open churches there is no problem with that. (At least as long as no specific policy have been stated. Inside the church at Sandringham there was a no photography policy that I respected.) Am I right?
    1. What about churches that are locked but where the key can be borrowed from a newsagent nearby?
  3. I took pictures inside en:Houghton Hall, and saw no signs of any restrictions. Indeed none of the stewards in the rooms said anything, some even moved to the side to let me take a picture. In the article there is a picture where the no photo policy of the house is used as reason for fair use. (My picture from the same room is darker, but I use neither flash nor tripod.) Am I safe to upload these pictures to commons, or have I missed something? (Or is the fair use in :en unfair?)

I'm travelling and may not be able to read the answer/reply immediately. Haros (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Hi Haros, thanks for the questions.

  1. Yes, the higher the level of detail the better.
  2. Yes, under UK law you can upload any images of buildings to which you have public access, including interiors. Churches where you can borrow a key are fine.
  3. Yes, you can upload those images. Even where a notice prohibits photography altogether, you can still upload any you take as any breach of the notice would be a matter of contract between you and the site owners. It does not affect copyright in the photo, which is what Commons cares about: see Commons:Image casebook#Museum and interior photography. On the question of fair use, that's a concept that allows an image which would normally be a copyright violation to be used in particular limited circumstances eg in a newspaper news report or on a specific Wikipedia article. That does not normally apply if you are uploading only images you have personally taken. Commons does not accept images uploaded under Fair use rationales, but you may see reference to it on eg the English Wikipedia. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming my understanding of the rules. More pictures will come. The problematic part is the one about Houghton Hall. I don't knowingly upload pictures that are taken against the policy of the the property owner. However as far as I can understand the fair use reason stated is simply false. Haros (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

BotMultichill is deciding galleries vs categories for us

So User:BotMultichill seems to have decided about galleries vs categories, by simply flagging every single image as needing to be categorized, irrespective of how many galleries it is in. While I don't mind people adding categories to these images, I don't care for the insistence that they be categorized even when it's not necessary, or when they disrupt existing organization. I've complained about this to Multichill a couple times, but he's blown me off. Am I the only one who cares about this anymore? Stan Shebs (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

See Commons:Categories vs Galleries and Commons talk:Categories vs Galleries. --Foroa (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Huh, looks like the whole discussion started and ended while I was in vacation. Sigh. Stan Shebs (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
As you might have noticed, vacation can be bad for your health ;) --Foroa (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
My health is hardly dictated by the outcomes of commons discussions. There are a lot of other things I could be doing with my time, most of them healthier than being hunched over a screen editing wiki pages. Stan Shebs (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I experienced that when I add a category to an image that BotMultichill has labelled, very soon somebody else deletes the added category because it disrupts the existing organisation for plants. (The photo was already in a gallery.) Then BotMultichill will label the photo again. To avoid a large number of items in your watchlist you can consider the BotMultichill label as spam and leave it as it is. The advantage is that the photo has now a category. Wouter (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Users should not be removing categories from images, leaving them uncategorized. That was overwhelmingly agreed upon in the linked discussion. Powers (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
There was almost an edit conflict where I was going to say the same thing. Categories can and often should be refined, but only removed in cases where they are in a parent category and the subcategory. If any user is simply removing categories from your images, that user should be pointed out somewhere. -- carol (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In any case, it might be better if BotMultichill did not tag images that are in a gallery. There are truly "lost files" which have neither a gallery nor a category in the Uncategorized images. Samulili (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Default namespaces for search

When you search something (<URL:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Something&fulltext=Search>) the default namespaces for the search are Gallery, MediaWiki_talk, Template_talk, Help, Category. Does that make much sense? I think Image should be included, and MediaWiki_talk, Template_talk and maybe even Help can be excluded. Samulili (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My defaults seem to be the same, but instead of Template_talk I do have Image. Still MediaWiki_talk seems quite random to include. Axelv (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The same here. The default namespaces for a logged out user are the same, as follows:
(Gallery)
Image
MediaWiki talk
Help
Category
What do your Special:Preferences have in the Search tab? -02:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know it was a preference thing. You've fixed my personal problem, thank you :) Samulili (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

July 24

Consider policy change to apply US law only, for all Commons files

Please see a radical proposal I have made at Commons talk:Licensing#Consider policy change to apply US law only, for all Commons files.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is Amanda Adams?

I recently tried to draw attention to the ongoing pimping in the Commons. About how Wikimedia Commons is used as a picture repository for sex industry workers with photo galleries that seem to advertise the sex industry services and glorify sex industry as a work for women. An example of very dubious photo gallery of this type is Category:Dirty Bob photos with 103 photos of women most of whom are pornographic and claimed to be of porn actresses. All these photos have a link to adult website. I guess some of these photos are of real persons such as Minka but some or most seem to be of anonymious sex workers with phony names. Take for example the photo image:Amanda Adams.jpg claimed to be an American pornographic actress. In my quest for Amanda Adams the porn actress I found no trace of her. However my quest brought immediately up two other Amanda Adams both of whom have done some modeling. One is Amanda Adams the archaeologist who had done some fashion modeling and has analysed petroglyphs and is an author of a book about mermaid legends and male reactions to those legends. The second is Amanda Adams the meteorologist and her modeling career involves numerical modeling of mesoscale processes and phenomena.

I do not think Dirty Bob's Amanda Adams the porn actress exists and it is strange that these kind of photo galleries are tolerated here in the Commons. Maybe the fetish with galleries of crippled females with w:Polypropylene breast implants is the mermaid legends of today but this is dangerous to health of women, this is exploitation of humans (that is sex workers) and this is very sexist approach humilating all women on earth. --Salvör Gissurardóttir (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You have not found Amanda? Look here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=de&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-US&q=%22Amanda+Adams+porn%22&btnG=Suche&lr= Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC). According to this explicite(!) site she was born on January 1 (year?), starred in Devil in Miss Jones 5, and New Wave Hookers 4 and 20 more movies which are offerd there. Also she goes by the nicks Camile and Emily Moore (perhaps her real name?) Mutter Erde (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, now I have found problem with Amanda. She's more popular as Amanda Addams. She's a classic porn star in USA: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0011621/ Mutter Erde (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

July 25

Plants in xxx

There was a lull in edits which removed my location categories after the previous discussion on this topic. Now I seem to be butting heads with User:BotBln on a number of my images. To summarise, I add "Plants of..." categories to all of my images, and the location I provide is the location where the photo was taken (to meet the where guideline). However, the aforementioned user (who, for what it's worth, is not listed as a TOL participant) has the preference that "Plants of..." categories should refer to where the plant is native to.

Personally, I believe that both viewpoints have their value. My method can give a quick view of yards, gardens, and park foliage of a particular city or region, regardless of whether a plant is native (and I'd be curious what "native" is, exactly -- what about plants that have been in place for thousands of years, but were millenia ago transplanted by human activity?). The latter can give a view of plants as captured in their "ancestral" habitat, perhaps giving a clearer view of what conditions caused the flora to evolve into what it has become.

