Commons:Village pump/Archive/2009/05

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


Category:Measuring instruments & Category:Measuring instruments (engineering)

While trying to move media in category Category:Amateur radio to more specific categories, I discovered that there is a Category:Measuring instruments with a more or less well organized hierarchy of subcategories and a Category:Measuring instruments (engineering) with a few files, many also available in the former category. If there are no objections I would like to empty Category:Measuring instruments (engineering). Sv1xv (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Measuring is inherently an engineering discipline - no need for the "(engineering)" suffix. Please note the existance of COM:CFD which is supposed for such requests/discussions. Nillerdk (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the difference is not in the how it is done which as you say is an inherently engineering discipline but the why. For example measuring x amounts of flour for a cake, y metres of cloth for tailoring, or z mm of stone or wood, whilst I presume Measuring instruments (engineering) would be for instruments whose purpose was an engineering one.KTo288 (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It's true, but I think it's better to make this distinction at the individual instruments level; for different purposes, you also have variations of the same instrument. For example, instead of having Measuring instruments → Scales (for flour, cakes, whatever) and Measuring instruments (engineering) → Scales (for chemical products, lab equipment, ...), it would be better to have Measuring instruments → Scales → {Precision scales, Industrial scales, ...}. –Tryphon 11:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Your approach makes sense but would be pretty hard work, as at the moment everything seems to be mixed together.KTo288 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The categories have to be joined to avoid discussions whether clocks, scales etc. are used by engineers at work or by "normal people" at home (this would, in fact, be impossible, since very often the instruments are identical). Actually the instrument doesn't care who is using it, so let's not keep this engineer/layman distinction at top level. This doesn't exclude that certain files or even categories with instuments can be categorised under Category:Kitchen utensils or similar (in accordance with User:Tryphon's comment).
I would be nice if one or two could vote for/against, so Sv1xv can continue being constructive! Nillerdk (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should think a bit harder. My impression is that the Category:Measuring instruments (engineering) category is made for the design, manufacturing, calibration and maintenance of measuring instruments, which is indeed a separate class. At first sight, I believe that if it is properly named, (possibly split in calibration, maintenance, ...) and documented, it can be kept separately, but I need more time to look into it. --Foroa (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Foroa for an expert eye on the category, would Measuring instruments calibration or Calibration instruments be a better name.KTo288 (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

April 29

U.S. Air Force as a category for World War II unit emblems.

It seems to me strange to place a World War II unit emblem in the U.S. Air Force category, when the U.S. Air Force didn't exist until well after the end of that war. Technically, it was the U.S. Army Air Force before and during the war. I come to this question by looking at images needing categories, or needing verification of categories. Any advice?--Davidt8 (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We have Category:USAAF which is the correct category for these files however at the moment rather unloved and neglected, its a subcat of both History of the US Army and History of the USAF which is probably why its underused.KTo288 (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so if I see a USAAF unit emblem or other image related to the USAAF from 1945 and before, that is the correct category, and not the USAF category. Thank you for the information. --Davidt8 (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Not quite some the USAF claims its lineage from the USAAF, and some units have a direct lineage to USAAF ones and have emblems based on their WWII predecessors so both may infact be correct.
There's now the newly created Category:Emblems of the United States Army Air Force, for any emblems you think would be out of place in the USAF cat.KTo288 (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Red-linked category

Hi, I'm having some trouble working out why categories, that I think exist, are turning out as red-links. For example, I have an image (File:Eye of the elephant.jpg) which I would like to add to the category Elephas maximus maximus. I've found the category with contents in, so I think it should "exist" and not be a red link. This has happened to me at other times, with other categories. But when I link to (or put the image in) the category Elephas maximus, not only does the link work, but it shows that it also contains Category:Elephas maximus maximus. I've copied and pasted just to make sure I'm not spelling anything wrong. What mistake am I making here? Help, please! Thank you, :-) Maedin\talk 17:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Elephas maximus maximus" in Category:Elephas maximus is a gallery page, not a category. ~/Ö 17:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh. D'oh. I see now, thank you! Should it be a category? Maedin\talk 18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It can be. Category:Elephas maximus is pretty full and can use some subdividing. Rocket000 (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Okinawa

An image of the Flag of Okinawa was deleted by the following reasoning: "The Okinawa Prefecture was established in 1972, after the end of the US occupation. (1) According to Japanese Copyright law, Copyright lasts for 50 years after publication for works published by an organization (2). Flags are, except for some cases, eligible for copyright." There is no Law regulating the flag in this area.

  • The flag itself is a representation of a design set down in law. The law of Japan specifically states here[1] in Article 13 "(Works not protected)" of the Copyright law that nothing issued by the "government, organs of the state or local public entities" is protected.
  • Next: The Copyright law of Japan here[2]in Article 38 "(Performance, etc. not for profit-making)" further goes on to explicitly allow a free license for all non-commercial use.:
  • Next: Article 46[3]"(Exploitation of an artistic work, etc. located in open places)" adds a unique privilege in that it even goes so far as to allow for 'commercial use for profit' of works located in "Public Places".
There is no basis for prohibiting the display of this flag.
Article 38 is not relevant cause anything on Commons must be allowed to be used commercially. Article 46 regulates freedom of panorama. But this does not apply to a flag. Article 13 could be relevant. But it does not say that nothing issued by the "government, organs of the state or local public entities" is protected but it lists all types of things that are not protected: the Constitution and other laws and regulations; notifications, instructions, circular notices and the like; judgments, decisions, orders and decrees of law courts, as well as rulings and decisions; translations and compilations of those materials. None of those explicitly covers flags (several other countries for example have a point state symbols or similar in their respective list of non-protected works). Flags could still be included implicitly in one of those points, of course. But we need proof for that. --Slomox (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone reading the "Graphics village pump" page?

Is anyone reding the Commons:Graphics village pump page? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, though admittedly it is less frequented than this one. You will have to be a bit more patient. --rimshottalk 08:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Image upload a bit tricky - Fast procedure?

Hi everyone; I think the image upload procedure in Commons is a bit tricky; is there any faster way like embed all the requested informations inside a text file and upload it with the image or embed the informations inside the picture itself like the EXIF data does? If not may be a nice idea for the future... --Fpiraneo (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many libraries and tools that will facilitate this - the mostly commonly used is Commonist. These are very handy for batch uploads. You may also want to try the basic upload form (click "basic upload form" near the bottom of the upload page), which just gives you a textbox you can paste a prepared description into. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken category name

This category have been renamed but with a mistake. Could someone correct it : Category:Bleu Room in the White House --> Category:Blue Room in the White House. Thanks. TCY (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC) ✓ Done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Categorization work to be done

Hi people, it looks like the number of {{Uncategorized}} files is decreasing, but we still have a lot of files to work on:

  1. Category:Images from the German Federal Archive needing categories: These files are from the Bundesarchiv upload.
  2. Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek needing categories: These files are from the Fotothek upload
  3. Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention: Files for which my bots couldn't find any categories

Please help out my finding categories for these files. For the batch upload I added a function to easily move a set of files, see here. Multichill (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This task is hard work. I succeeded in adding just one category to one photo, and location information to two more photos. Multichill, please provide any advice or instructions, here or elsewhere, on how this can be done. Obviously, there would be far fewer photos to categorize, and they could be categorized more easily, if the uploaders would provide more information. --Davidt8 (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
You probably mean Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention. Yes: its hard to categorize this image. You must identifie the subject of the photo or painting, search via Wikipedia or Commons for similar images and categorize it. Please also pay attention to copyright violations in this categories. There are also a lot of non-notable music bands ("bandspam") and other persons having their Wikipedia article deleted because of missing notability. If the photo does not provide any information we not already have with better photos please simply nominate the photos for deletion refering to our projects scope. --Martin H. (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I would recommend working on the first two (German) categories. Plenty of metadata so easy to spot categories. Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention is hard. These images are not in use in a wiki (my bots checked for that), often lack metadata, are copyvio's or just are plain out of scope rubbish. Multichill (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I see the non-notable music bands, and new photos marked for a resume or the like, but also old photos which might be useful for some Wikipedia article, as you say, lots of research. Tell me exactly what template to use to suggest deletion of non-notable music bands. Martin, I know a smattering of German, so I will have a shot at the two German lists. --Davidt8 (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
like said in the discussion below: You must be sure that they are not notable, check the uploaders SUL and notifications on his/her talkpage - maybe an article was deleted. Then use {{Delete}} on the image and follow the instructions of the red box. Maybe the deletion request will also end up with finding notability, but thats what discussions are for IMO. --Martin H. (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(reset) Please be careful with non-notable subjects. While they can be completely unknown at world level, they can be upcoming in a very local place, so important for an isolated wikipedia. I never bother to use the non-notable argument as you cannot judge if you are not local to it. The easiest is to make sure it gets categorised in the right country, and one day or another, a local will filter it out. --Foroa (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Am I correct that there are non-notable music band photos, and that there is a procedure for considering their deletion? Of course, some might be notable, especially if there are Wikipedia articles about them (any language), but I would check that out before marking them for deletion. --Davidt8 (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
A lot of folks that want to create an article about a band will first try to collect photo's on Commons, so you have a chicken and the egg problem. --Foroa (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
In cases of June/July/August 2008 uploads it is a dead chickens rotten egg. Wikipedia dont host articles of non-notable bands also not in cases they may become notable on day - the borderline of notability is already extremly low - Commons is not an imagehoster. Except cases of lets say a high quality shoot of a drumming drummer. Directly to the next comment from Wouterhagens: Good approach, sadly most uploaders are not longer active. In case you are unsure just put it to the highest category you can imagine, I once putted a lot of images to Category:Turkey and a turkish speaking user cared of them. I recently check Category:Africa and all subsaharan country categories, so give me work ;) --Martin H. (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I always like examples: File:ALVA - formação 02.jpg is an example. Not used, Google search brings nothing, no description, no further purpose than this band. there is a user with the same name on pt.wp with 5 deleted contribs - clear case, nominate for deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
As is often said, Commons has a lower standard of notability than other projects - because you can never anticipate the context in which something may be used, you can't determine whether or not an image is "useful" a priori. After all, what if it is not used to illustrate the band in question, but instead a cropped detail is used to illustrate the particular brand of guitar they're using? And so on. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Examples are an excellent idea. In this particular case, should I go ahead and add a template {{delete|Not notable to this file?--Davidt8 (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
When working on images in Category:Media needing categories the main criteria for me to spend time on it are: is the photo technically good and does it look like it is worthwhile to categorize. If check usage does not give a result and the description is not sufficient, I check the list of contributions of the user. If he/she has uploaded many photos I leave a message on the user page with the heading “in which country did you take this photo”. In the text I ask for a more detailed description for a number of photos with a link to the pages. I don’t ask to categorize them because that may result in not reacting. I log the photos. Often I found that indeed the description is adapted and I put them in the right category (sometimes done by the user at the same time).
From the contribution list it appears also that in a series of photos one photo has a good description and the rest a minimal description. For example somebody has taken many photos in Hong-Kong. Some photos mention indeed that the photo was taken in Hong-Kong, but all the others not. But all have in the filename the letters “HK”. In the gallery layout of the user contributions the “media needing categorization” can be found easily and I put them all in Hong-Kong. It is up to others to put them in the right sub-category. Wouter (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, sometimes it is quite a bit of detective work, but you are not playing the big censor and try to throw away images (and demotivate contributors) without giving them a fair chance. And don't forget that we have many "unidentified xxx" categories for difficult cases. --Foroa (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there a holding category for files that have been categorised by bot but need to be checked?KTo288 (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Category:Media needing category review. It contains about 120.000 files. Multichill (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, not meaning to be rude but sometimes the bot categorisations can be pretty stupid.KTo288 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
That's why these images get tagged with {{Check categories}}. Quality of the categories depends on where the image is used. Multichill (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
With this rate i'm going to be out of images to check soon. Looks like roughly 2/3 of all uncategorized images could be categorized by a bot.
Category:Images from the German Federal Archive needing categories is almost empty too. Less than 8000 images left to check (of about 86.000)! Please help out with these last images. Multichill (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
One fun result of working with the Category:Media needing category review happens when I am able to add the photo in a relevant Wikipedia article. Tonight I have done two of those.--Davidt8 (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's ban inkscape and svg

I realize that it delights some people to saddle wikimedia users with as many missions impossible as possible, but maybe those users should also have the right to hit back for a change. I move to ban the use of inkscape and *.svg formats altogether, simply on the grounds that a program tha does not even produce WYSIWIG results has no business being promoted by anybody, least of all wikipedia. I have done my utmost to come to a reasonable understanding of this piece of !#$ called inkscape, but no matter how I save my work, in wikipedia this is what I get.

Jcwf (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we also please block anyone trying to abuse the wiki system to promote this kind of nonsense?
Wikimedia's SVG rendering sucks, as we well know. In this case, your SVG files seem to be using "flowed text", which our renderer doesn't support, hence it comes out as black boxes. Selecting "Convert to Text" from the "Text" menu fixed it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2

New tool for finding Wikipedia articles needing images

I've just finished a tool for finding pages on the English Wikipedia needing images near a given location – tools:~alexz/coord. You can search near a coordinate, or search near another article (if the article is also geotagged). The results can be exported into a KML file and viewed in Google maps. Please leave bug reports/feature requests on my enwiki talk page for now. (P.S., if you know how to replicate the Google maps functionality with another online service, preferably something free like OpenStreetMap, please let me know.) Mr.Z-man (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What are the criteria for deciding an article needs an image? For example, one that came up for me is en:Seattle, which has quite a few images. Similarly en:Zodiac (schooner) would seem to have the only image it needs. - Jmabel ! talk 00:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Hopefully this can be of some use to Wikipedia Takes The City-type events in future.--Pharos (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


Recently I tagged a number of possible copyright violations with {{Wrong-license}}, as a non-agressive approach to start a discussion about the copyright status of those files. This tag adds the file to Category:Items with disputed copyright information. Unfortunatelly I discovered that almost nobody else visits regularly this category. Is this tag deprecated? If so, should it be removed? Sv1xv (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not deprecated. I actually imported it from Wikipedia when someone uploaded a file from it that was actually tagged with this locally. It may be useful here if we could also establish some sort of possibly unfree files system here too. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. So tagging an image with {{Wrong-license}} currently is unlikely to have any effect, if the uploader chooses to ignore it. Sv1xv (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

May 3

Books renaming and admin's request

Hi all,

With the increasing capabilities of bots to help us to load lots of scanned books, there are more and more of them that we have to rename, categorise, organise, and delete when wrong or duplicate; the goal is to reach understandable and sortable titles like these ones. I request to be an admin here because I think there is no reason to bother admins here every time Wikisource needs these renamings or deletions. Trusted user from August 2008; contributor from June 2006, admin on several Wikisources (French, English and Multilingual), I know the tools. I use lots of images even if I don't create them myself, I love the work that is done here, and I am ready to contribute with the kind of capacities I can offer even if it is not much. --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe you should post your request in Commons talk:Administrators. Sv1xv (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Sv1xv. I will do it. --Zyephyrus (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Broken page section link information requested

Hello, I was wondering if there is a bug report or a reason or a goal or a plan to repair the broken page section link at Failed Photoshop Contributors currently or any time soon? -- carol (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Would be nice if you try to be more clear. Is it about the non-working section link? Just write it with small letters, in the same way it is written on the page. --Slomox (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps the link has simply changed because it does work if I click on it but not from the bookmark.
I am very sorry to have wasted your time and I appreciate that you assisted me with this sorry excuse for a problem.... -- carol (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Image without copyright message

The image File:Ugly bety header.jpg has no copyright message. Should it get deleted? E.G. (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, blatant copyvio. --Eusebius (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Violations?

Greetings. My questions is about copyright. I uploaded this image recently, but it was deleted due to copyright violation. The only thing that I figured out is that the uploader of the image on Flickr is blacklisted on Commons ([4]) or listed as untrusted user ([5]). 1.Where is such a list? 2.If some the photos of that uploader are copyright violations, does it automatically mean that all of his pictures are useless? The photo I uploaded can not be found anywhere else on the internet, it is not a profesional capture and it is from a press conference (not a film screenshot or a magazine). So this capture is very likely to be labelled correctly with its licence. Well, of course there is no evidence, but is there any evidence of copyright on flickr?

Do we really need to delete this photo? Thank anyone for an answer. Cheers :)--Lykantrop (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Have a look here:
* Commons:Questionable Flickr images
* Commons:Flickr washing.
Sv1xv (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Not the first time images from this Flickr account where deleted, it is obviously not created by the Flickr user and licensed without permission. All images from this account are deleted imadeatly. --Martin H. (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Trust with Flickr is always a difficult issue. Short of contacting the user directly and getting a truthful statement out of them about the source, all we can do is operate on the basis of trust and past history, as we do for users who upload images here. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
To answer the original questions: yes, we have to delete this image because it is a copyright violation. The image was taken on June 24, 2007 at the Claridge's Hotel in London, UK, at the "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" press conference. © Munawar Hosain/Foto International/Getty Images. And yes, if a Flickr account ends up on our Flickr blacklists, all images from the Flickr account are unacceptable here. Lupo 11:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Not all, there are some flickr users posted on questionable flickr users with a mixture of images, experienced users can easily decide if an image is ok from this users or not. And good finding, Getty was also my first intention, but with the informations "order of the ph." and "press conference" i found only similar images, not this one. --Martin H. (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I first figured out the date of that press conference elsewhere, and then searched for "emma watson", constrained to images from between 2007-06-24 to 2007-06-25. That gives some 179 results at Getty; this image is on the second page of three. Lupo 08:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Allright. Thanks for answering!--Lykantrop (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

April 31

May 1

Small notice about attribution in public domain templates

Should there be a small notice on {{PD-self}}, {{PD-author}} and {{PD-heirs}} saying that in many countries the authot must be attributed, even if the author (or the heirs) doesn't require attribution? --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Many? Which countries? Multichill (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
At least France (standing out, as usual). But I've always been curious about this attribution thing, in which country would it be allowed to publish an edition of Hamlet without "William Shakespeare" written on the cover? --Eusebius (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The author must be always attributed for example in Australia, China, Republic of China, Ghana, Hong Kong, Japan, Macao and in all of the European Union countries except in the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria and Ireland. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 12:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
That's not true: in both Germany and Austria the author has the right to choose whether he wants attribution or not. Germany: § 13 UrhG - Anerkennung der Urheberschaft: Der Urheber hat das Recht auf Anerkennung seiner Urheberschaft am Werk. Er kann bestimmen, ob das Werk mit einer Urheberbezeichnung zu versehen und welche Bezeichnung zu verwenden ist. and Austria: Urheberbezeichnung. § 20 UrhG. (1) Der Urheber bestimmt, ob und mit welcher Urheberbezeichnung das Werk zu versehen ist.. If the author do not want to be attributed, attribution is against German and Austrian copyright law. sугсго 14:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
And the Urheberpersönlichkeitsrechte (moral rights) expire with the rest of the Urheberrechte (copyrights) in Germany. For performances, they expire at the later of the death of the performer or the expiration of the neighboring rights (§76). But some countries explicitly define that the moral rights, in particular the moral right to be named as author, are perpetual. For instance, Russia, or also Vietnam, to name just two. I think that was what Joku Janne was getting at. Lupo 14:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Can uploaders make this decission on Commons or Wikipedia too? I think not- You must name your source also in german Wikipedia, so you have to Attribute your-self (or your pseudonym) with the upload. In this sence the work must be attributed in the way, the uploader decided? --Martin H. (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Being attributed is a right. If a user releases a work as PD-user, the user waives all rights on the work. So there could only be problems in countries where the law _forbids_ the author to waive his rights and/or _requires_ to attribute the author in any case. It seems unlikely, but not impossible, that any country does this. If anybody claims that country X does it, then please cite the exact text of the law that says so. Without citations of the actual law this discussion cannot lead to anything. --Slomox (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, in France you cannot waive your moral rights, but I think the issue has already been taken care of by the sentence "In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: XX grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.". --Eusebius (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
In Nordic countries you can waive the right only if the use without attribution is limited. I don't know is dedicating a work to the public domain and thus letting anyone reuse and distribute the work limited use without attrbution. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 15:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep in mind that moral rights are separate from copyrights -- the tags are typically just for the copyright. As mentioned, placing something in the public domain often doesn't affect moral rights. While some form of them are required by the Berne Convention, the rules vary widely between countries. Re-users should know the laws in their own country... they apply to *every* work, so I'm not sure there is a need to mention it everywhere. I could see a small link to en:moral rights (copyright law) but I wouldn't add too much text... I'm not too in favor of overwhelming the tags with lots of small detailed information, especially when not directly related to copyright. Violating moral rights is typically far lesser penalty-wise than copyright; Creative Commons licenses essentially turn those situations into full-fledged copyright violations though, which is quite different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
In countries like France (and Germany maybe? not sure), there's not such thing as copyright, there's a droit d'auteur (right of authors) and the moral rights are an intrinsic part of it. --Eusebius (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, being in the U.S. (even though it's a member of the Berne Convention) I think we take a similar approach to copyright as the laws that govern us. Copyright is about the rights of the copyright holder, not the author. It may be an issue for certain reusers that reside in certain countries, but it is not a copyright restriction either way. Thus it should not be something in mentioned in the "license". Just like {{Trademark}} or {{Personality rights}} or {{Insignia}}. IMO, it's not something that warrants it's own template either (mainly because it's irrelevant for most). I would actually say that it would be misleading in most cases (similar to those PD sites that have "requirements" on reuse). Rocket000 (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if this license makes the issue any better? Rocket000 (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The Urheberrecht in German speaking countries is very similar to the French droit d’auteur. Even the main copyright law of multilingual Switzerland is called '“'Urheberrechtsgesetz” in German and “Loi sur le droit d’auteur” in French. The moral rights aren't a part of it, in the Continetal copyright law doctrine Urheberrecht/droit d’auteur are moral rights. sугсго 17:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Rocket: so, in a country that has no copyright, there is nothing you can consider a copyright restriction in Commons sense? What I mean is that the droit d'auteur is what allows France to be ok with the Berne convention, the way I see it it has been deemed "equivalent enough" to copyright. But I'm not a specialist and I probably misunderstand a lot of stuff. Anyway, I'd like to say it again: I think our PD templates are already compatible with that kind of restriction. I think there's no need to change anything and we're just about to launch a pointless debate over the US-centring of Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Those countries tend to call it the "exploitation right", if I recall correctly. The rights which govern reproduction, derivative works, etc. and can be transferred/sold. They are the same concept as copyright, pretty much. I've never seen Commons does delete PD images for lack of attribution due for moral rights, though obviously it should be added if known. I'm not sure there would be an actual problem unless an author requested to be named (or requested a name to be removed) and Wikimedia refused, though I haven't looked at the penalty sections in some time. Moral rights usually cannot be transferred or waived, so they probably can't be licensed either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand this whole discussion. We are speaking about PD-self/PD-user. Those templates say, that the user "abandons" his rights (please don't pick on the word "abandon" or "waive" or whatever and on it's legal semantics, it's not really relevant). Whatever rights he may have, he says he does not want to enforce any of them. He shares his rights (at least his copy and distribution rights) with anybody on the world.
So there should be no problem at all. Except there are countries that say: "It's forbidden to use someone else's work if you don't attribute him." Are there any? Until now nobody in this discussion has pointed to an actual law that says so.
That it's still a good thing to attribute the author is true, but not legally relevant. --Slomox (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
What about Norway? See the Norwegian copyright law (.PDF), §3: “Both when copies of a literary, scientific or artistic work are produced, and when it is made available to the public, the author is entitled to have his name stated in the manner required by proper usage. (…) The author may not waive his rights under the first and second paragraphs, unless the use of the work in question is limited in nature and extent.” --Kjetil_r 19:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I needed some time to understand the exact meaning of the text (Norwegian original), but I think, I understand now. The text means, that the author is allowed to take legal steps against insulting re-use of his works even if the contract contains clauses to exclude this.
I don't know why they include attribution in this too, but it seems they do.
So, according to Norwegian law the author could sue a re-user for not attributing him, even if the author licensed the work with "no attribution necessary".
I'm almost sure there are some restricting factors to this rule, cause some forms of re-use are almost rendered impossible by this paragraph. --Slomox (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the Berne Convention requires that authors have the right to insist they be credited (or have credit removed); a little bit different than not naming the author in every case (i.e. I think it may only be a problem if an artist identifies themselves and is still not credited, or a work is miscredited). Also, there are restrictions on modifications which are prejudicial to an artist's reputation. Beyond that, I think additional moral rights are per-country, as are any penalties. Here is the Berne convention text. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Subcategory: Members of the 54th United States Congress

