Commons:Village pump/Archive/2009/09

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.


FP/QI/VI icons on category pages (was: Where to propose software or template changes?)

Hi, I'd like to discuss a proposal for a different display of thumbnails on category pages, I suppose that would be a software change, or maybe a template change. Where is the right place to do so? -- H005 (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The village pump here is probably the best place to do this. Go ahead and tell us your idea. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a perfectly good place to discuss such ideas, but the right place to actually request changes to the MediaWiki software is at bugzilla. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, here's my idea: We have the concept of Valued Images, Quality Images and Featured Pictures on Commons. When someone now is striving to illustrate an article on any Wikipedia, they will probably browse through the relevant categories to find a suitable image, but very often you have to click on each and every picture, which often takes a long time when you don't have a broadband connection, and look at them just to find out that it's actually of poor quality.

Thus, my proposal is to display small icons (Valued image seal.svg, Quality images logo.svg and Cscr-featured.svg) next to the file size below the thumbnails so that one can easily see that there are images in that category whose quality or value has been approved.

Example: Here's how it currently looks:


And here's an example of how it could look like for an image that is "Valued" and "Featured":


Any comments on this proposal? -- H005 (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea, but it might be hard to implement. --Jarekt (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like it should be possible to write a MediaWiki extension for this. The only problem is that there's currently no hook for modifying the gallery text, but one could easily be added (it would go near the end of ImageGallery::toHTML()). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, as the general idea seems to be appreciated, how can we put this into pratice? Is there anything I could do to expedite it? -- H005 (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it is an excellent idea as well. Moreover, it would be really cool if you could do something like
[[Category:A category|caption=An optional additional caption to be shown together with the image on that category page]]
That could also be used to parse icons and other wikitext to the category page. For me that would once and for all, also solve the good, old categories vs. galleries fight we had in COM:TOL, where an argument for having galleries as the last leaf was that it was possible to add text specific for the image tailored for display on that page, unlike categories. I have no idea how to bring this idea to life though. --Slaunger (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think both these proposals are going the wrong way. Trawling through categories is a very inefficient way to finding things. I think it was a mistake to ever have categories displaying their contents as basically an unstructured random gallery. Having thumbnails to show the content of a category is great for category maintenance work, but terrible when trying to find images. Put more emphasis on decent file descriptions when people are uploading files (rather than categories which are seldom used properly by new uploaders). :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Really? All I ever use is categories. I find that all that text and stuff in galleries just gets in the way. You miss a lot good images if you only look at the gallery. If it's that hard to find what you're looking for, a subcategory or two is probably needed. Rocket000 (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Really, I jest not :-). I always use a text search of some sort, or maybe a catscan. If searching via categories, subcategories are often a pain, because they hide material and a tree search up and down branches (many blind alleys) is sometimes needed. Maybe it depends upon what sort of thing you are looking for (eg a species example in a taxo tree, or pictures of a president), and why you are looking (maintenance vs finding an image for a particular application). It is a nice idea to have multiple, redundant ways of finding things, but I think it dissipates the work of people maintaining things (too many things to update etc). Having flags showing QI/VI/FP or your other favouite category is nice, but in reality a very small number of images are so flagged, and I can't see that changing unless we stop allowing more uploads :-). So if you want QI/FP/VI go search through their well maintained galleries. I've no real objection to those flags, especially if they show up on search pages too and are an insignificant extra load (everytime the hardware is upgraded we squander the resource until we are over-loaded again ;-). Adding descriptions when categorizing is too much (which language?). Start by insisting on better descriptions, then categorization, then galleries, I say :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, actually I do not think there is an easier and generally superioir way to find images, it always depends, and most often probably a combination of different search techniques will do the trick best. But most often I think categories are the best starting point, and very often lead to sufficient results - we all usually don't have time to spend half an hour on picking the absolutely and doubtless best photo of Wikimedia for a specific purpose, but rather feel consent with a reasonably good quality image. At least this works better than those gallery pages, which are usually not well-maintained and where you miss many relevant images, whereas in categories you will usually find around 90 % of the available images on that topic.
Anyway, I don't think there's an argument against the solutions above, rather an argument to extend the display of those icons to text search result pages. -- H005 (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So veryone agrees that this is a good ideay but nobody knows how to get this going? I'd do anything necessary to expedite it, but someone has to hint me where to start. -- H005 (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I said it was a good idea ;-). Technically to get a change to the software I think you submitt a bug-report to bugzilla (I expect someone will insert a link here :-). If it is little work to implement it might get done, but there is always plenty of things to do, so you might need to demonstrate the importance of it. Personally I feel that how we use galleries and categories needs a serious think about before we add more features to turn categories into 'automated' galleries. --Tony Wills (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Categories are automated galleries. You just can't add captions or arrange them (other than by sort keys). Rocket000 (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The lack of captions and subheadings is a shortcoming of categories that may be addressed in galleries. For example, compare Calypso bulbosa with Category:Calypso bulbosa. One image in the gallery is marked with a VI icon (added by VICbot). Moreover, a well-organized gallery page can be a helpful adjunct to an article in a sister project, obviating the need for a gallery in the article. Regarding the proposal, it seems useful to me. I agree with Tony Wills that more clarity regarding galleries and categories would be helpful, but Rocket000's response suggests that differences in opinion remain. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest It's a little bit silly. I noticed no difference between the two sets of images. Westside.

Slackware logos

This question was in the spanish café. --Arcibel (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Slackware logos are in, but i'm not sure about the license, the terms of uses of logos could be found in Slackware Propaganda Graphics FAQ and I suspect can be used here for this. I believe that File:Slackware logo.svg and File:SackWare logo.jpg have not correct license, or not have reference to original author. Check this Shooke Flag of Argentina.svg Flag of Italy.svg(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 18:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
This is where I stopped reading that link: "please note this is not the official opinion of Slackware, Inc. and I do not represent Slackware in ANY official capacity whatsoever." --J.smith (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
If we don't refer to this FAQ, we have to assume that the logos are copyrighted, since there is absolutely no proof to the contrary. But even if we consider the FAQ relevant, it clearly prohibits commercial uses: So, yes, you may make ONE t-shirt for your own personal use. If you wish to, and have the capacity to make a large number of items [...] feel free to contact us about it, but DO NOT make the items before discussing this with us. So either way, the logos are not free. –Tryphon 23:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
There's a good chance that the original Slackware logo may be {{PD-textlogo}}, but any fancier derivatives are indeed likely to be copyrighted. From the FAQ linked to above I get the distinct impression that the authors of most of them have probably not made any explicit licensing or copyright transfer agreements (though submitting their artwork to Slackware may be taken as an implicit license for promotional use), so they probably still retain all their rights. For some of the more official logos, it's possible that the authors might've transferred their copyright to Slackware Inc., or that the logos might be works for hire.
You should probably contact the maintainer of that page, ask them for contact information for the authors of any logos you'd like to use, contact the authors and suggest they release the logos under a free license (if they haven't already done so) and forward the replies to OTRS. Given that we're talking about volunteer-contributed logos for a Free Software project, I rather doubt any of them would be particularly reluctant to do so, but one should still observe the formalities. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all answers, i'm going to copy this in to the spanish café. --Arcibel (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

August 30

An odd omission in the category hierarchy (cathedrals)

I don't feel like taking on the massive work it would take to rectify this one, but oddly Category:Cathedrals does not have a subcategory Category:Cathedrals by faith (my preference) or Category:Cathedrals by denomination or such. Thus, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopalian, and Lutheran/Evangelical cathedrals (and maybe something else I'm not thinking of offhand) are lumped, and there is no way to look for (say) just Lutheran/Evangelical cathedrals. Clearly one appropriate axis along which to split. If someone is looking for a valuable (albeit tedious) project, this would be a useful one. - Jmabel ! talk 00:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Churches by religion does exist, maybe is it enough to categorize cathedrals also ? Pymouss Let’s talk - 08:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really sure if this going to be very helpful. This is going to complicate the church tree a lot. Multichill (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


Is it possible to delete a picture I uploaded? If yes, how? Who can I turn to? Thanks!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruitjuice01 (talk • contribs)
You have to add the template {{Speedydelete}} on the image description page, and give the reasons why you want your picture to be deleted. Pymouss Let’s talk - 08:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime, please don't remove the page content or replace the image. Thanks. –Tryphon 08:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
And this would mean that you want your user page to be deleted; since you created it directly with {{speedydelete}}, I doubt that's what you want. As Pymouss said, you should add the tag to the image page; and don't forget to provide a reason, like this: {{speedydelete|This image should be deleted because...}}. –Tryphon 10:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost 5 million free media files

Hi everyone, in about four days from now Wikimedia Commons will hit the 5 million uploaded files (stats). At that point Wikimedia Commons also exists almost 5 years. Wouldn't it be nice to send out a (real) press release to a couple of news agencies to get some press attention? Multichill (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. Nice idea. Shall we get the local chapters involved? Jean-Fred (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Support for the idea! There was already talked about on the chat, and sending it to press agencies look fine to me. I think the focus may lay on the relative free media that user store here for the benefit of the encyclopedia/education/etc, and maybe that it can be used also outside the projects of the Foundation. Also the idea of free media spread in the world by the press makes more people aware of this possibility, an idea the encourage. Romaine (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK will be sending out a press release about this. The draft is online at wmuk:Press_releases/Wikimedia Commons 5 million files - comments/suggestions/edits are most welcome (the press release will be locked just before it gets sent out). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, good work. Just two things about the numbers: WLA hasn't been uploaded yet and only part of the 250,000 are available. You might want to mention NYPL instead. -- User:Docu at 22:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; I've modified the first two. Is there any information about the New York Public Library material - was it a bulk upload specifically to Commons, or was it pre-existing public domain material copied here from another website? Mike Peel (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Similar to the Bundesarchiv images, they were available online, but hi-res (according to Commons:Batch uploading/NYPL Digital Gallery). -- User:Docu at 23:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

CSS placement of categories

Is there something I can add to Special:MyPage/monobook.css that would place categories below or above the image rather than at the end of a file description page? -- User:Docu at 11:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

See here. It sort of works, but messes up things a bit. --Ianezz (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I used part of it and made it larger.

/* move the catlinks box */
#catlinks {
/*  border: 1px solid #aaaaaa;
/*  background: #fafaff; */
  margin: 0.2em;

seems to work fairly well. -- User:Docu at 13:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's fine on file description pages where it hides the toc (I don't use), but on category pages in can cover part of the category description. -- User:Docu at 13:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Found also this little one in JavaScript, that seems better (put in monobook.js):
function catsattop() {
  var cats = document.getElementById('catlinks');
  var bc = document.getElementById('bodyContent');
  bc.insertBefore(cats, bc.childNodes[0]);

hookEvent ('load', catsattop);

--Ianezz (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. Looks even better. Shall we add it to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition? -- User:Docu at 14:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be reviewed a bit first by someone with more knowledge of JavaScript than me. As of now the function name pollutes the global namespace, and I added the hookEvent('load',catsattop) by looking at the source of a gadget. Btw, I found the code here on WikiNews --Ianezz (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The sure thing about having it at Wikinews is that I would never have found it ;) -- User:Docu at 14:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
On we have a gadget fr:MediaWiki:Gadget-CatsaGauche.js, which puts categories in a box in the left panel. I tweaked it in my monobook to have HotCats in it ; but though it does work I must say there are a few minor bugs (that I am too lazy to track down). Jean-Fred (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I tried this as well. My screen is too short to use this, but for larger screens, it could be an interesting option. We could add both for users to choose from.
For images description pages, I'd probably prefer the categories to be immediately below the images. -- User:Docu at 14:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A little variant: categories below images for files, categories on top for everything else. Works for me. YMMV:

function catsattop() {
  var cats = document.getElementById('catlinks');
  var bc = document.getElementById('bodyContent');
  var f  = document.getElementById('file');
  if (f != null) { f.appendChild(cats); } else { bc.insertBefore(cats, bc.childNodes[0]); }
hookEvent ('load', catsattop);

--Ianezz (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks -- User:Docu at 16:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, different "skins" locate the categories in different places... AnonMoos (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

An image that needs to be looked at.

Image:Coat of arms of Australia.svg is a bad image. It was created by using the "trace" function of Inkscape or something similar. It's HUGE (several times the size of the .png version), ugly and inferior to the file it was made from. Do files like that get deleted here, or left, or...? 21:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A bogus SVG "conversion" which contains only an embedded raster image file (without any actual vector data) can get deleted, and an image which is too low-quality to be of any practical use (with no real prospect for improvement any time soon) can also be deleted, but I'm not sure that just being a bloated and inefficient vector conversion is valid grounds for deletion. In any case, a formal nomination would have to be made... AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It is in use on many pages, so I'm pretty sure it wouldn't get deleted in a DR. Although I agree it is a very inappropriate use of SVG. –Tryphon 01:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Its use was totally suppressed on the English Wikipedia. Could that be done on other wikis and then DR'd? It really has no redeeming qualities. The image (raster) it was produced from is still here and is of higher quality and smaller size. My fear is that people will just assume that "SVG > raster" for coats of arms and this awful image will never die. 21:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I've added a {{superseded}} tag on the SVG page. But feel free to open a DR, maybe people will think it's worth replacing this image throughout all the projects. I personally prefer leaving that choice up to the individual projects. –Tryphon 21:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Guide to using database dumps of Commons

I have written a detailed tutorial explaining how to use dumps of the Commons database to perform searches that are impossible to carry out directly on Commons. The instructions should work on any recent Windows system, and anyone can use them, including non-administrators and unregistered users. If you are interested in both the guide and examples of some of the interesting information one can gain from querying database dumps, please see User:JovanCormac/UsingDatabaseDumps. -- JovanCormac 21:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

An alternative to importing a database dump locally and querying it would be to request an account on the Wikimedia Toolserver and run queries there, or to ask someone who already has a toolserver account to run your query via the query service. An advantage of using the toolserver, besides not having to download and import gigabytes of data, is that the toolserver has essentially real-time access to the Wikimedia databases via MySQL replication. A disadvantage is that the databases replicated to the toolserver don't include page content (nor, indeed, uploaded files), so for things like grepping the text of all pages on the wiki you still need to use the dumps. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
True, and the rub is that it's precisely the page content that matters to most people :( So I have found using the dumps directly do be unavoidable... -- JovanCormac 19:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
We have also the database dumps on toolserver (/mnt/user-store/dump) and parse this for Templatetiger-project.--Kolossos (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2

Looking for maintainers

Hi everyone, I have two bots running around here, BotMultichill (talk · contribs) and BotMultichillT (talk · contribs), doing all sorts of jobs. I want to move some of these jobs to dedicated bot accounts and put these bot accounts in Multi-maintainer projects at the Toolserver. I would like to co-maintain these projects with one or more people. I prefer to do this with people who are not complete strangers to me. You don't have to be very technical, but knowledge of python (pywikipedia) and/or regular expressions would be nice. The bots are all very stable so most time will go in handling feedback.

Categorization bot

  • Will hunt down uncategorized files and tag these files with {{subst:Unc}}
  • Will notify users of uncategorized uploads
  • Will try to categorize files based on gallery information and usage at Wikipedia

Timestamping bot


I hope one or more people can help me out. If you want to ask me something in private you should contact me in #wikimedia-commons. Multichill (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Image placeholders

Files from Category:Image placeholders (e.g. File:No female portrait.svg) are used all over the place on Wikipedias to try to get people to release photos under a free licence, which is great. Most of them say something along the lines of "if you have a free image, click here to upload one", but clicking on the thumbnail brings you to a normal description page without any indications about uploading images. Is there a template somewhere we can use for such files to point new users in the right direction? Pruneautalk 13:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In general if you want images to go to somewhere other than the image description page, you can add a link=destination eg [[File:No female portrait.svg|180px|right|link=Special:Upload]]
No portrait (female).svg
(doesn't seem to work with the thumb option but that is probably because I was doing something wrong).
In the case where the image is used in an info box, it might be easier to set the caption to something like [[Special:Upload|Click here to upload one]] --Tony Wills (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but there are several issues with this, including attribution of the authors (not all such images are PD), getting this to work in infoboxes, and the fact that there's no way everyone who includes such images in articles knows about the detailed syntax for images. I was looking for something like en:File:Replace this image male.svg, where the description page includes instructions about upload. I think we should implement something similar on Commons. Pruneautalk 13:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
So en:wp has what you want already. I'm not quite sure where you'd want to use it on commons, it's not as though we have articles with missing pictures here. And I don't think it would be appreciated if you started creating galleries full of dummy pictures in the hope someone would upload something. Other language wikis might want a version, but probably not a straight translation as their local upload rules may differ. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I certainly don't want to use these images on Commons, but they are used extensively on Wikipedias. Say someone reads en:Bernadette Gray-Little, happens to have an image of Ms. Gray-Little, and is prepared to release it. They would then click where it says "click here" and end up on a page with no information whatsoever about what to do next. I would like the description page to tell them how to upload their photo. The image placeholders are clearly designed to get people to upload images, so we should make life easier for those people. Otherwise, we might as well delete all image placeholders, since they aren't fulfilling their purpose. Pruneautalk 11:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean Pruneau, it is a good idea to have instructions on the description page. On w:Bernadette Gray-Little File:No female portrait.svg is used but on the description page it says "Do not use this image at this time", so w:File:Replace this image female.svg should be used instead. I think it is up to the different Wikipedias to make sure their placeholder images have instructions. In this case a bot request at en.wp to swap the use of File:No female portrait.svg should be requested, or someone can start a disucssion on en.wp's village pump.--Commander Keane (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Crown Copyright images

Many images from Category:Maps of the Canadian Arctic region, such as File:Map indicating Kane Basin, Nunavut, Canada.png and File:Map indicating Robeson Channel, Nunavut, Canada.png, are marked as non-free content. The copyright statement on the file pages is "© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.". The copyright statement on the DNR WWW site itself can be found here, and it explicitly states that "Reproduction of multiple copies of materials on this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution is prohibited except with written permission from the Government of Canada's copyright administrator, Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC).", a direct conflict with Commons:Licensing. Attention is required to these images. Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not the referenced license statement -- this one is (or was). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

German speaker help needed!

Would someone please translate my comment on User talk:Gaggo to German language, Thanks in advance.   ■ MMXXtalk  16:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.   ■ MMXXtalk  02:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

September 4

Unreferenced statement in Commons:Freedom of Panorama


I tried this morning to remove the following statement from COM:FOP :

According to Israeli scholars this term and gave as an example artwork hung in museums (i.e. 2D art displayed in a public place). diff

Because the scholar quote which was provided on the talk page at CT:FOP#Israel painting, July 2009 contains neither the words "hung in" nor "2D".

Unfortunately the initial writer of the statement disagrees and reverted my removal, so that the statement is there again.

Could other people have a look at this and, if possible, add their comments on CT:FOP ? Teofilo (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

to make it simple. any "useful art" (whether 2D or 3D or 4D etc) which is "permenantly hung in a public place" is FOB in Israel. The words of the Law are simple. Deror avi (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
My problem with this quote is it is nonsensical in its current sentence structure for the average English reader. What is the subject of this sentence, best I can tell it is "this term" - this term what? the phrase "and gave as an example..." is a subordinate phrase, but the sentence has no predicate. --Trödel 11:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The term "useful art". Deror avi (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The referenced source actually says (transcribed from the pdf my me):

"23. Broadcast or copying of work in public place
Broadcasting, or copying by way of photography, drawing, sketch or similar visual description, of an architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art, are permitted where the aforesaid work is permanently situated in a public place."

So the FOP page reference is not a literal quote from that document. (Of course it might be an alternative translation, or from a subsequent revision - but if so, it is not sourced).
The term "useful art" (whatever that means) is not included.
  • In the definitions section it says:

"Artistic work" - including, drawings, paintings, works of sculpture, engravings, lithography, maps, charts, architectural works, photographic works and works of applied art;

Which suggests "applied art" is something seperate from "drawings, paintings, works of sculpture, engravings, lithography, maps, charts, architectural works, photographic works", and if one meant to include any of them as well they would be listed (as are "architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art"). Why would the first definition explicitly include drawings, paintings etc and the "public places" section not explicitly include them if they were meant to be there. Why doesn't the "public places" section just refer to "Artistic works" or simply "works" if that was what was meant. Is the translation wrong? (en:Applied art does not include paintings etc., the term "useful art" may be an alternative translation, but please show where such a term is said to include paintings etc).
  • So if this FOP:Israel section is to rely on sources, then something else is needed (doesn't have to be in English, I'm sure it could be translated if necessary). Preferably a link to statutes.
  • Lastly the sentence on the FOP page does not make any sense in English anyway. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
There is some background and sources mentioned at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#2D works and especially Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Israel painting, but the discussions are hard for me to follow. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
It would seem hard for anyone who isn't an Israeli copyright lawyer to say anything definite on this issue. On one hand, the English term "applied art", as used in the unofficial translation of the Israeli 2007 copyright act (as well as in the Berne Convention) does have a fairly well established meaning which would generally exclude paintings (those being prototypical examples of its antonym, fine art) but would include things like signs and advertisements. It also seems clear, even from the translation, that the Hebrew term translated as "applied art" in the 2007 law does not appear to have been intended to completely subsume the other types of "artistic works", namely "drawings, paintings, works of sculpture, engravings, lithography, maps, charts, architectural works [and] photographic works".
On the other hand, it's hardly unknown for courts in different countries to interpret apparently identical statutes and definitions in completely different ways. As a related example, the laws in Finland and Germany regarding the threshold of originality are AFAIK just about identically written, but courts have applied them very differently: this photo would likely pass the threshold in Germany, whereas this logo might well pass it in Finland. So it's not impossible that Israeli courts might have applied, or might decide to apply in the future, a definition of "applied art" (or the actual Hebrew term so translated) that is significantly broader than the corresponding definition in most other countries. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Compare with the current discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/File:HaMakhtesh HaGadol IMG 5985.jpg. The surprising claim that maps, paintings, and drawing enjoy FOP as "works of applied art" or "useful art" is not supported by any court decision. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The terms used in Hebrew is "אמנות שימושית" - "useful art" - while in the past the term "Arts and crafts" was used (which was interpreted by the UK courts to include stain glass windows and mosaics (both 2D objects), the Hebrew term is broader. Pieter Kuiper tries to imply from one definition ("artistic works") to another ("useful art" or "applied art") and says that "useful art" does not include pictures, but that is incorrect. One definition does not excludes the other. Each definition is only relevant to the place where it appears. According the Justice Barak's book "Interpreting Law" - each term (when not defined, or even as part of a definition) should have the simplest meaning as used by the men in the street, and according to Dr Prezenty in her book "Copyright Law", the FOP includes pictures hung in museums - so of course there would be no court precedents regarding this as the term of the Law are simple, and no claims will be filed (although numerous other copyright claims are filed in Israel every year - most of them against internet sites who use copyrighted pictures - none was filed in a matter like this (as none will be filed against a person photographing a building or a statue which is in a permanent public location). In any case - I just wish to add that all these discussions are legally harmful to the wikimedia foundation - because its main defence in any future claim is that it is a blog where the users publish information and the information is the sole responsibility of the publishers and not the foundation. Once Pieter Kuiper tries to give a legal opinion, the foundation loses the freedom of speech defence because is has "legal advisors" whose "job" is to interpret laws and check compliance (even when such checks are not made, the foundation will be held responsible), but that is just a general comment, as I am sure, under Israeli Law, that pictures and any other useful art, when permanently displayed to the Public, can be the base of derivative art.
One comment to Tony Wills- since 1980 (The Foundation of Law), Israeli Law should not be interpreted according to the UK Law anymore, but rather according to its own precedents and Jewish Law. And according to Hebrew Law - terms should have there common simple meanings ("דברה תורה בלשון בני אדם"). Deror avi (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Even if you translate that term as 'useful art', that still sounds like 'utilitarian' art to me. In what way is the term you translate as "useful art" different from other forms of art? Can you show us examples of this "common simple meaning" in literature somewhere? --Tony Wills (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Justice Aharon Barak, "Interpretation In Law", Valume II, "Statutory Interpretation", on p. 101 - 102, 585, and especially on page 117 in which it is stated "ההנחה הינה כי דבר המחוקק בלשון בני אדם ואין מקרא יוצא מיד פשוטו" - "It is the presumed that the Legislator used the simple used meanings of the terms and the Law uses the simplest meanings" (and a list of Court precedents starting this rule is listed there). Deror avi (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Deror avi claims "according to Dr Prezenty in her book "Copyright Law", the FOP includes pictures hung in museums", but in this quote there is no mention of paintings, just works displayed in museums. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
"היצירות המוצגות בו" - "All artwork displayed therein". Most artworks in Israeli museums is paintings (there are very few sculptures in museums). So - according to Prezenty, all works of art (whether pictures are not) displayed in museum permanently (it is a public area), are FOP. Pieter, I know you like to misquote me, and can't read Hebrew, but don't try to twist simple quotes. Deror avi (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Presenti does not write "all" (כל), she just uses the definite article. This is a book from 2000, I think, when the British 1911 law was still in effect in Israel. If the Israeli interpretation really differed from all other countries with similar law texts, the book would probably have said a bit more about it. Anyway, Deror avi does not seem very confident that he is right if he is so afraid that this discussion might be noticed in litigation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I am seriously tiered of trying to explain Israeli Law to you, when you have no basic understanding in Hebrew, Israeli Law, Law in general, and apperently copyright Law.
Here are the simple facts, take them or remain ignorant:
* According to Prezanty's book Pictures hung in museums (as well as any other work displayed therein) in Israel permenantly, are free.
* Israeli Law has stoped following UK Law in 1980 (by the way UK Law from the 1900's did consider 2D images - especialy stain glass and mozaic to be free, if displayed permenantly in a public place).
* The 2008 israeli law states that all "usefull art" (in the term's simplest meening - i.e. not only art but also usefull objects which has artistic value) are free if permenantly placed in a public place. I think this discussion is over. Deror avi (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv categorization again