Therefore, to try and alleviate the back-and-forth between what are, in my opinion, two valid viewpoints: what if we were to break plants by location categories into something like Plants native to xxx and Plants located in xxx; or perhaps the latter may still be able to remain Plants in xxx. Thoughts? --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 00:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Along time ago, I watched a television show about "crops" and I thought it would be very boring (especially to my 21 year old brain, which anyone can argue that on average exists at that age but is rarely used by the species). Instead it was very interesting. The cultivation of single species of plants has historically been devastating. One example is the Irish potato famine because they grew basically the same potato. When that virus came, they were not growing anything else.... In the United States, the same situation exists with corn.
When I am trying to put species into their native location, it is with this in mind.
Between November 2007 and now; I learned that there are some categories in which if a subcategory is made in them, that subcategory will get desembled and the contents turned into galleries. I have also learned that in spite of what people write anywhere on this wiki, some people are allowed to follow an individuals edits and undo them or make issues of how they were done.
Of the three bot writers I have encountered here (not writing bots for contests), one took me off from the trusted user list (without telling me) because (I think) I got one date in one image name change wrong. The other two, I had an article removed from English wikipedia which assisted to explain how software can be written to undo itself and it seems to be a case where the mental ability of the bot writers was "this way or that way but nothing in between". An interesting idea which I do not think can ever be implemented for anything successful.
My idea with the Flora of categories is that photographers will know where they took their photograph and put them there. People writing articles or sorting the images by species will (perhaps) have access to native information about the species and the species categories can be subcategorized easily to their native location. And that the Plants of categories can still be managed the way that the people who manage them manage them.
In the images that appear in categories thoughout this wiki, there are several subcategories that can be found in the "Nature of" categories for location which are "Gardens of" and "Trees of" and "Forests of".
Native is an interesting question, btw. It seems to me, from what I have read that if a seed falls from an animals coat or is moved via digestive system from one location to another, a plant that grows from that is considered to be native. If a human transfers it via either of those methods, it is not native. The interesting thing, perhaps, is how some species of flowers and animals populations are not a problem where they were but are a problem where they became relocated. Jacobaea vulgaris (used to be Senecio jacobaea) is an example of this. I read about barn swallows in United States; they were imported by someone who thought it would be cool to introduce all of the birds mentioned in Shakespearean plays into the "New World" and they can be a problem here.
Right now, I have allowed the definition of "native" is defined by the science -- I was trying to make the categories look nice for the articles I was writing about the species. There is a restriction there to use cited information. Okay, not a restriction, but a suggestion which I opted to follow.
When I suggested that the people and Bots were interested in maintaining the plants of categories be allowed to continue that which they have ferociously maintained, I really meant it.
I should be interested to see if there are any bot writers that do not become so affected so quickly. "In the mood" to write software and what kind of software that gets written -- the summary of user actions should surpass any 'votes' for privileges. If the children have found bad hacks that their parents (or the people who came before them) left, I don't know what to say. -- carol (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
How about:
Category:Plants indigenous to Europe (see en:Indigenous (ecology))
Category:Plants introduced to Europe (see en:Introduced species )
as subcategories of Category:Plants of Europe?? The parent category would contain photographs taken in Europe, when commons users don't know if it is native or not??
Why not stick to continents (not countries) for this sub-division? There is lots of confusion and debate about endemic and non-native species to a particular country, and it is also useful to find images taken in a particular country when editing an article on that country, as sub-populations of a species found in different countries may have local characteristics not obvious to the editor, but quite troublesome for factual accuracy.
Why not restrict Category:Plants of Switzerland to photographs actually taken in Switzerland, and species not native to any other country?
--InfantGorilla (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The "restriction" I have encountered with "Plants of" Categories are those put into place and enforced by the TOL group. The restriction of the "Flora of" categories might mean that occasionally, an interested person might have to manually move some things out of them. I think I already saw a moose in Category:Neotropic, for example and the way to get that to change is to re-categorize it, not bitch complain about it. I have found category tidying to be kind of fun, usually. When I have the time and am in the mood for that kind of thing.
You can talk all you want about what you would like for "Plants of" categories, there are people who are very active in making many of them what their vision of things are. I have no problem with that and came up with a solution which should not interfer with them. -- carol (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. For some reason, there are now pictures taken in Germany in Category:Plants of Finland. How does that make sense? If someone is looking for information on a) in which countries a species grow or b) which species grow in a country, why don't they go and look it up in a Wikipedia article instead of browsing through Commons categories. Samulili (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The information about where the different species is native to is almost always presented as a politically defined region. Actually, the two web sites that try to present this information do it according to country. Herbariums make little dots on a political map for where specimens were collected from. I think that photographers who know where the photograph of the plant was taken will most of the time put the image into the proper category. Like all categories and galleries these will need some maintenance also. While you complain about some images being located in that category wrongly, let me tell you there are several categories that have images out of place. I spent an hour or so with Category:Washington because it had become maybe one third full of images from Category:Washington, D.C. and after manually going through them, I really do not care for the grammar correctness of this. Does anyone not recognize Category:Washington DC? -- carol (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If the plants which are shown on the pics are Cultivars it is not of any interest where the pic is taken (exept that it shows better on pic information that it is your own pic). the Cultivars most time are planted in several continents and many countries. a category like Category:Plants of Switzerland or Category:Plants in Salzburg with very common Cultivars seen in nearly all countries of world dont make any sense at all. put it in a category like Category:Cultivars or Category:Ornamental Plants, because all pics Thisisbossi put in categories like Category:Plants of Switzerland are Ornanametal Plants and Cultivars, and not native plants of that countries (if you think that it has to be in more than one Category). it only makes sense add in a geographical category native plants (Endemism) of that countries or continents. --BotBln (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As best I see it, Plants native to xxx and Plants located in xxx would satisfy both viewpoints. Is there any compelling reason not to move forward with such? --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 06:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
No "located" - who has located the plants there? - some persons. the category is with out any sense. Category:Cultivars or Category:Ornamental Plants is what makes sense. like “i have seen a dog in paris” and foto in “category:dog of paris” would stupid too - it is located in a category in Category:Domesticated animals. --BotBln (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Ornamental plants in xxx or Decorative plants in xxx? --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 11:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It isnt important in what country such ornamental cultivars the foto is taken. use the category Category:Ornamental Plants and put all pics there if anybody is extremly interested to give pics in as many categories as possible (more than two categories dont make to much sense). --BotBln (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
In addition to my initial reasons for having geographical-based categories, diffusing Category:Ornamental plants will help keep it from becoming cluttered. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 19:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I get a bot to do repetitive tasks?

If I want to add a number of images to a category, is it possible to just tell a bot which images and which category, rather than doing it the old fashioned way? Richard001 (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I can do that for you. Yes, if you have a list of images and a category - just post on my talk page and I can take care of it. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I have done this task now but I'll let you know in future. Richard001 (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted free use provided that

A source (an institution that is owning national Dutch archives) is willing to allow publication of certain pictures, for which they own the rights, under conditions that are equivalent to CC-BY-SA. But, because this organisation is still having the CC-licenses under investigation, they are not (yet) ready to formally use a CC-license for this. Is it possible to use the Copyrighted free use provided that license for this situation? Bob.v.R (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that the "provided that" clause doesn't make the licensing terms contradictory to Wikimedia Commons requirements... AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

For example:

The owner of the rights of this image allows you to:

  • Share: copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • Remix: adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

  • copying, distributing, transmitting must be done with clear mentioning of the licensor, and with clearly and entirely stating these conditions
  • adaptations are only allowed if they don't impact the good reputation of the licensor


Would something like this be acceptable?
Bob.v.R (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Good reputation" proviso would seem to be counter to CC-BY-SA, GFDL. - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you exactly mean here by 'counter'? (I saw that not harming good reputation is covered by section 4.d of CC-BY-SA). Bob.v.R (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Eventually he meant "being incompatible with CC ...". This should eventually be clarified with the licensor. So-called "moral rights" of the artist are not waived by CC licenses, especially not by the 3.0 version. But I'm not sure whether they (the licensor) mean that. --Túrelio (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The licensor is willing to allow adaptations to the images (which are all photographs, by the way), under the condition that the resulting publication (where the licensor must be mentioned, according to the conditions) will not be harmfull to the reputation of the licensor. I think this is in compliance with section 4.d of CC-BY-SA. Bob.v.R (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
That any adaptations should not "impact the good reputation of the licensor" is completely compatible with our licensing requirements. In fact, the GFDL covers this indirectly via section 4. I'm not sure it's necessary to have them in the license (given that nearly all countries will have some kind of rule about this anyway; if they're not called "moral rights" they're covered in some other area of law, like those forbidding misrepresentation etc), but there's no reason we should be unhappy with it.
With that said, a custom license tag might be better for this sort of thing, rather than the troublesome "copyrighted free use provided that". Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 00:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. For the moment the licensor does not want to see the words 'Creative Commons' in the license they are giving (see above the reason for it), but they can live with the practical content of it. So 'copyrighted free use provided that' seems to be the option that is feasible at this moment. Question: can licensor at a later stage, let's say one year from now, change the licence into a Creative Commons license? Bob.v.R (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Does somebody know the answer to my question? It was asked by the potential licensor, with whom I have contact. Bob.v.R (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
For the people who can read dutch, see nl:Wikipedia:Te_verwijderen_afbeeldingen/Toegevoegd_20080714#Nationaal Archief. Multichill (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
We have been struggeling with these images for one and a half year now: it has to become clear that the NA is indeed the holder of the rights to the images (you state that they are, but still nothing has been proved) and there has to be a clear licence, like we discussed on nl: (the images themselves need more information as well, most of them are undated.) It took one and a half years for the NA to agree on commercial use: only since last week, you say they are considering allowing adaption of the original work. The NA seems to be going back and forth about it and I am not sure that "Copyrighted free use provided that" will be a good solution: it's just to unclear for these works.
Asfor your question: as long as the CC license is more free than the conditions they gave prior to the new license, my guess would be that it is allowed. Ciell (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The licensor has in the meantime reconsidered its position. Currently, their position is that they don't allow adaptations to the pictures, also not under the condition mentioned above. Personally I understand this very well. But under the current wikipedia policy I assume that there is now no longer a possibility to make succesful use of the Copyrighted free use provided that license for this. Bob.v.R (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Transferring photos to Wikimedia Commons