I am attempting to create the Members of the 54th United States Congress under the more general category Members of the United States Congress, but I don't think I have succeeded. I was working on categories for George M. Curtis, a member of the 54th and 55th Congress. How exactly is this done?--Davidt8 (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You sorted Category:Members of the United States Congress by session into Category:Members of the 54th United States Congress instead of the opposite: adding Category:Members of the United States Congress by session to the new page Category:Members of the 54th United States Congress. Fixed it with a revert and a category creation. --Martin H. (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
p.s.: The next step would be, to populate the category by searching for the names on Commons and going through the members list on Wikipedia. See e.g. File:George M. Curtis - History of Iowa.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it was a different photo of Curtis that started me off on this effort. I have gone ahead and done the image you cited. --Davidt8 (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Blatant copyvio

Sorry, not sure where to list. File:Cyberman in 2009 christmas specials two parter.jpg, [6] TreasuryTag (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Marking the file with {{copyvio|source}} is the correct way here. Without even mentioning thecorrect copyright holder a OTRS permission can never come through. --Martin H. (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, it says "Source: Own work by uploader," and it obviously isn't! --TreasuryTag 07:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Headlines in the arabic language setting

There is currently a problem when using the arabic language settings. The headlines like the main page and 1st level headlines are written on the left end of the line where it should be on the right. Can this be fixed somehow?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to change this by adding "#content h1, #content h2, #content h3, #content h4, #content h5, #content h6 { text-align: right; }" to MediaWiki:Rtl.css. The only question is whether this is commonly wanted. Cause this will also affect ltr language headings. --Slomox (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem that appears is in english with arabic headlines like in Category:Nature where the English would be pushed back and look as such (translated) ""Nature" The media in the Category" (الميديا في التصنيف "Nature") This appears to happen however also when writing arabic in between English. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I added some code to MediaWiki:Rtl.css. Does it look good for you now? --Slomox (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I liked it a lot. It's clean and much better than I had expected. Thank you so much for the change. Another thing would be the page names. When editing, the names are right to left but when navigating it's left to right. Generally they should be right to left in a right to left language. The thing that is missing in all languages is autotranslation of Namespaces. On the German commons the Category namespace should be "Kategory" and in the arabic it should be "مصنف" I don't know if that's possible but it's certainly something all language users are seeking.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Another thing that I have been seeking which is probably hard to do is something that changes where the direction of writing is. Like in Microsoft Office pressing control+shift changes the text direction. Something like that would be really beneficial in an rtl language. These are merely suggestions that I see making commons more intercultural. Thanks again for all your help Slomox.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I added code to MediaWiki:Rtl.js to add a button that allows to switch the direction of the edit window (arrow symbol in the toolbar). It works for me, but please test whether it works for you too. --Slomox (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
And I also moved the heading to the right.
But I don't know about the namespace names. This could make people believe, that these were actually valid synonyms. On the other side it would make it easier recognizable for non-English users what kind of content they are seeing at that moment.
It isn't too hard to create some Javascript to do it. But it would be necessary to do it on a per-language base. We would need to maintain a fully redundant list of namespace names in Javascript and whenever a language community decides to change a namespace name our list will be outdated. But I will try to look into it. --Slomox (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The code for changing the namespace names is available on User:Slomox/monobook.js (changing to 'nds', other language version can be created by translating the strings in the switch statement). But to apply this site-wide, you need some form of consensus. Either site-wide consensus or consensus in the respective language-community. --Slomox (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please revet the changes:

  • The new button for changing the direcionality use ugly icon, and brion already created better solution for it: Under Preferences, Gadjets there is "Directional editing control script "
  • Most of the pages have English title - headlines should be aligned to left as default, not to right. It can be fixed by script, not css, that would check the title of the page. When I created the rtl support in commons I didn't do it, cause it may cause to inconsistent view. ערן (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please revert your changes. ערן (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually an rtl language speaker should look on the the right of the page presented, because he's used to it on his own language Wikipedia. I can't see why an rtl language would want their headlines even if English to be on the left.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm RTL speaker (Hebrew) and I'm used for reading bidirectional documents. The standart is that English sentence in RTL document is aligned to left, even though it is in RTL document, and vice versa - Hebrew/Arabic sentence is aligned to right even in LTR documents. ערן (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes but the goal is to translate the pages (also namespaces) so that Wikipedia Hebrew/Arabic users would feel comfortable using Commons. Having the headlines right and left would be inconsistent and therefore, because the user setting the language as Hebrew/Arabic would want it to be like his Wikipedia, prefered would be the right headers :) --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
We wouldn't want the English village pump/page content to align to right: The content is English, so it's right side if left. For the same reason headlines should be left. I realize the inconsistnce, but Arabic/Hebrew interface in LTR project, isn't the same as in RTL project (the headline is part of the page content). ערן (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
But if the namesapces names is translated to Arabic/Hebrew using script making "Category:XXX" to be "مصنف:XXX", I can support RTL headlines except for the main namesapce. ערן (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The new change also cause to "TypeError: document.getElementById("toolbar") is null" exception when there is no toolbar (e.g protected pages). ערן (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually the button looks pretty bad. Can't this be substituted by the just pressing control shift buttons on the keyboard? This is what most people (cause most people use office) are used to.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
ערן, How about some positiveness? Speakers of rtl languages by default weren't able to switch the direction of the edit window until now (except they knew they had to go to preferences and click one of the options in a long list of options in an submenu, which isn't even localized. So my edit was an improvement that instantly made available the functionality to all rtl users. I don't think, that "revert it!" is the right reaction.
But it is good, that you pointed out the existing solution. I changed MediaWiki:Rtl.js so Brion's gadget becomes available per default to all rtl users (although the code isn't perfect too. Latin script buttons isn't ideal).
About localising the namespace names: As already said, it can be easily done with some lines of Javascript. But there are some disadvantages. As I said above, I have activated this feature in my personal Javascript. It works well. But the first problem I quickly came across: I am not able any more to copy&paste page titles, cause my 'nds' namespaces are not valid for linking. That's rather annoying if you are used to copy&pasting page titles. That could be improved by keeping the English name, but appending the localised namespace in brackets for example.
If you want it and if there is consensus among the Arabic and/or Hebrew community on Commons I can change the code for you. --Slomox (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Slomox, sorry I didn't mean you did something bad, but the changes could be made after a longer disscussion. I appreciate your work. "copy&pasting problem" may be annoying, and after you pointed out this problem, I'm not sure NS translation is good. ערן (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Unknown insect


Please help me naming this insect. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

May 5

Next step in getting OTRS team verification of permission?

I contacted someone who has some images on their website, and asked them if we could use those images on the wikipedia.

They said: "Sure go ahead".

What is the next step in having the OTRS team verify they understand the implication of using their images here, and verifying they still agree?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The owner of the website should send a formal e-mail to The content of the message should be based on the template in Commons:Email templates. However, this is acceptable only if he owns the copyright of the images. Sv1xv (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
And don't forget that the permission must be given much more general than "for Wikipedia use" - in fact any use (including commercial) must be allowed. Please use on of the standard templates, as Sv1xv recommends. Great that you doing the work! Nillerdk (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Federal Election Commission members' images from official website

I know that the official photos on are in the public domain as US Government photos, so exactly how should I show them on Commonist? I plan to use them in Wikipedia articles.--Davidt8 (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, what category is used for these photos?--Davidt8 (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The license tag would presumably be {{PD-USGov}}, unless there's a more specific variant. It would be best to make sure you link directly to the FEC copyright page or some other source confirming that these photos really are U.S. government works — I couldn't find one immediately when I looked at the site. As for the category, you could always create one: say, Category:Members of the United States Federal Election Commission. I'll leave finding the right parent categories as an exercise. :-) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
File:FEC Cynthia L Bauerly.jpg is now available. --Davidt8 (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
ehm, yes, very good ... but please not as "own work", this photo is not your own work, it is from a source and you did not even provide the source --Martin H. (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
There, I've fixed it for you. But it would still be good to have some way to confirm that these photos really were taken by a federal employee (see Commons:Licensing#Works by the US Government). One possibility would be to e-mail their web manager and ask. (If they reply, forward it to OTRS for archival.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
All five of the photos of FEC Commissioners have been updated to show the correct information. To learn what I can, I will try writing to the FEC webmaster about the use of these photos, especially since I have never used the OTRS process, and I am planning to use a school logo in an article in the future, perhaps in the summer. --Davidt8 (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

May 4

Derivative work on packaging?

On Commons:Deletion requests/File:AyranGetränk.jpg a conflict of interest emerged on whether it should be deleted. One claim for its deletion was that the photograph was a derivative work of the logo on the carton. It was debated whether the logo was the subject of the photo or if it was just getting in the way etc. After a user showed examples of many images, all of which showing the logos on the packaging, I thought that the village pump would be a more productive place to discuss the issue, as the decision of this deletion request could mean all those images are to be deleted as well. Jolly Janner (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

{{Copydesign}} (and avoid copyright paranoia). Diti the penguin 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, before writing about avoid copyright paranoia, please come to closest supermarket and look into copyrights notices on packaging. Most of them contains copyrights notices (at least in USA, for example, Mars candies). I don't think that anything more complex then {{PD-textlogo}} will not violate copyrights of producers. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
To avoid forking discussion let's direct future comments to the deletion request. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

May 6

Policy on politicized captions?

Map usa unions.png

Is there any policy on politicized captions within an image? My question is sparked by File:Map usa unions.png. While "Right to work" is a legal term - perhaps loaded, but used in the law - "Forced union" is a term that would be used only by those opposed to it. The correct legal term would be "closed shop" or "agency shop". - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

COM:PS#Media files includes the line ".. neutrality of description should be aimed at wherever possible, and in any event neither filenames nor text may be phrased in such a way as to constitute vandalism, attack or deliberate provocation." --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
So I presume the captioning of this map should be changed, and will do so. - Jmabel ! talk 23:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Expanded pages

I have expanded the information on Commons:Administrators, and there is also a proposal at Commons:Bureaucrats/Proposed. CU and Oversight will be next. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Checkusers and Commons:Oversighters now done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Terrorists and freedom fighters

We're having some problem with Category:Terrorism. It was up for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Terrorism but was kept so now we have to deal with the problem. Problematic categories are for instance Category:Irgun (group) (Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by The New York Times newspaper, The Times (of London), the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry, and prominent world and Jewish figures, such as Winston Churchill, Tom Segev, Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein, and many others.), Category:Lehi (group) (Lehi was described as a terrorist organization by the British authorities and United Nations mediator Ralph Bunche. The newly-formed Israeli government banned the organization under an anti-terrorism law passed three days after the Sept 1948 assassination of the UN mediator Folke Bernadotte.), Category:United States Army (labelled as terrorists by Iran), Category:Nelson Mandela (I think he's still on the USA list of terrorists) and probably some more. Without a clear inclusion criteria this is going to be a problem. // Liftarn (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What if we remove subcategories, and keep just images of things commonly related to terrorism? Weapons, unidentified terrorists, maps or diagrams, attacks, after-attacks locations, etc. Belgrano (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
First off, the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" remark is a shallow glib aphorism which is rather unpleasantly cynically amoralistic (not to mention on some levels being really, really stupid). However, if I had known about the deletion debate, I would have certainly voted to delete the category, because of the particular service role which Wikimedia Commons has to play -- providing images for other Wikimedia projects. Each of those projects (such as the various language Wikipedias) is free to come up with its own definition of "terrorist" and/or its own policy on the use of the word. It's really not our role to try to impose one central definition on the other projects. AnonMoos (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" remark is a shallow glib aphorism which is rather unpleasantly cynically amoralistic (not to mention on some levels being really, really stupid) ??? It may seem amoralistic, but so is the world. The 'aphorism' is valid and true. Lehi's and Irgul's operation methods were obviously terroristic. And still Israel grants the Lehi ribbon as a military honor and several activists became important politicians in Israel. Many people in Israel think, that they were important and honorable figures in the fight for Israeli freedom.
Clear inclusion criteria would be possible, I guess, but nobody would accept those clear inclusion criteria, cause that would lead to results, which are not opportune.
A clear inclusion criteria for example would be "persons and/or organisations are terroristic in character, if they take actions, that are

aimed at de-stabilizing the system in power by spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt by hurting the physical and psychical integrity of human lives". But a definition like that would include many things that are not commonly referred to as terrorism. Like some of the actions of the US Army. I guess, many people won't accept it, if some US Army operations would be tagged as being terroristic, even if they formally fulfil the inclusion criteria. But the chance to do the right thing was missed in the recent deletion request. --Slomox (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikimedia Commons Welcome

Can you please explain me how this bot is working? Would it be possible to use a similar bot in the German Wikipedia? Debianux (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to gain consensus to activate mw:Extension:NewUserMessage. --Slomox (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
One slightly annoying thing about the user welcome template is that it displays so large that if you try to leave a remark on a new user's talk page, they might not actually scroll down to notice the remark, unless you leave the remark above the template... AnonMoos (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this information. @ Anon Moos: Actually this is not a problem of the extension but of the welcome template. Debianux (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

May 7

Preview button on Special:Upload

I've noticed that Commons has a preview button on Special:Upload and that it doesn't seem to be found on any other major language project. Is this a feature of the MediaWiki software that can be enabled on all projects or is it coming from some Commons specific .js file? I've found MediaWiki:UploadFormPreviewButton, but can't figure out where exactly it is being used due to the numerous translations in the 'What links here' page. --auburnpilot talk 02:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The preview button is part of our Javascript enhancements to the upload form and comes from MediaWiki:UploadForm.js. Lupo 09:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --auburnpilot talk 17:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Graphics village pump

Hi everybody. Two days ago I wrote a message at Graphics village pump concerning a project page on WP-EN (Project Barnstars). I wrote this message because Im looking for help and because I dont want to violate the Canvass-policy by contacting specific users. As unfortunately nobody answered on Graphics village pump I'ld like to ask all users here, if you could have a look at my message here and if you are interested to bring in your opinion at the Barnstars-project. With kind regards --Rectilinium (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be WP-EN specific project. We do not give or get many barnstars around here. That is probably why there is not much response to your original post. --Jarekt (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt. Yep, you're right... it is a WP-EN specific project. The problem is, there is no page on WP-EN, where people discuss pictures or graphics, thats why an admin suggested, that I write a message at Wikimedia commons, as many users are not only activ here, but also in some Wikipedia-projects. The people here are mostly interested in pics, thats why I thought it would be possible to find users that are interested to have a look at the barnstars-projects page, even if it is at WP-EN :)... With kind regards --Rectilinium (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Italia Award 2009

I would remember you that at the 15th May the Award 2009 of Wikimedia Italia, concerning the best media about the Palladian Architecture, will close the nominations. At moment there are not nominates but I would hope to see some indications in this page: Wikimedia_Italia_Award_2009. Could some sysop of Commons help us to found some good works? I know that there are some photos not categorized yet. --Ilario (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Need template updated to fix 16,000 pages

The licensing Template:PD-Meyers-pages has been broken, for years, and reports thousands of pages as all "Book 1 Page 1" (even when the page number is 867, File:Meyers_b1_s0867.jpg). Unfortunately, it is used in about 16,000 pages, so editing each page is not practical; however, making the template an "auto-wizard" is possible:

The new coding (rather complex) is an auto-wizard to generate the contents for most of those 16,000 pages, without editing them: it sets the complete description (in English & German/Deutsch), the page links, book links, date, the missing source-website URL, the author, standard licensing, and also reports the out-dated information.

For more details, see original edit-request of 07-March-2009 (yes, 2 MONTHS ago), in topic:

Those 16,000 pages could be edited by a bot program, but hundreds of various pages are already correct, so the bot program would need to be tailored with a precise list of which pages (among the original 16,500) to change, and according to what patterns for each of the 16,000. Hence, changing the template into an auto-wizard is the easiest solution. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

At File:Meyers b1 s0867.jpg nothing is wrong with {{PD-Meyers-pages}}, it's just the {{Information}} which contains |Description=Book 1 - Page 1 . Multichill (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I think he wants to replace the whole {{information}} and combine it with the license. Rocket000 (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • 06-May-09: Yes, the intent is to quickly (within 10 minutes?) have the updated template auto-reformat all remaining pages (among the 16,600) to effectively replace the whole {{information}} +licensing box, and then explain that "Book 1 Page 1" is the outdated description which should be changed (some day). Of course, I've been trying, for 2 months, to get this 10-minute fix to 16,000 pages to be "allowed to happen" to fix those 16,000 (OMG, it IS SIXTEEN THOUSAND pages, isn't it?) to fix this problem of 3-YEARS (yes, people have allowed this problem to persist for 3 WHOLE YEARS) with 16,000 embarrassing pages that say: "Book 1 Page 1" or "missing" author information, no description, no date, incorrect source URL, etc. However, that's okay, as long the template is not changed without permission.

    Now do you understand, "Wikipedia is 10% information and 90% deformation"? Many organizations, for decades, have faced the dangers of "incompetence in concrete", and so it is understandable that a problem would persist for 3 years. However, when solutions are ACTIVELY RESISTED for months, then it is obvious that the entire project is mismanaged and incompetent at every level. This was just a massive test, to see if a 150-year-old encyclopedia (Meyers Konversations-Lexikon) would be represented in a trashy manner for 3 years, or if people would realize the utter failure of Wikimedia Commons to generate the simplest levels of quality. Well, the results of the test are in. Now, can anyone suggest how to fix the systemic failure of the Commons? It is not the fault of any single person. Policies must be changed to re-assess, or sort out, priorities. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Can I suggest that such outbursts are not helpful? I had previously looked at this, but skipped it over because although it's clear a bot run is needed [okay, maybe not even that much is clear... and therein lies the problem], it's not clear to me exactly what needs to be done, and I easily found other tasks which were well-defined which I could more productively spend my time on. If you want someone who runs a bot to take care of this, you'll have to calm down and explain clearly what needs to be done. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard 17:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok as I understand it you want to do the following:
  1. Blank all 16,600 pages
  2. Replace Template:PD-Meyers-pages with User:Wikid77/Template:PD-Meyers-pages.
  3. A bot runs through the pages and copies from the file's name the digits found at the end of the name and pastes them as parameters in the page specific template.
Did I get that correctly?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh no, do not blank the pages, and do not run a bot-edit on all 16,600: at least 400 of those pages contain special links to illustration pages. I concur with moving the discussion over to Template talk:PD-Meyers-pages, and thanks for taking some time to address these problems. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I am willing to lend my bot's hand and my admin-edit-protected-pages abilities to solve this. But I propose, that we discuss this at Template talk:PD-Meyers-pages and that some questions are clarified, before any action is taken. See my post on Template talk:PD-Meyers-pages. --Slomox (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Search question

Is it possible to restrict the search function so that it only returns images in the public domain? -Atmoz (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There's the "incategory:" search method. It searches for files that are in a specific category. It only works with files, that are directly in the category, but not with subcategories. So "flower incategory:"Public domain"" won't find anything. Theoretically it should be possible to search for "flower incategory:"PD-self"" and for ""flower incategory:"PD Old"" which would cover at least 1.2 million PD images. But: does not work too... I guess the categories are too big. So, No, at the moment, there is no easy way to specifically search for PD images.
I guess, google:flower+"public+domain" will be the easiest way to do this. Not really a good solution, but the best solution we have at the moment. --Slomox (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
No. As far as I know only with Google. Example: Michael Jackson +"Public domain" works fine. No other way equals this, searching inside categories would be a hard job. We have 1.8 Million PD files, 700K are PD old, the largest PD category for recent images has only 100K images, the number of PD categories is large. --Martin H. (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) There is also CatScan (and in German) that can search categories in depth, but it stops after the first 1000, and can take a long time. For example, this level 1 search returns only 6 Public Domain files, while this level 2 search aborts after finding the first 1000 files. To search for files that are in two categories (like wikimedia's "incategory:" but also including subcategories), fill in two category names, as in this example of Public Domain and Ukraine. 84user (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thats another idea, but it requires that the image is correctly categorized. Catscan for intersection with such a large category like Category:Public domain is probably a bad idea. Better would be to search by template: search in Category Ukraine for the template PD-Layout (which is the least common of all PD files). --Martin H. (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Houston, we may have a problem

Many images tagged with {{MdB}} seem to claim that they are from the Brazilian Navy's site, which is not true; in reality, they are from "Poder Naval Online". This site says that all photos there are PD (I think, at least; see the template I just started: {{Poder Naval}}. Please spruce that up...). Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk) 03:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats not so easy. Poder Naval seems to be an nonofficial site operated by some BrNavy interested people. The images from their Site are not created by them but taken from other sources. An image is not free because it is from their website, the oposite: many of there images should be unfree as divulgação dos fabricantes e órgãos oficiais are not free without the holder of copyrights permission. Press photos (divulgacao?) are in 95% not free for every commercial reuse and derivative works. Images produced by the Brazilian Navy and republished on Poder Naval are maybe free, but not completly covered by {{MdB}}. MdB says, that images produced by BrNavy and published on their website are free. I dont know how this "author&website" permission can be broadend to an "author&unrelated-website" permission.
Finaly your new template should NOT be used, use MdB on images that are clearly created by the Brazilian Navy, dont upload images from Manufacturers or Agencies as statet in, last section. --Martin H. (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Checked it, there is only one person uploading from Poder Naval, User:Hermógenes Teixeira Pinto Filho, seems like he cared for the situation. Example: Every ship has his site, e.g. /NGB/G/G058/G058, there are a lot of images on the bottom of the page from various sources. On Commons are only those images, that are clearly sourced to the BrNavy: linksearch. Assuming that this images are created by the Brazilian Navy this still leads to the questions:
  • Can we assume, that this images are taken from the website as required?
  • If not, are images created by the Brazilian Navy free no matter they are published on the website or not?
--Martin H. (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It was my understanding that they used only PD images? I.e. they weren't releasing them as PD, they were only using PD stuff to start with?
Also, on Poder Naval, a photo credit appears when you click the thumbnails on the bottom of the pages (I believe that "SDM" = "Serviço de Divulgação da Marinha do Brasil" = Brazilian Navy). —Ed 17 (Talk) 04:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • @ first bullet: unknown. is not helping...
  • @ second bullet: also unknown. Should we send an email asking if all photos taken by the SDM are released under the "attribution required" license? —Ed 17 (Talk) 05:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Human Pathology categorization

Some years ago, I posted some microscopic images from daily work of a small Pathology department. It's really amazing to see how much, in a few years, this topic has been developed and extended. Nevertheless, I see some categorization issues, and I'd like to work a little about. I'll try to think about a multi-axial categorization, the best would be something like an "ontology", but I think that it's better to begin with something very simple and human-readable, so I presume that a first good categorization could mirror the chapter organization of a good and well known pathology manual; so, the first step will be to take a look into my library and to choose a comprehensive pathology manual, then to build up a new "virtual" category tree mirroring it into one or more text articles, and finally - hopefully, after some talk about - to create the new set of categories and to add images to them - saving the old ones too.