So, how about restoring BA categories by year, on what we have talked about here? Categorization of Bundesarchiv is by no means finnished, even if there are no "uncategorized" photos. Adding to reasons mentioned before, I have just accidently discovered a category Category:Photographs by Horst Grund from the Deutsches Bundesarchiv. There are (or were) lots of pictures like File:Bundesarchiv N 1603 Bild-092, Jalta, brennendes Anhänger.jpg, File:Bundesarchiv N 1603 Bild-263, Sewastopol, Hafen, versenkter Zerstörer.jpg, File:Bundesarchiv N 1603 Bild-262, Sewastopol, Hafen, versenkter Zerstörer.jpg, File:Bundesarchiv N 1603 Bild-226, Italien, Am Ätna, Vierlingsflak auf LKW.jpg, File:Bundesarchiv N 1603 Bild-102, Russland, Krim, Unterkunft.jpg with the only category "Photographs by Horst Grund", or other generic ones, despite they are valuable and interesting (color!) WWII photos, and if they were still in a category "..1942", "..1943" etc, there would be a chance, that a person browsing WWII period resources of BA, would find them. Restoring categories by year can only bring us some good results. As I've said before, for example I liked to browse years interesting to me and spot and categorize interesting subjects. Now, if somebody is desperate enough, it would take to browse 100.000 photos in a general category, page by page... Pibwl (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In the last discussion I recall, there seems to have been support to restore the 'by year'-categories. You just need to find an admin that will edit the template. -- User:Docu at 03:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
And strong opposition by me and some other admins who work on categorization. Automatic categorization based on template parameters is a bad hack and shouldn't be used at all. I already pointed out that these images should be categorized to topic categories. I also explained how to do this (example). Multichill (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
We know you disagree. It's odd that you would suggest to use the internal search engine instead of categories. -- User:Docu at 07:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You didn't understand me. I suggested you use the internal search engine so you can add proper topic categories. See for example Category:Poland during World War II by year. Multichill (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is what the user was looking for. Did you read the explanation we gave you in July? -- User:Docu at 07:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The user is Pibwl? Let's wait for him to respond. Multichill (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
What I'm saying is, that many valuable photos are still not in proper categories, but for example in "History of Berlin" or "Photos by Horst Grund" only, so even finding a category, like Category:Poland during World War II by year, doesn't solve the problem. There were several other users, that found BA categories by year useful. I can't understand, if keeping such categories is really such a problem, while on the other hand, it was a useful tool. But it's not my loss, if such categories aren't restored - it's only Wiki's loss, because it will by more difficult to find and improve cases of wrong categorization. I can't imagine browsing 100K of images, page by page. Pibwl (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

September 3

Audio Upload ?

I have an old recording from 1940 of a man talking about his experience in pre-war Germany. I'm currently creating a Wikipedia page on him and would like to post this audio (about 24 seconds long) on Wikimedia. The recording was aired on the BBC and is still posted on their web-site.

My questions are: #1. Is this the appropriate place to upload audio? The commons? The upload page seems to be geared toward images only. #2. Am I correct in thinking that the BBC owns the copyright to the audio recording even though I have permission from the family of the man speaking, and I have the original recording - I'm going to have to obtain some sort of license from BBC in order to use it?

Any general guidance in this area would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Etrangere (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I gave one answer to the same question on Commons talk:Licensing#Audio Upload ?. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

September 5

Usability Beta

Someone can move User:TheDJ/vector.js to MediaWiki:Vector.js. It will restore "check usage" links etc that are at the top in monobook and will place them into the actions menu. It is based on MediaWiki:Monobook.js, but is has some cruft cleaned out of it. On a related note, someone should really go trough the Common.css/js and Monobook.css/js files, because there is some stuff there that needs to be removed or rewritten, and there is stuff in Monobook files that really should be in Common. TheDJ (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done - I moved that page, thank you for your work - Huib talk 12:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Technical question regarding Special:Upload

How does one set Special:Upload (or in my case af:Spesiaal:Laai) to preload text (such as the Information template used at Commons)? Anrie (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the Afrikaanse Wikipedia have a Exemption Doctrine Policy ? If not, why not just redirect uploaders to Commons? Saves you guys the trouble of having to update everything and we get more nice images. Would of course be nice to first translate the upload interface and most used templates to Afrikaans. Multichill (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

I uploaded a map entitled w:File:Orthographic projection centred over Cocos Island.png in January 2006.

A version was uploaded to the commons in August 2007. And the wikipedia version was deleted a few months later.

I suspect that the upload was of the image I originally created, and that the lack of author information was a simple lapse.

Attribution wouldn't really be a problem, as most of my images weren't a lot of work. But I I recently decided to reliscense all the images I created as {{PD-Self}}. And I can't do that if the commons version should be attributed to me, and isn't.

I would like to request someone who is an administrator at the wikipedia to help confirm my suspicion that the version on the commons is identical to the deleted copy on the wikipedia. I'd ask the admin who deleted it, but they haven't been online since January.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, both images are exactly the same. TheDJ (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

POTY mailing list

Please see this discussion. Further input from the community would be nice. Best regards, Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 08:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Averbury prehistoric sites

This category is mis-spelled. It should be spelled AVEBURY prehistoric sites. Thanks. 10:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It's now at Category:Avebury prehistoric sites. -- User:Docu at 10:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Re-link the edit counter

Could someone with admin access please re-link the edit counter? When clicking on "Edit count" in "my contributions", the message The editcounter is away for some time. Please use another one. is displayed, and has been for a long time. That means if someone wants to know their edit count, they have to follow four links, then select "commonswiki_p" from a very user-unfriendly dropdown list, then enter their user name, then press a button, rather than the whole procedure being done with one click. So I suggest changing the link to point another edit counter, e.g. with -- JovanCormac 11:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Click on the global contributions button instead, it doesn't give you a break down of your Commons edits, but it will give you a total of your commons edits.KTo288 (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a workaround, not a fix. I already know how to look at someone's edit count, even with the edit counter broken. What I'm asking is for someone with the tools to fix that broken counter, which should take about two minutes. -- JovanCormac 15:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done. See [1]. Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 15:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, good work. -- JovanCormac 16:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

September 7

How about removing the background image by default?

This may sound like blasphemy to some, but do we really need the background image, File:Commons-bg.png, to be displayed on all pages? What are the arguments for even having one at all, rather than a monocolor background? Is it about watermarking the pages? Anyway, here are a few arguments against using File:Commons-bg.png as a background:

  • On a properly calibrated monitor, the image is next to invisible. Without a doubt, someone could use Commons for years without even noticing it, unless of course their monitor brightness setting is too low, or they happen to be looking at the screen at a steep angle (which also distorts the colors, though).
  • Even if it was opaque and had strong colors, it would still rarely be seen, as most pages have enough content to almost completely cover the symbol, except for a nondescript part in the lower left which by itself has absolutely nothing to do the the Commons visual identity.
  • Removing the background image (16 KB) would reduce the load time of the main page (169 KB) by 10%, which is quite noticable. The same holds true for other pages, of course.
  • As a watermark, any background image is useless, as mirror sites can remove it at will and browsers don't print it, so it doesn't appear on printed material either.
  • File:Commons-bg.png doesn't show the Commons symbol - it shows the Commons symbol, rotated by about 120 degrees. The arrow, which should face "skyward", appears to point to lower regions instead...

There has been a "discussion" (here, although it really seems to have been a flame war that never quite got started) about the background image before, but AFAICS it only concerned the question which background to use. But do we really need one at all? -- JovanCormac 11:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Although probably not the most important problem we have on Commons, I kinnda of agree with Jovan, that there seems to be no great point in having it there. Concerning load page time and the 10% page size savings is that also valid when the image is in the browser cache. --Slaunger (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
No, it isn't. Once the image is cached, the browser generally does not need to load it anew. But still it is reloaded sometimes, and removing it would certainly save bandwidth. -- JovanCormac 18:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
A background image can be either visible and annoying, or barely visible and useless. On Commons, it's fortunately the latter, so yes, I think we could remove it entirely. Most people wouldn't notice it anyway. –Tryphon 12:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

On the "skin" I use, there is no background image... AnonMoos (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That might well be, but surely at least 95% of all registered users (and 100% of unregistered ones, as they have no choice) use the default skin, monobook. Which one do you use? -- JovanCormac 18:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I use Vector, but ironically it ends up using the Monobook BG since the JS "put the old BG back" gadget appears to effect ALL themes. ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed it. It should only apply to the MonoBook skin now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

How to deal with duplicate file when main title conflicts with a local upload

I'm not sure what the best way to deal with this is. File:758px-Incognito.jpg is a slightly smaller duplicate of File:Incognito.jpg. I was going to delete the first and create a redirect, but doing so causes problems on English Wikipedia where it is being used. On en-wiki, there is a local fair use file also called File:Incognito.jpg. When the duplicate is replaced by a redirect, the file displays properly but clicking brings up the unrelated local file rather than the correct file on commons. Is there a way to deal with this without either keeping the duplicate file or moving the fair use file on en-wiki to a new name? If not, I'll look for or file a bug report.--ragesoss (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have already added a {{rename}} template to File:Incognito.jpg. Once this file is renamed, it can replace the smaller duplicate, which can be deleted. Yann (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Granting a user adminship without Communety consensus.

Please see the discussion here

Best regards, Huib talk 17:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Images annotations

I don't know who had the idea to include this tool, but this is a good way for trolling and stupidities. Today I took of 2 annotations of images I uploaded. The annotations didn't have any good information. Just foolish things See [2] and [3]. I also found this image and I do'nt have a slightest idea what this annotation talks about. And this one one has nothing good in it. I think we gave some toys for trolls to play. Maybe if we prepare a policy about it and restrict the annotations for logged users would decrease these kind of things. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd support restricting annotation editing via the tool to logged in users, at the cost of losing some useful ones because not everybody has an account on Commons. Of course, annotations could still be modified anonimously by editing the file, but that should be hard enough to discourage vandalism/abuse (and useful info could still be added by anonymous users in the description - annotations may come later from a logged in user reading the description). --Ianezz (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

On File:Henri Oulevay et Fantin Latour.jpg, I am the one who added a category to the file. Apparently the uploader did not have the necessary awareness that categories are useful or enough time to add categories. But that user had enough time to use the image annotating tool (in a way not very useful, because we still don't know which person is on the right and which person is on the left). So I am afraid that the new tool is detrimental to categorization. I wish the annotating tool were removed and replaced by a sort of Hotcats gadget extension, located at the prominent place just below the picture where the image annotating tool is now located. If there was an "add a category" button located there, perhaps more people would insert pictures into categories. (The annotating tool could come later, only after at least one category has been added : don't parents usually tell children "you can play with your toys or watch TV, but only after you've finished your homework" ?) Teofilo (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we might want to think of limiting this feature in a manner analogous to semi-protection? - Jmabel ! talk 06:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Though I can see how this tool can be misused my experience of it has so far been positive. If people are intent on being trolls then they will be even without this facility. Rather then removal or limiting the use of this tool, maybe we should first attempt encouragement to use this tool properly and scrutiny to prevent abuse, for the first for example drawing up guidelines and a manual of good practise that will let people know where they stand, and for the second we could create a maintenance category of files with annotations (in a similar way as we have for files with geotags) with subcategories of newly annotated files that need checking for appropriateness and one of checked files.KTo288 (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
We have a filter for tagging images notes added by new users, which results in this list of edits that are unfortunately mostly either tests, vandalism, or simply inappropriate uses of the tool. Lupo 09:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
There goes my faith in my fellow editors, hopefully the silliness will stop when the kids get bored of the new toy.KTo288 (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
@Teofilo: a single data point is a mighty small sample. Besides, while you may consider image annotations a toy, others may not. I consider trying to play one feature against another pretty poor style. I also find your reasoning flawed. Category input already appears at the upload form, rather prominently above the upload button. Why did the user not enter categories right away on the upload form? Could it be that image annotations are a simple concept and have a simple, intuitive interface, whereas while the HotCat interface isn't bad, categories have remained a mystery for the general public (and some regular users, too :-)? Why do people tag images at Flickr, but less often add categories at the Commons? (Do we have any data to answer these questions, or to prove or disprove the assumption underlying the last question? What percentage of images at Flickr do have meaningful tags? What percentage of uploads at the Commons do or do not get meaningful categories added by the uploader?) What if the upload form refused to upload if no categories were given? How could we better help uploaders to find appropriate categories in the first place? Even I have to search for categories, the automatic suggestions of HotCat frequently do not point me in the right direction... Lupo 10:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
P.S. (added after Jean-Frédéric's comment below): HotCat is active by default only on the upload form. On all other pages, it is only active if the user enabled the gadget. Maybe that should be changed, and HotCat should be always enabled for everyone, too? Lupo 11:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, HotCat makes it too easy to remove categories by mistake. If it has to be enabled by default for everyone, I think there should be at least a pop-up asking for confirmation upon deletion (optional, enabled by default; experienced users could disable it). It happened to me a couple of times (i.e. clicking on (-) by mistake instead of clicking on the category name). Also, having categories displayed at the top of the page would be nice (but that's not how MediaWiki works...), I surprisingly found myself strongly wishing for that after categorizing many towers in Italy. --Ianezz (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I could not agree more with Lupo. There is absolutely no way to know if this user would have added categories if there was not Image Annotator. +1 for the rest. Jean-Fred (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ihave seen a lot of images with good notes so far. But many are trolling and stupidities. A guideline for annotations would be good in the first place. After that we can think about other things if this doesn't help that much. But I still think retricting this tool to logged users should come together. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

We have guideline for annotations: Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator#How to add informative notes--Jarekt (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe there could be a better caption for the button. I’ve seen a user ask question about the image (without selecting the relevant part); some use it to comment on images, some appear to be just trying the feature to see what it is about. --AVRS (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"doesnt say the photographer? help!?" says the note on File:Hitler portrait crop.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC

August 31

Are these Images legal?

I took the photos in the category Mays Clinic during my treatment at MD Anderson
My Question is: Are they legal?
The reason I am asking this question is because while the International Office at MD Anderson gave me verbal permission to take photographs, the security asked me to stop taking photos because it was not permitted. They did not ask me to erase whatever photos I took, nor did they tell me not to publish any of them. I uploaded them here, but I want confirmation from administrators and legally aware users of the legal situation in Houston, Texas to tell me if they are OK, or better to delete them.
Please if we decide to delete them, I would like to add the delete template myself, using the reasons here. If we decide to keep them I thank you for voicing your opinions.--Producer (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer, but I believe any issues would be civil, non-copyright issues between you and the clinic, not the sort of copyright issues that concern the Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 00:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The security guards are merely protecting patients rights per HIPAA Law. This law, signed into effect by President Bill Cinton requires all employees of Health care facilities to insure the privacy of patient medical records and treatment. Patients cannot be filmed without their permission and inclusion of their image may constitute breaking HIPAA law, putting the individual and the facility liable.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Generaly the rule is this; Images of people in public places are acceptable. A clinic is not a public place. It is protected by HIPAA law as stated above. For this reason File:Mays clinic reception.JPG should be deleted. It shows patients in a private clinic and the clinic by giving you permission has broken HIPAA Law if they agreed to allow the images of their patients in any way. Best to have this image removed or it could also put Wikimedia Commons in a violation of the privacy act as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much gentlemen, I agree the best thing is to delete the file that has patients in it. There are two possibilities, would you kindly indicate which one or two you think that break the law. I am a patient myself there and I tried out of my own initiative without knowing the law, not to show any patients. I would appreciate your help Amadscientist. Cheers.--Producer (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I believe there is nothing wrong with that file. It shows some people in a waiting room but nothing personally identifiable or compromising about them. People can see you if you're out in public, and it's not like the pictures are inside a treatment room. -Nard the Bard 02:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I thank you all for guiding me, and as I understand from the above, we Symbol keep vote.svg Keep all the files in question. Many thanks indeed; it makes me proud to be working with you.--Producer (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC

September 1

Internationalization or i18n

Where does one learn about internationalization (abbreviated i18n)? I see activity by Emijrpbot (talk · contribs) on my watchlist and related discussion at User talk:emijrp. I found the significance of the int in {{int:license}} (added by Emijrpbot) at m:Help:Magic_words#Template_modifiers. Some additional discussion is at Commons talk:Template i18n. Translations may be added at But I couldn't find any Commons or Help namespace information or discussion on this effort. This was prompted by a discussion at COM:AN/U.[4] Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look into some of the related bot approvals (e.g. Slobot, Emijrpbot, Emijrpbot 3).
BTW the discussion you mention is more about rollback and file description pages (recent discussions: 1, 2). -- User:Docu at 08:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I think User:Slomox/Translators' hub could be moved into Commons or Help namespace with few changes. Commons:WikiProject Templates and Template_talk:Information contain some additional information on internationalization.
I know that the discussion I referenced was peripherally related to internationalization. Thank you for the link to the more relevant discussion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned that some users removed the internationalized headers. I think there should be a concerted effort to make Commons more friendly to non English speakers people. It is a pity that some people do not see it that way, and undo the work of others. Yann (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
We remove them because we don't want any stupid headers. That is as language-neutral as you can get. Rocket000 (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I second this. While removing the 'int:' part for a header is a bad thing, removing the header all together is definitely the way to go. Lycaon (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Definitely. It's not like these headers carry any useful information anyway. Besides, the only "advantage" I could see with these headers (being able to edit one section only, and get a direct link to that section in the edit summary) got lost with theses international headers ({{int:license}} is put in the edit summary, but doesn't link anywhere). –Tryphon 10:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You don't need a header to have an [edit] link. For example. It would actually look pretty good inside the information box. BTW, it's impossible to have a anchor link (i.e. heading) that changes based on who's viewing it, and be able to actually use it. It must be static to work (obvious if you think about it). Rocket000 (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
en:Special:Preferences has a gadget to "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". We could copy these to commons. Personally, I don't use section editing on file description pages, probably because I primarily edit categories and these are generally in various sections.
As a sample how an internationalized and localized file description page without headers can look, one might want to try ko:File:Manhattan at Dusk by slonecker.jpg. As of writing File:Manhattan at Dusk by slonecker.jpg has no headers. -- User:Docu at 12:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know the headers have to be static for anchoring to work. That's why I don't use them anymore since they became internationalized: they lost the little use I could see in them, and as you said, section editing can be achieved without headers anyway. Actually, I would love to see your example replace {{Information}}; but to ensure a smooth transition, there should be some way for the template to "know" whether it is under a header or not. It doesn't seem technically possible though. –Tryphon 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
We could always blank/delete the system message MediaWiki:Filedesc (and it's subpages) after we add the edit link to the information template. Essentially making all the internationalized headers disappear. It woulds be like == == which creates nothing. Then we could take our time removing them. I normally put the license tag in the permission field (which is what it's for, right?) so that one isn't necessary at all (and a misnomer for PD stuff). Rocket000 (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Using the gadget would avoid adding anything to each page. -- User:Docu at 01:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
So, Have I to stop the bot? emijrp (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather that you speed it up so it would eventually finish. -- User:Docu at 16:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It may good to wait for this discussion to end and to implement its conclusion, if any. So far, I don't see anyone defending the headers. Yann (above) favors internationalization but does not argue for the headers themselves. I would have thought that someone liked file page headers. Otherwise, why do we have millions of file pages with headers? I think internationalization and localization are good, but I am dubious of the value of headers. Since Rocket000 and Docu (by example) favor putting the license in the permissions field of {{Information}}, I will likely do the same. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Headers are useful because:
  1. {{Information}} is not translated: at least, if you don't know English you'll understand what that table is meant for;
  2. licensing tags are translated, but if you don't know them you won't understand their meaning, therefore an explicative header with a link to the relevant help page is very useful;
  3. they separate the actual file, the "history" and the "links" parts from the description (the actual "page");
  4. not all files have {{Information}} + licensing templates, there can be many other combinations of templates or simple text, then headers are useful to explain what is meant for what, also to non Commons-regulars.
I love Emijrpbot's work, I went here while trying to thank "him". --Nemo 07:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
For the sake of this discussion, I think we have to assume that all images have licensing templates. You might want to have a look at the Korean localization mentioned above to see how a version without "summary" and "license" header look like localized in Korean. -- User:Docu at 08:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't really care if images do or don't contain these headers. I would propose that people don't remove them from uploads and that people don't add them to uploads. So basically the uploader decides. As for a central place of discussion. It would be nice to have a central place to start, maybe Commons:Internationalization and localization? From these page we could link to all different projects like mediawiki (and extensions) translation at translatewiki, template translation at Commons:Template i18n, the headers bots, the translated upload forms, the potd translations etc etc. Multichill (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I started the page, Commons:Internationalization and localization, with content from User:Slomox/Translators' hub (as I suggested above). That page was written for a different purpose so it will need some editing. Please continue this discussion at Commons talk:Internationalization and localization. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This discussion was copied to Commons talk:Internationalization and localization. Please continue this discussion there. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Multichill, it would be good if the uploader could set the necessary things directly. This would avoid the bots and other having to do all these changes. -- User:Docu at 17:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

September 6

Newspaper using image - enough for CC-BY-SA?

Just now I noticed that File:SF and Bay Bridge.JPG is shown on Neue Zürcher Zeitung giving licence CC-BY-SA. This is not an image of mine, but I wonder whether the CC link present on [5] satisfies the BY component. The image originally is GFDL and has been migrated now to include CC-By-SA as well. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The link to the CC-licencetext is great, but the name of the photographer is needed too. Raymond 09:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Contact the paper, speak to who is in charge of that department and explain the attibution law with th license. They have to and will remove the image or name the photographer. Send an e-mail with a link to the upload page so they know the image is a commons upload and what the license is. McClatchy did the same thing with one of my images but had credited the photo to an author of the subject I had photogrphed. The editor had it removed with 30 minutes of recieving full confirmation from the upload page.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Empty category

Hi. Two problems I have got. First: I have uploaded a new version of an image but I see the old one in two copies. More than a day is passed yet. Is this a normal way of things or I probably have made a mistake somewhere?
Second: I've just got a message about an image which I had uploaded several weeks ago. The message says that I should give a category for that. But this thumbnail image is made for showing at 'Other versions' only, and has not any purpose for anybody else. This is why I wanted to take this image off the regular set, to not deceive other users of the Commons. Is there a category for this kind of special images? - Orion 8 (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

To your first question, I've also lately noticed some issues with the Wikimedia proxies serving stale images after upload. Try clicking the "purge" tab at the top of the page (or in the drop-down menu, if using the new Vector skin) and then reloading the page again — that usually fixes it for me. As for File:Thumb Compact audio cassette X.jpg, I don't know if there's a category for such files, but I've replaced it with a <gallery> on all the pages it was used on (i.e. File:Compact audio cassette 1.jpg and friends). Since it's no longer needed for anything, you can tag it with {{speedydelete}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I've tried "purge" to kick the things back to the rail, and now the new image is seen on one page of which use this. Nowhere else. I am still waiting and hoping. Patience yields roses, as we say. :-)
The other thing is almost done, but the server is just out of work now, I will finish the procedure. Thanks for your help. - Orion 8 (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

September 8


This image has been tagged as "Own work by uploader", but for some reason I doubt it is, especially given the uploader's track record (see his talk page). -- JovanCormac 10:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Screen dump

I made a screen dump from a tv program. Can I upload it and under what license? Patio (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, since most likely TV programming is copyrighted. See Commons:Licensing for more details. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
No, you cannot. Unless it is was from a very old american movie film or it is available under a free license for some other reason (footage created by the US military etc). Sv1xv (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Upload weirdness

Can someone please sort out what's going on at File:Newmark Lab Crane Bay.jpg? I was trying to upload a (darker) white-balanced version. I got very confused on what I was being shown for successive versions. If someone understands what is going on here, could you please try to bring that richer, darkened version to be the one used? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 22:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you purge the cache? To purge a cached image, go to "Page History" and change "history" to "purge" in the URL. Also, sometimes the full resolution version opens the latest upload when otherwise the cached (old) version is displayed. Look at file size in the dimensions column of "File history" to see if you uploaded the same file by mistake. Finally, you can open the file later (minutes or hours, in some cases) to see the latest version. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

September 9

Nominate for deletion

The link "Nominate for deletion" on the left side has several problems:

  • An user isn't alerted that next steps will run automatically immediately past reason filling. This isn't expectable and usual.
  • When the automatic run is finished, the user isn't alerted that there are executed only 2 of 5 steps which should be done and he hasn't given clearly a link to next instruction.