I am interested in transferring some (if not all) of my photos which I have uploaded in the past to the English Wikipedia, to Wikimedia Commons. Could somebody please advise me as to the best method to achieve this. Thanks. Figaro (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a bot or mass upload tool anywhere but the CommonsHelper tool could help you but you will have to do it one photo/image at a time. Bidgee (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for helping. All the best. Figaro (talk) 06:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually Commons Helper helps with creating descriptions in case of moving someoneelse pictures to commons. The descriptions it creates are very confusing in other cases. I would download all your images to your computer, without changing names (is there a script for that?), and than use Commonist (or Commonplace) to upload them all at once, or in large batches. Both of those tools will allow you to batch edit {{information}} fields (author, license, category, etc), but you will have to fill in the image description, probably by coping text from Wikipedia image pages. Afterwards I would use AutoWikiBrouser to add {{NowCommons}} to all your images on Wikipedia. --Jarekt (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I will see what can be done. All the best. Figaro (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

wood carving of bucherwurm Carl spitzweg

I have a wood carving Of der bucherwurm with c.spitzweg carved on the base. Any idea who would have made this. Looks very old. About 7' high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by abcbrain@aol.com (talk • contribs) 25:67, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If this question is supposed to be related to Commons, I think that it's about whether the wood carving can be uploaded here? Well, Carl Spitzweg is certainly dead for long enough (died in 1885) and his famous original oil painting "Der Bücherwurm" (The Bookworm) - Image:Carl_Spitzweg_021.jpg - is in the public domain. However, you say that you have a woodcarving. I don't know whether your woodcarving was made by Spitzweg himself or by someone else after Spitzweg's painting. If the latter, and if the carving's author died less than 70 years ago, it may still be protected by copyright, but I'm not sure. Are you sure that it's a woodcarving? I.e. rather rough, thick lines? If it is a faithful reproduction by wood engraving instead, as it was typical in the 19th century for reproductions of works of art, those may have never been copyrighted themselves, at least in some countries which require individuality of expression regardless of the amount of work, and if this is the case and it's likely a reproduction from the 19th century, it is probably in the public domain in the US as well as a publication before 1923. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

June 11

Straw Poll on modifying PD-Art policy

Please stop by Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag/Straw Poll and let your opinion be known. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Create a {{PD-Afghanistan}} liscense?

A couple of days ago I asked for opinions on the liscense status of images from Afghanistan.

Two people offered opinions. (Thanks!) [27], [28].

I acknowledge this is a complex problem.

There are some widely published images taken in Afghanistan where the the party who first published those images outside of Afghanistan are acting that by being the first publisher outside of Afghanistan they are entitled to claim all the intellectual property rights to those images. There are a bunch of images, like this one, which were almost certainly taken by American GIs, first published by the filmmakers who produced the film "w:taxi to the dark side". Here is an example. (Republished here in a NYTimes article.) There is one picture taken of Dilawar, the taxi driver who was beaten to death in US captivity in Bagram that belonged to his family. (Republished here in another NYTimes article.) A freelance photographer who sought out his family and made a copy of this photo is claiming all the rights to the image.

Are their claims at all credible? Their claims remind me of how European explorers came to the New World, Africa, and the Pacific, planted flags, and claimed those lands for their countries, even though they were already inhabited by people who thought that land belonged to them.

Even if the ownership claims of the republishers held merit why wouldn't the general release of images taken by US Federal employees into the public domain take precedence?

If the republisher's claims lack merit, would it make sense to establish a {{PD-Afghanistan}} lisense?

If and when Afghanistan passes a domestic copyright law, and that law applied retroactively to existing images, would that mean that images we had uploaded as PD would no longer be PD?

Would Afghanistan have to both pass a domestic copyright law, and sign on board the w:Berne Convention before images we uploaded as PD would have to be re-evaluated?

If Afghanistan did whatever was necessary to wrench domestic images out of the Public Domain, all the images under the {{PD-Afghanistan}} liscense could be deleted, or marked for attention.

Some might argue that the effort of uploading these images, if they could be considered in the public domain now, would be wasted effort if they had to be removed, or re-evaluated, in a year or two. Or not.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

July 26

Hidden categories

Category:Rr-bicycles is a user category and therefore is supposed to be hidden, but shows up in Category:Bicycles. Very confusing, wasted several minutes of my time trying to work out what an "Rr-bicycle" might mean. Can someone work out what is going on here? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Carol was faster than me and has the wrong categorization already removed. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Much of what I am about to write is a guess and an edit conflict with AFBorchert :) The one thing that is not a guess is that I just removed the category Bicycles from the Rr-bicycle category. Now the guess: Hidden category means that the category will not display on the image pages and maybe subcategories which that category appear on. So, when Rr-bicycles became a parent category to Bicycles it was not hidden. If Rr-bicycles becomes a subcategory of Bicycles, it will be hidden.
I removed the category from Rr-bicycle; if a link to Bicycle is needed, it can be added into the text of the category and not added in a way that makes Bicycle a subcategory of it. -- carol (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle is ready for beta testing

Good day Commons users, today I'd like to notify me and Maxim are currently working on a twinkle beta script. Currently we've got one working script, with bugs indeed but we're trying to fix that later on, more info about twinkle. I'm also trying out more twinkle scripts, for those you can just leave me a talk page note about it, if you want to try those out. Most of those other scripts are very good for admins to use as it can help you a lot when doing a specific administrative task. Best regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 13:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Which script have you been working on?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
See my subpages --Kanonkas(talk) 16:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

.ogg Video.

I've tried loading a file I uploaded but it doesn't play. I downloaded it and it played fine (Not sure if it's cached) but I need to know if Image:Tropical Low George.ogg works for anyone? Also it's not the player I'm using as it works for other .ogg videos on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

None seem to work for me in Firefox or IE. Firefox seems to go all buggy when I even try to play one, for example I tried to play the sparrows one just now and now I have to navigate my tabs via the left/right arrow keys rather than using the mouse (it never played either). I don't think these computers will play OGG yet either, so I don't think I can fix the problem by downloading the file. (This is for audio and video). Richard001 (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Works for me on Firefox 3.0.1 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1) on Vista Home Premium. If it helps, my plugins include Java(TM) Platform SE 6 U5 (fuller list and Java console output at User:Wikibob/Firefox settings). The Java console displays a few errors but both the video and audio play. -Wikibob (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I'm using Firefox 3.0.1 on Vista Home Premium but used both Windows Media Player and VLC but doesn't work in Firefox or IE7. What Java player are you using? Bidgee (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
How do I find out? It could be "Cortado (Java)". I *think* I installed standard Java from Sun some months ago as part of a Vista update. When I see the Commons image page I click on the play button just underneath. The Java log I linked above shows some registered plugins and mentions javax.sound.backend but I do not know more than this. I also tried the sparrow video and the audio-only Image:Left out hunter hargrave interview.ogg which both play. Javascript needs to be enabled, as well as Java. They also work on Netscape 9.0.0.6 and Opera 9.27. I dimly recall trying a VLC plugin and having problems months ago. -Wikibob (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

July 27

Is this page too long?