I'll like to follow the approach I used into Category:Histopathology, t.i. matching every main category with an article, containing the galleries of matching images.

What do you think about such an approach? --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 14:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Histopathology approach looks fine. Many specialized categories on Commons are outgrowing their single category and need to be subdivided into more specialized categories. In this case almost any schema is better than none. Mirroring a book organization is one way, other approach often used is to check first the organization of articles in Wikipedia, and use that if it makes sense. Another useful way to categorize them would be to use several category trees at the same time. For example: by tissue, by illness, by method used to prepare the slide (in case they differ), etc. See Commons:Categories for more general tips. --Jarekt (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfree images

Hi to all,
After making a check at the contributions of BYF079, I realize that he released nearly all his images under a non free license: all are placed under attribution providing that the images are only used for Wikipedia articles. That goes clearly against the free use for any purpose. Can some administrator have a look and delete the concerned pictures? Thanks in advance Moumou82 (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, the images are eligible to be uploaded as fair use to en.wikipedia, on Commons they are not ok for many reasons:
  • No permission from the soccer club, probably the holder of copyrights on their logos
  • no permission from the painter, at least a copyvio from the source FIFA
  • wrong claims of authorship
  • wrong licensing with additional "fair use" statements
--Martin H. (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I informed the uploader and will delete the images in 2 days. They are on Commons for 1 year now, so two days time to transfer them to Wikipedia might be no problem don't make the difference. If someone thinks different: go ahead and delete them as copyright violations. --Martin H. (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you did the right thing. Give him a couple of days notice, so that he can arrange for local uploads on en-wiki. Sv1xv (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks ! Just to be precise, BYF079 is the owner of the FIFA Website. But it does not prevent the images to be under an unappropriate license. Moumou82 (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, your right, I first thought it is some official website. I strike out this reason based on my wrong interpretion. --Martin H. (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Advertising via userpages and image descriptions

I'm not sure if this has come up before or if there is some policy regarding it, but do/should we allow companies to advertise via their userpage? As you can see at User:Mediamixx they are clearly promoting the company/festival, beyond a reasonable amount. They then created the article Mediamixx, which I deleted as being out of project scope.

Advertising and promotion via articles is not accepted, but do we have similar restrictions for userpages? My personal opinion would be no, but I'm interested to hear what others have to say. Do userpages fall within Project Scope as well? - Addressed in COM:PSP

Another question is whether or not promotion via the description on an image is acceptable. I've reverted a few IP edits that added large amounts of text to image descriptions that only promoted the company without adding relevant information on the image itself. I assume project scope applies to image descriptions as well, but is this actually part of policy?

[edit to add] I just came across File:StainedGlassSundialbyCarmicahael.jpg, which is another example of advertising via image description. Should external links to websites for the sole purpose of promotion/generating sales be permitted?

-- Editor at Largetalk 20:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted User:Mediamixx's userpage (again) and given a final warning. For the userpage policy, see Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories#User pages, galleries and categories. If they have nothing else to contribute but promotional content an indefinite block is next. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I must have missed that policy page somehow - thanks for the link, I'll be sure to remove promotional userpages without worrying now.
The only area it doesn't address is the issue of links in image descriptions - should they be limited to source links only? I've reverted some IP edits adding links to actor/actresses' homepages to galleries, but I've come across many "more images here" links to sites that had non-free content. I assume there is an unspoken policy against superfluous/promotional outside links in image descriptions? Or have I missed another policy page? ;) -- Editor at Largetalk 22:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Domes in East Jerusalem

I would like to invite more opinions regarding the following discussion, and the actions of Drork In the light of the discussions.--Producer (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the "nominate for deletion"-function from left toolbox

I have used this function some times but now it seems to be partially broken. For example I nominated File:Keitai housyaki.jpg but the script doesn't inform the uploader and doesn't list the request on Commons:Deletion requests. I've listed this issue on Commons talk:Deletion requests but didn't get any response.--Avron (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I had the same problem lately. --Jarekt (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure your browser is not blocking pop-ups? –Tryphon 14:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
If it would block the pop-ups then Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Keitai_housyaki.jpg wouldn't be created. Besides, it worked before many times.--Avron (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I had the same problem on Firefox before I explicitly allowed popups from Firefox's popup blocker normally tries to block "unsolicited" popups while allowing popups that are triggered as a result of a user action (such as mouse click or keypress). My guess would be that it's letting the first popup (which creates the deletion request) through, since it was triggered by clicking the toolbox link, but blocking the other two. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You are right. The popups were blocked, now it works. But usually Firefox shows a warning...--Avron (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


Naval battle

Do you believe that this video was taken during the first Sino-Japanese war in 1894?--

14:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems plausible. Certainly we have other films of comparable quality from 1894, such as File:Hadj Cheriff 1894.ogg, File:Sioux buffalo dance, 1894.ogg, File:Sioux ghost dance, 1894.ogg and File:Annie Oakley shooting glass balls, 1894.ogg. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted image

This one - film poster "in the public domain" :P TreasuryTag (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Tagged as {{Copyvio}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

When is a picture "old" or "historical"?

There are several categories such as Historical pictures, Old pictures of Esztergom, Old pictures of Utrecht. It is not clear when a picture is old. I suggest to add in a line at the top that the category includes pictures that are about 40 years or more old. These 40 years is just a suggestion from my side. I think it is good to have a guideline. Wouter (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I never really liked classifications like "old" since it's relative and could mean many different things but I guess it's not always practical to go by specific date ranges. I have noticed that it is defined in the category for old maps. They say it's 70 years, which is more of what I think of when I hear "old". Rocket000 (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It's old when it was taken before the age of digital cameras ;-). It is old when it was taken before the majority of users here was born (18 Years ago?). It is old when it is black and white? Yeah, that classification really is not very useful. --Dschwen (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
If we had an intelligent system of categorization and if the developers wouldn't block category intersection, we could just use the "date" parameter of {{Information}} for auto-categorization ("|date=1887-07-25" would then automatically categorize into Category:1887) and then perform a category intersection with for example Category:Esztergom to list all images from Esztergom from whatever time.
Investing time to sort files into categories like Category:Old pictures of Esztergom is just a waste of time. --Slomox (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes categery intersection would be a solution for some problems. But I don't think the devolopers "block" this. I think it is a complex issue.--Avron (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
They don't block in the sense of "we won't ever allow it". But they block it in the sense, that there were working implementations for category intersection, that weren't further developed, cause of desinterest and the developers saying "we want the perfect solution", instead of implementing the "not entirely perfect solution" and improving it (in the same way all our content is improved the wiki way). --Slomox (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


It seems that The Official White House Photostream, where the White House provides photos have changed their former Creative Commons licence for the words "United States Government Work United" with a link on the copyright right. But as American federal government works this photos still stays in public domain ({PD-USGov-POTUS}). I do not know why the WH photogrpahers change this licence but that made them impossible to upload with Toolserver which do not recognize and find any licence. Something to do to keep going using this wonderful tool tfor he WH photographs ? Thanks. TCY (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Flickr normally does not allow a "public domain" license, so presumably cc-by was the "closest" they could come before. The Library of Congress got them to make a special "No known restrictions" tag for their Flikr Commons contributions, and now the White House appears to have gotten them to add another, more accurate license tag for their stuff. Basically, our tools will need to be modified to recognize it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
What is curious is when we enlarge a photo on The Official White House Photostream, we can read (in french for me) : " All the sizes of this photo can be uploaded under a Creative Commons licence ". (!). TCY (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Send up our public domain symbol to the Flickr guys, they could use it. ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Polish speaker needed

User:Poznaniak uploaded COA images with PD (PolishSymbol) and CC-BY-SA licenses. I removed PD licences, because it is not possible combination (PD&CC), and normalize dates, but user reverts my changes and says that I am vandaling that pages ([7], [8]). However, first image is 17st century COA of Ukrainian city, so it's not PD-Polish, it may be PD-old. User has en-0, de-0 and pl-N, so can someone with pl-N explain him that combination of licenses {{PolishSymbol}} and {{Cc-by-sa}} is impossible? He should use one of these licences.--Anatoliy (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Depending on laws in individual countries... they could each apply in different jurisdictions, I think. Sometimes the dual licenses of the form "I think this is public domain, but in case it is not in some country, here is the license there" I think is fine. Or, he may be stating the license of the underlying work together with whatever his expression is (which may be copyright-exempt in Poland, but not elsewhere... hard to say). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The combination {{PD-self}} and {{Cc-by-sa-all}} is not impossible. In some juristictions PD prevails, in others (many EU countries) PD does not exist at all so the CC license applies. Sv1xv (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, your edits were indeed not acceptable in that form. You should only change license templates, if you are absolutely sure about what you are doing. In doubt ask the uploader. But do not remove them based on assumptions.
And it is _absolutely_ unacceptable to remove descriptions and replace them with a description in another language! Don't do that ever! --Slomox (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why combination of licenses {{PolishSymbol}} and {{Cc-by-sa}} is impossible. The original COA design is {{PolishSymbol}} and user (supposedly) draw his own version of it and licensed it as {{Cc-by-sa}}. --Jarekt (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In this case I believe adding two license tags is not the best approach. My view is that the copyright status of the blazon must be stated in plain text in "Permission" (in the description) and the only tag should be {{Cc-by-sa}}. Sv1xv (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Blazons themselves are hardly ever copyrighted -- for one, they are typically defined in law which is virtually always PD, and second, there are extremely limited ways (and often just one) to describe a design in heraldic language, so that is a situation where the idea and expression "merge" and is therefore uncopyrightable (this is the "merger doctrine" in U.S. law). It appears that in Poland, all graphical representations of official seals are explicitly not copyrightable either, so PolishSymbol would be the correct tag in Poland, but another license tag could still apply in other jurisdictions which allow copyright on such representations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

May 10

Help with SVG file

The image should be displayed here

I'm trying to upload an Igloo see-through diagram (SVG format) but for some reason it can't be displayed on commons and articles; the file is perfectly displayed via direct link though; I've made three attempts to upload the file, the first (in english) and second (in spanish) images were generated with default options in Inkscape, as "Inkscape SVG", for the third one I tried saving as "Plain SVG" but the result was the same, any ideas on how to fix it? here are the links:

In english (first try): Igloo see-through sideview diagram-es.svg|Igloo see-through sideview diagram-es.svg

In spanish (second and third):

Direct link:

Thanks in advance.--Darolu (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

After some time analyzing every aspect of the svg file, I finally found a solution... I'm actually embarrased to say it but was something very simple: I forgot to delete the raster image I used as reference from the background, yes that was the problem... so just ignore this and try not to laugh (much). Image is ready to use: Igloo see-through sideview diagram-es.svg--Darolu (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You're by no means the only one -- it's a perennially recurring problem here... AnonMoos (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Category check

I have checked the categories and removed a stupid one at File:Jedlikdynamo.GIF but I do not know how to remove the category check template without messing all the other stuff in it. Can someone sort it out for me. Thanks. SpinningSpark 10:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. Cirt (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

problem with earlier versions of a file.

Can someone tell me, why there is a 404 error when I try to watch one of the earlier versions of File:Haselstauden-Hardacker.jpg? Thanks in advandce
-- Nintendere (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but at least I can confirm your observation. Really strange. --Túrelio (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Michael Maggs

Sorry if this is the wrong place, I don't know where to post it, but I call for an observation from the comunity to adm MichaelMaggs, in these actions: [9] and[10]. Thanks. MachoCarioca (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Images were deleted per Commons policies. No problems there. Lycaon (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Ditto, looks fine to me. You do realize that deletion request are not votes, right? --Dschwen (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree and support MichaelMaggs handling on deleting these images. Bidgee (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, no problems that I can see. Everything seems to be done according to policy. No wrong-doing by the admin. If you disagree with the conclusions, you could request undeletion, but I wouldn't recommend it since it's unlikely to give the result you're looking for. Rocket000 (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
There's an undeletion request for the second image already. Plus a message on MichaelMaggs' talk page... –Tryphon 23:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

To Lycaon, Dschwen, Rocket000 : the second was claimed to keep it for all the editors and this Maggs deleted it. Is it right? Which policy there, his will? Are administrators Gods? I can't agree with that, sorry. MachoCarioca (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The first one is clear, the doctor pictured gave the authorization to the uoploader.[11] MachoCarioca (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think an admin should have deleted the second file. The opinion of admins should not be heavier than those of ordinary users and it seems to me that "no realistic educational value" can be discussed, and was discussed. The threshold for educational use seems to be extremely low in other cases. It is problematic when files are deleted without clear consensus. Deletion discussions are there with the purpose of reaching consensus and closing a discussion (having 2:0 for keep) with delete, seems a little suspect to me. At the same time, I completely understand MichaelMaggs, because he is doing many useful things for Commons and discussing would slow him down. But still ... Nillerdk (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
MichaelMaggs could slow down a bit. In his wisdom, he closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lepromatous Leprosy.JPG after three hours, deleting an educationally useful image uploaded by a health care professional. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Given identifiability that deletion was actually a speedy one. --Herby talk thyme 08:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Even if Commons:Photographs of identifiable people/Proposal had become policy, this would have been a "straightforward uncontroversial shot of an identifiable adult in a private place, such as face or head and shoulder images, where it is clear that the subject was aware of and appears to consent to the taking of the photograph (eg by posing)." No reason whatsoever for speedy deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
You're looking at an outdated version. The guideline is at Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, and COM:PS says that "Where the file is a photograph which shows an identifiable person, the subject's consent is also required in the circumstances set out at Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that so far as can reasonably be ascertained ... that any required consent has been obtained".
If suitable evidence can be supplied the image could be undeleted, but your assumption is not evidence. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the first image, showing a patient with leprosy, I would like to refer to our policy regarding photographs of identifiable people at private places:

Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place, whether or not the subject is named. Even in countries that have no law of privacy, there is a moral obligation on us not to upload photographs which infringe the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy.

A patient is during his visit at his doctor considered to be at a private place. Please note that this policy is even enforced if the publication of this image would be lawful in its country of origin. Violations of this policy can be speedily deleted. As soon as a permission is granted by the patient and sent through our OTRS team, we can undelete it.

The second image was out of COM:SCOPE as it constituted a low-resolution derived work with no additional value of another image at Commons which was nowhere used except for a talk page. Hence it was not realistically useful for an educational purpose as required by this policy.

Finally I would like to remember that deletion requests are not decided by majority votes. To cite from the policy:

Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy.

If I would have processed these two cases, I would have made the very same decisions simply due to the cited policies. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. I'm not seeing the issue here. Michael is of exceedingly sound judgement, he is someone whose counsel I rely on, and these deletions were no exception, very sound and within policy, as well as doing the "right thing". ++Lar: t/c 15:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Ditto; ditto; etc: I might also point out that even if the patient has signed a release form, there may well be restrictions placed on that use which precludes this image being legitimately hosted here. Regarding the point about images uploaded by medical professionals, I also draw your attention to the British Medical Journal’s stance on this issue which I think is a good one:
“Patients do have the right, we believe, to give consent for photographs to be filed in their notes but refuse permission for them to be placed in the public domain. If this is correct then it would seem that, even when an image does not identify the patient, the patient’s consent would be needed for publication. This is the position now taken by this journal, and by the GMC in its recent guidelines on visual and audio recordings of patients.13 According to these guidelines, even when a patient could not possibly be identified, a recording cannot be used beyond the medical setting without specific consent.” [12]--P.g.champion (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And who decides what image is trumping copyright law or overriding Common policy? An administrator alone? Excuse me, but did you create the function of God here? Editors do not know read or understand what they read, just adms? It doesn't make sense, friends.

Some say about the second one? MachoCarioca (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I see with the second image, the penis image, is a file without proper attribution to the original creator. Thats a break of license - how is this possible after 4 months of deletion request?? --Martin H. (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know but I think it's easy undo the delection and fix that, isn't it? MachoCarioca (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but it wasnt done. It just shows me, that the image is not prepared and uploaded faithfully with the intention to create vallue for educational purposes - thats the benchmark. It is perfectly out of scope according to Commons:Project scope#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Viewing your usertalkpage I fear, that you confuse User namespaces with "personal blog". Please be informed: Wikipedia is not your personal blog as same as Commons is not the gratis imagehoster for files you want to use on your blog. --Martin H. (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

May 9

Common side of euro coin and faithful likeness

Have a look at the template {{Money-EU}}. Quoting the relevant Commision communication, it permits the use of the design only if in "faithful likeness". This means "no derivative", a restriction not allowed on Commons (see Commons:Licensing). The Commision doesn't allow me to take a Euro coin and colour it, add text to it and so on, because the faithful likeness is lost in this case. Actually, this was already discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face, but it seems to me that the "keep" was more based on "it would be a pity" than on Foundation policy. Of course I would like someone to explain why I am wrong, and why we can keep the coins on Commons. Nillerdk (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We always had some exceptions. See, for example, freedom of panorama where some sorts of derived works might actually be copyright violations. According to this case a court in Germany decided that a derived work of a photograph of a public piece of art constituted a copyright violation. Similarly, if you crop the pyramid out of this image and publish it, you would need a permission of the copyright holder, Ieoh Ming Pei. In summary, we accept such a restriction in some exceptional cases of derived works or governmental works like COAs, coins, and bills. We would not accept such a restriction in regular cases as the freedom to create derived works is a most important one. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama and de minimis has nothing to do with the original question. How is EU money a special case, other than you calling it that? Anrie (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The restrictions don't seem to be any different than the moral rights which exist on all works, per the Berne Convention. You can't make any alterations which are prejudicial to an author's honor or reputation, or claim the original author is the sole person responsible for a derivative work. I doubt that derivative works are a problem if it is clear they are modified; it sounds more like a problem if an altered work is claimed to be an actual depiction of a euro. Not the same thing at all as "no derivative". Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Aren't you interpreting a bit too much? The sentance has two parts: 1) faithful likeness (German: wahrheitsgetreu Danish: tro gengivelse) and 2) no damage to image of the euro (adhere to moral rights). It seems clear to me that it is a problem to make small or big alterations. BTW, it might be useful (it was for me) to go a read one of the offical translations of the relevant communication of the Commision: [13]. Nillerdk (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) IANAL, but to me the restrictions in [14], taken at face value, seem to go beyond the moral rights as described in the Berne Convention in several ways:
  1. The moral rights, as set out in article 6bis of the Berne Convention, only allow authors to forbid modifications or uses "which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation." The EC, in addition to forbidding uses that would "damage or detract from the image of the euro", also requires works using the design to be "in faithful likeness". Admittedly, this seems like a lesser restriction than "no derivatives at all", but it would still seem to forbid even non-derogatory modifications such as, say, replacing the number on the coin with some other symbol or changing the color of the coins.
  2. Also, the EC rules forbid uses that would harm "the image of the euro", not "the author's honor or reputation". While both are somewhat vague concepts, they seem clearly distinct.
  3. Finally, the EC rules impose these restrictions in all jurisdictions, including ones which do not recognize such moral rights or which would permit them to be waived. As such, they cannot be justified as a legal necessity. In fact, under those jurisdictions where the moral rights of authors cannot be waived or transferred, the EC won't even own those rights to the euro face designs in the first place.
It does seem to me, alas, that unless the EC mean something very different by "faithful likeness" than what it appears to mean at face value, the terms under which they permit the euro common face designs to be used does not qualify as a free license. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Their own page says their rules are just intended to avoid confusion between genuine euro coins and medals and tokens of a similar size and with similar properties. The U.S. doesn't explicitly recognize moral rights but they do have en:passing off laws (which they argued fulfilled the Berne Convention requirements). The German FOP law has similar language on "altered" works if I recall. Especially given that counterfeiting often law has all kinds of other restrictions on possible uses which are more restrictive than this in practice, it seems rather overboard to declare these "non-free". I tend to agree with the conclusion at the end of the original deletion request. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
If that was the sole intent of the rules, and if there existed a reading of them that could be taken to match that intent, I'd have no problem. Unfortunately, I don't see any way in which the requirement that derivative works be "in faithful likeness and [...] used in ways which do not damage or detract from the image of the euro" could in any way serve "to avoid confusion between genuine euro coins" and other similar things, or even be intended to do so. Thus, the statement of intent you quoted would seem to be in contradiction with the actual rules as set out in COM/2001/0600. Unless we have some evidence to the contrary, I would say that the official Communication from the Commission ought to be assumed to take precedence. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
And I take "faithful likeness" to mean that if you say it is a picture of the euro, it should be an accurate picture of the euro. I really don't see it as all that different than cc-by -- if it is an altered work, it should be plainly clear that it is no longer a picture of the euro. It appears to be that aspect which they are guarding. One of the commenters in the deletion request was apparently an EU employee involved in authoring that communication... Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
That's an, um, interesting interpretation. If that's what they meant, I wish they would've just said so. As for User:Theeuro (assuming that's whom you meant), I just read their comments and I'm... not very impressed. Claiming that all images of money are in the public domain (particularly when the European Commission itself says otherwise in its official communication), that euro coins are forged more often than banknotes (the ratio seems to be about 1:3 in favor of the notes, according to [15]), confusing the EC and the ECB (between whom he claims to work as a liaison) and misspelling "specimen" don't really give a very professional image. Also, at least the Finnish official translation of the 2001/0600 CftC flat out contradicts his claim of the meaning of "image" (alas, all the other languages I understand seem to leave at least some room for ambiguity), so either he or the translator must be mistaken. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ilmari that User:Theeuro's explanation of "image" is wrong and I can add that the Danish and German official translations don't leave any room for interpretation as well. According to these translations image means reputation (omdømme, Ansehen). Nillerdk (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, he had some odd arguments to be sure. However, "reputation" is still a moral-rights type of thing (as mentioned in the Berne Convention), and such derivative could be a problem even without copyright (or exploitation rights). As stated on their web page, the ECB mainly appears to want to make sure that the public isn't mislead or confused by any supposed picture of the euro (which would make sense if they were trying to make sure it wasn't rejected by the public; misleading images could harm that). I'm also not sure changes like making the euro a different color are an issue -- their copyright is on the coin design itself, not the color. cc-by-3.0 has the following as part of the legal code: if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation. I don't think such restrictions are an issue for the freedomdefined definition. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The ECB (European Central Bank) is irrelevant in this case, since the Commision of the European Union has the copyright. I don't see the reputation issue as as the problem. I think Ilmari mentioned it mainly to point out that we shouldn't trust User:Theeuro as a source of information "from inside". The main problem, the "faithful likeness clause", remains and is unrelated (I think) to the reputation clause. And it doesn't matter what the intention of the Commision is, because there is a legal text ([16]) not allowing us to make changes and improvements (quoting [17]). Alas, as it seems the common side of the Euro coin can't be hosted by Commons as it isn't free enough. Nillerdk (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I meant the EU, not the ECB, sorry. Otherwise I guess we just disagree :-) If an image of a euro is not faithful, they could consider that damaging to the euro's reputation. The "faithful likeness" part is in the same clause as the "reputation" part. As the cc-by license shows, there are some modifications (of similar types under discussion here) which are not allowed and yet still conform to the "freeness" criteria. Most derivative works would be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Photograph or scan? Expert eye needed