--ŠJů (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The script is supposed to take care of all the steps, but unfortunately some popup blockers (like the one in recent versions of FireFox) tend to break it. It would be so much nicer if it could be replaced with something like w:User:AzaToth/twinklexfd.js. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Soon we will have jquery and jquery UI. Might be better to wait until we have that. Makes it much easier to write such tools. TheDJ (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deleting temporary files

There is a proposal at Commons talk:Deletion policy to allow speedy deletion of temporary files, i.e. files created solely to facilitate discussions of other files (for example, in a picture peer review). Additionally, a new template {{temporary}} has been created. Kaldari (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please link images (?!)

Apparently a bot is actively asking people to add categories to images. For me that resulted in a list of some wild life images, but I was under the impression that putting categories in those (other than categories for my own use) was utterly useless as these would be be removed by the next TOL maintainer anyway. Actually I had more or less given up on "organizing" and therefore mostly also on uploading my images because of that.

So what's the status that old discussion - are we now allowing categories in TOL images or not?

Cheers Pudding4brains (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what are you referring to with TOL maintainers but you are allowed to categorize nature (TOL) images - without categories they are quite useless. I believe all such images should have a category based on their latin name. --Jarekt (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life. I believe the maintainers used to strenuously prefer species galleries to categories, and would remove any such categories from images, meaning they were only contained in galleries. Their guidelines for images now say to use categories, though I'm not sure those always get down to species level, and the galleries are of course still there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I think "holy wars" about galleries vs. categories in this area were already ended. So categories is required, but galleries are optional. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. At least I haven't heard anything about this since the Village Pump discussion in May last year (see Commons:Village pump/Archive/2008May#Gallery trumps category?), where (once again), consensus was overwhelmingly opposed to making any exceptions from the general principle of regarding categories and galleries as complementary rather than mutually exclusive. So: categorize all images. If anyone decategorizes images, raise it for a wider discussion (for example here at the Village Pump). LX (talk, contribs) 15:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Concur strongly with LX and others. PLEASE always add categories; not to do so creates a lot of work for other people. - Jmabel ! talk 22:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I added latin bionomial categories for most of my images. Multichill's bot removed them again the other day. What is going on here? Noodle snacks (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
My bot only adds categories. I did find a small bug which could cause my bot to work on the same image more than once, but that just added more categories.
Noodle snacks, could you please provide me with an example? Multichill (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

<<< Thanks for clearing that up everybody :o) Pudding4brains (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia unable to scale-down non-sRGB images properly

Apparently the software module of Wikimedia that scales down images to preview or thumbnail images is ignoring any embedded color profiles, leading to poor results in the scaled-down versions. See e.g. File:071111-G-2838W-170.jpg: It is coded in AdobeRGB and has this profile embedded in the original file, but the scaled-down version is neither tone-mapped to sRGB nor has it the color profile embedded. Images without color profile are considered sRGB images by all browsers and thus are displayed with wrong colors.

The red of the helicopters looks rather great when you watch the full-size image, but pale when looking on the preview window or at thumbnails. (Please keep in mind that you need a browser capable of color management, i.e. with Internet Explorer those images always look poor. Use Firefox or Safari (Mac only) instead, you will see a significant difference in color brightness.)

Wikimedia software should either map embedded color profiles to sRGB (advantage: IE and other browsers incapable of color management will display them somewhat correctly) or include the color profile of the original in scaled-down version (advantages: Full use of the enhanced profile is possible in browsers with color management and the scaled-down versions correspond to the originals). But the current way is just awkward.

Is this a known issue or should it be reported via Bugzilla? -- H005 (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, some users of Firefox may perhaps see a difference — I see none using Firefox 3.0.13 on Xubuntu 9.04 ("jaunty"). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I was talking of the current version. If you still use 3.0 you need to set "gfx.color_management.enabled" (in "about:config") to "true" to enable it. I have no clue why this hasn't been the default setting in 3.0. -- H005 (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This is due to the scaling software that is used (imagemagick) combined with the fact that we don't want those often HUGE EXIF extensions in the thumbnails. This issue was recently fixed by imagemagick (because someone in the wikimedia community asked for it), and when the software can be installed on the thumbnail machine, it will be fixed for all of us. See bugzilla:19960 TheDJ (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the bugzilla link. Those large file sizes are only an issue with one of the two possible solutions I suggested. The other one (which, considering the spread of browsers like IE, I believe is more pragmatic anyway) is mapping the embedded color profile to sRGB for the thumb. Anyway, it's good to know that this will sooner or later be fixed, this way or another. -- H005 (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Title pages from various countries

Category:Title pages contains 553 images. A few countries have their own categories - Austria (5 images), France (13) and the United Kingdom (18). Maybe it's a good idea with subcategories. But if we add for instance Germany and the United States, we should ask ourselves whether the title pages should be categorized by country or by language. When looking for images from a certain book, you probably want an image of the book in a certain language. Usually you don't know in which country it has been published. It may also have been published in separate editions in UK and US.

Should we add more subcategories by country, or recategorize according to language?

The subcategories don't appear under the main category. I discovered them because my browser gave several suggestions when I began to type Category:Title pages. Why don't they appear under the main category? --Jonund (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The subcategories weren't listed on the first page because (annoyingly) they are sorted alphabetically. You could have seen them by clicking on "next 200". I added {{Categorytree}} and they now appear on the first page as well. As for your proposal, I agree that sorting by language makes more sense. You could also sort them by century. Pruneautalk 21:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

September 10

Guess who

Is this man Eudoxus...or Claudius Ptolemaus? An user wrote to OTRS to find out. --Elitre (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The short and useless answer: Neither. It's a medieval portrait that probably bears as much resemblence with either of those men as a Christian icon resembles Jesus. Which leaves the question who the artist meant to portray... a pragmatic approach (which of course proves nothing, though) is to search Google Images for both names. It turns out that with the name "Ptolemy", the picture comes up a lot, and in many different versions, while a search for "Eudoxus" returns far fewer instances of the picture. This might indicate that the image actually shows what is supposed to be Ptolemy. -- JovanCormac 21:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This site has the black-and-white version and says it is Claudius Ptolemy. Looks like the Eudoxus label is bogus, although I still have not found exactly where that illustration came from. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
And this site has the exact same picture, but with the name Eudoxus attached to it. -- JovanCormac 07:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I found a reference which says it comes from the Bettman Archive, which in turn leads to this Corbis page, which says it is picture of Ptolomy from the 1584 Les vrais portraits et vies des hommes illustres. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. I also noticed that this 1584 picture is still copyrighted by Bettmann/CORBIS... Sv1xv (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
They slap a copyright tag on virtually anything. Most they do own (or license) I would think, but some are pretty silly copyfraud. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
w:en:Ptolemy and w:en:Eudoxus of Cnidus are also unsure. Commons has 3 versions of that file, File:Eudoxus.jpg, File:Ptolemaeus.jpg, File:Claudius Ptolemaeus.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
This page seems to show rather conclusively that it's in fact Ptolemy, giving both the name of the artist and the title of the book the picture was taken from, as well as explaining the origin of the device displayed in it. -- JovanCormac 11:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The last link seems to clarify the situation. I would ask for the deletion of the Eudoxus' pictures then, if you agree. --Elitre (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've uploaded the high-resolution version of the engraving from that site as File:Ptolemy Thevet 1584.g.png. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I nominated it for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --Elitre (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please link images (?!)

Apparently a bot is actively asking people to add categories to images. For me that resulted in a list of some wild life images, but I was under the impression that putting categories in those (other than categories for my own use) was utterly useless as these would be be removed by the next TOL maintainer anyway. Actually I had more or less given up on "organizing" and therefore mostly also on uploading my images because of that.

So what's the status that old discussion - are we now allowing categories in TOL images or not?

Cheers Pudding4brains (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what are you referring to with TOL maintainers but you are allowed to categorize nature (TOL) images - without categories they are quite useless. I believe all such images should have a category based on their latin name. --Jarekt (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life. I believe the maintainers used to strenuously prefer species galleries to categories, and would remove any such categories from images, meaning they were only contained in galleries. Their guidelines for images now say to use categories, though I'm not sure those always get down to species level, and the galleries are of course still there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I think "holy wars" about galleries vs. categories in this area were already ended. So categories is required, but galleries are optional. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. At least I haven't heard anything about this since the Village Pump discussion in May last year (see Commons:Village pump/Archive/2008May#Gallery trumps category?), where (once again), consensus was overwhelmingly opposed to making any exceptions from the general principle of regarding categories and galleries as complementary rather than mutually exclusive. So: categorize all images. If anyone decategorizes images, raise it for a wider discussion (for example here at the Village Pump). LX (talk, contribs) 15:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Concur strongly with LX and others. PLEASE always add categories; not to do so creates a lot of work for other people. - Jmabel ! talk 22:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I added latin bionomial categories for most of my images. Multichill's bot removed them again the other day. What is going on here? Noodle snacks (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
My bot only adds categories. I did find a small bug which could cause my bot to work on the same image more than once, but that just added more categories.
Noodle snacks, could you please provide me with an example? Multichill (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

<<< Thanks for clearing that up everybody :o) Pudding4brains (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia unable to scale-down non-sRGB images properly

Apparently the software module of Wikimedia that scales down images to preview or thumbnail images is ignoring any embedded color profiles, leading to poor results in the scaled-down versions. See e.g. File:071111-G-2838W-170.jpg: It is coded in AdobeRGB and has this profile embedded in the original file, but the scaled-down version is neither tone-mapped to sRGB nor has it the color profile embedded. Images without color profile are considered sRGB images by all browsers and thus are displayed with wrong colors.

The red of the helicopters looks rather great when you watch the full-size image, but pale when looking on the preview window or at thumbnails. (Please keep in mind that you need a browser capable of color management, i.e. with Internet Explorer those images always look poor. Use Firefox or Safari (Mac only) instead, you will see a significant difference in color brightness.)

Wikimedia software should either map embedded color profiles to sRGB (advantage: IE and other browsers incapable of color management will display them somewhat correctly) or include the color profile of the original in scaled-down version (advantages: Full use of the enhanced profile is possible in browsers with color management and the scaled-down versions correspond to the originals). But the current way is just awkward.

Is this a known issue or should it be reported via Bugzilla? -- H005 (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, some users of Firefox may perhaps see a difference — I see none using Firefox 3.0.13 on Xubuntu 9.04 ("jaunty"). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I was talking of the current version. If you still use 3.0 you need to set "gfx.color_management.enabled" (in "about:config") to "true" to enable it. I have no clue why this hasn't been the default setting in 3.0. -- H005 (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This is due to the scaling software that is used (imagemagick) combined with the fact that we don't want those often HUGE EXIF extensions in the thumbnails. This issue was recently fixed by imagemagick (because someone in the wikimedia community asked for it), and when the software can be installed on the thumbnail machine, it will be fixed for all of us. See bugzilla:19960 TheDJ (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the bugzilla link. Those large file sizes are only an issue with one of the two possible solutions I suggested. The other one (which, considering the spread of browsers like IE, I believe is more pragmatic anyway) is mapping the embedded color profile to sRGB for the thumb. Anyway, it's good to know that this will sooner or later be fixed, this way or another. -- H005 (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Title pages from various countries

Category:Title pages contains 553 images. A few countries have their own categories - Austria (5 images), France (13) and the United Kingdom (18). Maybe it's a good idea with subcategories. But if we add for instance Germany and the United States, we should ask ourselves whether the title pages should be categorized by country or by language. When looking for images from a certain book, you probably want an image of the book in a certain language. Usually you don't know in which country it has been published. It may also have been published in separate editions in UK and US.

Should we add more subcategories by country, or recategorize according to language?

The subcategories don't appear under the main category. I discovered them because my browser gave several suggestions when I began to type Category:Title pages. Why don't they appear under the main category? --Jonund (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The subcategories weren't listed on the first page because (annoyingly) they are sorted alphabetically. You could have seen them by clicking on "next 200". I added {{Categorytree}} and they now appear on the first page as well. As for your proposal, I agree that sorting by language makes more sense. You could also sort them by century. Pruneautalk 21:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

September 10

Noncommercial use requirement by botanical garden

So today I'm visitng the Regional Park Botanical Garden, and their website happens to contain this offensive legal notice:

Use of the Botanic Garden for commercial filming, photography, or videotaping of print ads, commercials, movies, videos, and the like is allowed only with a written permit from the East Bay Regional Park District and may require payment of a fee. Commercial operation of cameras as part of bona fide reporting of news is exempted from this rule. For more information, contact the East Bay Regional Park District Public Affairs Department at (510) 544-2200.

Now, I'm pretty confident that this is unenforcable, but it seems conceivable that it could have a basis in some esoteric California state law. Comments? Dcoetzee (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's enforceable, in that they can kick you out for taking pictures. But any pictures you take before being kicked out are yours to do with as you please (subject to personality rights for any individual humans depicted in the photos). But in any case, I suspect the typical Commons photographer is safe; what they don't want is for a professional photographer or videographer to bring in a crew and create profitable salable items without letting them know and maybe paying a fee. Powers (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It may be more along trademark grounds -- using scenes in a print ad may be suggesting endorsement by the botanic garden or something like that. Anyone who brings in more commercial-type photographic equipment (lighting, tripods, heavy video cameras, etc.) often does have to pay a fee for places like that. I don't think the "commercial" in that statement is the same as "commercial" in respect to copyright... I don't think it really applies to photos taken with regular handheld cameras, and does not appear to be a copyright-related restriction. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Could not another encyclopedia or a photographer who paid that fee in the past sue Wikipedia for unfair business practice ? If you are not in a position to say that the other photographer was wrong to pay the fee and can sue the park to have his money back, this is unfair competition. Teofilo (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Lets not go off on tangents. As far as WC is concerned (and the law): If a publisher wanted to use a straight "just happened to be there" photograph, taken on the property of this Botanical Garden and uploaded to WC, it would be the responsibility of the publisher to approach the Botanical Garden and obtain a written ‘property release’ giving them permission to use the work commercially (simply uploading image to WC is not commercial exploitation of said hypothetical image). This is why it would help to add full contact information to the image page -the garden and yours, since a publisher will not mess about and use an image, if it takes too much researching or if the photographers identity is uncertain (so use a proper Commons:Credit line).
If you phone the garden up and ask about publishing a photograph taken on their property, I think they will probable want written details about the proposed use, maybe even a copy of the page proof. The reason is they may not want to be associated with certain industries (e.g. Gardening products). If proposed use is OK with them, then they may have a scale of charges according to print run etc. Non of these things the photographer of an ordinary straight opportunistic shot will know of in advance. Therefore, there is little point in contacting them first. You would be wasting their time and yours. However, if it is a photo shoot for a client, then yes, it would be sensible/essential to make these inquiries before hand, so as not to wast time and money and because the client should be able to supply all the above needed information in the brief. I think an explanation along these lines should be written up somewhere on WC because it must be a question that is often asked about these abridged photography policies.--P.g.champion (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
If the Botanical Garden indeed had the authority to require commercial reusers of photos taken on their premises to contact them before using the photo, then I do not believe the photo could be considered to be free. It seems questionable to me, however, whether they do have such authority: after all, they do not own a copyright to their plants, and I don't believe privacy laws would restrict the publication of such photos either, at least not under most jurisdictions. At best, they might have a claim of breach of (implied) contract against the photographer — but if the photographer did not actually derive any income or other commercial benefit for themself from the use of their photo, nor had any intention of doing so, it would seem quite difficult for the Garden to claim that they'd engaged in "commercial photography".
Of course, it's quite possible that some reusers, out of either courtesy or caution, might well want to contact the Garden for permission even if that was not strictly speaking required by law. It would certainly seem reasonable for us to provide our reusers with sufficient information to help them decide whether they wish/need to seek such permission and, if so, to tell them how to obtain it. Yet we should avoid giving the impression that such permission would be required by law, unless it actually is (in which case we should not be hosting the image on Commons). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Trademark or the equivalent of personality rights can always come into play -- in this context, I think that is what "commercial" means, using the botanical gardens name or image in an advertizing context; i.e. using their reputation to make money for someone else. Typically that meaning of "commercial" has little to do with the meaning of "commercial" in a copyright context, and therefore also has little to do with Commons' requirements. Obtaining a property release for commercial use is pretty common practice (akin to a model release), and may be more what they are talking about. I think those have a murky legal basis at best (possibly trespass; see here), but they are fairly common. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Quite, WC policy just requires that the images are ‘free’ from the copyright point of view. Many images on WC would have restrictions preventing some types of usage – therefore they are not completely free as many people think. As Carl Lindberg indicated this ‘commercial’ side of publishing does not concern us here on WC directly but it does (or should) concern us indirectly. If up-loaders understand something about how the publishing world works and the laws (and business practices) that they have to abide by, then our image creators/up-loaders have more chance of actually getting their images used. I see so many good images on WC that lack any traceable or reliable contact information, which is needed by a publisher to check the legalities out, that WC is in danger of becoming more of a ”photo trash can” than a trove of fine usable images.
Here is Stanford University's explanation of Property Release as it applies in the US (where the Bot Garden is). Interview and Property Releases. --P.g.champion (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the author typically can only grant copyright licenses -- which presumably already has been done. Commercial publishers wanting property releases would need to contact someone else, not the uploading author -- identifying the subject should be all the information needed for a commercial publisher to get any further releases needed. It is pretty much the same as publicity rights for individuals pictured in Commons images -- you don't need to contact the author, but rather the person pictured (or their agents). There should be no need for uploaders to research that information. But yes, WC is not a "royalty-free" image database. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree mostly.Describing the subject properly is what I meant by traceable or reliable contact information. "Main hall of the manor house" is not enough but its that sort of brevity that too many up-loaders use. A persons name (who appears in the photo) in itself may not be really enough either. Writers and actors belong to different unions and so may share the same name and some actors have also written books. Personalities who share the same name abound. Then what about good images images that include non-notable models. They may not have agents. In that case it is not a good image but a wasted upload if that person can’t be contacted by resonable means. If that confusion can’t be sorted out and the right agent/person contacted by the print deadline, the alternative stock photo held in reserve will get used. Don’t forget though, that a publisher may have to contact the author for some uses, because whilst they are insured (or they ruddy well should be) for the legal costs and settlements for miss attributed copyright etc., the insurance company may not pay up if the publisher made no attempt to obtain confirmation (and an address) that uploader Scrudalbucket or LanceMyBoil or whoever, really owned the copyright. Lawyers can be worth their weight in gold when you are suing someone else, but the other way around they are an expense best avoided by every means possible. I can’t imagine any high profile commercial use of a WC image, without this precaution being taken first. Perhaps I should start an article on how to describe an image and what extra information would be useful to to included and why. --P.g.champion (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Image notes

I've noticed that the vast majority of image notes added by new users are pure vandalism. We need a better system to deal with this. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And it would be helpful to add a link to Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator#Monitoring_edits. --Dschwen (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

September 11

Complaint - Posting for US Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC)

It is my understanding Wikipedia ISN'T supposed to post SLANDER under ANY of the Wikipedia headings. I happen to live n OR, but I highly resent the fact YOU have allowed someone to post under the Wikipedia posting for US Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC), that he's supposedly a "douche bag"! It's not only ridiculous CHILDISH slander, it was obviously posted by someone who works for America's President, Barack Hussein Obama.

Please REMOVE it!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)
First off, this is not the place to call President Obama names, so I've altered your text slightly. It seems hypocritical of you to cry "slander" when you yourself were calling somebody a name that has a negatively charged connotation. In any case, I couldn't find any vandalism related to Joe Wilson. It would be beneficial if you could provide any links to what you're talking about. Killiondude (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Socialist isn't always negative, especially outside the USA. Many countries are still socialist and even many western European countries have socialist agendas. Jus' sayin'. Also,, you do realise this is Commons, not Wikipedia? If you really must gripe at Wikipedia admins over trivial vandalism, maybe do it there? Inductiveload (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted file's page remains

The file Ottawa Science and Tech Museum 31 Aug 2008 v2.JPG has been deleted (on 2009/08/31) following a closed NfD, but the description page remains. Is this an oversight? Inductiveload (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Abigor! Inductiveload (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Uploads to Category:ships

Can someone translate the filename and description to make it possible to categorise:

File:Линейный корабль "Ингерманланд" лист 1.jpg

and is it possible to remove the watermark on:

File:Теплохід ПТ-50 на ремонті.jpg

--Stunteltje (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

First ship seems te be the Category:Ingermanland (1715). --Stunteltje (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

When is a rat a squirrel?

I have never seen a baby squirrel, bit to my untrained eye this is a picture of a rat not a squirrel File:2008-09-11 Dead baby squirrel.jpg, am I wrong?

2008-09-11 Dead baby rat.jpg

--Tony Wills (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Could be a mouse rather then a rat but then again I'm not trained as well in identifying (But I do know what a water rat looks like but just can't get a good photo of the camera shy rodent). Bidgee (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a rat. All the squirrels in that region have bushy tails.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I added a {{rename}}. Yann (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Loading snapshot images from Google Earth or any of the map providers

I would like to take an image "snap shot" from one of the mapping programs, like Google Earth, ACME Mapper, Flash Earth, etc, and upload it as an image. I have NO idea how to specify the license. I am making the image myself, using Hypersnap, but the ultimate source is the map provider. Would appreciate guidance on how one might do this.

I loaded this one today, but doubt that it is legal as it stands

-- GloverEpp (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not legal, not permitted on commons. Deleted. --Dschwen (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
For free (public domain) satellite pictures of the Earth, you should have a look at the World Wind project. If you're rather interested in maps, OpenStreetMap provides maps under cc-by-sa-2.0. –Tryphon 14:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a frequent question recently. I updated the Commons:Image casebook or COM:CB with this information. Sv1xv (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I have moved your 3 "OK" items to Commons:Free media resources/Map. Teofilo (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Openstreetmaps being a user-provided-contents web 2.0 website, do you know if they have a "request for deletions" or "speedy delete" procedure for copyvios ? Can we rely on Openstreetmap maps ? Teofilo (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Watermarked Museo del Prado works

The Museo del Prado is in the process of digitizing its collection, but the images contain multiple small watermarky markers reading "MUSEO NACIONAL DEL PRADO" visible (only) at full resolution. Here's an example. The Prado regards the works in its collection as copyrighted; WM disagrees. Two questions:

  1. Do the images remain "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art" in spite of the addition of the markers?
  2. Do the markers make the images unsuitable for inclusion at the Commons for a reason like this one?

Rrburke (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. Yes for me.
  2. I wouldn't import the images with watermark, unless it can be removed. Better to use a small resolution version from their web site, or find another source. Yann (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View and maps of Israel

Further to a discussion on the English Wikipedia [6], I've become aware of a problem with a number of maps in Category:Maps of Israel with regards to Neutral Point Of View. My understanding is that this policy applies to all Wikimedia projects including Commons.

The problem concerns how those areas of the West Bank that have been annexed into the Jerusalem District are represented.

File:000 Israel harta.PNG is good as it shows the internationally recognised borders of Israel. Maps such as File:H1N1_Israel_Map.png and File:Israel_black_hebrews_main_cities.jpgare problematic as they treat the Golan Heights, and/or East Jerusalem and/or the West Bank as part of Israel, a partisan position not recognised as legitimate by any other member state of the UN or by international insititutions such as the International Court.