Should we maybe try to keep it below 100k (it's currently approaching 200k), topping the archive up periodically and creating a new one when it gets too big? It always takes a while to load for me. By the way, what's with the post from May that hasn't been archived? Richard001 (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a bug with the bot... Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Top of the page says "7 days" for Archiving. Miza was configured to 13d, so I changed it down to 7. So next time Miza runs, this page should get MUCH smaller. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The comment from May has no valid timestamp. So the bot can not know how long ago it was added. /Ö 21:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
7 days seems to be OK. Over the last few days the page has been holding at 140kb-160kb in size. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Upload by URL

I am filing a bugzilla request for Commons about enabling upload by URL for admins, if you want to check it, then please see this link. --Kanonkas(talk) 13:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A summary of what upload by URL is would be great. —Giggy 13:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Upload by URL means uploading a file from another website rather than from your local computer.
Could be a good idea for admins (and Flickr/Wikimedia moving bots!). --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I would be wary about allowing thisfor everyone, but see no harm in having it for admins. Could be potentially useful. -- Duesentrieb 20:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, but also bots maybe? (per Brianna's comment, unless I read it wrong) Cbrown1023 talk 21:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree - dangerous for all users, but admins would be acceptable. There may be technical reasons this cannot be done though... not sure.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Bots sounds good. I actually don't see how this is a big deal for anyone... could someone clarify? (email is available if there's a COM:BEANS issue) —Giggy 01:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It would make it rather easy to instally upload whatever from Google Images, or any other random site. At the moment we force people to at least download the file to their own computer, and somehow we hope this hurdle slows them down a bit. :) (BTW such bots could be admin bots, I still wouldn't give upload by URL to bots) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, for people like me uploading multiple images from Flickr, it would be much easier to use this instead. --Kanonkas(talk) 10:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
To make best use of this, we should give admins this right, and the ability to dole it out to users we can trust not to abuse it (ie people uploading many Flickr images etc.) - Hopefully this can be done with a minimum of bureaucracy. I would not want to see all users, or all autoconfirmed or something with this though. As long as it is given explicitly the potential for abuse is equally limited.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Like I proposed earlier, this would of been on of the "trusted user" rights if that ever became a new user group. The processes for Flickr review, upload bot access, AWB, MediaMoveBot, auto-patrolled contribs, etc. would all be combined and rights granted with minimal bureaucracy. This would be perfect for those who are trusted yet work mainly with content and have no needs for administrative tools. Rocket000 (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Large-batch file renaming

Is there a place to request the batch renaming of a large number of files? In Category:Pronunciation_of_countries, most of the included files are 41 Jèrriais pronunciations of country names. These all all prefixed with jer:, which is incorrect as that is the ISO code for Jere, a Niger-Congo language of Nigeria (SIL). There is no ISO code for Jèrriais because it is considered a dialect of Norman (which also has no ISO code). So, while it is clear that all of these 41 audio files are mislabelled, it is not clear what to rename them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

jer is conventional on nrm:, so that is how I labelled them. The question of an application for an ISO is currently with the government of Jersey. Man vyi (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
But it is improper to appropriate another language's ISO code here, on a multilingual wiki. Does WM rcognize nrm for Norman? If so, we could use nrm-jer- for Jèrriais, just as we use la-cls- and la-ecc- for varieties of Latin. ... Or wait, nrm is the ISO code for a Malaysian language. We could use roa-jer-, since roa is set aside for "other" Romance languages (i.e. those with no ISO code). --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Ask someone running for administration here what the template is that does this! I was shown the template by someone people suggested to be an administrator here, feel free to drop in on my talk page and ask for help there at any time; it is MELLOW here and I like that and am often like that.... -- carol (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Nouormand: J'faîthons sèrvi nrm ichîn siez la C'meune étout
English: We use nrm here on Commons too
I'm just going along with decisions made, myself. Man vyi (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
So, what do you plan to do with Narom language files? --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Were I in a position to make such decisions, people would find many policies around here very different! ;-) Until such time I'm going with the flow. Man vyi (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • See User:Rocket000/Languages for a complete list of all the languages WM "recognizes" (i.e. has at least one project with the language's prefix) and a couple variants that are commonly used here (such as "zh-hant"). nrm: is the prefix assigned to Nouormand. Rocket000 (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Image/media of the day fully protected?

I have noticed that both of these are fully protected today. Is this the norm? Why so different from Wikipedia, which is very anti-semiprotection for TFA? At least at WP you can edit the real version of 'featured picture' here; only a copy is protected there. Often "featured media" can be easily improved on in terms of the page (rather than the media itself), e.g. adding categories etc. Perhaps preventing the uploading of new versions is warranted, but not fully protecting the page (is there not a way to allow one and not the other?). Richard001 (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there is not :(  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, we could just have a different local version here that was shown and the "real" version could be edited. That way there would be no motivation for vandalism on the real image, allowing anyone to make any improvements they can see. I suppose that would cause problems of its own though, and wouldn't be ideal. Maybe we should just wait for a technical fix. Richard001 (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Stamps

Can I add pictures of Cuban stamps on commons? The others are made in 1951 and the others in 1988. So can I add them? Kallerna (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know and on Commons:Licensing there is nothing special noted for Cuba so far. But there is already a Category:Stamps of Cuba containing some stamps. That might be a good sign. --Túrelio (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Userbox templates to clean up

Monsters

There is confusion in Category:Monster

There is a dutch village in South holland called "Monster".

The two pictures Image:Domo-kun.jpg and Image:Here be monsters.jpg should be placed somewhere else. (Here be monsters is bad quality)

Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done by someone else.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified ducks

Hello !

Could an "expert" tell me what the specie of those ducks is: Image 1 et Image 2 ?

I would like to upload them with the appropriate name. The photos were taken in Nantes (West of France).

Do you think that the second image is good enough to be nominated for the featured pictures?

Best regards. Peter17 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved by French ornithological project. Thanks ! Peter17 (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

July 28

When should administrators SILENTLY delete content?

I asked an administrator some questions today about a deletion they performed. Several of their answers disturbed me.

I don't question that there are circumstances where an administrator may have to delete content immediately, without any prior warning, or discussion. But, surely, in those circumstances, if our administrators are committed to exercising their authority accountably, they have an obligation to advise the content uploaders of the deletion AFTERWARDS?

This particular administrator wrote:

I could have put a notification on your talk page afterward about the deletion of a copyright violation image, but I prefer to do that only to people whom I believe have uploaded the image in bad faith.

I suggested to this administrator that:

  1. Good faith contributors, who mistakenly contributed content have no opportunity to learn that they are not complying with policy if the deletion procedure does not include either a prior warning, or a heads-up afterward.
  2. Administrators are fallible, and will make mistakes. And they will not learn of their mistakes if they don't tell content contributors when they silently delete content.

So, is this administrator correct, that policy allows him or her to delete content both without prior warning -- AND without any kind of advisory afterwards?