Isn't this image a scan? Or are the lines due to a crappy downsample? --Eusebius (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, being from 1970 as claimed, it can't be originally a digital image. --Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but are the lines due to a printing or to the scanner? That's what I meant actually. --Eusebius (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hard to say. At least, it doesn't seem to be a raster (typical for newspapers or magazines). --Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Image also exists here, though smaller, with a date of 1995. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
And without the strange lines.--Túrelio (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely a scan, and it also looks like a copyvio of this photo, which is not public domain. Kaldari (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:José Mendes Cabeçadas.jpg

Could someone from Portugal add the correct info (painter, year, licensing tag) for this painting? Obviously it is not GFDL 1.2! It is listed as "non-free" in en-wiki. Sv1xv (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Same request for File:António de Oliveira Salazar.jpg. Sv1xv (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
summing up: All the users uploads of paintings. --Martin H. (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

May 12

delete history of upload


I uploaded a personal picture (my wife and my son) by mistake, see File:Demontage radiateur 5.jpg.

I would like to remove the old version, but I don't know where to put a request...

Cdang (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Lupo 20:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. BTW, I noticed a flaw (maybe a bug): the old image appeared on the category page. Maybe due to the second upload:
  • I first chose the wrong image again,
  • the upload page told me (same name, same file), so I used the dedicated button to get back and choose the right image.
If someone experienced the same penomenon...
Cdang (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories Houses by country versus Housing by country

I see that these two categories exist alongside, with, of course, a number of subcats for each relevant country. Do I understand correctly that Houses should contain individual houses that are in themselves remarkable, but Housing is meant for "typical" houses in such a country? Regards, MartinD (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

To my mind, flats, for example, are housing, but not houses. Man vyi (talk)
Excellent question. What do other users think?--Davidt8 (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
In the English Wikipedia is says "Housing may refer to Houses". I had a look at both categories. That of "Houses by country" contains much more images than the other. Looking at images in the categories I don't see a difference; all in "Housing by country" can well fit in "Houses by country". I would suggest to move all images from "Housing by country" to "Houses by country" and delete the category "Housing by country". If one wants to keep "Housing by country" there should be a clear description in what aspect it differs from "Houses by country". Wouter (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to make it all more complicated, there is also the categories above - Category:Home / Category:Homes (with the later a seecat link to the Category:Accommodation buildings subcategory of Category:Buildings by function).
Category:Housing is in my opinion a wider concept. It should sit above Category:Accommodation buildings, and thus also one-more removed from Category:Houses, rather than in parallel. However there is no reason why "Houses in X" cannot also be a subcat of "Housing in X". Technically, the tree would be:
  1. "Housing in X" (all generic cats, such as housing government departments, real estate agencies, other generics)
  2. "Accommodation buildings in X"
  3. "Houses in X"

So in summary: The three levels / three structures sit in each other, like nested dolls. We shouldn't merge them. Rather we need something like a short explanation at each level:

Files regarding housing, i.e. everything related to people living in buildings. For files regarding specific types of buildings that people live in, please see the subcategories in Category:Accommodation buildings.

Files regarding specific types of buildings that people live in. For more generic files or concepts related to housing, please see the parent Category:Housing.

Files regarding houses. For the general concept of people living in buildings, including in other types of buildings than houses, see Category:Housing.

Ingolfson (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it corresponds with my point of view:
  • Housing: all things needed so that housing can be organised, build, sold, equipped, rented, leased, promoted, insured, subsidized, ...
  • Accommodation buildings: all forms of effective housings
  • Houses: down to the basic form/instanciation of a house: four walls and a roof, so to speak --Foroa (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

video playback problems

I recently uploaded a video of a hot spring in Yellowstone after converting it from MPG to OGV. However, when I try to play the video, it keeps buffering and does not play "normally." Is there any way to fix this? --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit: It seems this is normal for videos with very high bit rates. Is there a way to disable buffering in these cases? --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this before... it may just be a bandwidth problem. Wikimedia software is unable to scale videos on the server, so even if it appears to be a small size, playing a movie will download the entire video and then scale it. Either the bandwidth is too limited, or the scaling is a problem, or maybe the player is inefficient with large videos -- not sure. It is generally a good idea to provide a lower-resolution version for use in articles; see en:Wikipedia:Creation_and_usage_of_media_files#Video. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How to move Geograph files to Commons

I'd appreciate it if people familiar with Geograph could look over my "how to" guide. See if I missed anything, or if you have other suggestions for it. Feel free to make changes in true wiki collaborative fashion, or discuss on its talk page, first. After a bit of feedback, I'd like to consider moving it over here to Commons somewhere in the help system and link the {{Geograph}} template to it. I've been noticing a LOT of badly imported images here (more so on Wikipedia) with bogus GFDL licenses, claims of authorship yet pointing to Geograph, etc. I think it's an area that needs much better documentation, and this is my first attempt at it. —Willscrlt “Talk” • “w:en” • “m” ) 13:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done a fair amount of work regarding Geograph images and can agree with the procedure you have outlined. I've not been using the {{En}} template but I appreciate that could be useful. If it is felt that this should be included in every case then the guys at the Geograph project would be quite happy to update the Wiki markup they generate if my previous dealings with them are anything to go by.
Moving all the images in w:Category:Images of the Geograph British Isles project is one of task to do, I keep doing a few every so often. One of the others things I've been doing is finding images which are from the Geograph project but don't have the appropriate template. The list I've been working from can be seen at User:Adambro/Geograph along with some more details. That was based on a database dump from back in January so I'll generate a more up to date list and get that online soon.
As you note, there are a lot of badly uploaded Geograph images but hopefully we'll be able to get this sorted. Adambro (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you aware of geograph2commons? Lupo 07:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    The problem with that is the inability to specify the filename for the uploaded image. This is particularly a problem when you're transferring images from Wikipedia and so you'd need to start changing articles but it does seem that some of the filenames that it generates aren't particularly descriptive so it isn't necessarily the way to go for "fresh" uploads either and I've never found the manual process to be too onerous. Adambro (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfree images

The contributions of this user seem to be problematic with a lot of pictures that seem to come from the Web with unappropriate licenses : Fedel. Could an administrator do the necessary to clean them? Regards Moumou82 (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

All taken care of. Thanks for the heads up. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Couprie

Does anyone know the death date of this photographer, author of this picture and probably several others here? I couldn't find it. --Eusebius (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The latest I found is of 1933, searching Emilio Segrè Visual Archives. Couprie seems to be from the Institut International de Physique Solvay, their website brings nothing better or later, the next Solvay Conferences on Physics after 1933 was 1948 - so there is a large span of time. The photo of 1948 (search the Segré Archives for the Catalog# Solvay Conference E12) is covered by another photographer. --Martin H. (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks a lot for your research! PD status is reasonably credible, I guess. --Eusebius (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm.. at the moment, the license tag doesn't really explain why the image is considered PD. Belgium has a copyright length of 70 years pma. Can we really assume that Couprie died before 1939? --Kam Solusar (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
If you think it is unreasonable you should nominate for deletion. --Eusebius (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

May 13

Picture of the Year 2008

Greetings! Are there any final-final results for PoY2008 or just those unofficial ones? --Gbaor (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

AFAICS, vote checking is still in progress. When there are final results, they will be announced on Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Results/Round 2. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request of a Danish coin led to question about Euro coins

Would appreciate some comments here Commons:Deletion requests/File:5 -krone fra Danmark.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

See also related discussion above. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I think MGA73 is aware of that discussion. The discussions are related, but different - we have different legal texts to interpret. To me, it looks like we can't hos either Danish coins nor Euro coins, though. As MGA73, I hope someone more into legal business than I am will follow up on both of the discussions (thanks for you research so far, Ilmari). Nillerdk (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


I notice that there are quite a few images in Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR which were uploaded by FlickrLickr, see for example:

Does anyone know much about FlickrLickr? Is the fact that FlickrLickr added a particular cc licence to one of its uploads conclusive that this was the licence used by the flick uploader at the time the image was copied to Commons? If so, such images shouldn't be being tagged as possibly unfree when the licence is changed on flickr. I will draw Eloquence's attention to this thread as presumably he knows most about the reliability of tagging by FlirckLickr. WJBscribe (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It was an early version of a Flickr-transfer scheme. It only picked cc-by-sa and cc-by images (which humans then sifted through to see if they could be used for an educational purpose or not), so yes it can be used as conclusive evidence of correct licensing at the time of upload. All FlickrLickr uploads should be automatically cleared of FlickrReviewR issues. I bet a lot of the uploads were incorrectly deleted too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
FlickrLickr is largely inactive, though I'm still looking for a maintainer. :-) It maintains its own photo database to allow the collaborative sifting, and the licensing information comes straight from the Flickr API (actually CC-BY only at this time). So the information is machine-validated already, though of course Flickr users can republish on Flickr under a different license. That does not, however, revert the prior licensing status as CC licenses are irreversible. So in general from a legal standpoint we should be safe to keep them (unless the uploader wasn't allowed to license them in the first place), which is of course separate from the discussion about deleting them out of courtesy or for other reasons.--Eloquence (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Can it be used (or adapted) to copy an entire photostream? We still have a lot of deleted images to recover btw. Multichill (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

May 11

Categories not being added to new uploads using the Basic Uploader

Hi. I've just uploaded two new images from the {{Geograph}} site. I added categories at the time of upload, but they didn't show up with the image after the upload completed. On the second upload, I embedded some of the cats in the description, and the others I used the + symbol below. The ones added using the + did not carry over, but the ones in the description did. I use Hot Cats, so maybe it's somehow related to that. I think that it was working fine yesterday, though. Anyone else noticing similar problems? —Willscrlt “Talk” • “w:en” • “m” ) 10:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no such problems, and I'm using exactly the same method: Basic uploader, using the + symbol, HotCats activated. Are you still experiencing this issue? Pruneautalk 11:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Please give us some examples, so we can see what happened. --Davidt8 (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Still doing it on the last one. I have to get to work now, but I will provide examples later if it still happens tonight. I am using Google Chrome browser. Maybe that's the difference? I'll try with IE and Firefox tonight, too. —Willscrlt “Talk” • “w:en” • “m” ) 13:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I had a litle time before work, so I tested it in Firefox 3. Works fine. Apparently it's an issue with Google Chrome, because that's the only thing I did differently this time. I will try to troubleshoot it in a bit more detail later. Where would be the best place to report the bug once I narrow it down? Thanks! —Willscrlt “Talk” • “w:en” • “m” ) 14:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
On MediaWiki talk:UploadForm.js. Lupo 11:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for old version of file to be deleted.

I'm wondering if someone could delete an old version of an image.

I uploaded the first version of File:Maternagrane.jpg which I got form the web without realising the caption was included. I have replaced it with a second version without the caption. The original photograph is by someone who died in 1886. However the caption is probably copyright. SO coudl an admin delete that earlier version, please.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

May 14

Hidden user galleries on Flickr : is it a feature or a bug ?

How do you understand the circumstances when a picture is available on Flickr, like this one (uploaded on Commons by me as File:White Tiger, Singapore Zoo 2006-03-31.jpg), yet not being displayed in the user's gallery.

  • Do Flickr users have a "don't show it in my gallery" option they can enable ? If so, for what purpose ?
  • Or is it a bug ?
  • Do you think it is safe to upload this kind of pictures ? Are they free enough ?

Teofilo (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a bug… Flickr users have a “this photo is private” option, but only friends and/or contact can see it in that case, not everyone. However, I think it is safe to upload such pictures, insofar as the uploader explicitely chose to upload them under a Creative Commons license; furthermore, the photo is ok according to our policies. Diti the penguin 11:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you know how to report this bug ? Do they have a local "bugzilla" ? Teofilo (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I dont think its a bug. You can modify your photostream, images dissappear if your pro account expires, older uploads are also not shown up in the archive. Thats quite often, so it might have some other reason. --Martin H. (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
So why do people use "pro accounts" at all ? Teofilo (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Bugzilla sucks - it's been about four months since we asked for our search parameter to default to "Search" instead of "Go" and nothing has happened. That was passed unanimously. People take Pro accounts on Flickr because there is a limit to how many MBs you can upload on a free account. --David Shankbone (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Ehm... that's not a bugzilla problem, it's a human problem. But in the meantime, just activate the gadget "Change the default on the searchbox from Go to Search" in your preferences. Lupo 19:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The issue is not about me, it's about our users, who are unable to find our content because our pages remain not updated, while our categories are the best way to find our content. The problem is not my own, but with how unsophisticated users find what we have to offer, and right now, our system doesn't show all that we have. --David Shankbone (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Regular Flickr accounts limit the number of photos one can have online, I think to 200, and then the oldest ones disappear as newer ones are added. The pro account has no limit, and also lets the user create unlimited "sets" (sort of like categories or galleries) of their photos. Other features too no doubt, but that's probably some of the main attraction of Flickr pro accounts. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I can find more than 1000 pictures from the white tiger's uploader when I search some specific keywords on Flickr. So he is likely to have been a pro account's owner in the past. Teofilo (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Designing a bot for copyvio detection

Hi all. I'd like to design a bot to help detect image uploads that are copyright violations, using standard machine learning techniques. I should be able to gather training data from deletion logs. The main question I have for you all is what kind of features you think would be most useful in identifying copyvios. Here are a few that I have considered:

  • Resolution of the image
  • Overall qualities of the image such as: sharpness, contrast, colors
  • EXIF data - in particular, whether it is present, and the camera model used
  • Properties of the user such as: number of uploads, age of account, number of edits on other projects, whether they're an admin on Commons or other projects, how many images they have had deleted as copyvio before in the past
  • License tag placed on the image
  • Size of image description page
  • Number of users who have edited the image description page

Any other suggestions? Dcoetzee (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am against such a thing, it leads to copyright paranoia: "My clever and wise bot identified your image as a copyvio, please prove it is not". See also this particular deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amy Grant in 1998.jpg. Sv1xv (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I would concentrate first on files uploaded as own works. Others are already catched by users, the biggest problem atm are wrong "own work" claims - i think.
You already have a good collection, the combination is important. Taking a new user with so far 5 uploads, all claimed own work, I can denominate three very common reasons for suspicion:
1) variation in camera EXIF; date and EXIF-date not corresponding - not even the year; different quality
2) not imagesize but variation in imagesize; upload of various sizes including one or two 500px images
3) one or more but not all images with TinEye hit.
Of course this applies only for "own work"s, broadening this to other uploads can create wrong suspicions. I think conflicting dates and the 500px are good points. And yes: According to meta Im realy suffer. --Martin H. (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Responding to Sv1xv: that's an interesting deletion case, and I believe it. I certainly wouldn't want the bot just randomly deleting images, but just tagging them with something like: "This image has been automatically tagged as a suspected copyright violation. It will be reviewed to determine if it is acceptable under our licensing policy." It would have a high threshold to keep the number of false positives small.
Responding to Martin: yes, I think a critical component of making this work effectively is to examine each user's contributions as a whole and look for unlikely variability. TinEye is tricky since it's hard to tell who copied from who, or if they first published to Flickr, etc. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This can be a difficult tool to write I'm guessing, because there are probably valid patterns which will trigger with most of the patterns you may look at. Keeping to "own work" would help greatly. I remember one person tried to look for variations in EXIF, but that alone didn't work so well -- they ran into people who transferred lots of images from the local wikis, or valid images from Flickr. Even "own work" could be an issue, as people may just copy the Information template (which could contain "own work" from local wikis when transferring images, and you'd have the same situation. Other people may scan and upload public domain images from old sources, and label them "own work" out of slight ignorance of what copyright ownership really is. I think some of the things in your list are probably irrelevant -- I don't see how number of edits are any sort of indicator, lack of license is typically already caught by bots, and not sure about size either since presumably these are all images which passed all the bots checking for missing information. There is no way to know without actually trying though -- may as well do your best and see how it goes. Obviously, initially the results would just go to its own page, which should then be checked by humans to see how effective it is. Any automated tagging of images should probably never happen unless the tool is proven to have a very good hit rate over a good period of time; commons can be unfriendly enough as it is without robots tagging files as suspicious. That said, if someone can come up with a pattern which really works, then great -- and no way to find out without simply trying it and seeing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like an interesting project. When you tune it so that it will have very few false positives, you will of course end up with many false negatives but that is ok as the bot is not replacing human scrutiny, just assisting it. It'd be very interesting to see the kind of fuzzy logic you'll end up using, but here are a couple of more things that might help:
  • Use of language templates ({{En}}, {{Fr}})
  • Not having a category
  • Not being used
  • Picture of a celebrity
  • Image dimension (typical 3:4 ratio or not)
Samulili (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
@Dcoetzee, this sounds to be a very interesting project. Surely it will need a lot of fine-tuning. But more earlier than later we will need such a thing as the few admins here are drowned in overflowing new (and old) copyvios. --Túrelio (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Please coordinate any such efforts with Sz-iwbot (or rather, its operator, User:Shizhao). That bot uses tineye to search for similar images. Lupo 07:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea, though it will be difficult to write. I would leave out "Overall qualities of the image such as: sharpness, contrast, colors", as I don't think much can be told from that: copyvios can just as easily be blurred as be a very sharp professional image. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You could take the spam/ham approach like in SpamAssassin. You have a lot of properties to check. Each property changes the score. If the score is lower than a treshold it's probably not a copyvio, if it's higher it could be a copyvio. Next thing would be Bayesian spam filtering. Multichill (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
As mentioned above I find it very important to avoid false positives. A practical point is: what does the bot do with an image that has been found false positive and “repaired” to good? Does the bot find it again in the next run and labels it again (false) positive?
Further I would avoid a large message at the page of the image. May be better to put it in an additional catalog “To be reviewed for copyvio” in a similar way as bad images can be added to Category:Bad images. Wouter (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Lets create project related to this task. One helpful approach would be if someone grabbed few thousands non-copyvio files and few thousands (deleted) copyvio files and extract features like: license, dimensions, number of uploads by the "author", and all the other mentioned above. Those features and copyvio/non-copyvio label could be placed on some page in a form of wiki table. Whit that we could have a competition of the best "classifier" to tell good guys from the bad ones. --Jarekt (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Great idea! Couple suggestions from after processing Category:Unknown for awhile.
  • Source Internet/Google/BBC/CNN/etc or links to image search services.
  • Inconsistency of Source/Author with user name.
  • Also various album/CD cover (on different languages) in description and square image with small resolution.
I think Abuse filter tags may be added to suspicious images, to bring attention of admins/trusted users.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a good project, but even so, results must be checked by human editors. I would not advise to use the standard type of copyright violation templates (you know, red, exclamation or big fonts, attention signs, etc) or send the results to the regular deletion categories, wich are already populated as it is. Results should be send to another category for human supervision, and whatever template is used would be then removed or replaced by the regular deletion template that fits the case.

And another detail that might be useful for the bot: images available at the english wikipedia under fair use claims. However, notice that an image may have an expired copyright, but be uploaded under a fair use clause because the uploader wasn't aware of it being free (but that's just the exceptional case, in 99% of cases such images are copyrighted) Belgrano (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Guitar chord diagrams and file names

Hi, everyone. I'm currently involved in the writing of the french wikibook "Apprendre la guitare" ( - sorry, I couldn't find the way to create a link to a french wikibook), and I'm trying to find an adequate choice of names for dozens of guitar chord and scale diagrams I'm planning to upload. For now those diagrams are made by assembling small svg images with the help of a model (see any chapter of the wikibook). This solution is efficient with Firefox, but the download of these pages is unbearably slow with Explorer (don't ask me why).