There are methods for representing both the majority and minority points of view. File:מחוז ירושלים.jpg shows the Jerusalem District with the areas from the West Bank annexed into it shown in a darker colouring. This both the administrative fact on the ground and the internationally held point of view are depicted.

How does Commons deal with violations of neutral point of view in its contents?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Wikipedia, Commons doesn't have NPOV policy. Maps created from different point of view may be useful at least to illustrate them. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Please read our policy at Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. feydey (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Okay, it's the use of the files on Wikipedia that needs to be monitored.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Commonist - Upload problem

Hallo, I wanted to upload some pictures through the programme Commonist, but somewhere has to be a bug, see - can you give me a piece of advice, please?? Thank you very much, --Peripatetik (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

See Help desk. --Martin H. (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

September 13


I need someone's help. My problem is whith this image: File:Phase change - gl.svg. I translated it from the original (File:Phase change - en.svg) but when I uploaded it, a line from the arrow pointing to "Sólido" appeared (over the word "Contrasublimación"). I think it is probably because the word is too long, otherwise it has to be like that. I've tried to make the font smaller and nothing happend. Could somebody fix this, please? Thanks a lot! --Toliño (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

✓ Fixed There was an extra rectangle at the very end of the source code, which I removed. Next time, you might want to ask at the Graphics village pump instead. Pruneautalk 09:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Picture of the day" awarded to too poorly documented pictures

Today's picture of the day File:Le Grand Palais depuis le pont Alexandre III à Paris.jpg is poorly documented :

  • Main building's architect's name is missing (failing to provide an author's name is a crime under French law, even if the author died more than 70 years ago)(you should find the author death year if you climb the category tree up to [[:category:19xx deaths]], but category climbing is not convenient by now nor is it possible directly from Wikipedia. So we need a category tree climbing tool)(and anyway Category:Grand Palais fails from categorizing the architect(s)' name(s))
  • Lamp designer's name is missing
  • Bridge architect's name is missing (Category:Pont Alexandre III too)
  • The two image-annotator captions are better than nothing for the two concerned artworks, but it would be better to have them in the main "author" field of the information template, using template:Creator.

Don't you find there is an unbalance between the good documentation on the Camera Maker's brand, and the poor documentation of the authors' names ?

Categorization is deficient. This picture should be included in the categories relevant for the 5 ( = 2 architectural + 3 sculptural) works.

Copyright information is deficient. Until all authors names are provided we are not able to compute the pma+70 calculation and know whether the file is free or not (there is no COM:FOP#France).

Is it impossible to conceive a veto system to veto the "picture of the day" awards when the picture is technically and artistically perfect but too poorly documented ? Teofilo (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Is'nt COM:DM covering the moral rights obligation? I mean if we are unsure that the picture is free or not, it should be deleted already. Also I don't believe photographers should be historians to research lamp design and such and all possible author of a building/statue. If we know them, it's ok to add them but if the parts can be considered DM, it's another problem imo. Esby (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Besides category climbing is highly unreliable when you climb for more than two categories... Esby (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Teofilo, if you think that information is missing, fix it! This is a wiki, and this place is not a far-away remote city... you should be able to find the information as well as anyone else. ;oD Yann (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The lamps are from the foundry of Lacarrière and Delatour - these are considered useful objects, not works of art. Same as with the engineers that did the construction of the bridge. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Only the tungsten thread is useful. Teofilo (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


Just a heads up: I'm going to be revitalising MotD. The current version has quite a lot of problems, not limited to never changing, even in the face of redlinks, because it's essentially untranslatable.

This will require piggybacking the MotD setup onto the PotD setup pages, but, don't worry, I can make it so that the archives will be separate again.

At the moment, I'd suggest just allowing any media to be put into MotD, provided it's of unambiguous copyright status. I'm sure this will spur commons on into having some sort of quality checking program shortly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Technical problem with Categories

Can someone please explain to me why...
[[Category:Wikipedia Loves Art by The Mexican Villians]], but...
[[Category:Wikipedia Loves Art by The Mexican Villains]]
...doesn't??? i.e. it won't show up as a category on any page.

The following also work:
[[Category:Wikipedia Loves Art The Mexican Villains]]
[[Category:Wikipedia Loves Art by The Mexican]]

The following doesn't:
[[Category:Wikipedia Loves Art by The_Mexican_Villains]]

What the heck is going on here? Kaldari (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia Loves Art by The Mexican Villains is a hidden category so it is not visible in image description pages if you have set your preferences to display hidden categories. (The standard syntax for adding categories is [[Category:...]], so there is no need to use this template.) /Ö 19:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah thanks. Wonder why Multichill made it a hidden category. Weird. Kaldari (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Because it's not a topic category. It's just a vanity source category. Why not just one category? Multichill (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a contest. It's all about vanity. If you can't say "Look how many pictures my team uploaded" what's the point of joining the contest? Kaldari (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
That makes it useful to Mexican Villains and no one else. If everybody was to take the view that they are entitled to create vanity categories to trumpet their contributions then files would be overloaded with such cats to the detriment of other users.KTo288 (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
We do have contributor specific (generally hidden) categories. Personally I find these helpful. Some even have one or several subcategories. -- User:Docu at 18:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

New template {{Credit line}}

Based on past Village pump discussion and some new discussions on Commons talk:Credit line I created a new {{Credit line}} template which is meant to be used to add credit line / attribution line to {{Information}} template. See template documentation and many of my photographs (for example this one) for an example of how to use it. The template was written with CC licenses in mind, but could be easily used for attribution required by other licenses. I imagine that this template would be used by photographers who would like to exercise right (granted by the CC license) to specify how their images are credited, and to help reusers to use our images properly. I would like to ask for comments and suggestions about the template before it is more widely used. See also Commons:Credit line --Jarekt (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That’s good work Jarekt. I personally would prefer the template field to read ‘credit line’ instead of ‘attribution’ as I think more people might understand this term more readily. Also, would it be worth having this as the first field (at the top of the information box) because this piece of information is what we want a prospective user of the image to take most notice of. The Commons:Credit line page appears to have covered all the options, and lays it out clearly. However, I have looked at this credit line issue for too long now. So I too would appreciate fresh eyes commenting on this. --P.g.champion (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Short answer to few issues:
  1. I personally like both credit line and attribution as a name of this field, about equally. Someone suggested the change of the field name to attribution (here) so I changed it, but credit line is fine with me too. Other opinions?
  2. My proposal to add credit line field to Information template failed (see here). As a result I had to use the other fields field of the information template which always puts extra field at the end. So credit line field has to be the last field.
Also I should add that the template is localized using {{LangSwitch}} and could use some more translations--Jarekt (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I prefer "attribution", as it fits better. Moreover, I believe many people from various languages of European origin who are not quite familiar with English might connotate "credit" with money/loans, because that's the primary meaning this word has in French, German, Italian, Spanish, ... -- H005 (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
But to those people "attribution" means nothing. "To give credit" has been known to me long before I understood the word "attribution" (I know Danish, English and German). I prefer "credit line". Nillerdk (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The is plenty of room, so how about a belt and braces approach to make it doubly clear and title it "Attribution or Credit Line". We can then wait and see if anyone comes up with a good reason to remove one or the other. We could find ourselves waiting for a very long time :-) --P.g.champion (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Good idea, but what about Credit Line/Attribution? Nillerdk (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I agree for the inclusion of this within the information template. The information template is for objective and verifiable information about the file. This credit line is a subjective propaganda message from some copyright holders who want to impose the style through which they want to advertise themselves. It should be part of the license template, or close to the license template, and as far as possible from the information template. By the way, the same wording as that of the Creative Commons should be used. So, instead of "attribution" or "credit line", the name of this heading should be "other party or parties designated by Licensor for attribution". I think this crediting third parties fashion should be avoided, especially when they inculde trade marks. Specifying "Wikimedia Commons", a registered trademark, as an attribution party 1) requires the permission of the Wikimedia Foundation, owner of the trademark 2) makes the file unfree, because it gives the trademark owner the possibility to sue for trademark infringement each time the file (thus the trademark) is being used. Teofilo (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand your line of reasoning Teofilo but this is a familiar formate which will be quickly recognised by employees and others who are searching through many picture libraries. If a picture’s usability is not ‘instantly’ clear to them, they will quickly pass on - there are lots and lots of other images out there for them to choose. Whilst others of lesser publications may just ignore the licensing requirements altogether.
Also, the formate helps to give an image provenance. This will encourage reuse by those that see it used. This is a legitimate inclusion of the words “Wikimedia Commons” regardless of whether its a CC licence image or PD one. The licence status and form of attribution can be separate from the question of including any mention of the Foundation but we came to the conclusion that this was the best default solution to providing useful information that a commercial re-user would need. If the legitimate reuse of the images here are too difficult to work out by a prospective publisher or re-user, then what is the point of uploading them in the first place? However, if individuals like yourself are happy to spend the time to make yourself aware of all the ins and outs of the licensing small print and the Foundation’s policies, then you may of course, do it your way. --P.g.champion (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the main purpose of the "other party or parties designated by Licensor for attribution" paragraph in the CC licenses is for the cases when the copyright holder is different from the author. Then in such instance, the copyright holder designates the author as a third party (the author is neigther Licensor nor Licensee in this case) as being compulsorily included in the credit line. This is not the case with the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on the works submitted by users on Commons. So using the copyright symbol © with a Wikimedia Foundation brand name is a crime of en:copyfraud punished by the US copyright law. Teofilo (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
If the authors of the CC licenses had meant "Author", they would've said "Author", not "Attribution Party". You can (and perhaps should) of course ask CC directly what they did mean, but the language of the license seems pretty clear to me (at least as far as its meaning goes — the fact that it's a huge run-on sentence is just typical for legalese):

"You must […] provide […] (i) the name of the Original Author […] if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution […], the name of such party or parties;"

I do believe that Wikimedia Commons, as a community project to develop a library of free media, should fall quite nicely within the scope of the explicitly given examples — "e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal" — of valid attribution parties. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In order to help reusers to figure out how to follow the law, we could place the credit line in some of the CC images. I see here 2 different situations:

  1. In case of the images of users who uploaded them to commons, I do not think we should add credit lines without being ask. Users should add the themselves, but to help this this task I can offer help of my bot user:JarektBot. Just create User:username/Attribution page (like user:Jarekt/Attribution) and drop me a note on my talk page and I will try to add them (time permitting).
  2. Other case are images from big collections like: Bundesarchiv, Deutsche Fotothek and may be some others where images were not uploded by photographers. In those cases I think we should create the briefest credit lines required by the license. This could avoid questions and often misleading replies as in this discussion. In case of Bundesarchiv I think we should add just the simple author / CC-BY-SA-3.0 Germany credit line in this file. Adding credit line to images from Deutsche Fotothek would be much easier - just a tiny addition to {{Fotothek-Description/layout}} can add similar credit line to all images.

By the way {{Credit line}} could still use some help with localizing the field name (so far it only has English and Polish translation).--Jarekt (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Re: Bundesarchiv
Does this condition below not outrank the CC licence terms?
On a FAQ page of the Bundesarchiv web site [7]. Quote:-
... Answers
May I use pictures for wikipedia or other internet purposes?
Yes, under the precondition that you
- quote the "Federal Archives" as source,
- add the signature of the pictures and
- of name of the originator, i.e. the photographer.
It's not allowed to use photos of the Bundespresseamt (Federal Press- and :Information Office) for free!
You also can use fotos from the Federal Archives for free on Wikimedia Commons. End of quote.
In the example file linked to above, this source is explicitly mentioned with aid of a template so satisfying our obligation to use said image. If this means that Bundesarchiv needs to be mentioned in the credit line, then that little grain of information could be added to the Commons:Bundesarchiv page as well. --P.g.champion (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
At the moment there is no mention on Commons images of Bundesarchiv images about need to specify "Federal Archives" as source. I assumed that CC license details were agreed between WC and Bundesarchiv and they intentionally did not exercised their right to specify additional "Attribution Parties" to be mentioned in addition to the author. I think if Bundesarchiv meant to designate another [attribution] party than we should add it to the Credit line after we confirm that that is their wish. As for signature of the pictures there is no requirement in CC license to specify it. --Jarekt (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
As the Bundesarchiv project may be better placed to consider this, I have posted the query on their To Do talk page.--P.g.champion (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this extra template. Just use the attribution option in the Creative Commons template, or the author field in {{Self}}. Multichill (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-de}} needs to be fixed. The attribution part is missing. Multichill (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, in all the discussions we had so far on this subject nobody ever mentioned that some of CC licenses have attribution field and I have never seen any images using it. I tried to use it in my test image but I quickly run into a problem that recommended {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} license I use, do not allow passing arguments to {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Also the according to CC license attribution should mention all the licenses used by the image so the attribution line should not be part of CC license alone. Another reason I prefer the {{Credit line}} template approach is that it is easy to find as one of the {{Information}} fields, instead being buried somewhere in half a page long license block. And the purpose of this template is to provide reusers with a easy to find cut-and-paste text of credit line, similar to format used by most stock photography websites. Finally, author field in {{self}} does not produce anything related to text of credit line to be specified by the photographer. --Jarekt (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

September 12

RAW images

Are there any plans to allow RAW image format/s on Commons?--Kozuch (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for reference. TIFF format support took a long time to implement. If RAW image formats are manufacturer specific, it's means that it'll be even harder to implement.
Anyway, if you could find a sponsor for this project, things may be implemented much faster.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) As there are as many RAW image formats as there are camera manufacturers (and usually closed, proprietary formats), I doubt we will ever support any of them. However, DNG would be nice to have, but I don't know if there are any plans for it. –Tryphon 15:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
A few months ago there was a discussion about DNG and we agreed that it would be the best option for raw format images, which would be also uploaded in standared JPEG for regular use. However the discussion died out and no action was taken. Sv1xv (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, DNG would be nice.--Kozuch (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, DNG would be great, but for RAW images I'd appreciate support as well, albeit not in a way that the wiki software will be able to interprete them / display them. I think it could already be a great advantage if one could simply attach the corresponding RAW file to a usual jpeg or tiff or so, so that anyone interested in improving the JPEG could use the RAW for his venture. That should be a no-brainer to implement. -- H005 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to implement, but a waste of space. Just because you have the RAW file doesn't mean you can figure out what it means; it's not a standard format, and even if you can figure which RAW format it is doesn't mean that it's documented well enough to interpret it. General Wikimedia policy is to just say no to undocumented proprietary formats.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
DNG/Raw formats would be useful for sure but be clear if you just want them to download (I think technically not too bad) or for display (technically very difficult). I think DNG "can contain the original proprietary raw file" (also, is it safe?) so that could be a problem or a solution.--Commander Keane (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
At first sight, I believe it is safe. I heard a podcast featuring one of Adobe's developers, explaining they worked on their format by reverse-engineering (they developed their own RAW dematricing algorithm), and they actually include, well… to put it simply, they stock the info contained within the original proprietary file, and they don't stock proprietary info. For those who want to hear the episode, you are lucky: this episode was so important in Déclencheur's history that the interview has been made in English; you can hear it here. Diti the penguin 12:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

When possible, I provide DNG files for my best works, and I support allowing the upload of DNG files here. Currently, the files are hosted on my own server, and although the arborescence is supposed to stay like this, I couldn't be able to confirm those files to be safely stocked. Diti the penguin 12:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is the roughest copyright breach hunter on commons ?

I got you copyviolator

Hi, I need someone really (and I do mean REALLY) rough and thourough commons militiaman who can review images I've uploaded to commons to detect those which depict trademarked logos and such so they can be speedy deleted. It appears that I'm biased because of being the author of those photographs and would hesitate deleting them. Please help. Wmigda (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  • There is no problem of uploading images which contain trademarked logos, unless they are the central subject of the image. So if a player is wearing a Nike shirt or anything with a trademark, it's not a problem. Continue uploading your images and if an image contains a clear violation it will be eventually nominated for deletion. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • There is no problem with trademarked logos at all, even if they are the central subject of the image. The only issue is with copyrighted logos (i.e. recent logos which pass the threshold of originality). But we host lots of trademarked logos, including the Coca-Cola, Microsoft and Adidas logos. –Tryphon 20:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Per Diaa, see e.g. File:Ladies Professional Golf Association logo.jpg, the Logos are maybe under copyright (some are PD-textlogo, the circles maybe creative enough), but it is not the purpose of the image to show the Logos but the scoreboard. Cropping the image to one of the Logos is copyright violation, but the image is ok, any Logos are de minimis. And to prevent misunderstanding: Yes, it is forbidden to extract one of the round logos from the image, but that not means that the image is not free for derivative works. You can modify it as long as the de-minimis argument is not broken. More difficult are cases like Commons:Deletion requests/Images of sports kit, but that's not the case here, also a photo of a person wearing some colorful T-Shirt not violates the shirt designers copyright as long as the image is not cropped to the t-shirt (and maybe some other Commons:Non-copyright restrictions). --Martin H. (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Template for images with a technical problem

I was looking for a template which can be used for images with some technical problem (defective files or faulted display as e. g. File:Dolní Bousov flag.svg vs. [8]), but I found none. Is there such a template and category? --ŠJů (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of such images can be found in Category:Images without thumbnails --Jarekt (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
There's Category:Pictures showing a librsvg bug... AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
However, File:Dolní Bousov flag.svg did not have a librsvg bug, but instead had the usual and typical problem of having a link to an external image on your own local hard drive ("C:\Documents and Settings\MICHAŁ\Pulpit\pastedpic_08302009_143210.png"). AnonMoos (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

September 15

Proposal to change our voting policy


A while ago I made a proposal to change our policy about the 4 votes requirement during a rfa, the last week(s) there has been a discussion on the talkpage and now I believe its time to go to the village pump.

Please raise any comments, objections or questions on the talkpage and I hope to implent it without any big objections in 2 weeks or so.

The proposal can be found here:

Best regards, Huib talk 03:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

COM:SCOPE totally undermined

COM:SCOPE is totally undermined by the following decision : Commons:Deletion requests/File:DSC07483-Freedom.jpg which validates any kind of self-created artwork made by the uploader. Teofilo (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't totally undermined a bit of a strong word? You win some, you lose some, and sometimes the results of deletion requests anywhere in Wikimedia will leave you wondering WTF? I see no reason for stressing about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) COM:SCOPE#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose does say that "by custom the uploading of small numbers of images [...] for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed." I don't think the closure of that nomination should be taken to prevent a future renomination if and when the image is no longer used. Also, it is at least conceivable that the image might have other uses, e.g. to illustrate the techniques used to create it (apparently, it's some kind of a digitally created faux-mosaic), although finding such a use would be much more likely if the uploader had actually bothered to describe the technique. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
What this deletion request means is that if you are an artist and you are seeking recognition or notoriety for your work, you can go to Wikimedia Commons and insert your work in the same categories as those used for already recognised artist. You can insert your own version of David next to that of Michelangelo. You can insert your own version of Liberty next to that of Frédéric Bartholdi. Teofilo (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone already did: File:Mcdonalds anemi.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, the first thing that should be done is that the issue should be taken to the closing admin, if it is to be taken anywhere.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Teofilo (a rare event actually) that this image should have been out of scope, but I do not see it as a precedence totally undermining COM:SCOPE. I noticed that many out-of-scope (in my book) deletion requests are being kept, since I guess there is no pressing need to delete them. It makes no difference if we keep them or not, since (as I understand it) that hard disk space can not be recovered anyway. By the way, anybody want to comment on Commons:Deletion requests/Out of scope images by Joymaster? --Jarekt (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Some users out the images they uploaded in a user gallery. That way the images will always be used and in scope. That was never meant to be I think. I see an other problem with this picture. It says own work. But is that the photo or the mosaik? --MGA73 (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no mosaic and there is no photo of a mosaic. It is computer art, see User:Nevit/Digital workshop. But it is possible that this is a derivative work of graphic art. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

File:TerraformedMarsGlobeRealistic.jpg is another example of private artwork, very non-encyclopedic. But is was selected as a featured image and it is even chosen as the Picture of the Day later this month. However, it is in use, so it is supposed to be in scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on the file in question, but anyone concerned with out-of-scope files might spare a thought for the contents of Category:Penis self-pictures. There's little here that could be considered "realistically useful for an educational purpose." Bonus points: this is a subcat of Category:Exhibitionism, and I suppose what makes the category applicable is not so much the creation of the files as their uploading to the Commons. And the category, besides being useless, is also badly-named: I'm guessing it's typically their owners who take the pictures: the appendages themselves, as far as I'm aware, have no especially noteworthy flair for photography. Rrburke (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

New special category?

I uploaded the picture File:Raad wat het is.jpg. Is there any category where similar "guessing" pictures can be found? A lot of close-ups can be nice puzzles. If it doesnt exist: what is a good name for such a category? "Guess what", "Puzzling pictures" etc. These pictures should always be accompanied with sister pictures to show wat it is. Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

See the Category:Unidentified subjects tree. Multichill (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
We know precisely what it is, so the missing information categories are not relevant. These are pictures you can use for Quiz questions and puzzles. I have now added a category. Smiley.toerist (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Perry Barr renames

I recently uploaded three images, all now in Category:Pery Barr Reservoir. All (including the category) should be renamed, changing "Pery" to "Perry". Can someone oblige, please? Apologies for my ham-fistedness. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. Renaming of files ordered, but may be performed at any later time by bot. --Túrelio (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The best way to rename your own recently uploaded files is to just reupload them under the correct name and tag the old ones with Template:Badname. That is much faster than waiting for the renamebot. And if nobody else has edited the file description or uploaded new file versions, there is not really any reasons for copying file and edit history like the bot does. /Ö 13:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
That advice has been repeatedly given, but are you sure it works? I have tried and I had to change the file, as the the upload was refused. A trivial change, I probably edited the exif, changing the time by one second, was sufficient. Haros (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It worked for me: the system just warns you there's already an exact copy of the image file, in case you did a mistake in the upload form, but it lets you continue uploading. You can also choose to ignore warning messages directly on the upload form, before submitting. --Ianezz (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

PD or Own Work?

I've been corresponding with a photojournalist who is considering offering a portion of his work to the Commons. A good portion of the work was done on assignment for the now-defunct Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, which folded in 1989. Herald-Examiner publisher William Randolph Hearst III donated the paper's photo morgue, about 2.2 million images, to the Los Angeles Public Library after the paper folded -- in return for a tax deduction, so the story goes. Evidently the deed of gift stipulates that upon donation the images were to become public domain (I've asked the LAPL to clarify whether the images are indeed public-domain).

However, when media companies have requested to publish photographs taken by my correspondent which are included in the archive, they have nevertheless paid him a reproduction fee, and their lawyers have occasionally told him they believe he may be in a position to assert copyright over them.

My question is a practical one: if he decides to upload such works to the Commons, should they be licensed-tagged as public domain or as his own work, cc-by-sa?

Rrburke (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would ask him if he would object to explicitly releasing the images to the public domain. That would be the cleanest solution. If he doesn't like that, I would explain the situation in the permissions section of each of the photographs. We have a similar situation when people release photographs of public domain art under CC-licenses. See, for example, File:WLA cma The Sea at Le Havre 1868.jpg. Kaldari (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It really depends on the original contract. A true work-for-hire moves the copyright to company. However for freelancers, this can vary a lot. Sometimes only "usage rights" are sold, sometimes "all rights". TheDJ (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Rename confirmation

file:NewDropstation.jpg has failed to move, and I don't see how to give it a confirmation even though I'm on the Commons:MediaMoveBot/CheckPage trusted user list. Is a link missing to the instruction page? Jim.henderson (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's stupid, though very simple: the rename-bot checks whether the last edit in the edit history was by "confirmed" user, if not, -> failed. In your case, another bot had 2 edits after your one. Return to position 1 ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; I have started the process again. Let me take this opportunity to grumble again against these busy bots that make a nuisance by first first doing one little thing to many thousands of pictures, then another little thing to approximately the same pix, and later another, instead of doing all these heading internationalizations, date format standardizations, license migrations, "own" templates and whatever, in one go. Grumble, grumble. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleting a photo

Hi! I need some help regarding photo deleting (How?) and changing a mispelled surname in a main title (Thus I edit it the mistake remains). Thanks! XimenaXgm324 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Upload the photo again with the correct name, then tag the bad one with {{bad name|name of good photo}}. The one with the bad name will be deleted eventually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture works with Firefox, but not with IE

Am I going mad or what!!?. This picture seems to work with FireFox, but not with IE. Can you confirm or deny, or better yet, tell me what to do with it!

can you see this?