The administrator in question told me that my questions were tl;dr. This translates to "too long; didn't read" -- which seems to me like a big juicy Foxtrot Oscar.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The deletion seemed to be justified and the administrator explained to you their reasoning when you asked them to. In a perfect world we'd be able to explain the reasoning for all speedy deletion but that isn't practical unfortunately but I can accept that doing so can sometimes be helpful. Adambro (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Adambro, I checked your log, and see that you too are an administrator. I am not disputing that adminstrators are entrusted with the authority to delete images. I am not disputing that administrators are entrusted with the authority to delete some images without any prior warning.
I would be very grateful if you could see your way clear to unambiguously confirm for me that, in your opinion, administrators are not obliged to tell contributors when they delete images.
I would be very concerned to learn this was the general consensus among the current corps of administrators.
The admin who deleted the image I uploaded said they only informed contributors when they suspected bad faith. This strikes me as completely backwards. In effect this administrator is punishing good faith uploaders, by not advising them that they are making errors that are causing their contributions to be deleted. This administrators stated deletion protocol is guaranteed to waste the efforts of those good faith uploaders, by robbing them of the knowledge that their misunderstandings of policy is causing their contributions to be deleted.
This administrator is triggering the waste of effort of other quality control volunteers, who will end up making the effort to clean up after the contributors future good faith mistakes.
And then, of course, there is the corollary, the wasted effort when it turns out that it is the deleting administrator whose interpretation of policy is flawed. Maybe the community has done such a good job picking the current corps of administrators that they are hardly ever wrong. But the current corps of administrators remain human, and fallible. And I am not comfortable with those cases being discounted.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
A note never hurts, but in most cases it probably isn't the end of the world if something is deleted, as most people may not regularly check their commons account/talk page. For the deletions themselves, I don't think prior warning or a discussion is always required here on Commons since there are really very, very few "subjective" deletion reasons. It's either allowed or it isn't, unlike Wikipedia, where politics, negotiating, and consensus plays as much a role as anything. Here, if it's not valid, it's not valid, and it's going to be almost always open and shut, black and white, and very binary. rootology (T) 15:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Added a link back to the discussion that began this so people can see the full context. rootology (T) 15:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
There may not be "subjective" cases, but in my experience there are often borderline cases and difficult cases. Is that guy wearing a logo t-shirt with the logo so prominent as to be a copyright issue? Is that blurry picture of something so rarely photographed that it is still worth keeping? Is there sometimes a good reason to keep 6 separate versions of the same image? Has the admin from Japan adequately understood how Freedom of Panorama functions in the U.S.? - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Jmabel you are correct, there are border line cases. If I personally am ever unsure about if an image should be deleted, I either talk to other admins and get their opinions or push the image in to a proper DR. There will always be some calls made "on the spot" by admins. We're not infallible either, which is why we have talk pages are COM:UDR. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned by these comments. I am glad to read this individual acknowledge human fallibility. But the existence of dialog among administrators, and the existence of individual administrator's talk pages, is totally unhelpful when uploaders are not informed that their images have been deleted. The existence of those talk pages does not help those good faith uploaders learn to avoid making the same good faith mistakes in future, when they aren't being told about the deletions in the first place.
I almost didn't learn of this most recent deletion. My watchlist on another wiki had an entry from the commonsdelinker bot. Geo Swan (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I am disappointed in Rootology's comment.
Rootology seems to be saying that while "An explanation never hurts...", real life time constraints make this a courtesy, not a requirement.
For the record, I was not actually suggesting a time consuming explanation. I believe the tool administrators use to perform deletions could be easily modified so that leaving the advisory on the contributor's talk page is automatic, transparent, and no more work for the deleting administrator than it is now.
If the existing deletion mechanism does not inform good faith contributors that their uploads have been deleted then it should be fixed, ASAP.
Rootology has asserted that decisions here are "almost always binary". Without regard to Rootology's concurrence with the administrator's decision in the deletion that triggered my raising this issue, I wish Rootology had acknowledged that, being human, administrators remain fallible -- and thus should always act in an open and accountable manner.
I wanted to divorce this discussion from the specific instance that triggered my concern because I was hoping that all participants here would recognize administrators, being human, remain fallible, thus making it absolutely essential and non-negotiable that the deletion process inform contributors when their images are deleted in every single case.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I disappointed you? For notification you do mean here on Commons only, correct? I can't see this being feasible to chase people down on email or to their home projects, wherever that may be. rootology (T) 03:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
RE Geoswan. Not that I'm going to get into an argument with you here on COM:VP. But for anyone else reading this, I said in my last message "will have to investigate this and get back to you.". Oh, and if I was telling you to Fuck Off. I would have told you to Fuck Off. I don't _do_ subtle. Now back to the talk page. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Facepalm (yellow).svg For the record, when there is a copyvio-related speedy deletion, I always tell the uploader in some way (usually before deletion), and would strongly encourage other administrators to do the same. It saves lots of trouble like the one above. Please note that this was a general comment. --O (висчвын) 04:21, 21 July 2008 (GMT)

There's no reason to waste time notifying someone about copyright violations. That's like notifying someone that their vandalism/test page/broken redirect got deleted. If someone ever notified me of a copyvio I uploaded, I would be like srsly!? Just delete it! what do you want me to do? Nothing would get done if admins had to warn users before or after everything single copyvio they delete. Sure, some admins who delete only a couple a day might do it, but those who delete hundreds a day know better. It's not practical and doesn't help the project. I consider the warnings to be about the uploader's behavior not about the deletion itself so the only time I give out warnings are when I think there may be a problem with the user. It's so when they get blocked they won't say "but I didn't get enough warnings!" If it's not an obvious copyvio than that's a different story, but most of the time most admins won't notify most users about most copyright violations. There are exceptions but it shouldn't be expected. Rocket000 (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that advising uploaders that their content has been deleted is a "waste of time". I see that you too Rocket000 are an administrator. Please explain how good faith uploaders are going to learn that they are uploading content that violates policy if the administrators who decide they have to delete those images don't tell them it is being deleted?
Please consider the unnecessary waste of effort of those good faith uploaders who innocently go on and continue to upload similar images, which also violate policy? Please consider the time of other quality control volunteers who clean up after the other, later images those good faith uploaders uploaded. All of this potential waste of effort can be avoided if the deletion process administrators use always tells uploaders when their images were deleted.
Uploading some images can be a lot of work to upload. I am in no doubt that uploading an image, figuring out who took it, and when they took it, is a lot more work than leaving a note on the uploader's talk page.
I don't understand why the tool that adds an entry to the deletion log can't automatically add a similar entry to the uploader's talk page at the same time without costing the deleting administrator a single millisecond of their time. If the tools available to administrators aren't currently capable of automatically advising uploaders then I suggest that administrators who feel an obligation to show they respect the efforts of good faith uploaders should spend the time to manually append that advisory to the uploader's talk page. You need to paste two things into this note you leave on their talk page, the name of the file, and whatever text you left in the deletion log. How much time are we talking about here, anyhow? Geo Swan (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, when you tag an image with {{copyvio}} the resulting template on the image description page offers a ready-made line of text (like {{subst:copyvionote|Image:To Kwan Hang Andrew 20080604.jpg}} -~~~~) and asks you to notify the uploader (see for example in Image:To Kwan Hang Andrew 20080604.jpg). I don't know why this step couldn't be made automatically. If this notification has been made, an additional notification when the file is actually deleted would be unnecessary, IMHO. --Túrelio (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it seems like it would be a very good idea if when the {{copyvio}} warning tag was {{subst}}ed it automatically left a note on the uploader's talk page. But that wouldn't help in the cases where an administrator decides to delete an image without warning.
I don't question that there are circumstances where an administrator will feel it is necessary to immediately remove an image, without any prior warning. But I feel strongly, that in every one of those cases, the uploader should be advised afterwards. Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to support Rocket000 here. On a purely practical level, some admins can delete hundreds of copyvios in a single day, and there is simply not enough time to engage in conversation with or even notify each uploader. It is hard enough for us to keep up with the work as it is. On the other hand, I do see the benefit of the proposal, and would very much support a bot which would allow admins to delete and notify the uploader in a single click. I normally use Lupo's js to do deletions, and perhaps that could be enhanced to post user messages? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no deadline. In fact, this deleting hundreds and doing so in a huge hurry is the problem. Stop acting like computers and start being human. We're losing good-faith contributors because of not communicating well. --O (висчвын) 17:37, 21 July 2008 (GMT)