There are generally many ways to play a chord or a scale of a given name at different places on the neck. The full description of a specific way to play a chord requires more than its name - the player needs to know where to put each finger of its left hand (possibly on more than one string), and which strings he has to play (some of them can be muted). For instance, the following diagram source code appears inés :

 {{Guitar String 6x3 44px|=
  | |=
  |'''III'''| | |=
  | | bar_top   | fret  | fret |=
  | | bar       | fret  | fret |=
  | | bar       | dot_2 | fret  |=
  | | bar       | fret  | dot_4 |=
  | | bar       | fret  | dot_3 |=
  | | bar_bot_1 | fret  | fret  }}

This code specifies one way to play a G chord (first finger on all strings at fret 3, finger 2 on string 3 at fret 4, third finger on string 5 at fret 5, fourth finger on string 4 at fret 5) - there are many others. My question is : what should be the name of the corresponding image ? As I said, "G major" is too unprecise. "G major 3 5 5 4 3 3" (for each string, a fret number to be played) is better, but doesn't specify a fingering (in general there is more that one fingering for a given chord). "G major 3 5 5 4 3 3 1 3 4 2 1" is almost a full description (fret numbers + fingering) of the resulting image, but doesn't handle the case where a diagram contains special labels (black dots and white dots, note names on dots, etc., there are many such special diagrams in the wikibook). A fully informative name would be "G major 6 3 III n n n bt f f n b f f n b d2 f n b f d4 n b f d3 bb1 f f", which contains no less information than the diagram itself. An alternate and probably better idea would be to add to each file name a unique id, preferably a lossless encoding of the whole source code of a diagram on the alphabet a-z, A-Z, 0-9 (in most cases such an id wouldn't be very long, as most diagrams contains only a small amount of information). This id would be meaningless without the algorithm to decode it, but again, it would be fully informative in principle. Any suggestion ? Scheme42 (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

subcategories not showing up on parent category page

Being rather bored at work (dont tell my boss), Ive been putting in some time recategorizing images under Category:Mexico. For the second time, Im running into a problem where I create subcategories and link them to the parent category but the subcategory does not appear on the parent category page. But the link on the subcategory takes me to the parent category page. Cant think of what Im doing wrong. Im working on Category:Maps of Mexico and as of this moment, subcategories such as Category:Road maps of Mexico, Category:Regional maps of Mexico and others are not appearing. Can someone take a look? Thanks. Thelmadatter (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bug, that's an "annoying feature": the category contains more than 200 images, so there are more images on the next page of the category (click the "next 200" button at the top of the page). Unfortunately, the developers of the software thought it was a good idea to link the sorting of the sub-categories to the sorting of the images. Therefore, your subcategory Category:Regional maps of Mexico appears on the second page of the category, where a file named that way would be sorted. This is why it is often a good idea not to have more than 200 pictures in the same parent cat... Hence, working on categories is a good idea, thanks for that! --Eusebius (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I consider this problem one of the most annoying "features" of the Commons. I have been here for couple years, but I get cough by it every time. I can not image it is that hard to fix. --Jarekt (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Galleries' width here on Commons and on Wikipedias

When I create a gallery here, using < gallery>...</ gallery>, I have 3 pictures per row, and I find this very good, considering the fact that my screen is 800px wide. On the other hands on the French or English Wikipedias, galleries have 4 pictures per row, and the fourth picture is partly hidden, far away on the right side, and I must use the horizontal scroll bar to see it. Do you know why it is different (and better, as far as I am concerned) here from on Wikipedias ? Teofilo (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Presumably a default setting. You can use <gallery perrow="3">...</gallery> I think to force it one way or another. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Here on Commons MediaWiki:ResizeGalleries.js adjusts gallery widths to your screen size. /Ö 17:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you ! I will try to convince the people on the French Wikipédia to copy that useful script there too. Teofilo (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Image not updating

I incorrectly loaded an image of a temple (landscape format) when I meant to upload a picture of a Buddha statue (portrait), see here. When I realised my error, I uploaded a new version. Instead of changing images though, it has just changed the same picture from landscape to portrait. I've waited a few hours now, and I've purged the page cache several times, and it still won't change. Will it stay like this or eventually correct itself? Can everyone else see the correct picture but me? Help, please! :-) Maedin\talk 18:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything ok, the Statue is shown up. --Martin H. (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Just started working for me. Whew! Thank you, Martin H. Maedin\talk 18:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess this has something to do with cache in your local web browser? maybe bypass your cache instead of purging the page will help because I encountered this at Chinese Wikipedia for several times. --Ben.MQ (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

May 15

MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected bulleted list error?

I'm not sure if this problem only exists on Wikimedia Commons, but it seems that MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected does not parse bulleted lists correctly.

I've uploaded a screenshot here. (I uploaded it on Photobucket since I felt it wasn't worth being uploaded here.) Could someone please take a look at this?

Thanks. --Ixfd64 (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. Drop another line here if it isn't. Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
It works! :) --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons reaches 4,444,444 files!


Wikimedia Commons now has (over) 4,444,444 files, so here's a big toast to you all! Of course, some of these files will be deleted due to copyright violations and various other issues, but for every deleted file, there will be ten new files to take their place! :D --Ixfd64 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fantastic. I wonder where we rank among websites with free-for-all-use-only images in terms of number of files? It would be interesting to see some statistics. -- Editor at Largetalk 01:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess that as a Whole the Wikimedia projects have more than 10 million pages. So that means that we have less than one picture per page. That's not much ! Teofilo (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Not much compared to many photo sharing sites, but as a strictly enforced free media repository I think we're unparalleled (except perhaps for The comparison to the total number of articles is kind of weird, since usually the different language versions of a single article tend to use the same images (that's kind of the point of Commons), but we could certainly aspire to have multiple images in all sufficiently large articles. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I've calculated that my contribution to this number amounts to about 0.0023%, but never mind about that.;) I do agree that in general the usesfulness of media on Commons exceeds that on, say, Flickr, due both to the clear licencing policy and to, in most cases, the quality of the images. @ Teofilo: your calculation is of course correct, but with many Wikipedia articles it is hard to see what sort of an image one could use. All the same, my congratulations to the Commons community! MartinD (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Images that maybe have copryright

Next images could have copyright:

-- Warko (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

best way to discourage image editwarring?

I just noticed a flurry of image updates and reversions on some map images. I have placed a note asking people to stop editwarring on the talk page, and warned another that I am reverting all their changes. Is there a procedure or template to add that may help reduce this kind of behaviour? For examples see: File:LocationMapJapan.png and File:North Korea launch site in Sea of Japan map.png. 84user (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Mollify/offend both sides, re File:LocationMapJapan.png, there is no reason why both versions of the file should not be hosted, one with the Kuriles and one without, both will have their uses if nothing but to illustrate disputed territorial claims, so are both valid.KTo288 (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

May 18


I can submit pictures taken by me of my boardgames? There is some kind of restriction in doing this? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk • contribs) 15:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Most boardgame designs, unfortunately, tend to be copyrighted (and not freely licensed), meaning that you shouldn't put pictures of them on Commons. For more information, see Commons:Image casebook#Board games. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ricardo, when you say "my boardgames": are you the inventor of these games, or do you just own a single copy of the game? If the latter, are we talking very traditional games like chess, or more modern games? (I take it you read/write Portuguese better than English. Feel free to reply in Portuguese, and let me know if it would be useful for me to respond in Spanish. I read Portuguese well, but write it very poorly.) - Jmabel ! talk 06:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it Alzheimer?

Is it just me, or has the TOC numeration of the subsections changed on the mediawiki installation (with numbers like 2.4.1)? --Eusebius (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Renaming file

Can trusted user execure renameing File:Lacerta agilis zelenci c.JPG, please. --Pinky sl (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the image, so the bot will do its work in the next couple of days. NobbiP 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

converting video files to acceptable format...

I've been running a big project in Wikibooks for a couple years with undergrad students at Old Dominion University and they are now trying hard to upload tons of video for their peers' use. I am, of course, all for keeping everything free and have been trying to negotiate the top two conversion programs cited here in the Commons--Media Coder and ffmpeg2theora and am having all sorts of trouble getting them to convert video files from .avi to the acceptable ogg theora. Can anyone help me? Sorry for being such a novice. Check out my kids' work here, here, and here.

Thanks for all your help!

PbakerODU (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What operating system are you using? If using Windows you might try oggconvert .. you could also try firefogg using firefogg on commons. And finaly if all else fails you can upload you media to and they will convert it automatically.Sorry this is so difficult right now. The situation should improve soon :) Mdale (talk)
I used get nothing but grief from ffmpeg2theora, but when I tried it again after having upgraded my Linux distro, it suddenly worked like a charm. All I can assume is that the version I used to have (0.19) was just plain buggy. The version I use now is 0.23 — if yours is older than that, you might want to consider upgrading. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

May 16

Accredited photographers

English Wikinews has a community accreditation process to issue press credentials. A proposal has been made to issue more professional ID.

There are concerns that for as small a project as en.wn the cost of a printer with security features is quite an expense, so additional uses for the printer would be good. I have suggested use by WMUK for membership cards, but an additional use - as some people have tried with the Wikinews accreditation process - is accredited photographers.

Obviously there would be details like a code of conduct and perhaps some cooperative work with well-known museums or exhibition centres. It'd be up to commons what criteria to set on this, but there is perhaps in such a move scope to get privileged access to exhibitions and events that would benefit both Commons, Wikinews, Wikipedia, and perhaps others like Wikisource (getting scans or close-up photos of material not on public display).

Is this idea doomed? Has it been brought up before? --Brian McNeil / talk 17:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I would enthusiastically support such an initiative. Living in Ottawa, I have the ability to attend events with international political leaders, and national festivals with many famous performers for whom we lack freely-licenced photographs; but without a press ID the chances of getting decent shots from the area the public has access to is slim to none.
There is also the problem where out of 308 Members of Parliament in Canada, only 75 have photographs - half of which are horrible and half of which are press photos with sketchy copyright issues. Having a press pass would greatly increase my chances of getting photos for the MPs when they're in Ottawa. I sincerely hope this comes to pass in some shape or form, whether it's combined with wikinews's Accredited Reporters program or started as a separate initiative here. -- Editor at Largetalk 22:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I remember seeing an accreditation request by a user at wikinews wanting accreditation so that he would have something to show to the authorities when taking photos of bridges and other infrastructure, so it would come in useful here. Personally I've been shooed off by security at shopping centres, and privately managed public shopping precincts. Having been told that only the press could take pictures having a card to show may come in useful.KTo288 (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I would love to have an accreditation like this. It would presumably allow me to take photos from far more convenient locations at a lot of events I photograph for Commons, and would probably also be of great help in getting to photograph interiors of historic buildings. - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
One of my ongoing projects is finding ways to persuade museums who normally forbid photography to allow limited photography of public domain works in their collection by special permission (perhaps inspired by promotional considerations). One can always sneak in a camera, but the fact is that any camera small enough to hide is going to produce poor quality photos, especially in the low light required to preserve some of these works. The idea of accreditation could be helpful on this front. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think that would be a deal breaker rather than getting you into the museums with your camera. Most museums are worried about people using images of "their" stuff without their approval and don't want photographers near their exhibits for that reason. They're particularly worried about people taking good pictures with good cameras and selling them or making a profit off them (since they want all the profits for themselves), so proof that you're a "professional" will only make the matter worse.
Telling a story about how your ailing mother loves art and museums but is too ill to visit so you're making a scrapbook for her will get you in much easier than saying you're there for business reasons. I'm lucky in that all the museums I've been to in Ottawa and Toronto so far have been very open and welcoming to flash-free photograph-taking; but in the odd cases where they seemed a little antsy about it, being young and female I've had great success with the story that I'm studying whatever subject the exhibit is about. A little white lie for the sake of PD art never hurt anyone, did it? ;) -- Editor at Largetalk 22:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The idea of an accreditation is nice for events and concerts (although I wonder whether in some countries the WMF should have a specific status to deliver those), but I agree with Editor at Large: the best way to enter in a museum (and sometimes a church!) with a DSLR and a tripod is to swear (or to sign a declaration) that you will keep the pictures for your "personal use". In the museums where I've been, a press accreditation would only get them to sell you their own pics for use in the press. --Eusebius (talk) 05:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
As with any journalist, sometimes you need to be a bit creative to get the material you want, but I was under the impression that things like 'Wikipedia loves art' were an effort to get museums and exhibitions to be more open to wiki contributor access. Wikipedia pages for famous galleries are an excellent advert for them, and I'd hope they're learning this.
The feedback on throwing this idea out has been good, so I think you'd need to start thinking about what policy and guidelines you'd need to support this. It would be a community accreditation process, so to my way of thinking one of the key issues would be a code of conduct for accredited photographers. What else? Are there existing guides that also apply? (I'm not a regular commons contributor and don't know). --Brian McNeil / talk 09:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My request is on the voting right now in en.wikinews. I am in Estonia and I have uploaded several images made by me. I'm still better in taking photos than writing news. Avjoska (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

British photographer takes photo in Australia—which is the country of origin?

Commons request for uploaded images to be public domain in United States and the image's country of origin. Suppose a British man goes to Australia and takes a picture. He goes back home and publishes it (or keeps it in his album till he dies and his children publish it). Is the country of origin (by which the copyright rule shall be applied) of his photo United Kingdom or Australia? Jappalang (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This question is inspired by Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clarrie Grimmett.JPG. According to the Berne convention, the source country would be the country where the work was first published with the copyright owner's consent. If "unpublished" (for instance, published without the copyright owner's consent, or from some archive), the source country would be determined by the nationality of the author.
However, in the particular case of this photo, what evidence is there that the photo was first published in Australia? Couldn't the subject have traveled just as well to London, and the picture have been taken and first published there?
Absent information about the publication history of an image, I go by the nationality of the photographer. The Clarrie Grimmett photo comes from the Hulton Archives: a British archive. It is thus plausible that the work was indeed published in the UK. Lupo 08:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, this is inspired by another photo (but of an Australian cricketer again), Ronald Arthur Hamence—w:File:Hamence.jpg. A London-based company is claiming copyright over the image (which I doubt it has, but...) and the cricketer in question, purportedly never left Australia during 1939 (correct me if I am wrong). In this case, it might be that the photo was taken in Australia, but the photo was published in United Kingdom (in a UK-based magazine which this later web startup might have claimed to have gotten its copyrights). Jappalang (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, Lupo is right. Per the Berne Convention, the country of origin is the country of first publication. If a UK reporter took the photo in Australia, but then sent it home to have it published, then yes the country of origin would be the UK. For a 1939 photo, that company would need to know the identity of the photographer to still claim UK copyright after this year, though the U.S. copyright would still be valid. The only chance for either photo is to show that it was published first in Australia, which is extremely unlikely for the Grimmett photo especially. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
So how does that affect Panoramafreiheit- and in particularly the Millau Viaduct? --ClemRutter (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Our way to deal with FOP is that for an image of a copyrighted work in public space to be eligible for being uploaded (and kept) here without consent of the copyright owner of the depicted work we require that the source country of the work depicted have FOP. We don't regard the source country of the image because the image is either a copy or a derivative work of the depicted work.
That said, a FOP image taken in a no-FOP country can be used without problems in FOP countries. But not in no-FOP countries. And strictly speaking, a FOP image taken or published in a FOP country cannot be used in a no-FOP country.
In addition to that, the Commons only regards the FOP status in the source country of the depicted work and ignores the FOP status in the U.S., unless the work is located there.
HTH, Lupo 14:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Identifying animals

Hi all - what's the right place to ask about identifying plants or animals? I have a few photos I took of animals that - years after the fact - I can no longer identify, although the photos contain enough detail to do so. The main one that I really want to know is this Australian skink. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia has fr:Projet:Zoologie/Quel est cet animal ?; they might be able to help. Pruneautalk 13:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
There are categories for images like that for (example Category:Unidentified spiders) and as an example en wiki also has a discussion page for identifying spiders Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders/Undetermined pictures. Other species might have similar pages. However, in the past I found internet forums devoted to identifying specialized images to be much more lively than Wiki Projects. Those specialties can get very deep, for example lately I was working with 2 forums debating in great depth camera locations for hundreds of WWII photos from Warsaw. --Jarekt (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
w:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science gets these types of questions routinely. Dragons flight (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Linking to en.wikipedia

How do I link to pages on the English Wikipedia at commons? I usually like to add links to my image descriptions but haven't been able to figure out how it's done yet. Gatoclass (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

To link to English Wikipedia, just put [[w:Link Target]], for any other Wikipedia, take the language code: [[:de:Link Target]], etc. --rimshottalk 19:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

For some reason [[:en:Rabbit]] displays as en:Rabbit. I discovered that using pipe tricks you can get rid of the prefix by typing [[:en:rabbit|]] (note the | at the end), which displays as rabbit (rather than the more tiresome [[:en:rabbit|rabbit]], that is). Richard001 (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

rabbit, rabbit {{w|rabbit}} works nicely. Dinners ready is done this way {{w|rabbit|Dinners ready}}. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


Could someone please rename File:File-Nl-schemeren.ogg to File:Nl-schemeren.ogg? Thanks Grunnen (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Issue resolved. Grunnen (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

May 19

Template error

See the summary of this image File:Einstein1921_by_F_Schmutzer_2.jpg. It notifies template loop detected. Their related templates are also full-protected so I cannot test what the problem might be. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

120 px thumbnail generation problem

size 50 px
size 120 px : can you see it ?
size 121 px

The 120px size thumbnail fails from displaying in categories. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the servers looked quite busy yesterday when I uploaded the picture...

I have tried to upload the picture again, and guess what happened : as you can see on File:Sungai Johor Bridge 2007-10-03 01.jpg#File history, the thumbnail of the old version appeared, and the thumbnail of the newer version was still missing... And reverting back to the older version did not solve the problem either...

Do you know a way to solve this, apart from uploading the picture again with another file name ?

Reverting back to the older version did solve the problem. Teofilo (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the "gallery tool" seems to be down. Teofilo (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

looks OK now Teofilo (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Resolved
Teofilo (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I also have a problem with a thumbnail, but I can't fix it :( Not even with that method: File:Burkovo, Jelsa, seen from the opposite hills.jpg. Samulili (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I reverted it once again, and pressed "CTRL+Shift+R" on Firefox, and your picture's thumbnail looks OK now (at least on my computer). Teofilo (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Videos and audio

We really need a help page on video, besides the rather specific help:converting video (which also still needs work). Anyone feel they can contribute something? If you don't want start the page yourself I have a draft page at User:Richard001/Commons:Video draft that might provide some ideas. I'd like to see featured media turned into something other than a loop, but if we don't even have pages that give an overview of audio and video how can we expect any progress?

I'd like to know the best way to strip out the audio from videos where it is irrelevant to the content or overall more of a nuisance than it's worth. We should get something like the cropbot etc to do this automatically. Richard001 (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the category tree ?

As this user is saying, once upon a time, in Wikimedia Wonderland, one used to be able to click a number of times on [+] and go deeper and deeper into the subcategory structure. No longer now, so that you have to go back to the old tree tool, although it is marked as "deprecated". What happened to the tree ? Was it chopped into logs ? Teofilo (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently due to this. --Eusebius (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

SVG Images

I've just seen a very useful tag on an image - File:Treaty_of_Lisbon_ratification.svg:

If you wish to alter the colours on this SVG map, download Inkscape and edit the file using that programme. It's very easy. SVGs look sharper than PNGs.

Wouldn't it be great if all SVG maps had something like that on them? Could someone design a template and then maybe a bot to add this on? AndrewRT (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be a very bad idea. If we want SVG support information to be present on the pages, we should rather let Mediawiki do it automatically. Mediawiki knows the file type of every single file and could easily show information for any file type. With a few extra lines of code it should be easily doable. That means, if we want it at all. --Slomox (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Did you have a look at {{Translation possible}}? IMHO this template is even better because it provides a link to a page where you can directly create the image and don't have to worry about installing Inkscape and possibly breaking rendering results. Adding it via bot sounds like a bad idea, though, as not all SVG files are translatable. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think he meant SVG maps where you would change the color. Agree it would be a bad idea to send a bot to do this. BTW, there's many options besides Inkscape. There's even simple online SVG editors like [18]. Rocket000 (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
So it could be done better in another way? That's no excuse for not doing it at all. At the moment, probably 99% of our editors are unable to change SVG images if, for example, another country ratifies a treaty and the map needs to be updated. Anything that makes it easier for people to edit is a good thing, surely? AndrewRT (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Nobody said, that we shouldn't improve the situation. Just improve it in the right way. --Slomox (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Unemployment rate in the US by county in 2008.[1] This county by county map was produced directly from a table of numbers using a blank map template.
  1. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009). Labor force data by county, 2008 annual averages.
One factor that has been coming up with SVGs is that some people use them as a text file by which geographical areas can be colored simply by naming them in the style section. This is especially useful for long lists of political regions. This usage in File:H1N1 map.svg inspired me to adapt File:USA counties FIPS text addressable.svg for use the same way, such as in File:USA 2008 unemployment by county.svg. This approach is quite powerful, but such SVGs should not be edited in Inkscape, which can foul up the styles. Mike Serfas (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

May 8

Maps for free

A user has brought to my attention (free map layers, useful for building new maps and so on). The snapshot tool doesn't work for me, but I guess some people can find the whole stuff useful. It's under GFDL 1.2. I'm not sure where I should add it on Commons:Free media resources. --Eusebius (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This looks useful. If a user learns how to make use of this service, an explanation here would be very helpful. --Davidt8 (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I created Commons:Free media resources/Map for that purpose. Teofilo (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --Eusebius (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I sincerely doubt that Hans Braxmeier has the copyrights over the Satellite Layer to release under GFDL. He acknowledges that except for the Relief View, the rest of the Views are under copyright of Google or OpenStreetMaps.[19] This site has to be carefully considered. Jappalang (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Other types of media: three dimensional objects and videos?

I'm pretty much completely ignorant in this area, but have wondered a little about what other types of media are possible.

One that would be really neat would be taking media into three spatial dimensions. I'm not sure if 'image' is the right word for such a file, but 3D images would be very cool. (I'm not talking about anaglyph images, which are 2D images that can become 3D from one angle only, and only with glasses). They could potentially be projected as holograms, or simply viewed in 2D with the ability to rotate the image and thus view it from any point (and also zoom in/out). I have seen 3D models in some electronic games that you can manipulate like this, and in some graphic design programs, but is there an open source file format that we could use, and do any browsers support such files? File size would also be an issue, much like video, limiting the detail any 'image' could have.

There is also the possibility of 3D videos/animations, which would also allow the viewer to rotate the point of view unlike a standard 2D video. I have also entertained thoughts of audio files that are more than one dimensional, e.g. containing directional information in 2 or even 3 dimensions, though I'm doubtful this has been developed at all (perhaps it would have if sound was our primary sense). And the other senses and other possibilities are untouched, but I think they'll have to remain so for the time being.