Can you see it

GloverEpp (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, same when I try it, Firefox is fine, IE not. Generally the IE is not capable of colour management, thus it is only able to display standard sRGB images properly - but usually IE at least displays something, although it often looks weird or at least far inferior in quality. But here something seems to be wrong, as IE displays nothing at all. GIMP says it has an embedded sRGB profile and shows it well, but IrfanView says it's CMYK - and displays it in wrong colours. I suppose it has an embedded profile that is corrupt in some way. -- H005 (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I saved it in IrfanView without CMYK and, after some time and some more troubles, it showed up. --Túrelio (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Impossible to upload images, without tearing hair out

I tried to upoad a file, but was met this nonsense:

You must give the original source of the file, the author of the work, and a license.

Nowhere was it explained what this means or where and how I fill in these details. The upload function is laughably ant-intuitive and user-unfriendly. You seem determined to do everything you can to avoid having interesting and useful images uploaded by memebers of the public.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblecar (talk • contribs) 17. September 2009, 20:33 Uhr (UTC)
There are fields for each of those pieces of information on the upload form. The original source is where you got the file - if downloaded from a web site, the URL of the page, if scanned from a book, the title and page of the book, etc. The author of the work is the artist who drew the picture, or the photographer who took the picture, or so forth. The license is the greatest restriction, it is what makes the file free. Did the owner of the work put a Creative Commons license on it? Then it is that license. Is the file public domain because it is old, or because it is a work of the US federal government? Then it is public domain due to age, or so forth. there should be a drop-down to specify each of those licenses. If you don't know what the license is, then it may well be not a free file, and if it isn't, we don't want it. The reason we only have 3 million files here is mainly because we only accept free licensed files. --GRuban (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Impossible to upload image, without tearing hair out

I am entirely the author of the image I want upload - I am the photographer, the creator of the object, etc etc. I am wanting this image to be entirely free of copyright. So can someone please tell me exactly what I have to write in each box of the form in order to upload the image. Just tell me exactly what I have to write in each box. If I have to spend any more time trying to work out this cryptic shit I just won't bother with you. And I am a very important person with important images to upload.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblecar (talk • contribs) 17. September 2009, 20:33 Uhr (UTC)
Hello. We are all important in our own right. You should start by signing your posts with ~~~~ and you must have a username to upload. Then in the upload section you should select "entirely my own work" and at the bottom licensing drop down box select "public domain". Don't forget to fill in other things like author and description and what not, and maybe even try to give it categories. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
And don't be worried if you do not know what to write into these fields. Anything can be fixed afterwards by anyone else who comes along, the only thing YOU must ensure is to pick the proper licence (public domain in your case). -- H005 (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, your first upload, File:Rebec fiddle.jpg, looks good and is a very valuable contribution. I've made some adjustments, but this shouldn't bother you much. -- H005 (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Frequent logouts

Is there a way to set in preferences that you do not want to be automatically logged out. I seem to need to log in sometimes few times in a day. I had cases when my bot user:JarektBot was logged out while running. Yesterday I was logged out in the middle of upload of several files using commonist (see here) and as a result most of the uploads failed. What is causing those frequent log-outs? --Jarekt (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

When logging in, are you checking the "keep me logged in for 30 days" button?-Andrew c (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I have never seen that button before, and I just checked to make sure but I still do not see it on the log in screen. --Jarekt (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It should be right below your password field and it's called "Remember my login on this computer". Are you sure you're not seeing it? Try checking the HTML source of the page. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture of the Day - October - too many same type of pictures

Hello. Does anyone know who selected the pictures for this month? There are four butterfly pics closely following each other, and two of them are from the same species even. Apparently someone butterfly-aholic must have done such an order. This is utterly boring, butterflies all the time... If we try to change it, it gets reverted I hear from colleagues on huwiki. Is it possible to get the order changed at least? So that these butterflies wouldn't come daily? Thank you for your reply in advance --Teemeah (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Picture_of_the_day/Instructions or Commons:A nap képe. I entirely agree with you, but you cannot prevent this from happening with the current process. The best place to discuss this is probably not here but there: Commons talk:Picture of the day. -- H005 (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Teemeah, not really sure what you are basing your statements on; are you sure you are thinking of the Commons POTD? If you look at the picture of the day schedule, here, you will see that the last POTD butterfly was on the 4th of this month, and before that there was a butterfly on the 5 August, and there are no other butterflies scheduled for the rest of this month.
In any case, pictures of arthropods make up the majority of Commons featured pictures, which is the pool that the the POTD is chosen from. So it stands to reason that they would pop up on the main page more frequently than other topics.
Anyone can help out at POTD, so maybe you'd like to become involved there? Any of the featured pictures that haven't yet been on the main page are eligible. Find empty slots in the schedule and put what you think is best there, :-) Maedin\talk 19:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
How can File:TerraformedMarsGlobeRealistic.jpg be a featured picture and a picture-of-the-day? It is completely non-encyclopedic! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Because this isn't an encyclopaedia; Commons is a media repository. Maedin\talk 20:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, it's a media repository for media of educational value, see COM:SCOPE. But regardless of this I believe there is a lot of educational value in that terraformed Mars image. -- H005 (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
My poor wording, although, while it's true that Commons has a defined scope, we don't often seem to act on it. We have categories filled with crap and inferior images that are clearly done better by others, but we hang on to them relentlessly. However, I do agree that the image referred to has value and certainly belongs! Maedin\talk 20:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, here I agree to every word of your statement. I think we sooner or later will need a process of throwing out images that are clearly inferior to others. -- H005 (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
What! Delete a free image from Commons! That's heresy! ;) Kaldari (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, it is. Prepare my stake and lay the kindling! Maedin\talk 06:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed (not about the heresy, but about the need for a process to weed out duplicates and inferior images). -- JovanCormac 06:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Besides, it seems like a perfectly good and encyclopedic illustration for w:Terraforming of Mars to me. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on science fictional concepts, projects still in the planning stage, predictions of possible future events and all sorts of other things that don't exist or haven't happened yet (and possibly never will). That doesn't make them any less encyclopedic, if the possibility of them existing or happening in the future has been the subject of serious and verifiable discussion. And they need illustration just as much as any other article. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, do I ever agree with you! The "bug invasion" is a problem at FPC, but an even larger problem at POTD, because those are the pictures we show to the world on the front page. I think we need a "quota" for POTDs, limiting the number of pictures per month coming from any one category. -- JovanCormac 06:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nom for deletion not working right?

many of us have automation to allow easy nomination for deletion. I think maybe it's not working right? It may be "over HTTP encoding" ... see this version] of File:Astroempires.jpg ... all those %3A and %3D s and the like had to be converted to = and : and the like. Anyone else seen this? ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange that it also added the {{delete}} twice... what browser are you using?
One problem may be that you include (through User:Kylu/popups.js) a buggy version of Lupin's popups.js, which redefines getParamValue and botches it. (Should use decodeURIComponent instead of decodeURI.) A maintained version of that popups script that has this error fixed exists at en:User:TheDJ/popups.js. Lupo 11:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Just verified it: popups.js is definitely the source of the %3D problem. Someone should nuke all these buggy versions of this script. Lupo 11:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that is a personal test version of mine. The en.wp gadget is the only official version atm. On commons, you might use User:TheDJ/popups.js, which is an importer for the official en.wp Gadget version. TheDJ (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've switched to just loading the en:wp gadget. Thanks for the sleuthing, guys. I agree, finding all the obsolete versions and suggesting to folk that they switch might be a good project. ++Lar: t/c 09:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And admin can go in and substitute the entire text with a "jsMsg()", I guess. Just have to find the admin willing to do it. TheDJ (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you clarify the edit you have in mind and the page(s) to do it to? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

September 14

Unsimilar interwiki links

Recently, I created Category:Carpooling. Someone put interwiki links in there. But these refer to pages on other Wikipedias, not to categories. Is this okay? Apdency (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's actually very very frequent here when there's a category without a corresponding gallery. (If there's a gallery, then the interwikis should generally be on the gballery, not the category, of course...). AnonMoos (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I think that is the correct approach -- galleries and (most) categories here illustrate a topic, so we should be linking to the associated topic pages on the wikipedias. That is what would be most useful for people clicking on them, in my opinion -- going to a category of articles usually doesn't make sense. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
All wikipedia's grow at their own speed, mainly with articles. Commons grows with about 5000 categories per week. It is not realistic to be able to make and maintain a constant one to one relation. Moreover, commons tend to go deeper in categories, wikipedia's wider in articles. I see two major needs for interwiki's:
1. To me, the most important one, is documentation in all possible languages, what the category is about. This is especially important for users that are not native English, that have to try to grasp the meaning of a one to say 5 words category. Clearly, articles provide the most information, even when they don't correspond exactly to the article.
2. Tool builders and bot operators are obviously more interested in having simple "category to category" and "article to gallery" interlinking, but those have no direct interest for the real users, except that this facilitates automated IW updates. --Foroa (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I once read something about cross-namespaces linking being "bad", but I can't remember if it was a serious issue, or even if the writer was well informed. Anyway, what I like to do is using interwikis for same-namespace linking, and giving links in the "normal" text of the category using {{Mld}}. This way, namespace integrity is kept (for what it is worth, I have no real idea), and information is given to users. But I noticed on Category:Macrophages a user going after me (hey, that was you Foroa!) to put interwikis, « for documentation ». So since then, I save him the need and do both ;-). My point being: if there are both linkable Wikipedia categories and articles, there is a way. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Cross-namespace *redirects* are bad; not links ;-) Certainly shouldn't apply to cross-wiki links. The question for me is, for someone viewing a category of images on Commons who wants information on the subject of those images in their own language, which is the best page to send them to? Some categories (say People from XXXX) would naturally go to categories, but most of the time, I would think the most useful link would be the actual wikipedia article on the subject. The summary area at the top can also work, and is good so that people can see the subject without visiting another page, but the interwiki links give a nice unobtrusive way to link to many languages without taking up a ton of the screen, and can be added by people who don't speak the languages in question (by copying the links of links from one of the wikipedia articles). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok for cross-NS stuff, thanks. As for "not taking up a ton of the screen", that's the point of {{Mld}} ;-) Jean-Fred (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, any category I create I try to give a bit of narrative text to, which includes links to en:wp articles (since I write it in English...) but since it's in a {{en}} wrapper, someone else could do the same for other languages if they wished. Interwiki links on a category that lead to pages... seems odd at first glance but why not, if they make sense? ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

To simplify the work of bots and make links more stable, we could limit links from Commons categories to Wikipedia articles. Generally there is at least one category for each Wikipedia article. -- User:Docu at 06:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

September 16

Correct way to branch a diagram already on Commons?

Want to make ---->

Motility of kinesin.png

...have only english captioning on it.

What would be the proper way to upload my new version?

Thanks --Bcjordan (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the image was released as public domain, you don't have to worry about copyright. Still it is considered polite to mention the original author. The easiest way to upload is the upload form which also supplies a possibility to upload a derivative work. Regards, --NEUROtiker  22:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
English derivative version
I see Bcjordan has already uploaded this English language version, so I added {{Derivative versions}} to the original, so that users can easily find the other versions. -84user (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
and I tagged the original as well by adding and filling out "|other versions =" in the infobox. Now fully crosslinked. I think linking in both directions is goodness. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

RfA nominators

Does anyone else think there is any merit to the idea of limiting the number of individuals someone can nominate for admin in a year, I think a limit of making a maximum of four nominations a year is enough, more than enough for most people. If a candidate is good enough than a nominator can always be found and even a self nomination should be enough.KTo288 (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you think that's necessary. Why do you think that someone nominating a lot of people is a bad thing? In what way would these nominations be harmful? Do you have a specific example in mind? –Tryphon 18:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
As long as the nominations are made in good faith and not disruptive, I don't see anything wrong with someone nominating lots of people. If they succeed, why not? We can still block people who open loads of nonsense nominations. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there a specific problem, that this will address? feydey (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It could just be my own inherent paranoia, but I have an uneasy feeling that one admin in particular is making such nominations in order to have a vote bank for an attempt at crat. I'm not saying nominees have been engaged in an actual quid pro quo, but that nominees will feel more naturally inclined to someone who has helped them in the past.KTo288 (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
But anyone can vote for bureaucrats, not just admins. So even if someone was making such nominations in order to have a vote bank (which I doubt), it would be pretty pointless. –Tryphon 09:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
We need admins, so I think it's a bad idea to put a limit on the number of nominations. A quick look at the RFA archive gives me the impression that the only user who has made many nominations is Kanonkas (full disclosure: it was Kanonkas who nominated me for adminship). But Kanonkas is already a bureaucrat. It would do well to assume good faith on the part of the nominators, who are doing the project a service, and on the part of the people who take part in the RFA and RFB discussions and who should be trusted to comment/vote with the project's interest at heart, rather than as a means of expressing their gratitude. Pruneautalk 09:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If noms are good, great. If they're not good, have a word with the nominator. I'n not seeing a policy needed here. Yet anyway. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Doesn't seem like a huge issue to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As we don't require much if any previous participation from voters and candidates, it doesn't seem of much use to limit nominations. -- User:Docu at 06:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

September 17

Problem with javascript gadgets

Hi. I'm currently unable to use the QuickDelete gadget (at least the "missing permission" and "copyvio" features), I get the following message when attempting to edit the image page:

TypeError: wgRestrictionEdit.join is not a function (60) 

Is it just me? How can it be fixed? --Eusebius (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And I'm unable to nominate a file for deletion as well. Please help! --Eusebius (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Same thing with DelReqHandler:

TypeError: wgRestrictionEdit.join is not a function (396)

And I just noticed that Quick Preview doesn't work either (I don't get an error message though, it just fails to display the preview). –Tryphon 07:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Somebody change wgRestrictionEdit from an array to an object on the server-side. Sheesh. Lupo 07:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Though I don't have a clue what that means, me thinks some areas should be somewhat de-wikied (in regard to writing-access). --Túrelio (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
(to Lupo) You mean, in a MediaWiki upgrade? How come some other people are still able to tag files? --Eusebius (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was a server-side change in the MediaWiki software. The culprit is this change by User:Werdna. See bugzilla:20671. Lupo 08:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
After I tried a DR by myself, I know that I'm also affected. --Túrelio (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I put in a hack to work around this particular problem in QuickMod and in DelReqHandler. If you go to this page and then reload your browser's cache, the problem should go away for you. (But you must visit that page. QuickMod is not loaded everywhere, so reloading the browser cache somewhere else will not give you the update in QuickMod.) Lupo 08:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: I've no idea what's wrong with QuickPreview, but I notice that we now also have an empty category bar on all Special pages, and that MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js would need to be adapted to handle this empty category bar. Apparently, some other things also changed (DOM structure of served pages, class names, whatever. I didn't investigate.) I have no time today to chase after these things. Ask User:Ilmari Karonen or User:Dschwen to take care of any other JavaScript or gadget problems. Lupo 08:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
P.P.S.: For more problems, see en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Vanishing articles? and following sections. Lupo 09:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the bug report and for the workaround! --Eusebius (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This particluar problem should be fixed now in the software (and deployed already, too). Thanks, User:Werdna, for acting so promptly! Lupo 10:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • What about the Empty Category bar on special pages problem. I cannot reproduce that. HotCat looks and behaves fine to me. --Dschwen (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nariokotome Boy

An image I've uploaded - a reconstruction of Homo ergaster, Nariokotome Boy, is now in danger of being deleted, apparently because the image of the skull is copyrighted elsewhere. I've tried to replace the picture with a picture of the reconstruction alone, without the skull, but it won't let me because the image has the same name or suchlike. Can anyone tell me what to do here. If I can't get it sorted quickly I will simply give up on this shit, and won't bother with wikimedia ever again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblecar (talk • contribs) 21:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Bubblecar, thanks for your contributions but you really need to not threaten us other users with your "walk off" because we are all here together. It's quite silly to get so angry about this process, just spend some time learning it. When you upload it again, it will ask if you are sure you want to replace the original file... just confirm that its OK. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Your account is too fresh to reupload files. You need to wait some days. However, I tagged the file and you can simply ask me on it, auch auf Deutsch. --Martin H. (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
No, this is a bug in the Wikimedia software that has been introduced with the new release deployment yesterday. I have the same problems, and others too. See above: Commons:Village_pump#Problem_with_uploading_a_new_version_over_an_old_one. It needs to be fixed asap. -- H005 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

White House photos?

I was always under the impression that official US government photos are in the Public Domain, and I was browsing through the White House Flickr site and saw a nice picture and uploaded it to commons with out paying attention much to some warning about not using it to sell products. When it was up on Commons I saw (in the metadata) that it seemed to be more strict than that, saying can't be used or some such? Is this just government sounding puffy about something to make sure people don't start selling Obama cornflakes with his image photoshopped onto it OR is this somehow within their rights to apparently say a government work is not public domain? If so, I might have boobooed uploading it here? Details please. (File:HelenThomasAndBarackObama2009.jpg) Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictures on an official government site are not all necessarily government owned pictures. With permission from an owner, they can show ones that were privately made and are still privately owned. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
In case of the White House photostream the images are government created. It is your first point, this is a case of Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, you may not use obama portraits for advertising in respect to personality rights and maybe other legal restrictions. In sense of copyright the photographs are public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Contributing 222 Medical Education Images, but need help

I am an employee of the Open.Michigan project (Wikipedia Page) which helps professors at the University of Michigan create Open Educational Resources. This past summer we were working with the Michigan Medical School and in doing so our student workers created roughly 222 images that are useful in medical education (CC:BY replacements for images that were All Rights Reserved). These images, however, are lacking in title/metadata information that is required for Wikimedia Commons. So far one student has helped by adding this information for roughly 15 images, but there is still a long way to go. This is where I will graciously ask for assistance from the wider Wikimedia Commons community.

The instructions I have laid out are located here and the images are located here. Any comments/suggestions are also welcomed. Greg g (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. Well first of all I suggest creating a source category for images that would be imported from there. So each image should contain the category "Images from the Open.Michigan project" or something... --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    1. Will do. Greg g (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. A template with a bit of information about the work and an OTRS confirmation mail is needed, saying you have the sufficient rights to upload these images over here, see Commons:OTRS.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    1. Not sure who you would send the confirmation email to except myself, as these students were working for the University, thus all their works' copyrights are held by the University. And the University is licensing all Open.Michigan staff created 'stuff' as CC:BY. Greg g (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    2. I should add that the attribution for these images will be "Regents of the University of Michigan" (as is all staff "for hire" created work, which is different than faculty created work, which is held by the faculty). Greg g (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      The idea is that you (or someone else authorized to grant this license) send an email from the university (please use a sender adress) to the OTRS, saying that these works (please provide a link, preferably to the files uploaded on Commons) are released under CC-BY with the attribution you request. It would probably be best if you do this _after_ the upload to Commons and include the link to the files on Commons in the mail. Be sure to upload the files with {{OTRS pending}}. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      Gotcha. Will do. Thanks for the clarification. Greg g (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. Are these images also available as SVG ? This would be really great, since it allows limitless scaling...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    1. No, our students did not create SVGs. Greg g (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  4. I suggest uploading all these images as they are to flickr, where the description and category can be added without much difficulty through a comment.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    1. I don't see where on flickr categories could be added (they support user-generated tags, which our images mostly already have). And the description is only editable by the uploader, unless you're speaking of a different description. Greg g (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      I mean here that students could add a comment containing the description, file name and Category. This makes it easier because you have an instant view of the image while adding a description. Instead of opening the file, going to spreadsheet, checking if it's exactly the same name or not and adding file name, description and category.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      Right, I know that process is not the most efficient, it was the best I could come up with quickly. My question is then: what happens when pulling that data from flickr to commons? Seems using the comments on a photo as the Description in Commons could be problematic (ie: which comment is the description? The first comment could theoretically be "Nice drawing, Bobby!")
      I could easily upload these to flickr today without a title or description (both things required on Commons, plus at least one category) but again, crowdsourcing the title/description on flickr seems problematic. That is, unless you know of a different process/guide that I haven't seen. Thanks for your help/comments! Greg g (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      The spreadsheet seems a sufficient way to organize the image. It does have version control somewhere, right? Otherwise you should make regular backups in case a vandal finds and deletes the whole thing. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      Yeah, google spreasheets have built in version control, but I will be backing up the work every night or so (depending on use). Greg g (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      • How about you choose the right comment and add it as a description. Then add in the tags the right category and write the correct name. Which should all be available in the comment. This would make our side of uploading much easier, since we already have a flickr batch upload tool (Flickrripper) which gets the description from the description, the filename as a combination from filename and username, and categories via the tags. This would also help you when adding newer images. It would be instantly viewable and can be imported to Commons easily. I'm just saying this would be in my opinion the best approach. Create a username as Open.Michigan and upload the images there. Since most images aren't over 1MP you won't need a pro account...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I was planning on using the User:Nichalp/Upload_script using the bot associated with Open.Michigan for this purpose (User:OpenMichiganBot because of the large number of images and the fact that this will hopefully be automated next semester. Having to go through 220 images and copy over the correct description and title separately (if either of them were added by the someone in a comment) seems quite manual and inefficient. But, either way, this process will be streamlined (hopefully) in the future when we perfect our process. I think for now I'll wait to see how many people help out this way. The goal is to get the images in both flickr and wikimedia commons (and anywhere else that might make sense), but since the only info I had for the images were tags (the filenames are just hashs of the file, hence their ugly names) I decided to try and get useful names first :). Thanks again for your input, it is really helpful. Greg g (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Differentiation of "false" categories by italics

I am convinced that category redirects by {{seecat}} are very useful. When some user choose categories using the upload form or HotCat.js, he may guess and search any exceptable category name very easily and it is automatically changed to the right category name.

But when some user set categories directly in the edit box, the "false" category isn't corrected and the user isn't warned that the category is only a redirect (the category link is normal and blue). That is why many wikipedists don't like category redirects and delete them generally.

I have a proposal to improvement. The name categories should be always displayed in italics when the category includes some template of Disambiguation and redirection templates. --ŠJů (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories entered directly in the edit box that would have a {{category redirect}} get moved within a day by bot. -- User:Docu at 05:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories in preview of upload form

Generally, I make the description of images in that way, that I copy the all description text including categories into the old edit box and then I change it before uploading. But I have a problem: the categories are not displayed in preview in this case, unlike the normal preview of pages. Can someone add this? --ŠJů (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. If you go to the upload form and then refresh your browser's cache, you should also get a mock-up of a category bar in the preview. For technical reasons, the preview cannot distinguish normal and hidden categories, and it also does not show red links for non-existing categories (it shows them in blue). The reason is simply that the API call used to generate the preview ("api.php?action=parse") does not return this information. Lupo 09:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

September 18

Mother lode of free images

I came across a great resource for union and political images at AFL-CIO's flickr page.--Blargh29 (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks promising and seems all are licensed CC-BY. --Túrelio (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I suggest requesting a batch upload at Commons:Batch uploading.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I am collecting a list at User:Blargh29/alfcio2008 before I put in the request. I only looked through the Pennsylvania-related images, so if anyone wants to comb through the others, feel free to add them to my list.--Blargh29 (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Why are u making a list? why not just upload all or are some images not educational?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't imagine that all of those pictures serve a purpose here -- people at picnics, etc. But I'm sure a bunch would. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Category:Picnics is not too crowded, so why not... --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
There are WAY too many unusable photos (near-duplicate shots, random people standing around, and just poor photography) to do a full batch load. Is anyone else interested in sifting through these images to find the good shots?--Blargh29 (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Defect of reuploading dialog

Yes check.svg Resolvedbugzilla:20677 fixed 2009-09-21

When I choose "Upload a new version of this file", the system refuses the upload of new version. It displays a message "Upload warning - A file with this name exists already in the shared file repository. - If you still want to upload your file, please go back and use a new name. - File:$1 - $1" and it disables an uploading. --ŠJů (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Village_pump#Problem_with_uploading_a_new_version_over_an_old_one above. -- H005 (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Commonist problem after MediaWiki update?