My mind is suitably boggled. Good-faith contributors should always be notified if one of their uploads has to be deleted for some reason. That's only fair. Powers (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If there's a good reason to. If they have a problem with violating the licensing policy, then yes, they should be warned they might be blocked. If there's a deletion request or something where their input is wanted, then yes. Merely telling them something they can't do anything about doesn't help in any way, but takes time away from other contributers. Deterring people from uploading even more copyvios is not a bad side effect, IMO. There's no ownership, uploading doesn't mean much. It's annoying when I get deletion warnings when I simply transfered a image from Wikipedia or reverted some upload vandalism. Look at upload bots' talk pages, you think they care? Honestly, if this bothers you, ask yourself why you're uploading in the first place. Rocket000 (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry -- I think some people here are forgetting that administrators are human, and can be fallible. This is one reason there is always a "good reason" to inform the uploader. There are going to be cases where the deletion is a clear-cut case of human error -- but on the part of the deleting administrator.
And there are going to be other cases where the image in question could be kept, but under a different liscense.
Maybe some administrators consider themselves above taking the time to help a good faith contributor replace a bad liscense with a suitable and appropriate liscense under which the image can be kept. However, if the uploader is informed of the deletion they can re-read our liscensing policies, or seek out help from someone who does have the patience and consideration to be helpful.
A respondent above writes:
"There's no ownership, uploading doesn't mean much."
Well, sorry, some images are harder work to upload than others. I really don't think it is your role to decide how much value should be placed on the time of good faith uploaders.
The same respondent wrote:
"Merely telling them something they can't do anything about doesn't help in any way, but takes time away from other contributers."
I find I am repeating myself. Please do me the courtesy of addressing this point. When the administrator follows a deletion process that results in the uploader being informed someone thought their contribution merited immediate deletion this helps good-faith contributors from making the same mistake again -- assuming, of course, that it was the uploader who made the mistake, not the deleting administrator.
As for responsible and accountable behavior, and common courtesy "taking time away from other contributors" -- you write this as if you know there was some technical reason why the note on the uploader's talk page couldn't be automated into the tools administrators use for deletion, so it doesn't cost any time whatsoever. If you know of a technical impediment then please, by all means, spell it out for us. Geo Swan (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
"[You write this as if you know there was some technical reason why the note on the uploader's talk page couldn't be automated into the tools administrators use for deletion]", well actually, with things as they are, there isn't (not without a bunch of ugly Javascript; a flaky way of doing things if there ever was one, and something that would still mean deletions taking more time -- which, given how overloaded us admins are, is no trifle). An obvious way around it would be to have a bot watch the deletion log and warn the user when one of their files has been deleted as a copyright violation. You'd best get coding. In the meantime, we have work to do. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 05:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
"We have work to do" is really the key.
Commons is not a courthouse, and images are not defendants in a trial. Removal of images is a technical matter that takes time, is necessary, and urgent. Notification of users would be a nice add-on, but would be a hindrance to getting real work done if it became mandatory.
As much as in Real Life I expect half the suspected assassins to go out freely if that is necessary to ensure a fair trial to the other half, as much I expect less paperwork here if it can increase the likelihood of removed copyvios. Rama (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Lewis Collard, I am not sure how to take your comment.
  1. Are you saying that the administrator's tools are not well written? Could you please explain in more detail why you think adapting the deletion tool to add a note on the uploader's talk page would make it noticeably slower?
  2. You suggest a bot to watch the deletion log, and then tell the uploader's their file has been deleted...
    1. But the deletion log doesn't record the uploader's name. How were you suggesting the bot learn who originally uploaded the image?
    2. I don't think it is necessary to inform uploader's their image has been deleted if someone involved in the deletion had given them a warning in advance. IMO, informing the uploader afterwards is only required when an administrator performs an otherwise unaccountable stealth deletion -- one with no prior warning;
    3. IMO, uploaders should be informed whenever a an image is deleted without warning -- no matter what the deleting administrator's justification -- not merely when the deleting administrator's thought they a perceived a copyvio.
Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Take what I said at face value. I tend to say what I mean.
  1. I'm saying that the administrator's tools cannot easily be adapted to do what you think they should. If you think this is the same thing as "not well written", then sure. Adapting the deletion tools with Javascript (the only way short of an extension and/or ugly modifications to the core code that this could be done) so that it would put a note on the uploader's talk page is inherently slower, simply because that's at least one extra HTTP request per deletion.
  2. Well read...
    1. The deletion log doesn't, but the upload log does. You figure it out (are you coding yet?).
    2. Thank you for your opinion.
    3. And thank you again.
Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 03:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply.
Various respondents have objected here to the idea of informing uploaders because it would "waste" administrator's time. You wrote that if the administrator's deletion tool was modified so it could additionally append a note to the uploader's talk page it would add "...at least one extra HTTP request per deletion." So, how much time does one extra HTTP request cost?
Correct me if I am misunderstanding you. But did you mean to suggest that an administrator's time is worth orders of magnitude more that that of innocent, good-faith uploaders? The cost to the innocent good-faith uploaders of not being informed that they had uploaded images that were judged not to have complied with policy could be hours of wasted effort, because they could go on and make the same good-faith mistake over and over again.
Please don't forget that there are going to be times when the deleting administrator made a mistake, and deleted an image that did not deserve deletion. Uploaders won't have the opportunity to ask the deleting administrator the questions that helps them figure out they made a mistake if the deleting administrator doesn't tell them they deleted the article. Geo Swan (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
An uncached HTTP request does take up a significant amount of time, especially on latent connections. And I said at least one, because I hadn't thought about it all that much. I can easily see how it would might take many more (getting an edit token would add another -- again, uncached, and sequential rather than concurrent with the other). Add that to the extra latency from an additional HTTP request for every page request of every kind (to load the JavaScript necessary to handle something like this automatically) and you're looking at a big pile of "never gonna happen" because it will get in our way.
I'll re-iterate that: Never. No matter how much you complain about it, threaten to send us to the International Criminal Court for war crimes, etc etc. Anything that slows us down is bad. It's best that you learn to live with that, or find (and code!) solutions that will not get in our way (when will the bot be ready, BTW?).
did you mean to suggest that an administrator's time is worth orders of magnitude more that that of innocent, good-faith uploaders, well, I could easily make a case for that (there are currently 244 of us to 330,073 registered users, and it's not like we're ever short of things to do). And according to you, we are dealing with users who will both 1) never know their image has been deleted and 2) never get notified by the person who tagged it (like one of our patrollers) and 3) never check their watchlist to see that it has been deleted and YET 4) notice that their image has been deleted just enough to re-upload it, all in good faith of course. This is a pretty small subset of those 330,073 people, and to be honest, I have little sympathy with them. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 12:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but your response misses or distorts my concern.
  1. Yes, they never know because current procedures don't tell them.
  2. Yes, they never get told by whoever tagged it -- you have missed the most important part of my concern -- the cases where an administrator sees an image and immediately deletes it without warning. Those images were never tagged first.
  3. One's watchlist does not provide a permanent record. It provides no audit trail. It only shows the last N days. I have uploaded close to 750 images in the last three years. Typically, I visit the commons a couple of times a month, and upload half a dozen images. This would not be frequent enough for checking the watchlist to be helpful.
  4. You don't seem to have understood me. Innocent good-faith uploaders are very unlikely to re-upload the exact same file more than twice, without realizing something went wrong. But they are quite likely to continue to make the same mistake and upload OTHER files that have the same copyright or other problem, when those who notice a problem with their uploads don't tell them about their deletions.
In answer to your repeated questions about whether I have started coding yet... I've looked for other bot writers who have made the code from their bots available for perusal. In the half hour I spent, I found exactly one. I didn't find any documentation either. I am not telling you this to "whine". I am just letting you know what progress I have made so far.
No offense, but I don't think it would be wise to "start coding" until this discussion is complete. Geo Swan (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, a lot's been said below me so I'll try to keep this short. First, you keep bring up the point of telling uploaders so they know they made a mistake and won't keep uploading copyvios. Well, that was one situation where I said we should warn users. If they become a problem, we better let them know or they will cost us even more time-both admins and uploaders. Second, I would personally oppose any scripts that automatically warn about speedy deletions. Even if it took no time away from the deleter. We delete tons and tons of files/pages everyday, the bot spam would be out of control. Some files have 10+ authors! We have watchlists for this very purpose. Turn on your email alerts if you don't visit Commons enough for the watchlist. To address your point you asked me to, yes, you're right admins do make mistakes. However, the ratio of deleted files to undeleted files suggest it's way more efficient if it works the other way around. Most admins (especially on Commons) will genuinely and sincerely listen to you if you come to them saying they made a mistake. If you're right, they will restore it as easily as they deleted it. Rocket000 (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Let us not over-theorise this:

  • "innocent uploaders" exist, and the worst we are talking about here is having files erased from Commons. It's not like a miscarriage of justice is happenning here.
  • erased files can be restored. So erasing one too much is not a fatal mistake (while failing to erase a copyvio can have most unpleasant consequences).
  • in practice, there are tons of copyvios uploaded each day. A tiny fraction of erased files have to be restored. Deploying policies or customs based on these rare cases is unreasonable. Rama (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Geo, have you ever had something speedy deleted by an admin on your primary project, English Wikipedia? The same thing and condition exists there; admins are forced by time and (moreso on Commons) legality to delete things quickly. On *no* active WP project do admins typically notify of a speedy deletion that I've ever seen, not even smaller more tightly knit English language projects, like Wikinews. If this is a deficiency with the Mediawiki software, than thats what it is. I believe that deleted files like blocked users now show up on your watchlist, however, as a change. In this specific case you had uploaded an image that was not compliant with Commons' image policies, and it was deleted. As far as I know it still won't be able to come back. So, yes, I agree it would be nice if someone could have left you a note, but the fact it was gone should I think be visible in your watchlist, and if you click on your contributions/logs upon noticing the image missing it would be obviously deleted by seeing the redlink. You're upset about the culture of deleting admins on all of the wikis not notifying for Speedy type deletions, but that is not specific to Commons.

Given its a volunteer project and everyone has only so much time in the day, I can't fault admins for not always notifying. It's my job to track my uploads. That's what the watchlist and my gallery pages are for, for monitoring the images I particularly care about. Nothing that is within the rules can't be undeleted, so it's not like any photo is gone forever. What you seem to be really upset about like Lewis described is a technical problem. You asked whats the value of such a notification bot's code? Probably a LOT, since something like that if fairly made public for code could apply to a lot of projects like Commons and Wikipedia... but someone has to write it first. If no one with the skills is interested in writing and maintaining such a Deletion Notify Bot, it will be a while until it happens. Alternately you can go over to Wikimedia's bugzilla and put in a bug/upgrade request to get a notification system built into mediawiki. But there still, you need a volunteet to give his time to you and others to make that change happpen.