Can anyone point me in the direction of a Wikipedia article or website that has more information on this sort of thing? Richard001 (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The hot thing a dozen years ago was en:VRML, and you could even get a 3D plugin for your Netscape browser; not sure if there's one standard which has effectively replaced it... AnonMoos (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The modern successor to VRML is the ISO standard X3D. Although neither has had much commercial penetration on the web due to the high cost of modelling, fully rotatable detailed 3D models could be an excellent way of interactively displaying certain artifacts in Wikipedia articles (for example molecular compounds, which are very difficult to render usefully in 2D). The main issue is that displaying them requires either a plug-in (see VRML Plugin and Browser Detector) - or a Java applet, which is a huge download due to extensive libraries. There's talk in Firefox land of adding native support. If we do this, I think it's important that the Mediawiki software allows us to serve a static image to browsers without the appropriate viewer (also for PDFs). Dcoetzee (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as 3D support in Web browsers, the situation has actually kind of gone backwards — around 1996-1997, basic VRML support was available through a reasonably widely-installed browser plugin, and some people thought it was going to be the future of the Web. Then somehow the wheels quickly fell off of VRML implementation and deployment (for no reason that I've ever clearly understood), and a proliferation of new 3D formats sprung up — some of which do fine work in data interchange among specialized 3D graphic programs, but none of which has seen any significant mainstream use for general-purpose web-browing.... AnonMoos (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a bit of a disappointment; I hope Firefix pick it up at some stage. There's not really much we can do here if the rest of the internet isn't using these, though it might help create some momentum if we could use them on Wikipedia and host them at the Commons as soon as it's feasible. Making them also seems like something that would require some specialist skill and equipment, sort of like the situation with making audio files now times a hundred. Anyway, thanks for the feedback and links. Richard001 (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, we already use some formats with poor browser support, like OGG and OGV. Just as OGV support allows a still frame image to be served up for users without OGV support, we could serve up an initial perspective with VRML/X3D. The question is really whether we have enough interested content creators. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Google earth overlay files (.kml) at commons

I was looking at our collection of kml files associated with {{Overlay}} template and noticed that each has a strange message at the top: "No file by this name exists. You can upload one. It is possible it once existed but was deleted. Check for .../overlay.kml in the deletion log.". Obviously those files exist and are can be edited, etc. Also on the bottom there is a message: "There are no pages that link to this file. " but clicking on "What Links Here" shows otherwise. Can we fix those confusing messages ? --Jarekt (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there really is no file by that name uploaded to Commons: the KML markup is just written on what MediaWiki considers to be a description page for a non-existent file. For some past discussion on the (dis)advantages of this method and on possible alternatives, see Commons talk:Geocoding/Overlay. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright of the European Commission

I noticed that this file File:EU-Glob opta presentation.png, copyrighted by the European Commission (EC), claims to be free under an {{Attribution}} license. At the same time in Commons:License tags it is stated that "{{EU image}}: Images from the website of the European Union are copyrighted and derivative works and commercial use are not authorized." (The old EC domain is listed, the current EC pages are under Is anyone familiar with the licensing of European Commission material to sort it out? Sv1xv (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional information: In it is stated that: "Copyright on EUROPA: The information on the EUROPA site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. As a general rule and unless otherwise indicated, the information available on the site may be reproduced on condition that the source is acknowledged. Any queries regarding copyright may be addressed to the Official for Official Publications of the European Union, at the following address:" Sv1xv (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The copyright notice only allows reproduction, which is not enough for COM:L. Exceptions could be sought and granted, and should be recorded through OTRS, but I doubt we could get any media files under an acceptable license. Applying an {{Attribution}} license on a file from this website, in the absence of an explicit authorization, seems ungrounded. --Eusebius (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It says "the information may be reproduced", and it is not quite clear if that is true for images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
For images they talk about "prior permission". Doesn't sound like free for us, definitely. This notice is really fuzzy. --Eusebius (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again.... Logo Copyright Question

I imagine this question is answered a ridiculous number of times daily or weekly, but I guess I'm just slow.

I have read pages and pages about copyright, but can't decide which to use for an image.

I have been given the rights to freely upload, use, and post a registered/copyrighted logo/trademark on/in the wiki environment [by the owner (a US company)], with the sole requirements that it not be altered other than made smaller/larger, and that they are mentioned/listed as the registered owner or as is standard for this type of thing on/with a wiki file.

Can someone please tell me which of the license tags, copyright attribution, or other should be used so I can upload this file without breaking a wiki rule and getting it automatically deleted? Thank you! NHearn (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

None! Sorry, the restriction on derivative works is not acceptable on Commons. That's probably why you didn't find a suitable license here. You should see whether there is a "fair use" policy on the project you want to use the logo on, and upload it locally there. --Eusebius (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
There are two small loopholes: First, if the logo was published in the United States before 1923 or is otherwise old enough to have expired copyright (that's why we have Coca-Cola and NY Yankees logo SVG files -- depicting the pre-1923 forms of the logos, of course); Template:PD-US. Second, if the logo consists entirely of characters of a regular text font juxtaposed in a basic side-by-side manner which does not allow meaningful scope for individual artistic creativity on the part of the person who devised the logo; Template:PD-textlogo. Otherwise you're pretty much out of luck... AnonMoos (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My file was deleted

I edit in the paint a tablature about the basic Alternate Thumb Roll of the 5-strings banjo. Many books of banjo have this tablature and this is not a song copyrighted. I wish to know what was the reason my drawning of the tbalbature was deleted

File: Tab_alternate.png

best regards

Ricardo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk • contribs) 23:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ricardo. I'm sorry, but I can't find any record of a file by the name of "Tab_alternate.png" having ever been uploaded to Commons (or to the Portuguese Wikipedia, for that matter), and I see nothing similar in your upload history. Perhaps there was some kind of error when you tried to upload it? If so, I'd suggest you simply try again and see if it works.
Also, when leaving comments on discussion pages like this one, please sign your post by typing "~~~~" (four tildes) after your comment. You can do this easily by clicking the signature button above the edit box. For more information, please see Commons:Talk page guidelines#Markup. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanky you very much. I am new at Wikipedia and intend to do the things right. Thak you again. I will re-submit the image.

Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

May 21

Licensing update vote result

The results of the licensing update poll have been announced. Dragons flight (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Object identification

unidentified Honeywell device

[edit conflict] Could somebody help me finding out what this object is? I'd say it's a detector, but for what? Probably not for smoke, it's at 1m50 from the floor, probably not for temperature, there's no air con in the building (nor automatic heating control), not for movement, there's no alarm (and it doesn't look like it). Thanks in advance! --Eusebius (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a HONEYWELL H7012A1009 Humidity Sensor. Lycaon (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooooh... humidity :-) How did you find out? --Eusebius (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Google image search on 'Honeywell sensor' ;-). Lycaon (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Crediting photographers in article pages

Is it acceptable that authors put their name in various Wikipedia article pages under their images? For example, dual-licensed GFDL/FAL (Free Art License) content. Where can I find old discussions or help on that topic? Does it depend on local Wikipedia policy? --Jaan513 (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean under the article text or under an image in that article? The latter is already in use on :no as I've heard. --Túrelio (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Under images in articles, not below the article text. So, it does depend on local policy? --Jaan513 (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems so. :no may have been a sort of pilot project (for feasibility). On :de this was heavily and very controversily discussed. In order to (somewhat) prevent the heavy unlicensed re-use of Wikipedia-presented images, probably most photographers will prefer a credit at the image. (This is just meant as an explaination; I don't want to open a discussion about that on Commons, because it will (probably) be local policy.) --Túrelio (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
We can always discover the author by clicking on the image itself and reading its description, for me that is enough to satisfy the requirement for attribution, however as always local rules apply. It took some getting used to that in wikinews articles, the author has to be credited in the picture caption.KTo288 (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
@KTo288, the reason for this idea or "demand" was not the use on Wikimedia projects, but the outside re-use by so many people and institutions that seem to be too lazy to perform this one click. To get an impression, look at File talk:MotherTeresa 090.jpg in how many instances the image was used without any credit.--Túrelio (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
So that was your concern. Those Those too lazy or unethical enouth to provide even a hidden credit will continue to fail to do so I guess unless its really really easy to do so , or impossible to avoid. Keeping the image tied to its meta-data as discussed below seems workable.KTo288 (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for information, I am satisfied with your answers. --Jaan513 (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, whatever one might believe the rule on such credits should be, in practice it's up to individual Wikimedia projects. This really isn't something we here Commons can enforce; all we can do is inform our uploaders of the de facto least common demoninator, which is that credit is only provided via the file description page, and note that some projects may provide additional credit directly in captions.
About the only way I can think of in which a unified policy on credits in captions could be imposed on all Wikimedia projects would be via a WMF board resolution. Even if such a resolution was made, it would still have to be implemented by the individual projects, and Commons would still have to wait until (almost) all projects had done so before we could actually give our uploaders any concrete promises about how they will or will not be credited in articles. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Commons does display some images on pages - like featured images on the main page and image galleries. We do not have a policy about whether these images should be credited, but the de facto practice appears to be that they are not. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps photographers worrying that their name might be lost in the process of reuse outside Wikimedia projects could include their name in the metadata (Commons:Metadata). But should not the thumbnails and resized pictures created by the mediawiki software include the metadata (in case outsiders pick up the thumbnail instead of copying the original file) ? Teofilo (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Why do we erase the metadata in the process of resizing and thumbnail creation ? Teofilo (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
That needs to be fixed - we really should migrate all metadata into thumbnails. File size isn't a big concern in most cases. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
That rather depends: we actually used to keep all metadata in thumbnails (because nobody had thought to remove it), but this sometimes resulted in some really huge thumbnails (as in 200kb of metadata in a 3kb thumbnail). For some background, see this old discussion. I agree that keeping some metadata would be quite useful, but we really do need to filter out the occasional humongous blobs of crap that some cameras and editors like to attach to images. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
On the one hand, preventing that JPG thumbnails become too heavy because of the metadata which might be included in them sounds like a good policy. On the other hand, it is not very consistent with the "we don't care about GIF thumbnails's size" policy (as seen in this topic).
Perhaps a good compromise would be to keep the Exif in resized versions larger than 121 px (so that the 120px thumbnails used in categories remain small enough)
Does anyone know where the text "This file contains additional information, probably added from the digital camera or scanner used to create or digitize it. If the file has been modified from its original state, some details may not fully reflect the modified file." is located ? I tried to search the [[Mediawiki:...]] name space for it, but the search engine provided no result. Is it hard coded inside Mediawiki, so that I need to report a bug on bugzilla to edit it ? I would like to edit this text as follows : "This file the full resolution file contains additional information, probably added from the digital camera or scanner used to create or digitize it. If the file has been modified from its original state, some details may not fully reflect the modified file. The 800 px preview file above does not contain additional information. " Teofilo (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Bugzilla, anyone? I agree that keeping the following EXIF fields, if present in the original at all, would be a good idea: ImageDescription, Copyright, DateTimeOriginal, DateTime, GPSLatitudeRef, GPSLatitude, GPSLongitudeRef, GPSLongitude, GPSAltitudeRef, GPSAltitude, IPTC:Credit, IPTC:CopyrightNotice, and IPTC:Byline. All the others may be stripped. I would also suggest to automatically set UserComment (not ImageDescription: limited in length and to ASCII) and IPTC:SpecialInstructions to contain the text "For more information, see <url to file description page>". All of this shouldn't be too hard to do using e.g. exiftool. Of course, it's just as easy to strip again by a malicious re-user. Lupo 08:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Please add your input on this draft : Commons:Village pump/Bugzilla drafts/Exif management improvements. After we reach some sort of consensus on Commons, I will (or anyone else may) send this draft to Bugzilla (tomorrow or the day after tomorrow). Teofilo (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Sent to bugzilla, as Teofilo (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons promotional items

Hi there,

I would like to get some stickers, shirts etc. for private usage. Where do I get it? Free give-aways would be great...

Greetings from Germany,

--Mattes (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There's some merchandising at cafepress, they do ship internationally too. --rimshottalk 10:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Internal error

When I tried to upload a picture named Bronisław_Knaster.jpeg (notice the Ł with stroke in his name), I received the following error message:

Could not rename file "/tmp/phpwbPVeB" to "public/3/3c/Bronisław_Knaster.jpeg".

Then I uploaded it under the new name File:Bronislaw_Knaster.jpeg, which worked, but when I inserted it into a Wikipedia article (en:Bronisław Knaster) I noticed that the picture was not displayed. Now it either shows as a red cross or as a small vertical bar, so there seems to be some server error. -- Momotaro (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Tried it the sandbox and the image seemed okay, so tried to format the markup from scratch and the adding right (which shouldn't really make a difference) to the formatting seems to have worked.KTo288 (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's because of the Ł in the name. I had a similar issue this morning around the same time with a file with no special characters; this was presumably because of server problems. I ended up re-uploading the file. Pruneautalk 13:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps it was just by chance that uploading worked after replacing ł with l. After all, many files here contain this character (like the picures from Łódź). Now it works, also on de-wp. -- Momotaro (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving files

I'm an administrator, but I haven't moved any badly named file yet, and I don't know how to do that (so far, I had always placed a template and let other users deal with it). Wich is the way for doing that? Belgrano (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you checked Commons:File renaming? –Juliancolton | Talk 16:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The file renaming functionality for admins is AFAIK still disabled due to a bug causing data corruption. At least I still don't have a move tab for images. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Images not uploading

On three separate computers on two separate networks over the last few days I have noticed our images are sluggishly uploading, or not uploading at all in the articles. Is it just me? --David Shankbone (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I experienced very slow loading of images both in Commons as in Wikipedia. Wouter (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I have the same issues. TheDJ (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I have'nt problems. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I see the same problem. --Túrelio (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Server squid11 was having trouble and was restarted about an hour ago now. It's not entirely sure what caused it yet, so if you see the same symptoms again, make sure to note. TheDJ (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Still the same problem. For example File:Hubert_Schumacher.jpg (558 kB) took about 40 second to load. Other images between about 3 to 6 seconds, whereas it usually is almost immediately. Wouter (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, nothing is solved. --Túrelio (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


An organization has given me permission to make freely available images that they have created. Is it possible for me to upload these to WC or do they need to do it themselves?

You may upload on their behalf, but in this case you and them should follow the procedure stated in Commons:OTRS and Commons:Email templates. As the copyright is owned by an organization, the same applies even if one of their employees uploads the images, so that there is no doubt about his authority to upload them. Sv1xv (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

dead link as file source

What should by done if the original source location of a file isn't available any more and the old content is now available on a new url (e.g. after a domain change)? Could the url simple be replaced? Merlissimo (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Simply replace.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What happens to links on Wikipedia after a category on Commons is renamed ?

What happens to the links on Wikipedia if I move a category here using {{move cat|old name|new name}} on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, without adding {{Category redirect|new name}} on the old category ? Will the robot go to the Wikipedia pages and change the links there ? I could not find any answer to this question on User:CommonsDelinker/commands/documentation. Teofilo (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a tool similar to what "checkusage" is doing with pictures, providing the list of Wikipedia pages which have a link to a given category here on Commons ? Teofilo (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In short, they break, and there's no easy way of finding them since they're interwiki, but I'd hope we at least leave a category redirect behind when we move a category. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Categories should not be linked between wikipedia's; they have on both sides an internal categorisation organisation that changes all the time (on commons, up to 1500 new categories per day, up to 500 category renames per week)) in different organisations. Wikipedia's should be linked through galleries which work much better with redirects and which allow to do the translation from any language. --Foroa (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedias in several languages use commonscat templates, more or less extensively, usually to cope with the absence of gallery here for a given subject. This is a fact and we should at least not deny it, even though we may not be able to maintain those links. --Eusebius (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I try to leave something in the deletion log here so that people can find where the category went. Wknight94 talk 13:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The nuke button of the cat redirection template can set the deletion summary for you. --Eusebius (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
the nuke button works only for categories that have a redirect or move request, say around 30 to 40 % of the moves --Foroa (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
When I have to delete a category, I add the cat redirect template to it, but only in preview, just to benefit from the nuke button. I'm not sure it's worth it, I should count my moves :-) --Eusebius (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
There was no easy way for finding where pictures are used, but people developped the tool (checkusage) to find them. Should not a "What_Interwiki_Links_Here" tool be on the agenda of tool developers ? Teofilo (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I had a bug in bugzilla filed a year ago for this exact problem. It is still unresolved ... --Jarekt (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Just as with interwiki's, commonscat links need to be kept up to date. For this I wrote a little program called (source). The program is part of pywikipedia. The program adds and corrects commonscat templates. It uses links found by browsing the interwiki's. Me and some other users try to keep the links up to date. We keep track of it at User:Multichill/Commonscat stats (we can always use some help!). The bot understands redirects and redirect templates. I also plan on using the deletion summary as a last resort, but I haven't implemented that yet. Please use the link in {{Move}} to set a good edit summary which can be used by the bots.
It's rather difficult to find links to Commons categories or galleries because these links are not stored in a table. If you take a look at this image you'll see the database contains a table for internal links (pagelinks), for language links (langlinks), for external links (externallinks) and for image links (imagelinks). A link like en:Template:Commons cat won't show up in any of these tables. A new table has to be implemented in mediawiki before we can make a nice tool to find the broken links. Multichill (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Why is commons treated differently than other wikipedias. There are already bots maintaining interwikis between wikipedias may be we can use tha same mechanism somehow. --Jarekt (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Image check request

I found that one of my transferred image from wikipedia has no source, which should be deleted from Commons. I have tried to search for the source and I find the record on the Library and Archives Canada is likely the same one of this. I sent a letter to the archive but I have no reply. I hereby request if anyone could help me to identify the image of the archive as the one on Commons, or I would hold a delete request after July. Chanueting (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Which image are you referring to? AnonMoos (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for missing referring image: File:12SSHJPOW.jpg Chanueting (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

May 23

Geograph tool

I've just discovered the existence of , does anyone konow if I canuse my CommonsHelper TUSC token for the new tool?KTo288 (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Uploading image from Ilalian Wikipedia

I would like to upload (or have someone do it for me) an image of Gelatiera from Italian Wikipedia. I recently uploaded Gelateria.jpg which is two letters different. I would like to use the Italian picture on an article. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If you mean File:Gelatiera.jpg, it is already uploaded on Commons. So you can use it on an article. Teofilo (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Yikes! Missed it when I looked for it. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

May 24

Addressing the "external uploaders" feedback problem.

This has been a problem for a long while, and with SUL it's not getting any better. There are two problems:

  1. People that upload an image here, but are never check their Talk page here, because they are not "active" editors on Commons.
  2. Images that are moved here by others from language specific wikipedia's. The original authors think their image is on en.wp but it's on Commons now. deletion marker and the original uploader is never informed.

I therefore propose the following:

  1. We change CommonsHelper and friends to use a new template, {{original uploader|name|lang}}. This will simplify automated notification in the future.
  2. Betacommand can write a bot, let's call it: CommonsNotifier. The bot notifies the people marked with {{original uploader}}, when the image is added to a deletion queue/system. I have talked to BetaCommand about this issue no IRC and he sees no major problems.
  3. The bot can watch userpages with {{Notify me}} and "ping" all those users on other projects, when they have new messages here. configuration options should be easy.

That would already solve many problems don't you think ? Does anyone have more ideas on how we can tackle this ? Shall we start a "project page" to deal with this issue ? TheDJ (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We could suggest users enable the "E-Mail me when someone edits my talk page" option. This way we won't have to make a bot check all DRs and notify users. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
That wouldn't solve any problem for "external original uploaders" who have no activity here however. TheDJ (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of {{original uploader}} template used to make uploader info more friendly to bots. But there is another problem with the notification to the uploaders: the notice goes to the last uploader not the original one. Over time I removed 1-2k watermarks from images and reuploaded them under the same names. Now I am getting all the image problem notices that should have been going to the original uploaders. That could easily get images unnecessarily deleted if I am not around to forward the notices. --Jarekt (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
When I was running image tagging bots on en.wp my bots had an aggressive system of notification. (which has since been adopted defacto as best bot procedure) The bot notifies all uploaders and leaves a message on all article talk pages where an image is used. (some may think that is too aggressive) but I have seen the best results with that. what I would recommend with {{original uploader}} is {{original uploader|lang|username}} and use it for all image uploaders (if transferred via a automated or simi auto tool) or just the original author if it can be confirmed as theirs. Betacommand 20:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe it's been adopted as "best bot procedure": OrphanBot makes its best guess at the person who first uploaded the current version, and notifies that person. ImageTaggingBot notifies the most recent uploader, and may skip that under certain circumstances. FairuseBot notifies either the uploader or the talkpage of the article using the image, depending on context. I believe STBotI notifies the most recent uploader. The various "orphaned fairuse" bots tend to notify the most recent uploader only. I'm not sure what the various user scripts do, but I suspect that it's also most-recent. --Carnildo (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess things have changed since I was last working on en.wp as most thought the aggressive notification style was good. I could have sworn that there where bots that notified all uploaders and left a message on the article talk pages too. Oh well but I think that would be a good method to implement if needed. Betacommand 19:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Upload trouble : CJKV characters

I'm unable to upload a file :

  • On my PC : 走出去.svg.
  • Upload under the name : 1995 走出去.svg => fail
  • Upload under the name : 1995 go global.svg => ok (File:1995 go global.svg)

I had previously no trouble when uploading Chinese files. What does this bug now ? an idea ? Yug (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, do you receive an error message when trying to upload files with Chinese character filenames? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the filename is blocked by the title blacklist. The first rule is described as "At most three letters of potentially meaningful text". A name with four characters after "1995" should be possible to upload. /Ö 11:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
That raises some interesting multilingual issues -- three Chinese characters could often be a sentence in Classical Chinese, and can be reasonably descriptive in modern Chinese... AnonMoos (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

May 22

Geotags for Media

I would like to build a mobile location based information system based on historic Wikimedia content. Is there already a common way for geotagging images / media? It seems like Wikipedia's Template:Event/coord works. But it's not shown on the top right of the page like in Wikipedia. 49.411194,11.224293

Four files use {{Event/coord}} 150k files use {{Location}} template. Also look at Commons:Geocoding. --Jarekt (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories for deletion

There is a category around there that I think shouldn't be used, but it isn't subject to speedy deletion and others may not agree with my view of the subject. Do I list it at Deletion Requests, or is there a separate process for non-image stuff for deletion? Belgrano (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There is Commons:Categories for discussion. --Eusebius (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

RC patrolling by users and bots?