Yes check.svg ResolvedFixed 2009-09-22

Commonist stopped working.--Kozuch (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

See two topics above. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Looks like a batch upload could be useful here: Tekstman (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


The file ;-)

We have reached the 5 million media files! Can anybody figure out which is the 5th million file? Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 11:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A bot detected File:Kjøbenhavnsposten 28 nov 1838 side 1.jpg as such, but could have been some other nearly image instead. Platonides (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC) for the medias around it. Esby (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Note: the image was between File:Volto Santo Venetico.jpg and File:Brief von Mutter Theresa.jpg Esby (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
How about File:Sollies Ville - Valp - P1200358.JPG? Main Page should be updated. -- User:Docu at 13:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I would not vote for it since I am its uploader, now I think the paper scan is technically ok as it's an historical document. If someone danish could confirm it does not contains any insanity in it, it would be for the better :D Anyway the file is not important, was is important is to reach the number and go ahead of it. Esby (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I speak Danish and AFAICS it doesn't seem controversial in any way... but then again, it's pretty hard to read! --Metalindustrien (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems that Kjøbenhavnsposten was controversial back then. As Saddhiyama put it in context, I think we should go with that one, even if Yann has already overwritten it. The exact file depends on the method we choose. Luckily it's not a stub icon or a flickr image. -- User:Docu at 15:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, if we do a press release mentioning that file, it is better if we have a good quality file, not an bad orange scan with a poor contrast. If you can get a better color and contrast correction, please do. Yann (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! MartinD (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Great! KaiesTse (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Echo KaiesTse and good work! :) Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 13:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. Doing a recount will give a new result every time we delete or undelete some old file. So we could recount forever. The document has a good theme I think. Like Commons the newspaper brought information to the people. --MGA73 (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I echo MGA73 for the theme. I believe this picture shows the diversity of Commons, which is not about landscapes for wallpapers (though we do have plenty and it is fine, you see my point). Jean-Fred (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
A press release by Wikimedia UK: Milestone: 5 Years, 5 Million Media Files on Wikimedia Commons --Everton137 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is a pretty symbolic 5th million media file. According to the description this is from an oppositional newspaper calling for more democracy in the monarchy of Denmark. That makes a very good comparison to our own goal, bringing democracy and free culture to everyone! Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 21:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a brief announcement to the Main Page. Feel free to suggest improvements on the talk page (or make them yourself if you can). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Commons:5 milionów plików w Wikimedia Commons - press release in Polish - sent ;) Przykuta (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that the 5 millionth media file coincides (almost) with the 5th birthday of Commons (September 7th)? Which is in three days, btw... -- JovanCormac 21:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A little bit late, but here it is a banner that I made for Wiki Commons, congratulations and happy Commons' birthday to all of you!!   ■ MMXXtalk  19:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
What is the wikicode for putting this on my Wikipeida page and linking the image to commons???--Kozuch (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal archives

I have seen this deletion request, and I'm not sure of the way this issue is handled. It seems the photo was taken a long time ago, not published but just kept in the family for personal interest (like the photo's of grandpa's wedding, or similar things). Most likely, the uploader is not the real author of the photo, but if he can get access to such archive, he must surely be a relative or close confident of the family. On a strict sense, we may consider he does not own the images as to release them, but on a more relaxed one, it's all "kept in the family" and the rest of the family would probably never even know or care about the photo being on internet or under wich copyright status. The Precautionary principle policy does tell to dismiss such “we can get away with it” arguments, but I don't want to stick to "instruction creep" either. I consider as well the De minimis principle: if the seeming infraction was so minor or trivial that it's not realistic to consider any court even taking the case to begin with, we may (perhaps) simply let it go.

What should be done then? Deletion, keep with OTRS authorization or something like that, or simply keep it with an "own work" type of tag?

(Note: this thread is not about the mentioned deletion request in itself, it's just an example to ask a wider type of question) Belgrano (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We'd need to find out the contributor's basis for claiming rights. For example, I inherited intellectual property rights to my late father's photos, and will probably someday get around to uploading some of them to Commons. I'd have the same legal ability to grant rights as if I'd taken the pictures myself. Someone who happened to be the subject of those photos would not. - Jmabel ! talk 06:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
{{PD-heirs}} might be the best fit for this kind of images. --Jarekt (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to release it into the public domain, rather than continue to reserve attribution rights on behalf of your late relative. - Jmabel ! talk 05:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Which species?

Hello, Could you help me indentifying which species of swans are these? I had never seen brown swans like these before, except juveniles, but these look like adults. They were even a bit aggressive. Thanks in advance, Yann (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Yann, Cygnus olor, in german Höckerschwan keeps his grey color the first year of his life. --Martin H. (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

please fix

Category:Zhao Ji contains itself which is not good. I would fix it but get the message: "Category "Zhao Ji" not found; maybe it is in a template?" bamse (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Something odd is happening when one wants to upload a new version of an existing file

Yes check.svg Resolvedbugzilla:20677 fixed 2009-09-21

First you get the same warning as usual that a file with that name already exists. Fair enough. But when you indicate you want to go on and upload anyhow. You get a second warning, with a flat out refusal.

This flat out refusal seems to be incomplete. It gives the file name as "$1".

Is there some reason we can't go back to the old behavior? Geo Swan (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Village_pump#Problem_with_uploading_a_new_version_over_an_old_one. -- H005 (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

September 19

Incorrect file

I uploaded a wrong file on File:88 flood at Provincial Highway No16.jpg. It should be a file from flickr as shown the source in file page. But it seemed that there were some problem in the database so that i could not upload a new version. Any administators can help me?--Koika (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Help desk#General or personal upload problem?. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Cannot upload new versions

Yes check.svg Resolvedbugzilla:20677 fixed 2009-09-21

For the past couple days, I cannot upload new versions of files. When I try to do so, I get the following error message. Any hope of this being fixed soon? -Peteforsyth (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Upload warning

A file with this name exists already in the shared file repository.

If you still want to upload your file, please go back and use a new name.
<a href="/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=$1" class="new" title="File:$1">File:$1</a>
I had the same problem too.--Caspian blue 17:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Same here. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • In addition, Commonist has been broken for days, but no indication of fixing the error. I've been manually uploading image (aka. wasting my time) since then.--Caspian blue 17:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
You guys might wanna skim over the larger thread of this issue (above), #Problem with uploading a new version over an old one. I went to #wikimedia-tech last night and told them, and I think they are working on it. There's several things wrong at the moment with pictures. I initially told them of several cases where Commons said no file existed at a specific file page, but the upload logs indicated otherwise. Killiondude (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Link problems

Hi everyone, the number of links here at Commons increase rapidly causing problems with performance (graph). This is because all heavy usage templates include a language template. Usage (GFDL : 1,7 M) * number of languages (GFDL: 60?) is a lot of links. The worse templates are listed at Commons:Template i18n/Most linked-to templates. To solve this problem the number of links should be reduced. We have two options:

  1. Remove the included /lang template. Most of the heavy usage templates are already translated in dozens of languages so the user will probably see it in his interface language anyway
  2. Convert the links at the /lang template to externallinks. Externallinks was hacked to not be included in a table if it points to the same site. Without this hack Commons would already be down.

Doing this with the top 20 templates would greatly reduce the number of links. Opinions please. Multichill (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd just remove the /lang templates from all autotranslated templates and rather display a message (please help translate this template) if it is not displayed in the interface language. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
No, please don't remove them. They're there for a reason, so that people can switch from one language to another one. Remember that every unregistered user sees the template in English, as they can't choose another language. Also, several people don't know how to change the language setting, so they also use the English skin, though they might not fully understand it. The external links solution sounds good here and I would be fine with its implemention. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I personally prefer one langtemplate on every imagepage including links such like and leading to the image instead of multiple langtemplates in every template leading to templates. A user is not interested in seeing a template in his language but in seeing the template in context of the file description in his language. However, there are to many languages on this planet, having a monster like Template:Lang-mp on every image page is distracting. --Martin H. (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
That's probably a stupid question, because if it was possible, surely it would have been done, but here it is : can't we detect the language of the unregistered users system ? Jean-Fred (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Theoretically we can, but it's not implemented in MediaWiki. This came up on Wikitech-l just a few days ago and the answer was that serving content by language would defeat most of our caching and put too much load on the servers. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer second one. I agree with The Evil IP address. Maybe we can consider to use the extension Language Selector. Kwj2772 (msg) 16:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Did a {{subst:Lle}} at all templates. The only template left is Template:Welcome/lang. Multichill (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed switch to external links in Template:Creator/lang and Template:Location/lang. But I can not figure out how would that help this lang template was only shown at Template:Creator and Template:Location but not at any images. --Jarekt (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please change slowly. Quick change can overburden to software. Job queue will soar. Kwj2772 (msg) 15:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Uploading from Flickr

Flickr2Commons has not been working for me for a few days now. I have uploaded a couple of pictures the old fashioned way, but couldn't we make the old fashioned way better for people who aren't aware of the tools or those who use it when the tools aren't working, which is surprisingly often? For example you have to fill out source, date, author etc when you could just provide the link and these could be pulled from the image page. Is it impossible for the normal uploading process to be extended to the point where it could do all the tricks that Flickr2Commons does? Richard001 (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

you could possibly use bryan's flickr tool as a backup. Nanonic (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone may wanna go ahead and make a notice of that in case someone else has the problem.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 15:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
At the moment Flickr2Commons is telling me everything is okay but when I follow the link to the image nothing is there. Is it impossible for the uploading process at Commons to perform the same functions as Flickr2Commons? If not, why doesn't someone upgrade it? Richard001 (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Medical Education Experts - Help Identify/Name/Categorize Educational Images

See my Sept. 17th Discussion for background. Thanks to everyone who commented for their feedback.

The Open.Michigan project has 222 images that were created as replacements for All Rights Reserved medical education content. However, they are lacking some much needed metadata (real names/titles, categories, and descriptions). If you can help identify this material, please see the instructions here and the images are located here. Greg g (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

September 20

Uploading problem

Yes check.svg Resolvedbugzilla:20677 fixed 2009-09-21

I clicked on "Upload a new version of this file", went through the process, and got the message "A file with this name exists already in the shared file repository". Why? --Levana Taylor (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This problem has been addressed numerous times above. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

error message UnexpectedAnswerException

Yes check.svg ResolvedFixed 2009-09-22

Hi, for a few days now I have massive problems uploading images via commonist: . Any idea what might be wrong there? Thanks ʘᴅoɾ (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This is probably the cause of the problem. Because there isn't an upload api (yet) we have to use screen scraping. When the interface is changed, this will break. Multichill (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes I am experiencing the same problems (see user:Jarekt/gallery) also in AWB login process stopped working. --Jarekt (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Will this boil down to bugzilla issues???--Kozuch (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, doesn't work for me either. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Could an English admin help us to find out the source of that pic? thx.--Sanandros (talk) 07:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The original uploader, Migg00, on enwiki claimed self-work. A look at their deleted revisions on doesn't show any confirmed copyvios (for what it's worth). You can see what they uploaded by looking at the upload log, if you'd like. Killiondude (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Handling of Software Issues

Many of us ran into this bug which blocks reuploads of existing files. Until now I haven't found any central place where Common:Users are informed about blocking or serious issues. Effectively I have to track sevreral discussions, where messages like fixed now or will be resolved soon pop up. Tracking the bugzilla site does not help in such cases, as a resolved statement there does not mean anything to the end user (waiting for shell to sync). In the end I have to retry uploading from time only to find out that the bug still persist - which is quite annoying.

What I am looking for is a central place where the status of such serious issues is flagged and indicated how Commons is affected (reading bugzilla tickets does not really show which mediawiki projects are affected as they might configured in different ways). Does something like this already exists? Or should it be created and then - how shall it be maintained? --Burkhard (talk)

Maybe a technical issues noticeboard? ViperSnake151 (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Special:Version shows you which revision we are currently running. Right now it says r56620, but the fix was done in r56631. Once we run this or a higher revision, the bug should be live. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
This is helpful information. Thank you for that. Lycaon (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that we have to wait for another 11 revisions before we might see a different behaviour - or not? At what frequence will revisions move from staging to live? And what keeps developers from fixing a high prio bug - that is blocking normal work flow - out of sequence?. I find your information rather irritating, the message behind it says that bugs might be introduced anytime, but fixes will follow a predefined sequence without telling details about it. What does „waiting for shell to sync“ mean in terms of timescale? --Burkhard (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
"Waiting for shell to sync" means that one of the system administrators with shell access to the Wikimedia servers needs to update the version of MediaWiki running on those servers to one that includes the fix. In my experience, if there's a serious need to get a bugfix deployed sooner rather than later, the most effective way is to try to catch one of those system admins on IRC (specifically, on the #wikimedia-tech channel) and ask them personally to fix it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a quite strong argument for the COM:Technical Issues Board as User:ViperSnake151 did propose. Given the size of the project and number of possibly affected users, the method you describe seems a bit flintstones like. --Burkhard (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
As there is not really a centralized place for this, I put it in the Sitenotice for now. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


This image is incorrectly named causing much confusion. The image is actually of a Yak-17 RD-10, which was an entirely different aircraft ( but similar to those that don't know its history). Can someone re-name the image and re-direct users to it? I have tried on the talk page but no one uses them in commons.Petebutt (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You may upload it again under a correct name and tag the old one with {{Duplicate}}. Sv1xv (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Also see Commons:File renaming. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Renaming of files is not that easily possible as AndreasPraefcke stated above. Use {{Duplicate}}, please. --High Contrast (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but it should be. If it's not possible, please modify Commons:File renaming. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I've added a rename-Tag. A bot will rename it within the next few days. -- H005 [t|c] 20:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I added Commons:File renaming#How to rename a file to close the lack of help, maybe someone can correct it from en-2 to en-N. Please also consult the FAQ Commons:FAQ#How can I rename/move an image or other media file? for such questions. --Martin H. (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Broken preview image for video

I wanted to upload a couple of videos, but preview image seems to be broken. The file itself plays fine with VLC or with the Firefox decoder. Cortado seems to hang though. It was directly converted from a Canon 5D MKII MPEG4 to ogg via ffmpeg2theora. File is here. MichaD | Michael Apel (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Info/Main template problems

Anyone know why we have an {{info}} template that has little to do with {{Info/Main}}? Anyway the Template:Info/Main thing seems to have problems. The first of which is no documentation, the second of which is that all invocations seem to be producing an error message "Template loop detected". Anyone care to fix, and document this template? I see there was a call on the admin noticeboard in June to fix this, maybe we should just delete it ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

September 21

Broken re-uploads?

Yes check.svg Resolvedbugzilla:20677 fixed 2009-09-21

I am trying to upload a new version of Raman_energy_levels.svg with a typo corrected. I can't do it, however... the "Upload Warning" page is truncated and mis-formatted and there's no button to click to override the warning about an already-existing file. Argghghg. Incidentally, it doesn't work with external tools either. Oh, and derivativeFX is broken. Any idea what's causing this??? Moxfyre (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(Same as this report)

Commonist Error

Yes check.svg ResolvedFixed 2009-09-22

"UnexpectedAnswerException unexpected response data (UiSimpleActionBase) status HTTP/1.0 200 OK"

I get this error when I try to use Commonist. With a Google search, I see that it is not unusual. Does anybody know what it means, or some things I could look at to try to resolve it?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpda (talk • contribs)
I think that's part of some of the problems going on in the system right now. I could be wrong, but you might wanna skim some of the larger threads above, to get an idea of the different bugs happening right now. Killiondude (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with editing newly created file page

Hi, I just transferred File:Jumper.jpg from polish Wiki. The edit button do not seems to work as it is trying to create a new page instead of editing of what is obviously there. Likely related to all the other technical issues. --Jarekt (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of server lag right now. I think that's why. On my watchlist right now, it just said over 6000 seconds... Killiondude (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Likely, yes. Does anyone know what precisely is going on? Commons has been near unusable for several days now! If that's all caused by the software update, I'd say it is one of the worst updates I've ever heard of. -- JovanCormac 06:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


I'm not used to the procedure here (I normally work on Wikiquote and Wikipedia), but there is an issue with "File:Nooojason.jpg". It was uploaded solely for the purpose of BLP vandalism on Wikipedia (article w:Austin St. John). The photo is a copyvio, taken from a gay-pornography website; it's a gay-porn star who looks like Austin St. John—and vandals like to say that he secretly is—who played the "Red Ranger" Jason from the old Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers (hence the filename "Nooojason"). There is actually a link to the original on the Austin St. John talk page, that's how I figured it out. It should thus probably be removed immediately.

Peace and Passion (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
You may nominate this image for deletion (see link in toolbox on image page). As for me, images doesn't fit into Commons:Project scope. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I've tracked down the source of the file (eye-opening what one can find with Tineye...) and nominated for deletion as copyvio. Man vyi (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Categorization by Camera type?

With quite some bewilderment I learned that someone started to put some of my pictures into a hidden cat Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1. Personally I would prefer to have (my) pictures not categorized by camera type or any other meta cat as this could lead to some quite absurd categorization. In my opinion picture content shall be categorized, not the tools used - or if one takes the idea even further - the person behind the tool. If categorizing by camera should become an accepted practice I will consider removal of (at least some) Exif data from my pictures.

Any comments on this issue? --Burkhard (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a harm done by adding by-camera categories? I often add them to my photographs and I think they could be useful to see capabilities of different camera types. Same goes with photographers - if I find one photograph of someone I find interesting I might want to see other photographs of the same person. Of course images with only by-camera or photographer categories should be treated as uncategorized. I personally would not spend my time manually adding such categories to other people pages, but in my opinion it would be great if some bot could do it. Can you explain why are you so hostile to the idea? --Jarekt (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The only "harm" I see is that if it makes somewhat easier to build lists of "people using camera X", or "cameras used by person Y", then the meaning of such categories could in theory be distorted in classifying users as "pros", "amateurs", "with expensive gear", etc. adding another non-content-related variable in judging someone's work. Given the scope of the Commons project, I don't think it'll ever be the case (personally I use such categories for my photos, and a user category as well), but I believe it's not unreasonable that someone could find this a bit worrying in the long run. --Ianezz (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware that these data may - and will - be collected and processed outside of the projects scope? (hidden or not will not make much of a difference). Speaking about harm, we don't know what happens to this type of data once they have leaked out of Commons. We will simply have no control over that. --Burkhard (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Camera type info already is available in EXIF data, so if someone wants to misuse that piece of information somehow, the damage is already done – in that sense it does not make much difference if we categorize the files (by camera) or not. But, as many user has stated, the categories have a lot of proper uses. --Apalsola tc 07:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I am aware, but from this point of view, geocoding is quite higher on the list of things to be worried of. After all, when I'm geocoding one of my photos, I'm telling everyone who takes care to notice that I (author) was in a certain place (location) in a certain date at a certain hour (EXIF metadata). That's definitively more sensible data than the list of cameras I own/use. In both cases, that's ok with me, and I understand that it may be not ok at all for others. --Ianezz (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
My intention was not to do any harm to anyone, of course. I created some new categories and added some (more or less randomly chosen) files to them. I also added some files to existing categories with only few files. I don't have any mission to categorize all files by camera, but I agree with Jarekt; it is a good idea to have some examples of images taken with different camera types. Of course it would be best if some bot would do the work. The first "taken with" categories have existed quite a long while already (at least from June 2006[9]), and some categories have thousands of files in them. As far as I know, there hasn't been any strong opposition, either. So I think it is safe to assume that categorizing by camera already is an accepted practice.
About the harm possibly done: I think all meta categories (maybe with few exceptions) should be hidden, so that they don't clutter the topic categories. (There was a discussion on this on the VP in May.) Best regards, --Apalsola tc 23:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion you mentioned was about being it a hidden or not a hidden cat. Camera type and alike are other non-content related, therefore they serve no purpose within the scope and towwards the primary goal of the Commons project (building up content for educational purposes). I don't see how such cats can be useful. Take the camera type: It's not even good for comparing equipment. Most digitally taken photos will and should have been post processed - possible from RAW - cropped and have its resolution reduced, whereas some are taken directly from the JPG which may have different levels of quality. How can you compare equipment from it's product where the most significant contribution comes from the person behind it? - Right! You have to do it systematically and combine it with other data, possibly personal cats.
If the cat serves mainly (or merely?) personal purposes and does not directly contribute to the primary project goal - why should we have it? To make it easier for 3rd parties to mine more or less personal meta data? See my point above. Thats's why I am opposed to this idea. You could say that I simply don't want to be publicly categorized. Please refrain from doing that to my photos, I will revert such edits. If the project should decide to have a bot adding such non-content related cats automatically I (and possibly other contributors) might consider removing Exif data. Regards, --Burkhard (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Such "categories" (or tags or groups or whatever) exist on several photography sites -- people are often interested in what kind of pictures are at least possible with a given lens when they are researching them. Since they commonly exist, people *do* find them useful for various purposes. Maybe someone writing a wikibook on photography can look for images from a particular lens to find images which demonstrate a characteristic weakness, or something like that. Granted this would be more of a "tag" than an actual browsable category (and really can't be subcategorized effectively), but since we don't have a tagging system, it is one way to do it. I don't see how they are counter to Commons' goal at all. Hidden or not, I have no opinion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
If someone wants to mine Commons for camera type he can as well do this by mining the EXIF data. Thus, if you fear about privacy, you should delete that field from the EXIF data. Personally, I find it interesting to brows these categories to see what camera type makes what kind of photos. -- H005 (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly, I have been planning to write a bot that does exactly that for some time now - scan EXIF data and categorize images according to photographic gear. The equipment used to take a shot can be valuable information (e.g. for people aiming to take a similar one), and as others have commented, the relevant data is available to anyone already (EXIF), so privacy/personality concerns are unfounded. If someone doesn't want the world to see what camera he or she uses, they should delete the EXIF data. Ideally, Commons wouldn't use a category system at all but rather a tag system, which allows people to search for any number of tags. A search for "Landscape pictures taken with a Canon 20D camera" can show a photographer what is possible with his or her new camera, and like searching for specific licenses and authors, this can be very relevant indeed. -- JovanCormac 06:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
* I see a quite a huge difference in simply having Exif data in every single file or handing out processed lists of catetegorized and grouped data at quit prominent and easy to find location.
* As I stated above is the idea of comparing pictures to find out about equipment capabilities quite absurd - unless maybe you are looking at some very low resultion mobile phones. People interested in some specific camera or lens should read relevant reviews and/or arrange with a dealer to try out this equipment. May I add as a side note: some of the Exif data are just lying, e.g. when I add a macro lens to my equipment, the focal length changes dramatically but the number in the Exif does not. Some programs even replace Exif data completely.
* Could someone please point out the benefit with respect to project objectives? At this point of the discussion I get the impression that this non-content cats are added because some users like them and want them, but not because they are helpful or even crucial for what Commons wants to achieve. --Burkhard (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Right. Several of my pix today were labeled as Category:Taken with Nikon Coolpix P6000. It is true for these, as it is true for one and a half thousand other of my uploaded pictures. Does this category violate my privacy or rights? Not at all. Does it help someone? Not that I can see. If a dozen other shutterbugs use this model for as many pix, that's a category of 18,000, having barely a hypothetical chance of proving useful to someone, and some uploaders produce more and better pictures than I do. The information is in EXIF, and if someone wants to know, they can look there. Such categories, if fully populated, only bring together huge masses of pictures having little in common. As a minor nuisance, it creates traffic on my watchlist since all my own pix are still under my watch. This would be a reasonable nuisance if a reasonably important purpose were at hand, but it isn't. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, this request shows that there is a use for some people. Including me. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 10:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with uploading a new version over an old one

Yes check.svg Resolvedbugzilla:20677 fixed 2009-09-21

Ever since last night, when I try to upload a new version of a file over an old one I get this message:

"A file with this name exists already in the shared file repository.If you still want to upload your file, please go back and use a new name. File:$1 $1"

I tried it with two different files. Could it be fixed please? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

bugzilla:20677 TheDJ (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that message is usually seen when you're at Wikipedia and you try to upload a file which has the same name as an existing image at Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I was on Commons and tried to upload a fixed version over old file. I have often done it before and know quite well how to do it. I've never got such a message before last night.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The message may have been issued in error, but that was probably its main original intedced purpose.... AnonMoos (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I just tried to upload a file over a other file but didn't get a error, I guess this problem is already fixed or was a temporarily problem? Huib talk 16:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I restarted my computer and tried again with Internet Explorer and Mozilla.I still got the same message, and the file does not upload. I have Windows XP. Maybe it works with vista? I'd like devs to take a look at that please.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