If I were an admin I would I'm sure find myself doing the same thing. I have time these days for (on a day off, and a busy one at that!!) maybe 100-150, 200 at the most "Wiki" things to do. If I deleted 50 copyright violations from Commons in a day, after checking them all carefully out, and then had to type out notifications and explanations for each one, that's my entire day right there about, leaving no time for any other productive work. Some things for you to think about. Unless the Commons policy is "admin MUST notify", which I would argue against, it's a pure technical/social limitation. People have only so much time and resources to give, and if you go and bog them down with Form A9-C in duplicate, they may not want to. I wouldn't want to be an admin if I had to jump through ten hoops for every mundane copyright deletion I may do... rootology (T) 13:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a practical way for those of us who've uploaded 10,000 or so images to track what happens to our uploads. Most of what happens is routine and fine. I'd waste a lot of time tracking every re-cat instead of trusting the community.

I've had about a dozen of my images called into question over rights issues. As far as I remember, there are only two cases where it was ultimately decided that there was a problem (both because I showed too much of Calder's Eagle in photographing the Olympic Sculpture Park). In the other cases, it's usually been someone else's flawed understanding of the law or of the Commons' rules. For example, someone has been unaware of the state of U.S. law with reference to photographing people in a public space, that a pre-1923 public sculpture in the U.S. is fair game, etc. Which is to say, when someone has thought I've placed inappropriate images on the Commons, we've usually ultimately concluded they were wrong. If I don't have a reasonable chance to enter the discussion, we are liable end up taking down valid images. - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this just came up again where someone noticed that an image of mine (Image:Robert Christgau.jpg) was on Slate before it was on Commons, and didn't notice that Slate had credited me for the image. A perfect example of something that might seem to an admin like a "blatant copyvio" and was nothing of the sort. Because the person in question contacted me, it was easily clarified. - Jmabel ! talk 23:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of problem I was worried about. Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally free?

There's something I don't understand on Commons. We don't accept CC-BY-NC licences because it means it's not totally free. But what about {{PD-US-no notice}} that mentions: « It is not in the public domain in the following countries that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works: Canada, China (excludes Hong Kong and Macao), Germany, Mexico, Switzerland, and other countries with individual treaties ». Doesn't it mean it's not totally free either because there are some people who can't use it? Isn't there a contradiction in Commons rules? Shouldn't we either ban PD-US-no notice licences or authorise CC-BY-NC licences? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I've spent a great deal of time looking into this but my understanding is that images have to be public domain in the United States and the country of origin, not every country. So {{PD-US-no notice}} is fine I believe. Adambro (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Well a picture like those seem not to be free to use in Canada for instance. At least not all of them. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Different situations though. There is no rule that says it has to be 'free to everyone'. NC is unfree to everyone. Only public domain is really "totally free". Richard001 (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate images from different sources

What should I do if there are two copies of the same image from different sources? To give an example, Image:Expression of the Emotions Figure 1.png is from an earlier book Anatomy and Philosophy of Expression. If I were to scan all the images from that book and upload them, should I rename the Emotions reproduction of it according to the original source rather than uploading a new version (or delete the current one if I did)? If so, what about its description and identity as part of Expression of the Emotions? Richard001 (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You can add information to the existing image description about it having more than one known source. An example of this (though not the most illustrative) can be found at Image:Seattle-1911-map.jpg, which mentions that the identical map can be found in two editions of the same work. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Posible copyvio

I have seen this image of Brenda Asnicar, a pop star of Argentina, and I'm not sure of it's status. It is claimed to be an own work, but it has the appearence of a common promotional photo. However, I have seek many sites and could not find it anywhere. Or, more exactly, not in sites who could have really made such a promotional photo: official web sites of her or the "Patito Feo" TV program, teen magazines, album covers, etc. I did found it on blogs, forums and such, but those kind of sites rarely (if ever) use images made by themselves. I can not use such links for a copyvio template, because the copyright isn't theirs, and it could be alleged that the image could have been taken from here, an argument I have no way to refute.

So, the problem is this: I have strong suspicions that the image is a copyvio, but I can not find the source of the photo, and I can't place a copyvio template or start a deletion discussion with just suspicions and no solid evidence. What should I do? Do I "let it go" or what? Thialfi (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Found it at Brenda-Asnicar.net in the gallery (Tv Shows » Patito Feo » Promos). But you can always open a normal deletion request and express your doubts there. The small resolution and the EXIF-data were good indices for copyvio. -- Cecil (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Cecil beat me to it (link is http://www.fightingoverme.com/gallery/showgallery.php?cat=875 ). Here's what I found anyway.
This flickr image found at daslive's album looks exactly like the Commons image after it has been horizontally flipped and then processed (whiten skin, blur, remove silver ball). Could it be the photographer's raw image before it got processed to appear on that magazine? The URL http://www.patitofeo2007.com.ar/ is watermarked on the flickr image, if it helps. -84.223.120.228 19:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

An issue re a bunch of uploads

An issue with an image on an article I edit on en (where Image:Crest of WA LA.png was added) led me to discover Special:Contributions/Muzi (all edits since 31 May 2008), where dozens of copyright violations have been uploaded of crests of parliaments, states/provinces, etc. All of them claim to be the uploader's own work and that they hold copyright, which is obviously not the case. I'm willing to assume it's a good faith user who does not understand copyright, but this is going to take a fair bit of work to fix, due to the number of articles on en which are affected - as an admin there I'm happy to help on that side, but as I'm just a user over here I am raising it here for attention. Thanks in advance :) Orderinchaos (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I left the user a note, but don't really have the time now to go through and delete all the copyvios (are you sure that all of them are nonfree? That would make things easy) right now... next passing admin hopefully can (if nobody gets to this in a day or so, take it to COM:AN). Cheers. —Giggy 04:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Is he making new images, based on his own individual artistic rendering of the original textual "blazon" description, or is he merely downloading images from websites and reuploading them here? The copyright implications of these two situations are quite different... AnonMoos (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
His recent uploads were scans of passport and visa pages, with photos and identifying features blurred out. Most of those were from countries where national government work is not PD. - BanyanTree 02:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
As a minor point, is Image:USA Visa.jpg considered a product of the U.S. federal government, and therefore PD? That's a new one for me. - BanyanTree 05:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

See all feature

I've got a suggestion - not sure exactly where to put it but I guess here's a good place - and that is to have a "see all" feature in galleries/categories. Eg I recently went to Automobile to find a generic photo of a car and was innudated with sub categories. It'd be good to have a "view all" feature at each level (eg "see all" at automobile would show the contents of all car manufacturers, "see all" in porsche would just show all the porsche photos etc etc). --Fir0002 www 09:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about your problem/suggestion; I would like to see the image that you select to be the "generic automobile image" though. Are you thinking of something in the middle of the development era of that item -- late 1950's/early 1960's on the time line or I am not sure when if you look at the middle of the production? I actually think that the term "generic" used in this instance is a personal view or preference and therefore not generic. Ultimately, this is a pain in the brain question/suggestion. Please don't ask this kind of thing again. :) -- carol (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Categories such as category:Automobiles allow for much more efficient browing than the Automobile gallery. You can click on the subcategories to unfold them quickly. Within a category page, the Catscan tab allows for massive data retrieval so you can do visual search. --Foroa (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
In principle, a gallery should be exactly what you are looking for. The point of galleries is to show the best and most representative images of a category, in an organized manner. There is no better way to find a "generic" image. Automobile, however, doesn't look at all like a gallery, more like a category disguising as a gallery. The way it is now, I see this gallery as utterly useless, as it does nothing categories don't do a lot better. --rimshottalk 16:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok the catscan thing is pretty much what I was after catscan-> all images (although the limit of 1000 results is a little annoying). Although I must say I can't see how the lay person could have guessed. I think automobile perhaps wasn't the best example but basically I wanted to be able to see all the automobile/cat/dog/kangaroo/sony/calculator etc images readily. I didn't have a specific age/brand/model/genus of that "thing" and just want to see what's availible (I'm talking hypothetically here just so everyone's clear). Perhaps it might still be possible to have a link in every category/gallery which performs a catscan --Fir0002 www 01:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

July 29

Renommer

Comment on renomme une image ? --Lacivelle (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Foire aux questions#Questions techniques. Sinon, le bistro francophone, c'est ici. --CHristoPHE 12:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Project scope/Proposal

If you have any objections to the current proposal, please note them on the talk page. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