Hi, where can I find a reference for my bachelor thesis that RC are patrolled by users and bots? Of couse I searched a lot before :) Cheers. --Subfader (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What sort of references do you want ? Weblinks or books ? If weblinks are enough, you might use the French language Wikipedia's fr:Wikipédia:Patrouille RC which is the guideline page for volunteers wanting to perform patrol tasks. The unwelcome-edits-reverting bot used on the French language Wikipedia (called "Salebot", don't ask me why) is reported as having been mentioned in at least two online articles on newspaper websites, with weblinks provided on fr:Utilisateur:Salebot#Salebot dans les médias. Teofilo (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, yeah any reference (web or print) would be enough. But I actually look for reference proofing that RC is patrolled on Commons. --Subfader (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
On Commons there is too much pressure from inclusionists, so that patrolling Special:NewFiles for copyright violations becomes something much too difficult to do and nearly pointless. On Commons patrolling is frowned upon and discouraged. Teofilo (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
What!? Says who? New files aren't patrolled because we get so many, but new mainspace pages are. (you can see the log, but it's kinda hard to see past all the auto-patrolling). "too much pressure from inclusionists" We're supposed to be inclusive. This is a media repository. That's first time I even heard that word used on this project. Rocket000 (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't even know what this special page refers to, I don't know what kind of action is considered "patrolling" by the software, and I don't think there's any reference to patrolling in the project guidelines or the admin instructions. There's something about patrolled edits at m:Help:Patrolled edit, but they're talking about stuff I have never seen on Commons, so I have always assumed it was simply not activated. --Eusebius (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Welcome has the following invitation : "Contribute your legal knowledge on copyright questions and Deletion requests", but it does not specificly invite to watch Special:NewFiles and to mark copyright violations as such. We're supposed to be inclusive : is that to the extent of including copyright violations ? What I mean by "inclusionists" on Commons are people who have restritive views on the validity of some copyright claims, or a laissez-faire mind about files lacking clear source information, or who don't mind when files are in the public domain in the United States while remaining copyrighted elsewhere in the world. Or who have little concern for non-copyright legal issues (personality rights, database rights, publication rights, performers' rights). Teofilo (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to give an example of a bot patrol here on Commons, you could mention User:BotMultichillT which adds a warning a few hours later on the uploader's talk page whenever a file is uploaded without being inserted into any category. Teofilo (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, some people monitor recent changes via tools like VandalFighter, but it's not institutionalized on this project (to the best of my knowledge, which is limited). --Eusebius (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Sz-iwbot is a bot checking pictures against the database. But it produces quite a number of fasle positives, which have to be controlled manually. User:Filbot "Check[s] the recently uploaded files adding the no license template when needed". More bots are presented on COM:BOT#Maintenance. Have a look at Commons:Tools#Patrolling_and_notification, and in Special:Preferences, at "Maintenance tools" in the "Gadgets" heading. Teofilo (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks a lot people. Those links helped me a lot. It's also good that I'm aware now that not every change is 100% patrolled. :) --Subfader (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

May 20

Copyright status of rubbings?

What are the copyright status of rubbings (the imprintings of 3D features by rubbing a pencil over a paper laid over the features)? For simplicity's sake, let us assume the source is a public domain 3D artwork. If the rubber decides to vary the pressures or use different color pencils, would that grant a degree of creativity enough for copyright? If the rubbing is public domain, is {{PD-Art}} applicable? This is related to File:Wu Family Shrine chariots and horses.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

{{PD-Art}} seems OK here. Of course, the brasses are not strictly-speaking 2D, but the rubbing is essentially a purely mechanical copy with no creative input, so it should not qualify for any new copyright protection. The suituation might be different if the rubber used different coloured pencils or otherwise added creative input, and those would have to be looked at on a case by case basis. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a difficult case. The 2D/3D distinction only really applies to photography, since it determines whether or not the reproduction is substantially affected by the creative use of lighting. The essential question is whether any rubbing of the same artifact would be substantially identical - whether the rubber has any opportunity for creative input. If the piece is monochromatic and of uniform pressure, this appears to amount to a simple reproduction, provided that qualities such as the choice of media and stroke direction are not creatively significant. On the other hand, it's clear that using multiple colours or varying intensity across the surface could create a creative derivative work. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess, the book named as source is a scientific work. So the creator didn't intend to put any creativity into the rubbing. The creator intended to create an exact copy, anything else would be unscientific. So I would conclude, that there is no creativity involved and no copyright. --Slomox (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

upload help

I'm new to this - just downloaded Inkscape - looked at the list of files needing conversion, found one Actgraph.jpg (not on Commons), downloaded it and saved it as Actgraph.svg. Then I thought I uploaded it as File:Actgraph.svg, but opening that doesn't seem to show anything. Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong? Also, is that all there is to conversion, or am I supposed to be using the original as a guide and creating the image form scratch? Or improving it in any way?SPhilbrick (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is displaying on my computer either. In any event, please edit File:Actgraph.svg and add the URL of the website where you found the jpg file in the "Source" field. You might find help on svp conversion on Commons:Graphics_village_pump. Teofilo (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It's the classic SVG problem on Wikimedia Commons -- no actual vector data in the file, only an external image reference to raster image "C:\Documents and Settings\Stephen\My Documents\My Pictures\Actgraph.jpg" on the uploader's local hard drive. The Wikimedia SVG renderer refuses to render any SVG with an external image reference at all. AnonMoos (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Image transfer

I just transfered this photo [[20]] here from FlickR, it is a species we do not currently have an image of.. However something went wrong during the upload because i can view the image if i click to see full size but The thumbnail and main image is showing up as a red x.. How do i fix this problem? Thanks --Ltshears (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it is pulling up for me now.. Thanks --Ltshears (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, for me too, somtime it takes an hour. --Martin H. (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Same problem for one of my images. Not yet fixed 20 hours later. --Cayambe (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

File name guidelines

What ist the purpose of wpUploadFormLongText and wpUploadFormShortText in MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ownwork ? Why does the guideline "Change the destination filename to something descriptive" appear only shortly during one second and then disappears ?

This seems a useful guideline, though.

Teofilo (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

See MediaWiki:UploadForm.js/Documentation#Configuring the introductory text. I've now added "Use a descriptive file name" to MediaWiki:UploadFormDestFileHint, which is the small text displayed just below the destination field. Lupo 08:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add (tips) ([[Commons:First_steps/Upload form#4. Set an appropriate file name|tips]]) ? (this is the "first steps" in English, I don't know if and how one can make a link to "first steps" in the uploader's language)
I would like to add the following tips on Commons:First_steps/Upload form#4. Set an appropriate file name:
  • If you have no idea of a suitable file name, or if the name you were thinking is already being used, use the category name and add the date of creation (West facade of Notre-Dame de Paris, 2009-05-26.jpg for a file intended for Category:West facade of Notre-Dame de Paris).
  • To differentiate several files created on the same day, if no more descriptive term comes to your mind, add the hour and minutes, (West facade of Notre-Dame de Paris, 2009-05-26 1607.jpg).
Windows dislikes ":" in file names, so I am a bit confused as regards to choosing a separator between hours and minutes. Teofilo (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure that's possible. Link added. Commons:First steps and its subpages do not seem to be protected, so you could improve these texts anytime. Note that naming is also mentioned at Commons:First steps/Quality and description#Filetypes and naming. Lupo 11:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I've edited the texts and left a message on Bryan's talk page suggesting that he might add the same "tips" link on the Flickr upload bot's form. Teofilo (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

One of Our Aircraft is Missing

How do I or someone else remove this page? I thought I was in WikiQuotes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC).

✓ Done I marked it for deletion --Jarekt (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC).

Category:People in libraries

I'd like to create "Category:People in libraries" as subcat of Category:Libraries. In which else categories would I have to sort it? As subcategories I could think of:

  • Category:People in libraries
    • Category:Children in libraries
    • Category:Pensioners in libraries
    • Category:Working women in libraries
    • Category:Working men in libraries

Anything I should consider? Thanks. --Subfader (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't think this is the way to go (i.e., over-categorization). Also, it could be mistaken that these are being used as socio/economic type descriptions of the people in the photo. The question of where is already satisfied by the cat 'Library' and so to give it again is a bit tautologous. Simply adding something suitable from Category:Family may suffice for the who and whom in most cases. I think it is better to look at crowded galleries and only create new a cat when it is obvious what category, best brings order to disordered collections. Trying to guess ahead makes it too easy to create awkward category groups; which may then need much reworking in the future.--P.g.champion (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Having had a quick scan through the Library cats, I don't think you will have enough files for that many sub categories even Category:Library interiors doesn't have that many of people, I'd start with "Category:People in libraries" which will help diffuse the Library interiors cat, for people working in Libraries we've already got Category:Librarians though most of them aren't actually in libraries.KTo288 (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick answers. First off: Yes there aren't enough pictures yet on first sight, but lots of pictures are in the location subcats. And the library pictures aren't properly categorized. E.g. I see a lot of pics in Category:Library interiors which should be in Category:Library bookshelves and many pics in teh location subcats which should also be added to Category:University libraries etc. Ok some questions, sorry:
a) Assumed there are enough pictures in the future; would the subcats be ok this way?
b) Does it basically mean all pictures would first go into "Category:People in libraries" and later sorted again into its more descriptive subcats?
c) How many pics are needed to create a new subcat?
d) What about the legal aspects about adding new pictures of people in libraries? Can you point me to a page handling this? Thanks. --Subfader (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Would this be a subcat: of Category:People with books? Man vyi (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Imo not, because people do more than looking at books in libraries ;) Also not the other way around because not all people in this cat are in libraries. --Subfader (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

May 27

Bug? Redirects on search results by default

The search result page returns redirect pages although "List redirects" is unticked. Example search. Just wanted to report it. --Subfader (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status of simple technical diagrams

I wonder if a simple circuit diagram is eliglible for copyright (example [21]), if a simple decision graph is (example File:Wikipedia_article-creation-2.svg) and if a simple function plot from MATLAB is (example File:KdV cubic polynomial.svg)? I would say that such compositions of lines and letters can't be regarded as "works" and that any such diagram can be regarded as free (relevant license template {{PD-ineligible}}). Is my reasoning correct? If so, how complicated do we allow such diagram to be before they must be regarded as "works"? Nillerdk (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Diagrams are work of art as soon as someone creates them from scratch, aren't they? And, in general, we consider that the unmodified output of a program has the same license as the program itself… So, I doubt this is public domain. Diti the penguin 22:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This can be a difficult issue. Let's examine a few cases.

  • For simple cases with graphs etc, you may use free software (GIMP, free MATLAB clones, OpenOffice) and avoid any reasonable or paranoid copyright issues.
  • When a commercial symbols library is used, it comes with some sort of licensing, which affects the copyright status of the circuit drawings.
  • If this approach is rigidly followed, it leads to more serious problems: If an architect designs a building using a commercial CAD package (all of them do), can the seller of the CAD program claim copyright on the drawings of the building? Or on the building itself? Don't forget that printouts are also program output, like screen captures or saved files.

Sometimes these issues are dealt with in software licensing, other times they are not. Take MATLAB: Mathworks allows the licensee to distribute, sublicense and resell any user created files, if they are not based on sample source code supplied by them. Sv1xv (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

While this can sometimes be a legal gray area, in general the output of a computer program does not constitute a derivative work of the program unless it incorporates copyrightable elements (such as icons in a screen shot) whose author is the creator of the program. So for example, if you draw an original picture in Photoshop, it's all yours regardless of what Adobe's EULA might say unless it includes some clip art or other copyrightable elements that came with the program. Programs, such as compilers, which generate their output by combining user-created content with code fragments embedded in the program itself, are something of a borderline case, which is why most compilers explicitly state in their license terms that the makers of the compiler assert no copyright on software compiled with it.
Of the three images mentioned above, I'd say the circuit diagram is most certainly PD, even if more complex such diagrams might not be: the component symbols themselves are standardized and can be presumed PD, while the composition in this particular diagram is so trivial that it leaves no room for originality. The function plot seems also likely to be ineligible for copyright, given that it's a perfectly standard representation of a mathematical function with nothing to distinguish it from countless nearly identical representations. The exact choices of coloring and composition might be able to sustain a very tenuous copyright (and certainly the SVG markup could be copyrighted if it were not automatically generated), but I don't believe such copyright could extend to another plot of the same function, however similar it might inevitably look.
The only one of the examples that seems likely to be eligible for copyright is the decision graph; even there, IMHO, the copyrightable aspect, if any, is the overall composition of the work rather than any individual elements of it: neither short phrases, simple geometric shapes, drop shadows nor circular gradients are copyrightable by themselves. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

May 25

Automated additions to files.

About 1000 ships are categorised by their names in category:Ships by alphabet. More details of a lot of these ships can however be found in their Category:Ships by IMO number. Not all have, it is a lot of work to do that. (The category has more than 1750 ships now.) To make it clear for users where extra information can be found I want to add:

{{User:Hebster/IMOcat|Name=RPA 12|IMO=9239551}}


to the files that have this extra information. Is it possible to do that by bot and where do I have to ask that? --Stunteltje (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this information written by individual volunteers or is it retrieved from a database. If so, what is the copyright status of that database ? Is it not enough to provide interwiki links to Wikipedia ? Isn't Wikipedia the right place to write information about things ? If no article on a given ship exists on Wikipedia right now, will people on Wikipedia object if you start a stub on that ship on Wikipedia ? Are there instances of ships being big enough to have an IMO number, while not being "notable" enough for having a Wikipedia article ? Teofilo (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It would have been wise to create a template for the data, instead of putting it in a plain text list... --Slomox (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The data added to the IMO numvers is gathered from all over the internet, mostly by myself, but I found out that a lot of people help. There are many databases for ships on the internet, bur they differ in actuality and puctuality. The best known is Lloyds Register, but you have to pay for the information. Equasis gives some information, Miramar and vesseltracker. To check the IMO number <-> picture relation Shipspotting, Tugspotting and The Ferry Site are of great help. You have to realise that if somebody wants to make a stub in a particular language, it is of great help to find the picture of the ship on Commons. Making stubs in each and every Wikipedia language is not possible for a simple mind as I am. Unfortunately ship pictures are scattered all over Commons. Giving a ship an IMO number the files are grouped around that number of the hull (or the part with the engine room), that doesn't change. More than one picture by name under IMO resulted mostly in a category by alphabet. Uploading pictures of ships is not restricted in Commons to ships that must have an IMO number. Barges have their own system in Europe. Fishing ships have their own system. But only few pictures are uploaded by people who know something about ships. If it is a nice picture, why not. I takes experience to find out which ship it is and every user gains by finding more details grouped with the picture as a starting point. The IMO number is the steppingstone and a tool to group the files of a particular ship. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
"Hull's" should have an apostrophe, but "its" shouldn't ... SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to make the template a bit less visible on image pages? While it is nice to link to more info about the ship, in most cases (I think) it is better to first give information about the image (which ship, where and when the photo is taken) and then give a link to more specific data about the ship. Maybe a template more like Template:Inkscape can be used, with a small "logo" and a single line of text that can be put in the description field of the information template. (On category pages I don't think the large template is a problem, since there is often not much other information there anyway.) /Ö 21:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I was not thinking about "making stubs in each and every Wikipedia", but only in one language version of Wikipedia. Commons is the place for storing files, not for writing informations. Look at en:FYN(this is not a ship, but a protein) : people seem to be writing the information in a database fashion on Wikipedia, not on Commons, although File:PBB Protein FYN image.jpg is a file stored on Commons. Why not do the same and write the informations about ships on the English language Wikipedia, instead of writing them on Commons ? Teofilo (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
So, for example, I have just removed most of what you wrote in Category:IMO 5014123, leaving only one sentence with the most basic information and a link to the relevant Wikipedia article : diff. Teofilo (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Please be so kind to give the place where all the other 1750 ships have articles in the English Wikipedia. With other words, bad example. Works only where articles of ships exist. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If there is no Wikipedia article, you can create one. For example, I have just created en:RPA 12 from scratch, using your data on category:IMO 9239551. Writing information on Wikipedia is better, because you can provide links to specific keywords like en:fireboat, the cities of en:Tczew, en:Gorinchem, en:Port of Rotterdam, etc. Please add sources and references. I've had to tag it with {{[[:en:template:unreferenced]]}}. Teofilo (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You can wait for the first user who thinks this is not a ship worth an article in a English encyclopadia. --Stunteltje (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
So perhaps you are right, and let's keep these data here on Commons, as an extension of the description of each file. I agree with Slomox : it would be better to put the data in a tempate. Ideally, it should be an "autotranslate" template. Teofilo (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

May 26

Postcard maybe in public domain

Hi. I'm working on the french wikipedia and asked something about a postcard I found on the internet (if you speak french, you can find it here). This postcard is a picture of a ship fromthe 1870s to the 1920s. As I don't know the author, I would like to know if I can put the picture on commons or not. The pictures are on this page. LittleTony87 (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It is reasonable to assume that all photos are published during the lifetime of the ships (therefore before 1923) and some are dated with postmarks to confirm it. However we have no access to the back sides, to identify the to photographer or establish that they are anonymous works. It would be safer to upload the ones with dated postmarks on the English Wikipedia. Sv1xv (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The oes I would like to use don't have any dates on them. They belong to a private collection but the owner gave me the permission by mail. Can I take them on commons ? And if I can, how (I didn't do this before) ? LittleTony87 (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It does not matter if they are in a private collection. The important thing is to establish their copyright status. They should be ok for commons if they were published anonymously in France before 1923, or if they were published within the lifetine of the photographer who died not later than 1938. Sv1xv (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Why "published anonymously in France before 1923"? Per {{Anonymous-EU}}, anonymous publication before 1938 would be enough. --Eusebius (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Because Copyright Paladins everyday discover new reasons to delete PD files. If it was published before 1923, it is reasonably safe. Sv1xv (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Technically 1926, as they could maybe still claim a restored U.S. copyright (though that would depend on the year of creation too). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note that some of these postcards do have at least printer information even on the front ("Cliché L. Angelin", "H. Grimaud & Cie"). The collector might also be able to provide more information on the backsides of these postcards, maybe even scans. Lupo 06:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Photographs by camera categories – hidden or not

Is there any policy whether photographs by camera categories (e.g. Category:Taken with Canon EOS 450D) should be hidden or not (i.e. tagged with {{Hiddencat}}). At the moment some of the categories are hidden, some are not. In my opinion the "Taken with" categories (e.g. Category:Taken with Canon EOS 450D) should be hidden but the parent categories (e.g. Category:Photos taken with Canon EOS Digital) should not. --Apalsola tc 19:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a topic category so should be hidden imho. Multichill (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hidden. --Túrelio (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
They should be hidden. Not directly related to the content of the file. BTW, I have enabled display of hidden cats on my account. Sv1xv (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Not-hidden. I think that the only hidden categories should be maintenance categories. This is clearly a category which outside user might be interested in and he/she might not know to change preferences to see it. On the other hand it is not directly related to the content of the file, so files with only this category should still be labeled with {{Uncategorized}} template. --Jarekt (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Not-hidden. Per Jarekt. User cats e.g. are of no interest to outside users, but type of camera can be very informative, e.g. for a prospective buyer to compare different models. Should indeed not be the sole category. Lycaon (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care. No matter the decision here, the subject will be brought to VP again in a few months, and the hiddencat templates will appear/disappear again. One of the recurrent issues with many temporary and contradictory consensus and no persistent decision. --Eusebius (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jarekt and Lycaon. Many caeras have articles on Wikipedia(s), "taken with abc" is an expedient subcategory of "abc". I changed my mind on this by 180°, so please dont blame me for categories I have made hidden in the past. --Martin H. (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This sounds a bit similar with Category:Created with Inkscape, containing... 32,858 files. Should we not diffuse this into smaller categories like [[:Category:Created with Inkscape in may 2009]] or remove it all together as a too-big-not-manageable-useless-category ? Do we have [[Category:Created with a (manufacturer's name) brush]] or [[Category:Created with (manufacturer's name) paint]] for paintings ? Teofilo (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the Inkscape templte exists because it's the programm is GPL and thereby free to use. I don't know a "created with adobbe photoshop cs" category. That [[Category:Created with a (manufacturer's name) brush]] Idea would go a bit deep. At least there is the problem how could we know which brush was used for paintings drawn more than 100 years ago. If such a category gets created shouldn't we create [[Category:Created with a unknown brush]] as well?
Even I don't mind if it would be different I prefer such categories to be hidden. If somebody wants to know what camera was used he can have a look at the metadata, ask the author or ask the community (I don't think that somebody will be annoyed by such questions).
--D-Kuru (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
We might have [[Category:photograph created with light from a (manufacturer's name) light bulb]] or even [[Category:photograph made with electric light, electricity being provided by (Power company's name)]]. Or even more esoteric [[Category:Watercolor painting made with (Water company's name)'s water]]. Teofilo (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It makes a sort of sense for Category:Created with Inkscape et al. to be hidden, since they're populated via templates (like {{Inkscape}}) which already provide a visual indication of the software used and access to the category (at least indirectly, in this case via Help:Inkscape). Thus, repeating the category name at the bottom of the page would be mostly redundant. This doesn't seem to hold for the camera categories, which appear to be mostly if not entirely populated directly without using templates. Thus, unless the camera categorization system is changed to use templates like the corresponding software categories, they probably shouldn't be hidden.
In general, I'd say categories like these are useful as long as people find them worth populating. I'm sure there are at least a few people out there interested in what kinds of pictures can be drawn in Inkscape or taken with a Nikon D70s DSLR, and if I happen to feel that my own image would make a useful addition to such categories, well, why not let me? But since not everyone can be bothered to do so, such categories will always remain incomplete, and I think that's perfectly fine too: the main uses of such categories only require representative samples, not a comprehensive listing of every single image that happened to be snapped with a particular camera or edited with a particular program. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Newbie needs help on photos

I'm working on a biographical page (it was a stump, started by someone else), and I am expanding it and trying to add pictures. It is someone's entry "John Lee (author)," which is me. I am John Lee, and the stub is somewhat incomplete and out of date, so I want to make it correct. I'm signed in as bestjonbon.

I have uploaded three pictures, but I'm having trouble finding the right information or instructions as to how I put them on the page. And how do I create a biographical template (box) in the upper right corner for picture and a quick list of bio info? If someone can point me in the right direction, I'll try to figure it all out.

Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestjonbon (talk • contribs)
For help with editing the Wikipedia page John Lee (author), you might do better to ask on the Wikipedia help desk (or the new contributors' help page). For the biographical infobox, you may also want to look at the documentation at w:Template:Infobox Writer/doc. Also, do note that editing a Wikipedia article about yourself can be a tricky and sometimes frustrating process; for more information, see w:Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects and w:Wikipedia:Autobiography.
Of the images you uploaded, it seems that File:John Lee on TV-181.jpg was deleted as "Copyright violation: screenshot". Assuming that it was indeed a frame from a TV program, this is probably correct — the copyright to the TV show, and to frames extracted from it, most likely belongs to the company that produced it. As for the other images (File:John Grows Old-177.jpg and File:John Lee & Books - 185.jpg), the first one is still missing information about who took the photograph. The other one looks okay to me, although you might want to send a formal assertion of ownership to OTRS just to be sure. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a en:Wikipedia:Picture tutorial that you might find useful.--P.g.champion (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Restricting the search to categories

I know there are no inhouse solutions by MW but is there maybe a tool to restrict the search to certain categories (and their subcategories)? --Subfader (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You can use « keyword1 keyword2 incategory:"categoryname" », like this : « old incategory"Buildings in London" » search, in the search box, but it excludes subcategories and files which were inserted in categories with templates (for example, license categories can't be explored that way). If you need to explore subcategories, you can use the catscan tab at the top of each category. Like this : all bridges in aerial photographs of the United States. You can't use your own keywords with catscan. You can only use category names. Teofilo (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

May 28

Use of IPTC data by MediaWiki and Commons

Are IPTC data (meta-info containing descriptions, authorship, keywords) parsed by the EXIF features of MediaWiki? Could they be (technically speaking), either to fill the right fields at upload time, or to display them like the EXIF is currently displayed? If they are accessible in some way, are they used by the bots suggesting categories? If not, wouldn't it be nice?

I'm only asking here, I have nothing to propose. I know most of it relates to MediaWiki rather than to Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the EXIF feature of mediawiki is able to deal with the IPTC. For example : File:Pöstlingbahn TFXV.jpg. I agree that nice things could be done, using the IPTC. I also wonder if in the future IPTC will become popular on web browsers (like an IPTC display provided by right-clicking on a picture). Teofilo (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice if we had an option "retrieve description page from IPTC data" on the upload form. So that when the file is already containing all necessary informations (author name, date, description, source if not self-created, licence, categories) in the IPTC data, the upload on Commons could be done in only one click. Teofilo (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
It appears that at least the creator and description fields are extracted and displayed along with EXIF info. --Eusebius (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Got an example? I thought it was EXIF::ImageDescription and EXIF::Copyright, possibly also EXIF::Artist, but not the IPTC fields. Lupo 07:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Zampieri - Adam et Ève (détail).jpg I'm not a specialist, maybe (probably) you're right, but these info appear in the IPTC section in Photoshop. Maybe Photoshop duplicates it in both EXIF and IPTC. --Eusebius (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, in that file IPTC:Caption is replicated into EXIF::ImageDescription, and IPTC::By-line is replicated into EXIF::Artist. Lupo 10:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
So is it OK if the uploader enters nothing in the "date=" and "author=" fields of {{Information}} ? Or will a robot come and fetch the date and the author name from the EXIF or IPTC and write them down in the corresponding fields of {{Information}} ? Teofilo (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
{{Information}} is currently not populated by bots, and I don't think it should. Legal info should be provided by the uploader, not in an automatic fashion. --Eusebius (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
So it would be better to have the mediawiki software first upload the file without displaying it publicly, then retrieve the information, display a preview of the image description page on the uploader's computer, provide the uploader with an opportunity to edit it, and then finally ask the uploader for approval. If the uploader says that he disagrees, the file is instantly discarded and never published online. If the uploader agrees, the file becomes available online. Teofilo (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The idea is not new. A bugzilla entry on this was written in 2004 Teofilo (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

May 24

Proposal to change Commons:Undeletion requests to Commons:Deletion review

On English Wikipedia the en:Wikipedia:Deletion review process serves to examine the outcome of past deletion discussions ("This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion"), particularly where there was an error in following process. On Commons, undeletion requests only works in one direction. It would be great to have a system more like deletion review for Commons where deletion discussions ending in either delete or keep could be reviewed in a centralized location. For this reason I'm proposing that we move Commons:Undeletion requests to Commons:Deletion review, change the name everywhere, and rewrite its explanatory text to permit discussion of previously kept media. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently, if you feel that a file was wrongly kept, you can simply re-nominate it for deletion. That's what's advised at Commons:Deletion_requests#Appeal and it happens quite often. As a non-admin, I quite like it that way. I never go to Commons:Undeletion requests, since only admins can see the deleted files, and I suspect I wouldn't go to Commons:Deletion review very often either. I'm probably not the only person in this case, so the pool of potential opinions would be smaller at Commons:Deletion review than it is at Commons:Deletion requests. I don't feel strongly about this, but I think the current system is slightly better than the proposal. Pruneautalk 09:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the wording of Commons:Deletion_requests#Appeal seems to imply that wrongly kept files must be appealed on Commons:Undeletion requests. If it is not the case, why is this wording not changed into an explicit invitation to nominate for deletion twice ? I also feel that the request to "first set out your reasons on the admin's talk page" should be removed for appealing decisions taken at the community level. A decision taken at the community level should be appealed at the community level, not on an admin's talk page. Teofilo (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just bringing over En culture here, but I don't see renomination as sufficient in itself. It's useful to have a place where other users can back up your decision to relist a file for deletion, since otherwise you'll appear to be acting spitefully (didn't get his way so he's just listing it again). The purpose of a deletion review isn't so much to revisit the deletion but to consider whether it should be revisited. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Conditioning the right of appeal to the presentation of a petition signed by a number of supporters would be a heavy restriction of the right of appeal. And basically I think it is unfair to give a right of appeal to majorities (people with friends giving them "back up"), while refusing it to minorities (people without friends giving them "back up"). It should be made clear that comments like "didn't get his way so he's just listing it again" are unwelcome on appeal/renomination pages. Teofilo (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Teofilo and do not think that such a restriction is helpful in any way. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I see the point of Pruneau but there is at least one advantage of a deletion review that is to be considered. In case of files that were kept, we would get a wider audience of admins as regular deletion requests do not get that much attention as requests at COM:UDEL. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure admins would become more active on an admin-only page or procedure. Admins generally prefer not to get involved when they see that another admin has already begun working on some issue, out of fear of the so-called "wheel wars". Generally, Admin-only pages are pages where no more than one admin answers a given request. If we want open minded debates, it is better to involve as many non-admins as possible. I think it is enough to set as a rule that appeals must be closed by a different admin than the one who closed the first nomination request as "kept". Teofilo (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Having come from a strong background, it took me a while to get used to the way that deletions and reviews worked here. Now that I am used to it, I find it works quite well. I don't think that anything needs to be changed, especially not something that increases the bureaucracy level here. likes lots of layers of formal appeal and discussion. Here, things are simpler and a little slower paced. I think part of that culture comes from the multilingual nature of Commons. The more policies and the more places to have to go to accomplish something, the more translations you have to write, and the more places for people to get confused. Keep things simple. could actually use a little of Commons' simplicity. (or maybe a lot sometimes!) :-) —Willscrlt “Talk” • “w:en” • “m” ) 20:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

License Migration Task Force

If you would like to help with the license migration efforts on Commons, please join the License Migration Task Force. Kaldari (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to spoil your party, but wasn't the whole licensing thing only for text and not media? Multichill (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
While trying to deprecate some licenses might be a good idea, this only applies to Wikimedia text content, descriptions and such. We've always counted the images themselves as separate entities for legal reasons. This is why we can have fair use images on Wikipedia. ViperSnake151 (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The license migration has always explicitly stated that it included images and other media files in addition to text. Please review [22] and [23]. Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Your first link says that it will be stated in the copyright notice "Media files are available under different licenses", which doesn't look so restrictive for the way Commons deals with licenses. On your second link, one can read "It will affect both text and images, except for images which are licensed under "GFDL 1.2 only". Those will not be dual-licensed." I don't know who has written that, but he doesn't work on Commons. How does the license change affects all the images distributed under licenses that are neither CC nor GFDL, but are free anyway? I've heard somewhere that they could not be used anymore on the WPs, I hope this is a joke? What I understand is the following: For the GFDL stuff (except those not including later versions), add a CC-BY-SA license (without removing the GFDL stuff), and leave the others as they are. Is it right? --Eusebius (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you understand the gist of it. The migration only affects certain GFDL images with version 1.3 or earlier versions with "or later versions" specified. The affected images must either have been first published at a WMF site, or if first published elsewhere then loaded into a WMF site before Nov. 1, 2008. All other images are unaffected and will continue to be used as is. The GFDL images to be migrated will get a CC-BY-SA 3.0 tag added in addition to the existing GFDL tag (unless a less restrictive dual license, like CC-BY, is already present). Dragons flight (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
OK thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Images by size

Is there a way to sort images by resolution or size? I wanted to boost the candidates on Featured pictures and the rest of awards but it's not easy to spot the best images without some kind of easier sorting. So is there some way to spot the highest res images on commons?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I can only think of Special:ListFiles (lists all media types). Special:MIMESearch is broken for over a year, but if I remember correctly it had a sortable table as well. --Subfader (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Do a query at the toolserver? Multichill (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I ran one last December; the results are at User:Ilmari Karonen/Big pictures. I can run it again if you'd like. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This is exactly what I wanted, thank you very much. Is it also possible to tag the list with featured and quality images?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Possibly, if I can figure out some way to pull that info from the link tables. (The toolserver does not have direct access to page text.) They don't seem to be categorized, and I'm having some trouble figuring out the {{Assessments}} template system. Can I assume that every featured picture is shown on some subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, and that all pictures shown on those pages are featured (and similarly for Commons:Quality images)? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

How to categorize road shots without the road - include road in categories?

Hi, I am interested in learning about a consensus how to categorize images which have been taken from a road or street but don't show the road itself, "only" an object visible from it. One of my interests is to take photographs while being on the road (as a co-driver) so the answer will concern a lot of my images. I have searched policies and guidelines at Commons but all I have found so far is this short previous Village pump discussion which has remained unresolved as far as I can tell:


Just trying to solicit opinion here, but when looking at a category for a road, should that category include stuff by the road but not actually on the road. I mean, consider Image:Portway jetty 2.jpg - this is by the A4 road. Should it be in the A4 category, or just categories for the city? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question, this seems to be a real borderline case. Do we cat the image or the camera. The camera was definitely on the A4, but the image does not show it. So the answer should be no. However, if I were illustrating an article on the A4 in Bristol, this is an image I should consider, so the answer becomes yes. In a similar circumstance, I have made the item a sub-category, then include the subcat in the category, so do we want >>Category:Portway jetty (Bristol)<<. But the question still remains- should >>Category:Portway jetty (Bristol)<< be tagged with A4 road? - ClemRutter (talk) 09:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As of now the image still contains the A4 road as a category. Personally I would prefer to keep it that way. It is a documentation of what is geographically closely related to the road. Frequently the proximity is no coincidence - such as some company planning a plant close to a highway exit. One application of the categorization could be to use the category as a travel guide or help to identify structures for other users who have traveled along the same road. Thanks for any responses in advance! --Iotatau (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not create [[:Category:Views from the A4 road]] in a similar fashion with Category:Views from the Tour Eiffel ? Teofilo (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I like that suggestion. In fact, here is an arbitrary similar example of the English Wikipedia: en:Category:Buildings and structures on U.S. Route 66 Just to be sure: would it be compliant with Commons policies to add a "View from <highway ID>" category to all my existing and future images and to create the respective categories? Should this way of categorizing be "announced" in some policy collection? --Iotatau (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I have looked around a bit in the meantime. As much as I personally like the "View from" suggestion it seems to apply to views from towers and other elevated structures. I haven't found a single example of a "View from <highway ID>" category and would feel uncomfortable starting such a category scheme all by myself. But there are many Commons image examples of objects next to a highway which have been tagged with the highway even though it is not visible. Some exemplary ones:
This post was prompted by these following two images which I took:
A user removed the category of the highway from which I took them. In my view it would be appropriate to leave the category in the images until some kind of "Road shot from..." or "View from ..." scheme has been established. Are there any objections to reverting the category removals? --Iotatau (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I support the creation of "view from" categories, notwithstanding the fact that this would be the first one. We have many categories for aerial views (Category:Aerial photographs). It'd also be useful for e.g. mountains and trails. Where the position of the camera is known, it's always a useful thing to know - this is one of the goals of geolocation after all. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I like the "View from..." idea, it's much more elegant than "Buildings and structures on...". The fit into the category tree: Views → Views from roads → Views from roads in <country> → Views from <highway #>. If there is one more supporter of the "View from..." idea I'll insert the new categories. --Iotatau (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds peachy to me. I guess I'm one more. =) Powers (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Following the 4:0 score (Teofilo, Dcoetzee, Powers, Iotatau) I have created Category:Views from Bundesautobahn 2, Category:Views from roads in Germany, Category:Views from roads. It's still a rather weak branch of the category tree but I'll work on it. Thanks all! --Iotatau (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This image is legal?

hello, i not remember that film is the image inner this file:

Is not free film capture inner the avidemux capture? Shooke Flag of Argentina.svg Flag of Italy.svg(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 23:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Kingdom Hearts 3 trailer is copyrighted by Square Enix. Jappalang (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
✓ Gone, thanks for the note. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

May 29

Knnn.mid illegal?

I tried to upload a file called K265.mid and met with "Permissions Errors: You do not have permission to do that, for the following reason: The name of the file you are uploading begins with PICT, DSC, image, ..., which is a non-descriptive name typically assigned automatically by digital cameras. Please choose a more descriptive name for your file." I resolved the problem by naming the file K265 (Ah vous dirai-je, Maman).mid which is entirely unnecessary.

I think I understand why this name got flagged that way (Titleblacklist?), but I suggest there needs to be a special-case exemption for files so named. I previously uploaded K520.mid and K520.ogg without this problem. I suggest to revert the restrictions to a state where filenames like "Knnn.ext" for Mozart's works are permitted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason to believe that everyone knows the Köchel catalogue by heart, nor, indeed, that someone should guess from the file name Knnnn.mid that this is a Mozart piece. File names should be descriptive, Knnn isn't. I think, therefore, that your "fixed" name for the file is much better. --rimshottalk 06:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright mess

Having uploaded a bunch of paintings under PD-Art the last two days, and browsing through related content here with a more critical eye than usual, it occurs to me that a lot of people simply dump pictures here, giving the associated page little thought. Properly identified source, author(s), subject, location seem to be an exception rather than the norm; categorisation is a mess (though the system itself might be at fault here) and copyright tags are seemingly added only to make the upload form and bots go away.

I don't know how to fix reckless uploaders, however, it occurs to me that copyright regarding artwork might be confusing . Basically, the problem is as follow : someone goes in a museum, takes a picture of a painting, uploads it on Commons, since he's taken the picture himself, he "releases" his work under PD-Self or the Creative Commons or GFDL license (while the artwork in question, might or might not even be in the public domain). This arises because there are two possible claims of copyright attached to the process rather than one: one for the artwork itself, and one for its photographic representation. Now PD-Art and PD-Scan cover that to some extend, basically by dismissing copyright claims on faithful photographic representations of 2D-art, however both the text of the notice and Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag/Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag imply the tag is to be used for photographies/scans made by others. For the uploader who's taken the picture himself, confusion ensues.

Photographs of 3D artwork is even more problematic, here we truly have two copyright claims, one for the original artwork, one for the photograph, yet there doesn't seem to be a mechanism in place to implement the double-license. The uploader is left to either get creative with license tags and the picture's associated page, incorrectly claim the artwork as his own, or fail to actually release his photograph under a free license.

Now I'm not entirely familiar with Commons, there might be something I've missed addressing just that problem, however, I've just encountered occurences of museum artwork released under GFDL etc, so I expect it's not just me. Equendil (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to pick on that particular user, but here's an example of what I'm talking about: File:Louvre pyrrha ent1999.23.jpg Equendil (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, as you already said, we have to take care of two different copyright holders: The creator of the actual photograph and the creator of the depicted artwork. If the artwork is PD, the uploader can choose whatever license he wants (though simple photographic reproduction of 2D PD works are believed to be in the Public Domain and might be tagged as PD-art by someone). If the artwork is still under copyright, the creator of the image and the creator of the artwork need to agree under which license the image can be released. The photorapher cannot release images of copyrighted artwork without permission by the artwork's creator. The image you linked is a photograph of a 3D PD work. Such images always involve creativity as there are endless different angles from which the artwork can be photographed, so the photographer has indeed created a work on his own and can choose a license for this. The copyright holder of the artwork is long dead and the artwork is in the PD, thus the photographer is allowed to release the image under the GFDL. From a copyright point of view, the image is perfectly fine. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
But nowhere does it actually say the artwork is in public domain, if this is fine, then why do we even bother with the PD-Art tags etc in the first place. Equendil (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
That is a lot easier to figure out independently. In this case the sculpture was made in the 1770s (described in the original upload) by an artist (also named) who died in 1788. When it is as blatantly obvious as that, tags are a bit overkill. The copyright of the photograph is the only thing in question, which can be licensed however the photographer wants (in this case, the GFDL is one of three options given). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Tags may be overkill, yet uploading a picture of an old painting without any license information is a sure way to get the picture deleted, even though it may be obvious it's PD. Anyway, we don't only deal with obvious cases here, so the problem stands. Equendil (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
If you note the creator information somewhere on the page, the image will probably not be deleted. We don't really have a specific tag for the depicted artwork of an image, so you can just make it clear by adding text, e.g. like this. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Also note that even in situations where PD-Art applies on Commons, photos may be considered copyrightable some countries, so a GFDL (etc.) tag in addition to PD-Art may still be appropriate. Commons only looks at the status in the country of origin and the U.S., but explicit licenses by the uploader or photographer can still be very helpful in some countries even if they are inapplicable in the U.S. due to ineligibility -- different countries draw that line very differently, so it is usually impossible to say it is ineligible *everywhere*. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
PD-Art and PD-Scan never apply in the case of a work produced by the uploader - we fully expect that if the uploader is the copyright holder that they will release their work under a free license. That said, we really do have poor license template support for derivative works where multiple copyright statuses are involved. This will only become a bigger problem as paintings and sculptures begin to be released under free licenses. We need a wrapper license template that says something to the effect of "The photograph is free because of X. The original work is free because of Y." PD-Art says, in effect, "The original work is free because of X. The photograph is free because it's just a copy, not an original work." Dcoetzee (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence collection of copyright infringement on internet

Recently I discovered a few Hong Kong media websites had published images which was originally uploaded to Wikipedia/Commons by Wikipedians, without fulfilling requirements given by the lincenses. Some examples are listed below. Before negotiating with the websites, I need some proof as to protect my own interest. I know this is not a place for seeking legal advice or expecting someone to resolve the problem, but your suggestions on how to collect such evidence is essential at this momment. Thanks in advance. --Baycrest (Talk) 08:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Image Link
1 File:HK The Palazzo.jpg [24][25][26][27][28][29][30]
2 File:Royal Peninsula.jpg [31][32]
3 File:HK Park Avenue.jpg [33][34]
4 File:One Silver Sea.JPG [35][36]
5 File:The Grandiose.JPG [37][38]
6 File:Harbourside.jpg [39][40][41]
7 File:Olympian City 1.jpg [42][43]
8 File:HK Residence Bel-Air 20070829 large.jpg [44][45]
9 File:HK apm Void 2008view.jpg [46][47]
10 File:Thelatitude.jpg [48][49]
11 File:HK Sham Mong Road Harbour Green.JPG [50][51][52]
12 File:Sorrento.jpg [53]
13 File:Arch 200710-1.jpg [54]
14 File:The Waterfront.jpg [55]
15 File:Sheung Shui Centre Interior.jpg [56]
16 File:MTR MKK (1).JPG [57]
17 File:HK Lake Silver 200905.jpg [58]
18 File:The Long Beach.jpg [59]
Our local (French) Wikipedia has a page to deal with copyright violations on another sites. Does Commons has such a thing, or should we create one? It might be useful… Diti the penguin 17:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
We have that: Category:Images used by media organizations but violating license terms --Eusebius (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but no further procedure is taken after evidence… Diti the penguin 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Generally, the collection of evidence is considered unnecessary, because if they take the image down, it's presumed that you are happy with the outcome. If they leave the image up, the evidence is manifest. In the United States, OCILLA indemnifies them against copyright violation until a takedown request has been issued and they have failed to comply. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Preview (thumbnail) not showing

I posted this a while back on the help desk but got no help so I hope someone here can help me.

I've got a problem with the preview of one of my pictures: File:Bokö1.jpg. When I check the file page the picture doesn't show and it also doesn't show in my gallery where I put it. If I click on it to view the full version it loads and I can see the picture, but the preview is empty. It says "Size of this preview: 800 × 135 pixels" but there's nothing there. So the picture is useless if I try to put it in an article. What's wrong? Entheta (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The file is a "progressive JPEG". The thumbnailing software has problems with such files. How to make non-progressive JPEGS may depend on what image software you use, but for example in GIMP there is a checkbox marked "Progressiv" under "Avancerade inställningar" when saving files in jpeg format. /Ö 15:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Tack! Entheta (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
jpegtran can also losslessly convert progressive JPEG files to normal ones (or vice versa). (Just remember to specify "-copy all" to preserve metadata.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

May 30

Need some Portuguese help

Tiago Antao (talk · contribs) has uploaded a bunch of images now tagged as unknown source but he listed the source of one - and only one - of his images, File:Tanque aereo.jpg, as I originally deleted since I read all rights reserved at the bottom, but then I noticed that the images themselves have Royalty Free labels. Is that a Portuguese source of free images? Did the rest of Tiago Antao's images come from the same source? If so, can someone help him properly label his images so they don't all get deleted? Thanks! Wknight94 talk 00:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak Portuguese, but I'd assume it simply means that the images are available under royalty-free terms. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The photos are copyrighted, and to get them without watermark, you have to pay. Each image is linked with the license terms of its author/distributor. See e.g. this photo and its license, or this photo and its license. Not free at all. Delete them all. Lupo 09:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


This toy weapon File:CPS 2000.jpg design is possibly copyrighted. Any views? Sv1xv (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think so, for me this looks like a utility object that does not hit any threshold of originality. Other toys, like Mickey Mouse figures, for example, are copyrighted, though. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Will be good idea to visit toy store and check this (or similar) items for copyrights notices. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe not, given that a copyright notice is not needed to claim copyright protection, nor does the presence of such a notice imply that something is actually eligible for copyright.
In this particular case, I'd agree with AFBorchert: this toy is a functional article with no distinct features in its design that could "be identified separately from, and [be] capable of existing independ­ently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article." As such, at least under U.S. law, it is not eligible for copyright protection. (It could be eligible for related types of protection, such as a design patent, but those do not restrict the use of pictures of it.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS Pending discussion

Just a quick notification that there is an OTRS-related proposal over at COM:ON#Specific proposal... Wknight94 talk 19:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

June 1