See also COM:HD#unable to update image, Lupos answer there adn TheDJs answer above. I myself reuploded two images and dont have this problem. --Martin H. (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am already feeling better knowing that it is not only me Face-smile.svg--Mbz1 (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Admins don't have the problem with reuploading images since they have the "reupload-shared" right. That allows them to locally upload files that exists the shared file repositoryon. /Ö 19:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have (basically) the same problem: trying to upload a new version over an old one, with the same name. (To be exact, an updated version of File:US debt outstanding by sector.png; the Federal Reserve just released the Q2 numbers.) I get the message "Indien u het bestand niet voorziet van afdoende licentie- en broninformatie, wordt uw upload verwijderd zonder waarschuwing. Dank u voor uw begrip." In English (I'm Dutch, and the localizing works fine!) it says "If you don't supply enough information on licence and sourse, your upload will be removed without further notice. Thank you for your understanding." However, the text fields where I could supply this information are greyed out. But I've uploaded updated versions of images (containing statistical information, see my user page) many times. In fact, as recently as September 10, see the history of File:Trade balance US.png. I think there is a hiccup in the software.;) Best regards, MartinD (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I see there's a bug report: bugzilla:20677 --Farry (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have the same problem. Yesterday I uploaded a svg format flag, today I see an error and fix it, when I try to upload a new version, it returns to me an error "Ya existe un archivo con este nombre en el repositorio compartido. Si todavía quiere subir su archivo, por favor, regrese a la página anterior y use otro nombre. ". --Xavigivax (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Please vote for this bug in bugzilla as it really sucks - it is really bad that such a bug went through to live site :(((.--Kozuch (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems there is only one vote till now for the bug....--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
That was my vote most likely!--Kozuch (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I am getting this message too, when I try to crop out some negative space in photos and then overwrite the original image. --Blargh29 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I have the same problem with File:Guerra Civil Española.svg, I've tried a few times already. --Té y kriptonita (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I also encountered the problem, and bugzilla seems to be down. Why should it be necessary to vote there anyway? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it is not necessary to vote for the bug, but it is one of the ways how to let developers know you want the bug have fixed.--Kozuch (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm encountering the same problem myself - I try to upload a higher resolution version of File:Dimmu Borgir 28.jpg with one I saved locally and it comes back saying "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still does not work, try logging out and logging back in.". I'm an admin so you would expect I'd be able to upload over an existing image... Tabercil (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe this is a different problem that is not related to the recent bug. Sometimes session data is lost - this also happened frequently before the recent mediaWiki update. Can you try again whther it is reproducible? -- H005 (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Huh. Tried again with File:Dimmu Borgir27.jpg which was uploaded in too small a size, and it worked. I'll wait a few more hours and try again with a couple of other images that are in the same boat. Tabercil (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Same problem for me, with File:Armigeri_defensores_seniores.svg. I thought it could be linked with the renaming of this file I've asked for, but seeing the other cases it sounds unrelated. I've got the French version of the message: "Un fichier portant ce nom existe déjà dans le dépôt de fichiers partagé. Si vous voulez toujours téléverser votre fichier, veuillez revenir en arrière et utiliser un autre nom.", then a link with the following name: File$1. Fanfwah (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Same "$1" bug for me here, on two days with two files. Needs central fix, no doubt. - Orion 8 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly urge that this be made a high priority. The fact that admins don't have the problem may be concealing from many of you how annoying this is. Not every hard-core participant in Commons is an admin. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the bug has already been raised to major and a fix has been created. We are just waiting for the Wikimedia developers to push the fix to the live site. I assume that this will be resolved within the day. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
It still does not work - and this blocks any correctional reuploads, especially for SVGs. How can we know that the fix is live, that is if it works or not? --Burkhard (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
This site update was really silly... the easiest thing you can do is vote for the bug over at bugzilla, however I suspect there is noone to fix this over weekend as no one at foundation works...--Kozuch (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
You can find the revision we are currently running on Special:Version. As soon as that is even to or higher than r56631, the fix is live. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, admins, note that this bug only bugs non-admins! Me too :( axpdeHello! 14:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I still encounter the problem, but the number on Special:Version is 56620, so I guess I just have to be patient for a while.;) Regards, MartinD (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just here on commons thats being affected, I'm also getting the problem on other wiki's including Wikipedia :( Fallschirmjäger (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem still exist. --Patrick (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
We moved over to version 56725 though. We need just 6 more units... ;)--Kozuch (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually 56725 is greater than 56631, so the fix should be live. Is the problem still persisting? Feedback would be appreciated. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the bug seems still to be there. I get the error message even though the version is already r56725. --Care (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Still the same behaviour - not able to upload a new version. --Burkhard (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay after checking with the people on the tech channel, seems my understanding of the revision system was wrong. Just because we are running a higher revision doesn't mean that lower revisions are live on the site. Revisions are usually submitted to "trunk" and need then be merged into the "wmf-deployment" branch to be live on the site. You can see the log of the wmf-deployment branch here. What you are looking for is something like "merged 56631". Once that has happened, the deployment branch needs to be synched to the live site. This is done from time to time, but obviously not in fixed intervals. Your best bet to find out when it happened is the Server Admin Log on Leuksman, see here. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I have created a proposal on StrategyWiki to make this more transparent. Comments and suggestions welcome. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed now, eventually! Phew! -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 22:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Now I also can upload a new version of a file. --Xavigivax (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Correcting a File Name

Hello, I uploaded a file but inadvertently made a typo in the name, and simply want to rename the file so the subject's name is spelled correctly. The name of the file is File:ValPinsep.jpg. It should read ValPrinsep. I left out the 'r.' How should I go about changing that? Thank you! MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter? It is in Category:Valentine Cameron Prinsep, it is easy enough to find. Otherwise you can reupload, and label the old one with {{bad name}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I suppose it doesn't. I placed it in that category so others can find it if they need it. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
File renaming is now enabled post the software updates (as of Monday September 21); an administrator can rename the file for you. --brion (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Tab character in title

A file was uploaded with the title: File:Mythimna separata (catepiller).jpg (link doesn't work). I don't know how it got uploaded but I can't even get the page to download it to rename it. I can't link to it either since MediaWiki converts the tab to a space which is not the title. You can see it in the search results: [10]. Rocket000 (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

They are ideographic spaces (U+3000 in the Unicode set). Really odd. They are uploaded, but the Mediawiki software is now translating them to underscores before looking for the file page... not working. They will still show up in categories though. File:Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Akagi 3deck.jpg is another, but it shows up in Category:Akagi. Direct links to the images also work... 3deck.jpg here and %28catepiller%29.jpg here. I don't know if it is possible to upload them anymore, but ones already uploaded now seem unusable. Mediawiki bug I guess. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Unusable and undeletable. I tried the direct file path before and I got 403 error. The other file you link to works fine though. Rocket000 (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
We're running cleanups of bad titles (we've recently tightened the rules for weird control characters); if it's not already fixed it should be cleared up in a few days. --brion (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Someone did an image move on the Akagi one, since it was used in an article being considered for featured status on en-wiki. The behavior has changed -- the file page for the first one now shows up, but the image doesn't. Will that fix itself in time too? Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Another symptom of the same problems?

Yes check.svg ResolvedFixed 2009-09-24

I keep having images upload but the accompanying description appears to be unavailable. I can solve it by subsequently "creating" the page, but this is a frustrating process. Are others experiencing the same? Are the pages really not being created or is it server lag (so they are in the DB but I'm not seeing them)? Is this somehow related to the same problem that is making it impossible for non-admins to update images? - Jmabel ! talk 06:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

See the message "Some features are currently experiencing issues; please remain patient until these are resolved" on top of every page. Problems persist since saturday. Instead of torturing us with this mess, they should have closed Commons for uploads and all edits until the problems are really solved. --Túrelio (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
No kidding, the way this was done is a disaster. I wonder if Wikipedia is experiencing similar issues? -- JovanCormac 07:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Some Wikipedia languages are having issues, at least from what I've seen from posts around Commons. Per this, Commons is on a completely different server than enwiki, which seems right because there's nothing wrong with enwiki right now. Killiondude (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
All Wikimedia sites run the same software on the same servers. --brion (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thumbnail wrong for image re-upload

I just uploaded a revised version of an image (cropped to a different shape): CamelRacingCamelCup2009Heat.JPG. The thumbnail it generated uses the original image squashed into the new aspect ratio, so doesn't look right at all. I guess this is related to the technical problems everyone has mentioned, but it is different to the ones I've seen written about. 99of9 (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that often happens -- the software specifies a size for the thumbnail in the web page, but the old thumbnail image is still being cached and used, so the browser scales/warps it to fit. This usually fixes itself eventually, but often the "purge" tab at the top of the image page can force the thumbnails to be re-generated. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Carl. It has fixed itself now, so I'm a happy camper. 99of9 (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't upload images

Yes check.svg Resolvedbugzilla:20677 fixed 2009-09-21

I tried several times to upload a photo (Via Flickr2Commons, Flickr Upload Bot and finally manualy). All I got is this File:Mackenzie River Freeze-up.jpg? Why this is happening? --BokicaK (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  • The developers have rolled out some new software updates that appear to have broken several bots and scripts. Please bear with us. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this also the explanation for my problem with commonist uploads? ( ) When I googled the error message, I found out that thousands of users already had the same problem. It doesn't seem to happen only because of today's software update...? ʘᴅoɾ (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That's separate, but also fixed now. --brion (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

remove gfdl disclaimers

Hi there,

I ask a contributor of images if he was fine with removing the disclaimer from his images (removing the disclaimers). He agreed [11]. Is this good enough for me to remove the disclaimers? Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, wouldn't do that if you are not the original contributor. And in the case mentioned, it might be better to explain this author how to do it by himself. --Túrelio (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

He is not going to do this neither here since he does not have an acoount here nor on en since we are talking of round about 1000 images. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 06:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I understand The point is, I would like to do it myself but I do not know what exactly to remove(!). that he would be willing to do it. But if you don't think so it might be better to ask that question on a board dedicated to licensing or to the GDFL->CC change. Anway you would likely need a bot to perform the removal. --Túrelio (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

EXIF searching

Are there any tools that allow searching images by EXIF data, specifically the camera model field? I'm looking to see if there are any photos, other than my own, that fall into Category:Taken with Sony DSC-P12. – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

None that I know of, and there has been this discussion some days ago on the opportunity to have something like that. --Ianezz (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Oops - didn't see that discussion. Thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
A while ago, I wrote a tutorial explaining how to use database dumps to achieve, among other things, exactly what you want. The tutorial features an example search for pictures created with a Canon camera. It's located at User:JovanCormac/UsingDatabaseDumps. -- JovanCormac 11:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there a way to get the Exif info otherwise than from the html of an image description page or the full resolution image file? I thought it wasn't available through API, thumbnails or dump? -- User:Docu at 12:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The EXIF info is in the dump, namely in the field "img_metadata" of the table "image" in the Commons image metadata SQL dump (image.sql.gz) which can be used with the techniques described in the tutorial. -- JovanCormac 15:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. What is the approximate size of the uncompressed image table? Is there a way to get this through the API? -- User:Docu at 15:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
You can query the metadata for individual files via the API's imageinfo module, but that might take a while to fetch all of them. :) The latest Commons dump on has the image table SQL dump at 867MB gzipped, 4.9GB uncompressed. --brion (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(indent) - I think interrogating databases is too complicated for little ol' me ;-) However, for the record, I've found an alternative way - simply use Google ([12]). However, in light of the earlier discussion, I may leave tagging other peoples files. – Tivedshambo (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I added the info to Commons:EXIF#Exif_data_on_Commons.2Fin_Mediawiki and got started on the 5 GB. -- User:Docu at 13:31 27 September 2009

Uploading a tiff file

Hi, I'm trying to upload a tiff file (first time I've tried it). But it's not loading and I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. I'm sure it's some mistake I'm making. Any help would be much appreciated! Thank you. The file name is BradfordLeavitt.tiff MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

But you did upload it successfully: File:BradfordLeavitt.tiff. It's only that images in TIFF format are currently not displayed on Commons, also no thumb. --Túrelio (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
See also Help:Scanning#PNG vs. TIFF. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks to you both! MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to get the image to reproduce now on wikipedia, but am not having any luck. Does one format it just as one would with a .jpg? Thanks again! MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
No, that will not create thumbnails either. You will need to upload as a jpg (or png) file. Can you do the conversion on your computer? Or via a web service? Otherwise I can do it later today.
But I see now that the source is a pdf file, in which it was embedded. The best thing would be to use a software tool to extract. That can probably be done with Acrobat professional. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks to you folks at Commons who helped out with this, and especially to Peter K., who went above and beyond. MarmadukePercy (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Misattributed Beethoven files

I have just been dealing with a minor situation where three files were pretty much completely misattributed, and could use a little help cleaning up.

I have deleted the badly misattributed files, but they're sound files, and we handle those very differently in every Wikipedia.

The deleted files are:

Check usage will show where they are used.

These are the three movements of Violin Sonata No 8. However, Beethoven's Opus 30 contains three sonatas, No 6, No 7, and No 8, and these files were incorrectly labelled as each being a separate one of these three sonatas.

I know of no free music for Sonatas 6 or 7, so the usages of the first two files may be deleted. File:Beethoven_-_opus30-3_06.ogg is identified as the entire sonata, but is actually the third movement of it, it should probably be replaced with these three files, which are the correctly attributed versions of the above:

Ludwig van Beethoven - Paul Rosenthal - Edward Auer - Violin Sonata No. 8 in G major - 1. Allegro assai.ogg
Ludwig van Beethoven - Paul Rosenthal - Edward Auer - Violin Sonata No. 8 in G major - 2. Tempo di minuetto, ma molto moderato e grazioso.ogg
Ludwig van Beethoven - Paul Rosenthal - Edward Auer - Violin Sonata No. 8 in G major - 3. Allegro vivace.ogg

Thanks for everyone's help! Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Upload MIDI

I'm trying to upload a MIDI file I made. In IE8 and FF 3.5 this ends with the message "This file contains HTML or script code that may be erroneously interpreted by a web browser." I have searched for that string and only found it regarding instances of SVG files. How can I find out what causes that message with a MIDI file, and how can I avoid it? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It probably has html embedded in a comment. Platonides (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I've never heard of any such thing. A MIDI file is a binary file and content should not be interpreted, not as HTML or anything else, other than as MIDI instructions. There are some text elements in a MIDI file, like track names and composition title, but that's well within the MIDI specifications, and none of them contain anything resembling HTML. Previous MIDI files I uploaded contained those text elements, too. The file can currently be inspected at (13,635 byes, 3:05 minutes). It opens and plays from there as expected in IE8 and FF 3.5. Where do I go from here? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
PS: I also raised the matter at the en:Village pump where Splarka solved the mystery: there's a "<A" in the first 1024 bytes, which apparently —and unjustified— upsets the upload process. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
For the record: entered as bugzilla:20780, on 2009-09-23 14:14:26 UTC listed as Solved per r56817 - Code Review. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Flickr pictures and skin tones

Hi everyone! I've uploaded two portrait photos from Flickr to Wikipedia and both came out with slightly yellowed tones: Michael Lopp + File:Michael Lopp (Apple Inc.).jpg and Jonathan Lethem + File:Jonathan Lethem on the banks of the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn, NY.jpg. How can this be avoided or fixed? The Michael Lopp picture may look better this way, but the Jonathan Lethem picture looks a little bit washed out. My first guess is that the change has something to do with embedded color spaces, but I don't know enough to remedy that. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tones look identical to me. I suspect it just looks different at a different picture size. If you really think the image has the wrong tones, you can always download it, put it through GIMP or Photoshop or some such, and fix the colors. - Jmabel ! talk 05:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
See Kaldari (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Good to know this is on the radar and getting fixed eventually. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Related pictures

What is the recommended way of linking between related pictures? I have five pictures (File:Extermination of Evil Sendan Kendatsuba.jpg, File:Exterminationf of Evil Tenkeisei.jpg, File:Extermination of Evil Shinchū.jpg, File:Extermination of Evil Shōki.jpg, File:Extermination of Evil Vaisravana.jpg) which are part of the series of scrolls Extermination of Evil. Should I link them under "other versions" in the description template or create a category for the set. With these five pictures, the set is complete btw. bamse (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

For 8 images, you may group them under a separate category under Category:National Treasures of Japan, Category:Nara National Museum and Category:Paintings of the Heian period. You may create a gallery with a brief explanation for each one. Sv1xv (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. What if I have only 5 images? There are no more than 5 such scrolls existing and I don't think it makes sense to upload more pictures (of details) since the present pictures are already in very high resolution. bamse (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Even with 5 pictures, it is ok. Sv1xv (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
For an example of a gallery limited to 6: Six Wives of Henry VIII. Man vyi (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
you can also add a gallery to {{information}} other versions field. See for example File:Joshua Tree bouldering - Stem Gem 1.jpg. There was also talk of a template for picture sets, ({{PictureSet}}. --Jarekt (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Please don't use that template, non-compliant browsers such as IE6 don't render it correctly. In theory, however, using such a template would arguably be the best method of interlinking picture sets, and everything else (such as using the "other versions" field) is yet another ugly hack. If you know a workaround for the browser problems with the PictureSet template, please tell me, and I will implement it so the template can finally be used. -- JovanCormac 15:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I put the pictures into Category:Extermination of Evil. bamse (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What to do, if the owner of pictures does not know (enough) English

Sorry, but I did not find an answer to this question. A friend of mine (in Istanbul) has made many photographs that could be used in Wikipedia (any language) to illustrate articles on Turkey. He is willing to to provide free licensing for them. I am living in Hamburg and have tried to explain the procedure (opening an account and how to fill in the form). Although he knows a little English he has not been able to upload a single file. What can we (I) do? Could he send me an e-mail granting such a license and I forward it to the appropriate place? The pictures to use are on his account in facebook, which means I have access. If I were to upload the files what kind of procedure should (could) I follow or this there not solution to this problem that should exist not just for people in Turkey. Ob.helm (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC) should work. Similarly - Jmabel ! talk 17:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
And otherwise the people at Commons:OTRS can help you out. Multichill (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I hope that we can get at least one of them to work. 06:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

September 24

Gallery with little content

According to Commons:Galleries, one may redirect galleries with little or no content to corresponding categories. The gallery "Christa Markwalder" currently has two images, Category:Christa Markwalder Bär has four. IMHO the two images in the gallery aren't a suitable selection of the four. The question is if this qualifies as gallery with "little or no content". -- User:Docu at 07:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As of now, I found 4 images in the gallery. As there have been fruitless disputes about galleries vs. cats since the beginning, I would leave both as they are. Surely a gallery with only 1 image would be hardly necessary. --Túrelio (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime it does look better. The problematic version is this one. -- User:Docu at 11:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Most galeries start small. If you keep deleting (or bypassing by redirect) the small ones, you will hardly ever have decent ones. --Foroa (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bot messes

It's nice that we're importing from Flickr, but in my case sometimes it results in duplication as I may have already uploaded that file on Commons (e.g. File:Eastern Kingbird 7014.jpg and File:Tyrannus tyrannus -Wisconsin-8.jpg. It would be nice if there was a linking of Flickr account to Wikimedia and to tell the bot to notify via talk page of an upload. On the other hand I'd like some bots not to notify me. With so many bots running around, it would be nice to have a central place for this sort of thing and mandate (or at least strongly encourage) that the bots abide by the rules (i.e. always notify on this condition, don't notify on this, etc.). --Dori - Talk 01:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we just demand that bots check for duplicate uploads first - us mere humans get a warning when uploading duplicates, do the bots ignore warnings or just not have this info? --Tony Wills (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain the Flickr upload bot checks for duplicates before uploading. Not exactly sure how it does it, but it does. The manual upload form also checks for duplicates, as noted. Of the two above, Flickr upload bot did the first one, and DoriBot uploaded the dupe. (The earlier one is now nominated as a dupe.) One other note -- one copy is licensed cc-by-sa-2.0, the other cc-by-sa-3.0. Should both be added on the one which is kept? Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, for some reason I thought I'd uploaded it earlier, but either way, I wouldn't rely on the dupe checker all that much since the pictures could be slightly different (or metadata could be slightly different). I guess for now I'll just do periodic searches on my Flickr user ID. Would have been nice to incorporate some explicit linking that's all. As for the license, I don't think it really matters, but just to be on the safe side, I've added the older one to my pic so it has both. --Dori - Talk 13:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
A number of points: Duplication checking is worth doing, other bots do it, yours should too. Yes it won't catch all cases, but if you are uploading from the same source as others (flickr) there is a great likelyhood that it will be exactly the same version. Of course the license really matters!!! As does the license history and as does the verification of that license, which had already been done on the original version and you haven't copied that bot verified info across to your copy. Lastly I wouldn't bother renaming images to the binominal name as the scientific classifications often seem to be in flux and it will probably just need to be renamed again, and again ... a descriptive name or common name is fine - what really matters is the information on the description page which can be in multiple languages.(sorry, that pertains to someone else's edit) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Please note that I was talking about my own images. The licenses come from me, so no need for me to verify myself. Also, the licenses are just different by the version, the one I uploaded being 3.0 and Flickr having only 2.0. If having that older licenses matters to anyone (this was the part I was doubting), I added the older version. Again these are my pictures, so I can add licenses without verifying anything. --Dori - Talk 13:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
In Flickrripper I use the sha1 hash to find duplicates (these files are just skipped). Multichill (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Is there any tool that puts template CommonsCat on local wikipedias? --BokicaK (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sulutil:SieBot. Total editcount: 8110371. --Nemo 11:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
That's It's part of the pywikipedia package. Multichill (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --BokicaK (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Cropbot isn't working either

Yes check.svg Resolved

I wanted to crop a butterfly picture I uploaded the other day and cropbot appeared to work, but as it did some time months ago it just dumps me at a new file page that doesn't exist. Is everyone else that uses it finding this too? Is it the toolserver or the program? I'm pretty sure Flickr2Commons was working in the past but cropbot still wasn't. Richard001 (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please test it again; I've applied a workaround which fixes Commonist and probably resolves similar issues with other upload tools. --brion (talk)
Yes, it's working, excellent! File:Papilio dardanus on flower (cropped).jpg can now be used on the Wikipedia entry. Richard001 (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, is still broken. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

September 23

Latest files does not show all the options

"Latest files" does not show any more all the options for rapid tagging which were previously available, like Tineye, nominate for deletion, no source, etc.. Why is that? --ALE! ¿…? 08:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a bug in MediaWiki:Gadget-GalleryDetails.js. Near the end of that code there is href.indexof, but it should be href.indexOf with an 'O' instead of 'o' in "indexof". /Ö 14:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. (I forgot to note here) Kwj2772 (msg) 05:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Image uploaded from :en with incorrect link back to :en

Hi. I recently got an e-mail from Ken Erickson, the photographer of File:San_Miguel_(1).jpg and some other photos here. He noticed that that picture, which he uploaded to the English Wikipedia, has been moved to Commons. It contains a link back to the original description, but that link shows a different image with the same title, en:File:San_Miguel_(1).jpg. I imagine that after his picture was moved, someone uploaded a picture with the same name but about San Miguel beer from the Philippines instead of San Miguel in the Pearl Islands (Panama).

What needs be done about this? Should the uploaded-by-a-bot template just be removed? Should the description information be added again?

Also, Ken noticed that the page says the picture needs review, and he'd like to know what that is. So would I. Is it something I can do?