When a Flickr license changes

Hi. This must be a FAQ. I looked for the answer in Commons:FAQ and Commons:Licensing. I uploaded hundreds of Flickr images with free Creative Commons licenses that are among those accepted by the commons, CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. (These image licenses were to the best of my knowledge all verified by Flickrbot or an administrator or a trusted user. Thanks very much.) At least three and maybe more of these photographers have since turned semi-pro and changed all their files to a license that the Commons cannot accept. Are all these files in jeopardy now? What about works based on them? I ask because Image:Prince by jimieye-crop.jpg was just deleted but the file it comes from Image:Prince by jimieye.jpg is kept. Image:Minneapolis Skyline cropped.jpg was deleted but Image:Lake Calhoun-skyline-Minneapolis-2006-10-01.jpg is kept. I know you all work hard here and are volunteering your time. Thank you so much. But discrepancies and what seem to be rules applied in varying ways are discouraging me from future uploads. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as the images have been verified prior to the license change, they should generally not be deleted. Derivatives of images that have been irrevocably released under a free license should also not be affected by the author stops distributing the original work under a free license. You can use {{Flickr-change-of-license}} pre-emptively for these cases, and for images that have already been deleted, you can explain the situation to the deleting administrator or request undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests. LX (talk, contribs) 20:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
LX, thank you. The answer is reassuring in that it means the considerable months of work sorting through Flickr and making uploads here was not in vain. I do not expect to argue this point case by case becuase that would be a full time job. Could this question and its answer please be added to Commons:FAQ so that admins know and are in agreement that these kinds of deletion requests are errors? (P.S. I added a request at the FAQ page.) I would suggest that works based on works with good licenses are free and clear too? Or are all works with "other version" going to be deleted because there is no Flickrbot/admin/trusted user stamp on them? Again thank you for your help! In case it helps, here is the story from Creative Commons. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license. You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work. --Source: Creative Commons FAQ, What if I change my mind, retrieved on 14 July 2008
Resolved, thank you. I'm not 100% sure but think the remaining red link is from an original that predates Flickrbot. I will check back in a week or so and make an addition to the FAQ. Proposed text is on Commons_talk:FAQ#FAQ_addition:_when_a_Creative_Commons_license_changes. Thanks again. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, have we ever had anyone change Flickr licenses and then ask for deletions? What happened if so? rootology (T) 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, depends upon how quickly someone changes it and the reason. If it was an error and changed in reasonable time frame then most likely the images will be deleted by a sympathetic administrator without too much fuss. But if the image has been used for a long while on some Projects then the situation is more complex even if it was done in error. From my perspective I think that we should honor all reasonable requests even if we don't have to do it. The goodwill that it generates by working with photographers outweighs the benefit gained from one or a few images. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely, especially with the conditions you mentioned. I was just curious if that scenario had ever actually come up. rootology (T) 03:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Even in this small sample, yes it did come up. A photographer replied on Flickr that they'd had second thoughts about personality rights. Admins kindly made all three or so deletions for them. Glad to know that's the rule of thumb. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Sidenote: Is there a reason for using two different accounts? SusanLesch is not Susanlesch -- case sensitivity FTW. Nothing wrong with doing so, I'm just curious... Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
w:MediaWiki software changed the capitalization in my name when I joined various Wikimedia projects about two years ago. Administrators and a bureaucrat kindly corrected my name (example). You might ask one of the people who specialize in Commons:Changing username for more information which I don't have. I'm not sure what this has to do with Flickr, but hope this helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

333 333 users

Look at Special:Statistics ;) Przykuta (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Would be interesting to see some information about their activity. I suspect we would be making much more rapid progress here if that many were actually active here on a regular basis. Richard001 (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Image help

Help i am a senoir citzen who does not have a clue, how to insert text-images on to wikepdia? could some 1 e-mail ME - i give all the info- you/help me post it? this is info that needs to be on wikepedia . vutuxcontent@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.52.190 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If you mean inserting an existing Wikipedia/Commons image, you should consult the documentation at (en.)wikipedia (e.g. w:WP:IMAGE). That's probably the best place to ask too. Richard001 (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

en:Image:OrangeCountyCA Map.gif

How do update a commons image? I trying to update from en.wp since its newer and has several fixes. --MarsRover (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean upload a new version? Just click on 'upload a new version of this file' (link). Why is it still on Wikipedia in the first place? Richard001 (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't logged in ("noob" mistake) so didn't have the link. --MarsRover (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

July 30

SVG not showing, need help

I have created the image Image:Dhaka-City-Corporation-logo.svg by using Adobe Illustrator 10.0, saved it in SVG format, and uploaded it here. But, the image is not showing. I have faced similar problems at the English Wikipedia earlier. But, it was easily fixed. Can someone take a look and help fixing it? Aditya Kabir (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a valid SVG, that's why. I'll give a shot at fixing it. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Upload dialogue screen thing

Am I the only person progressively more pissed off with the upload page here at Commons? First we get the link to Special:Upload replaced with the link to Commons:Uploads, now we get a bloody guide for filling it in. I turn it off, try to upload a file, and it gives me an error: "You must give the original source of the file, the author of the work, and a license.". All red and fancy. I don't know about other editors, but the way I prefer to deal with files is upload them with the comment 'cre' (for creation), then edit the page and insert relevant info, sources, licence, etc. I am furious with the baby-hand-holding antics that Commons seems to think will prevent copyright violations. The people that upload copyvio material are the ones least likely to read pages and pages of information and warnings. But for the rest of us this is getting infuriatingly annoying. We have to provide source info, I fucking get that by now. You don't go through driving school every time you sit behind the wheel, but you have to reread the Copyright Act every time you want to upload a picture of a chair to Commons. No wonder everyone is still uploading to their respective language Wikipedias, rather than here, if this is how we treat our users. The file I came here to upload is now sitting at enwiki. </rant> +Hexagon1 (t) 05:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I use Commons:Tools/Commonist and avoid the aggro. Man vyi (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
There is an option in Preferences in "Gadgets" to use the old style upload form and I recommend the classic skin for commons also. -- carol (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It is even easier to use "basic upload form" on the bottom of Commons:Upload. And as Man vyi said Commons:Tools/Commonist is a great tool.--Jarekt (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, cheers, will have a look at both! +Hexagon1 (t) 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
As someone who uploads files infrequently I find the interface useful to identify the proper template(s) to use for the source and copyright circumstances. --CBDunkerson (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say they should be removed, but I don't think it should be the default. A link saying something like: 'Confused? Click here for a step by step process' on the simple upload form leading to the patronising wizard demon page would do for people that still want to use it. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion how to

I randomly came across an odd category (Category:Oil Jews lamps). I would have suggested it for deletion but I didn't come across anywhere to do that. Is there a how to page for all deletion processes? Rmhermen (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Has a funny name (probably made up by a non-English speaker), but actually serves a legitimate purpose -- oil lamps from antiquity with Jewish religious symbols (such as the menorah) on them... AnonMoos (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates

How do I add them to the top right? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Geocoding... AnonMoos (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wiki(p|m)edian meetup in DC

It will take place at union station at 5PM. Please see en:WP:Meetup/DC 5 for more details. ffm (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

July 31

Unique photograph ownership

One of my friends collects old, antique photographs, and this got me thinking in terms of licensing. For example, he hunts down old daguerreotype and Polaroid photos at tag and yard sales. Seeing the very interesting stuff he's found, I got to thinking of doing that, and if I did the best bits I'd want to put on Commons. In the case of those photos, there is no negative--my take was that if you are the owner of the photo, it's a unique piece of art, yours to license as you please. The same if I go to a yard sale, and someone tells me the print I buy is the only print, and no negatives exist any longer. How does this square with our sourcing and copyright requirements, for these sorts of photos? rootology (T) 04:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

copyright is not attached to the physical objectGeni (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the confusion on this point was just cleared up over IRC. rootology (T) 04:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaming a photo

I uploaded a photo having a worng name (IMG00 or so). I want to rename it... How do I rename it? (i'm a beginner) Thank you!

Andreibanc (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Renaming is currently not possible. You can upload the image a second time under the correct name and put a {{badname|Image:New name}} in the wrong named file, which will then be deleted. Or you put {{rename|Image:New name}} into your wrong named file, and a bot will do the reupload for you. -- Cecil (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
What ever happened to image redirects? I read on some mailing list that they were supposed to be implemented and working in MediaWiki. --Dschwen (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think I already saw that once in action, but I don't know how it works. -- Cecil (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The section below has an example. --Dschwen (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)