I've been handling computer things for him. However, I'll e-mail him a link to this discussion so he can participate if he wants. JerryFriedman (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The link back to that the bot gave, actually links to w:en:File:San Miguel.jpg, which has another image there because there's an image on Commons with that name now. If you look at the logs for that page, you'll see that that it was deleted as being moved to Commons, and it even gives a link to the new name on Commons. The easiest way to look at the logs for an image picture where it displays a picture from Commons, is to just click "edit" and in the red box above the editing pane, it says "03:33, April 29, 2008 Angusmclellan (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:San Miguel.jpg" ‎ (CSD I8 - Commons:Image:San Miguel (1).jpg) (view/restore)". So, nothing really needs to be done about that, it's fine as it is. The bot move just needed to be checked to see if all the info was moved correctly. That's hard to do now that the original file is deleted on, but admins can view the deleted page and review, like I just did. It all checks out. Killiondude (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations and the review. However, there's still a link to the picture of the beer bottle, which I think is confusing. How about if I replace that template with text that says the same thing but doesn't have a link? JerryFriedman (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Messing with others' license wordings

Are edits like this really acceptable? It seems to me that I ought to be able to make myself explicit (rather than just implicit) as the source of a photo, and that no one ought to be messing with that. - Jmabel ! talk 07:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether acceptable or not, they're definitely unneccessary, and a waste of time by the editor. -- JovanCormac 10:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the idea behind edits like that is that {{own}} provides localized message in the chosen language of the viewer, while "Photo by Joe Mabel" is in English, and might not be as clear for people viewing russian] or korean version of this page. That said I do agree with User:JovanCormac that edits like that are waste of time by human editors and I prefer to leave them to bots. --Jarekt (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That all may be, and I have no problem with someone adding {{own}}—my issue is with the removals—but I prefer to make sure that if material is copied to somewhere other than Commons, it is still clear whose "own work" it is. For example, imagine if a similarly worded template were on Flickr. If we copy the image, it might be misread as saying that the work was that of whoever uploaded it on Commons, rather than the original photographer. Also, I've found that third party re-users often misunderstand "own work" as "Commons' own work". I'd have no problem with the internationalized {{own}} if it allowed explicit inclusion of author name, as does {{self}}, but I've had literally dozens of my photos from Commons picked up and used elsewhere (and of course that's only the ones I'm aware of); I like to maximize the chance that I am correctly credited. - Jmabel ! talk 18:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

After lengthy discussions on the subject I created {{Credit line}} template to "maximize the chance that I am correctly credited". May be you will find it useful too. --Jarekt (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I also think when the field is, for example, "own screenshot", at least the word "screenshot" should be kept there. That is, sometimes people put details in, which might make the authorship assertion a bit more credible (or the source of a possible problem more clear) than it becomes after somebody replaces it with just the uniform {{own}}. --AVRS (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Video conversion in VLC

Help:Converting video isn't that specific on what to do in VLC. Is anyone able to provide more step-by-step instructions on converting to the right format? Richard001 (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

VLC is primarily a player, not a converter, so I strongly recommend using another program. That said, VLC is capable of transcoding videos. At, you will find a section on "Transcoding and Streaming" that may help you get started. -- JovanCormac 06:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
It's so difficult to convert stuff if you don't know anything about transcoding videos. We should have software here that just takes whatever format the uploader has and converts to theora for them. It would make the process so much easier and might allow us to become a respectable video repository. Richard001 (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Video transcoding is not a one-click process. Getting the best image quality at an acceptable file size requires manually adjusting the encoding parameters, so direct conversion on upload will always be sub-optimal. We could set up a "conversion lab" though, where users with experience converting video do that on request. -- JovanCormac 07:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
P.S. this is already in the works. Michael Dale is developing this. TheDJ (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Linking doesn't work

Since two days or so I categorize pictures as usual (I use the ordinary upload form), but the categories don't show up after uploading the picture. I asked that question first here, but no-one knew how to solve the problem. --Paulae (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright by Wikimedia AND GFDL ??

Are these legal combinations of licenses? Copyright by Wikimedia & GFDL --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright by Wikimedia is only for wikimedia project logo. if article text is on file, text is under GFDL, cc-by-sa. Kwj2772 (msg) 15:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Well you get the sticky situation where freely licensed material has been made by users into logo variants. I've nominated these files for deletion before but have been voted down. I believe such a work does violate the GFDL but there's no consensus to delete these files wholesale. -Nard the Bard 19:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Testing image notes in the sandbox?

A lot of people conduct image note tests in all kinds of image files, which as it is all have to be reverted. Might it be useful to include a test image in the sandbox to that purpose? Wutsje (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think people are able to do this with {{ImageAnnotatorSandbox}}. Also, the testing has reduced a lot since the implementation of ImageNotes. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Still, as any rc watcher knows, it happens very often, especially on weekdays when the schools are in. That testing page should be mentioned on COM:SB. Wutsje (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still supporting the idea that only logged in users should be able to add/modify annotations "the easy way" (the "hard way" being editing by hand the file description). --Ianezz (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A flag of Finland

Excuse me friends, I have had a problem with a file wich i uploaded File:Punakeltaristilippu.png, that is a flag of Finland, and so it is free , that says her author, the problem is i dont find the correct license, i need help of someone, excuse me very much and very thank you very much!
PD:Excuse me also for my english!=P-- Plav mušketir Flag of Asturias.svg Živijo 23:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That is resolved!---- Plav mušketir Flag of Asturias.svg Živijo 01:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Categgories do not show up, link does not work

Hi there, in some of the images I've uploaded I entered a category but it does not show up at the bottom of the page. Also not in the category itself. So the link does not work for some reason, but the same link works in other images. What do I do wrong? Examples are File:MultiPhotonExcitation-Fig10-doi10.1186slash1475-925X-5-36.JPEG and File:MultiPhotonExcitation-Fig10-doi10.1186slash1475-925X-5-36.JPEG and File:MultiPhotonExcitation-Fig6-doi10.1186slash1475-925X-5-36.JPEG. Thanks for any help. --Dietzel65 (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It works without the gallery. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Is that a known bug? Categories do not work when the page contains a gallery? This is not a problem in the 'normal' Wikipedia. It also works with my Commons user page --Dietzel65 (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not know, it is just something I tried. Why have galleries there anyway? Make a page if you want a gallery. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
It also happens to me: when I upload images with the default page, variant "It is entirely my own work", all categories entered into the form get lost during the upload. It has nothing to do with galleries, the category text is simply missing in the image source file after the upload. Currently I add categories manually after an upload. Due to time constraints I have not searched traces of the bug at bugzilla or elsewhere and simply hope that it will disappear sooner or later. --Iotatau (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
In this case, the categories are there in the code. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Not a bug at all. Please check the syntax for the gallery closing tag, it should be </gallery>, not <gallery />. --Ianezz (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Aaaargh! I thought it was something stupid, but didn't find out what. Thanks! --Dietzel65 (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


Yes check.svg Resolved

- Question answered.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 02:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If I consider to upload a sample of the main page of a newspaper, I know that I should make sure that the logo can be acceptable (either by having expired copyrights or being ineligible for it), and that the photos have expired copyrights as well. But what about the text itself? I know that a news article, of whatever type or content, is surely copyrightable, but can headlines of hardly more than 5 or 6 words atract copyright? The small descriptions beow the headlines, of 4 or 5 lines, are more likely to do it, but what if the image is provided at a size that such lines become ineligible? Finally, even in the case that all things despicted (logo, photos, headlines, small descriptions) are either free or ineligible, does the sum of all them (=the newspaper main page) have copyright of it's own? Belgrano (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Typically a newspaper page would be copyrighted material, just like a page from a book. Unless it's old (or was published by an entity that puts it in the public domain) it's probably a no-no for Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 06:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

problem uploading a person's picture for her page

Yes check.svg Resolved

- Problem solved.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 02:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm uploading the picture of the person I'm creating the page and it was deleted several times. Can you tell me why and how can I successfully upload it?


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlegirl1225 (talk • contribs)
Sorry. The one who deleted it, User:Killiondude, obviously forgot to put you a notification on your talkpage. The image was deleted because it seemed to be copyright violation. --Túrelio (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, my apologies. I guess I forgot. I see you've reuploaded it under a slightly different filename, and you said you sent something to OTRS about it. I can look up the OTRS ticket later tonight, or perhaps somebody else will get to it first. :-) Killiondude (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

September 25

Bugzilla, Flickr2commons

Users are complaining about how difficult commons is, but that is nothing compared to bugzilla. On this page, there are several nice green tickmarks that the upload bug has been resolved, but flickr2commons still does not work. Last week I had to register on bugzilla to vote for this bug - why is that necessary at all? why cannot I use a unified SUL login there? And tonight I tried to reopen this bug, only to be told by Brion that I needed to file a new bug. That is a complicated procedure, and the bug writing guidelines (sic!) do not quite explain what is in the form. And then someone else tells me that I probably should be somewhere else, where I do not have a login, and where I do not know my way around.

Comon, the problem is more than a week old, and the technical guys seem hardly aware of it! The bug is at - users that want to get this fixed can vote for it.

/Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Friend, the problem is the 'technical guys' forgot to prominently give on bugzilla an explanation of the fixing process, i.e., that when a bug is fixed, it means, it's fixed in the newest software package. Now do you always install the newest package as soon as it is out? See? So there are other 'technical guys' that do that on the servers some days or weeks after the fix. So, someone open a bug to put this info prominently on bugzilla, pleease. --Ayacop (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Flickr2commons still does not work, and I see no action in my bug report. So it seems that it needs people from commons that have the same problem to go vote for this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Then use Flickr Web Tools, works perfectly fine for me. Jean-Fred (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

September 26

Other languages

I realize that most pages on Wikimedia Commons are available in other languages, but why not create separate domains for each language like Wikipedia? It seems like this would make more sense since the entire site would be translated, rather than just the main text of the page (i.e. the sidebar is still in English on Commons no matter which language you're viewing, which can be pretty inconvenient for non-English speakers). Acablue (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, this has been brought up several times. The main problem seems to be that our software was not designed for this and implementing it would defeat our current caching system and put a lot of stress on the servers. I do, however, agree with you, that something needs to be done. The best way to propose major changes like this seems to be the StrategyWiki, where the Wikimedia Foundation is currently planning its steps for the next five years. There are already several proposals about Commons in strategy:Category:Proposals for Commons. See also strategy:Proposal:Get another CMS for Commons, where I already proposed to create a new CMS for Commons, which would support localization. Feel free to comment and improve the proposals. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 02:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Change the language in your preferences and you will see also the sidebar in your language, maybe you like to read your talkpage in german?. Thats not convenient for anonymous users, but language selection in, or location identification by Commons is already proposed. --Martin H. (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

September 27

Date interpretation

I noticed that the date which is stated in the {{Information}} template as 1.05.07 is represented as September 2009 in the output (see File:Karlovy Vary 111.jpg). I think, the algorithm has overmany imagination when he is able to create "Semptember 2009" from a sequence which contains no one 9. --ŠJů (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the code just gives up on parsing an unexpected date format, and defaults to the current year and month instead of giving an error? After some experimentation, it seems to give "September 2009" for any value formatted as n.nn.nn (with n being a digit). --Ianezz (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, “1.05.07” is almost a perfect example of an unintelligible date – what does it mean? 1st May 2007? 5th January 2007? 7th May 2001? …etc. If a human cannot tell the meaning it would be unfair to expect that from a wiki template… The template tries to do a complicated job and it fails sometimes. In those cases (well, in all cases, actually, except it’s a bit more work for the user), it is better to write the date explicitly using {{date}} or another date-formatting template. --Mormegil (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Source field displays as unexpanded {{Own}} template

Don't know exactly what's going on, but recently noticed in some (possibly all?) images a source field with value "Opera creata e caricata dall'autore (own work by uploader)" displays as unexpanded {{Own}} template. Purged cache just in case, with no results. Source wikicode seems ok. Did someone broke the {{Information}} template or the Mediawiki source? --Ianezz (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to add more info: it seems that {{Parse source}} recognized the standard boilerplate text, and is just replacing it with the {{Own}} template, only it doesn't get expanded. Starting from {{Information}} and looking at the cascade of templates, it seems to me that the only one that changed recently is {{Own}} itself (earlier today). Changes looks ok. Any idea? --Ianezz (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you have an example of page with such bug ? Jean-Fred (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Ho ho. I think I have an idea why. In order to automatically have {{Own}} in the upload form, MediaWiki:UploadFormOwnWorkLabel and all its subpages were deleted today. Seems that Parse Source would return the right content from the right subpage, and now it returns the content of MediaWiki:UploadFormOwnWorkLabel, which is <nowiki>{{own}}</nowiki>... Jean-Fred (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I have previously highlighted that problem on User_talk:Leyo#MediaWiki:UploadFormOwnWorkLabel.2Fde, seems now an eager admin deleted all the subpages of that system message and replaced the English one with {{own}}. I have now changed {{Parse source}} to call {{own}} instead of displaying the system message, so it should work again. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be fixed now. Thanks. BTW, the image where I first noticed this was File:Fiat 125-left.jpg --Ianezz (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

September 28

License violations

Wow, even the United Nations has begun to violate Wikimedia policy. See page 5 of this climate change report: It happens to have this Commons image:

The graph is cited only as "Hanno 2009" (which is wrong because it was actually created in 2005), and, for some reason, isn't mentioned in the references at the end of the report. Nowhere is Wikimedia, the graph's URL, or the sources that Hanno used to create the graph even mentioned.

Quite unprofessional for the UN; I'm thinking about alerting the report's authors. -- 00:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See More on the Hanno Wikipedia graph in the UN Climate Report on IMO it is not your first point but the second, it is cited as a source "Hanno 2009" and from that I expect mentioning of the source in the refferences. With the licensing argumentation you will fail because of quotation in an scientific content (ok, the quotation is incomplete)/fair use in an educational non-commercial context. --Martin H. (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Move from Wikisource to Commons

I know most of you know that Wikisource contains many images that need to be transfered to commons like images in the category Pigling Bland. However, it's very hard to mass transfer files from Wikisource to Commons. You could use commonshelper but there isn't an option or a bot that moves all files in a category, which would make the job a lot easier. Could commonshelper be tweaked or a bot created that tranfers from categories?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Use (part of pywikipedia). Multichill (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I used imagecopy a bit, however can I configure it to not give a dialogue for each image (just continuous work) and add a global category for all files? Maybe also the same description or license for all files?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Note that the Pigling Bland images shouldn't be transferred to Commons; Beatrix Potter is a British author who died in 1943 and hence they'll be in copyright in their home country until 2014.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Many images in Commons from the Library of Congress have broken source links.

Apologies if this issue has already been discussed, but I haven't found any such discussion on Commons.

There are lots of images in Commons obtained from the Library of Congress's Prints & Photographs Online Catalog (PPOC) whose source links are broken because the uploader simply used the link from the PPOC search results. Unfortunately, this doesn't work for the PPOC, because its search results use temporary URLs.

The PPOC discusses this on its help page in the section "Downloading and Linking Tips". The subsection "Linking to Particular Records" includes the following:

The display of PPOC catalog records is dynamic. That is, the computer assembles the display in response to your particular request. This poses a challenge for linking and bookmarking since the URL (Uniform Resource Locator or Web address) is temporary; if you bookmark one of these temporary record displays, you will not be able to reach the address later. Do not rely on any address with the word “temp” in it. For most PPOC records, you can get a permanent URL by following the steps below:
Find the URL:
  • Search for the record you wish to link to.
  • Look near the end of the record for the DIGITAL ID: field. If the field contains a URL with the letters "hdl" in it, use that URL as the permanent link (e.g., The inclusion of the "hdl" indicates that the record has been assigned a permanent "handle" that will always bring you back to the most current version of the record.
  • If the record does not have an "hdl" in it, while viewing the record, select "View" on the Web browser menu bar and in the resulting menu, select to view the "Page Source" (or "Document Source" or "Source"--depending on your browser)
    • A new window will open with the Web page's HTML formatting tags. Scroll to the bottom of the page.
    • You will see "The following URL will result in display of this document" and on the next line there will be a URL.
Copy the URL:

Hope this might be helpful to contributors. Perhaps some sort of warning about using proper URLs should be included in the template used for Library of Congress uploads? Sorry, but I have no ideas as to how the large number of existing images with broken source links should be tackled, other than fixing them manually.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

These files should be fixed I guess. We should also look for files from the LOC without one of the templates. Multichill (talk) 07:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually some of those are OK -- the ones using the second form under the LoC "example" above work just fine. The temporary URLs don't... I think they have the word "temp" in them somewhere, so these should be fixed. They often have the id we need buried in there somewhere, so they are not always useless. And obviously for commons, we prefer the use of the {{LOC-image}}, {{LOC-map}}, {{LOC-music}}, {{LOC-American-Memory-Collections}} etc. tags. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I have corrected some of these. Will do more. Yann (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't find the source of the following: (see below)

Yann (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I can find most. I note btw, that we don't have a LoC template for some of the LoC divisions btw. For instance the: Library of Congress, African and Middle Eastern Division, which uses the urls starting with TheDJ (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The only one which I was unable to trace was File:Annie laurie.jpg. TheDJ (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
There is the not-so-well-named {{LOC-calligraphy}} which uses the African and Middle Eastern Division URLs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should rename it ? Or perhaps we should unify all of these LoC templates ? TheDJ (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess it is well-named, but being specific to the calligraphy seems a bit too much special purpose (there must be other stuff from that division which is usable, and having one tag for all of it would seem enough). But it is perfect for the images which we just found here. It may be a good idea to have one underlying utility tag to provide most of the layout, but separate tags for the different division URLs is still probably a good idea. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Found another division that we do not have a template for. Library of Congress, Rare Book and Special Collections Division.
The {{LOC-American-Memory-Collections}} template defaults to that one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

List of unidentified LoC works

Found the Irving Berlin ones. Does not have a normal LoC ID because it is hosted at Duke University, but it does have working URLs still. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Also found the Osnabrock school, but can't find a URL which works with the templates. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Found the Laranjeiras and Cornelius Shea ones. The latter is listed as PD-US, though there is some chance it was an unpublished work for a long time and is still under copyright (as is claimed by the donor). On the other hand, the Library of Congress allows easy access to the higher-res version, which it usually doesn't if they feel there is an issue. BTW, you can use for a search engine which crosses lots of their sites (the checkboxes don't work on the first page, but they do on the results page if the search needs to be narrowed). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You can find most audio samples by entering the first sentence in the sample into the search box. TheDJ (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
And be sure to use the permanent urls located in the source of the images: permanent vs. non-permanent I think both will be supported by LoC, but since one of the forms is explicitly labeled as "permanent". I guess we should check the lcweb2 and lcweb prefixes for that at a later time. A bot might be able to clean those up easily. TheDJ (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The sounds have broken links. Yann (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Added alternative format, and informed the LoC that their new search engine does not support the permanent link format of the Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division TheDJ (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
U.S. Historical, Cultural Collections urls are broken as well in the search engine. Have informed them of this as well. TheDJ (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Found a few more. However, two of them (the Denver barbers and UColorado spittoon one) come from external sources (Denver Public Library via The Library is claiming copyright on them... from looking, it may just be on the "digital versions", which is copyfraud, but if they do own the original negatives, they may legitimately own the copyright, and if those photos were not published until 1995 (which is when the source site seems to have started), then they may really still be under copyright in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
L. C. McClure (the photographer of the barber photo's) died in 1957, so there is a good chance the copyright now lies with the library or with McClure's heirs. TheDJ (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the date of the author's death is relevant -- more rather when it was published. If before 1923, no issue. If after 1989 but before 2002, there could well be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you are right. This is the problem with copyright law sometimes. McClure was a professional photographer. His images were used on postcards for instance. But there is no way to know wether or not an image in his collection was ever used or not. :( TheDJ (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now finished going trough all these temp images and they should now have additional URLs, or be in the list above here. TheDJ (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Great job -- that is a lot of work. I found a few more; just a couple that are stumping me. The website appears to be down; I would think that is where the first one came from. Have not found the other one at all. Is there any we could add a link or abuse filter for that URL pattern ( with temp in it) to warn the user that the URL is broken, and maybe link to instructions such as those above? Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Updating the LOC template

This is some preliminary meta work that I think we should do:

These sandbox templates are all backward compatible. Now the problem is the inconsistency. This is a scheme based primarily on the format of the material... Unfortunately, the actual methodology used by the Library of Congress, is one of Divisions (the section of the library that maintains and conserves a collection) and Collections (a group of "related"-material that goes into the library Chicago Daily News, Sun Newspaper, Van Vechten, Matson, Loeb, etc etc). Especially unfortunate atm, is the total disregard for the collection information, because this often is important in order to determine the license status of the works. Any ideas how we can best redesign this ? TheDJ (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a lot of American-Memory-Collections usages specify the division parameter, so they are not all just for the Rare Books one... that is a change in the template, not necessarily back-compatible. More of a catch-all template I guess. American Memory is an odd one; works findable there seem to cross divisions. And there are works you can only find by searching there, not on the more general searching service (given experiences from trying to find works above). We call the parameter "division" but even inside divisions they can have different URL segments there, so that parameter should probably be overridable on all the top-level templates. The question is what is easier to use -- a template for each type of URL segment, or fewer, more general templates which may take more parameterizing? There is already a lot of them. Overall though, good work :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The division parameter is smart. When you specify a different division, it will use the appropriate text. You can see the current list of supported divisions in {{LOC-meta}}, those that are not supported can be forced with division_name and division_url, or we can add a detection for the cases we don't support. The categorization and the names of the templates are what worry me most. TheDJ (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
That is pretty cool, but given some of the oddities which can occur, maybe not always appropriate. There are many images with loc.award URLs; those are not handled well right now but are OK with the current American-Memories-Collection template. They are oddball ones, but having a generic American Memory collection tag which can span some of those "divisions" is probably necessary. File:BattleOfChantillyMap.jpg uses a loc.ndlpcoop URL but really does seem to be made available under the Geography and Map division; your tag would change the text completely for that even if LOC-map was used (since your tag ignores division_name and division_url if it "knows" what a "division" means. It seems like those should be respected if passed in by a parent tag no matter what, with the "smart" stuff being a fallback, instead of the other way around. Otherwise these look good, except it would be nice to be able to pass down a secondary icon (like the American-Memory-Collections template has). I don't necessarily see a reason to specify the collections -- these are source templates only, so that we can easily find the original page, not licensing templates. The weirder one is the American Memory Collections, which is sort of a meta-collection (or rather collection of collections) which spans works across divisions, but also seems to have its own content too (such as loc.award stuff and maybe others) -- there are things you can find using its search engine which do not come up with the main search page. But, I suppose that is also a reason to override the division_name to something more specific when used. Definitely a hard problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
That specific case would work like this: {{LOC-map|division=ndlpcoop|id=gvhs01.vhs00253}}
This map is available from the United States Library of Congress's National Digital Library Program under the digital ID gvhs01.vhs00253.
This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information.

العربية | čeština | Deutsch | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | Türkçe | українська | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--TheDJ (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, it no longer says "Geography and Map Division" like it used to, and the way the source page appears to be. Small detail and it may not be worth sweating, and you can argue it is more accurate. loc.award stuff right now will look messy though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see a better way with the current structure. TheDJ (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The only thing I can think of is to remove the loc.award alias from the meta template, and let that fall to the default. Also let a right-side image be passed as a parameter, and possibly a parameter like "site" or "archive" which can be used as additional text by that one template to mention images published under the w:American Memory banner. Otherwise though, I think what you have is good. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Image option added. Still toying with ideas on how to best deal with collections (collection_id vs. collection_name). Finally figured out what award97 and award stand for. See this form the National Digital Library. TheDJ (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


I have deployed the first sets of these new templates. Basically all the templates that were not protected are now switched. Love to get some feedback. TheDJ (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not heard any complaints. Shall we deploy the remaining LOC templates ? TheDJ (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Deployed. Kwj2772 (msg) 15:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Have you created (a) maintenance category(ies) for the cases when people use the template without writing down the reference number ? See what I wrote on Template talk:PD-USGov-Interior-HABS. Teofilo (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Category:Library of Congress media without a digital ID. The maintenance categories are all listed in the documentation of {{LOC-meta}}. TheDJ (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I create Category:LOC picture without template I am not 100% sure this is necessary, but I vaguely remember seeing many such pictures. Teofilo (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

how often are copyright permissions granted?

Does anyone know about how often do authors agree to release their works under a GFDL-compatible license? I know that requesting something to be released under a free license is a very simple task, and all it usually takes is an e-mail to the copyright holder.

However, it seems most editors simply resort to using the work under fair use instead of requesting copyright permission. For example, the English Wikipedia has many fair use files, such as song samples and store logos, but it seems that most people don't even bother asking the copyright holder to re-license their work under the GFDL or similar license. This makes me believe that such requests have a low success rate.

True, it may seem unlikely that Blizzard Entertainment would be willing to release the World of Warcraft logo under the GFDL, but we'll never know for sure unless we ask, right? Does anyone have an idea on how often are such permissions granted? --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Can have them e-mail the Open Ticket Request System and see if something can be worked out. :)Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 02:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
As in fr.wikipedia we do not have fair use, I do ask for permission and I do have some results. It is always worth asking ; but I think you are right regarding editors on en.wikipedia who do not really care.
As for the logo, for sure that seems unlikely. But I think Blizzard would consider releasing a screenshot under {{Attribution}} or {{Copyrighted free use}}, maybe a low-res one, if it used on Wikipedia, as it is in their own interest. This would increase the visibilty of their game on one of the top-visited website in the world.
I would add that we have precedents on that matter with {{Attribution-Ubisoft}} and {{Attribution-GSC Game World}}. Jean-Fred (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Two weeks ago, I sent an email to Interplay, asking them if they could license media (screenshots and audio) from their game Sacrifice under CC-by-SA-3.0. To date, I have not received any reply (whereas previously I received their affirmation that the game is copyrighted to them and not its developers). I suspect Ubisoft's case is unique and most likely accidental (and very likely the one who gave the permission might not have the authority to do so). Jappalang (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Free images that are copyrighted in the US

What is the stance of Commons on free images that are copyrighted in the US? Commons:Licensing says they are not allowed, in most other places however Commons is defined as a repository for any free content that is useful for education; and in practice, at least images which are copyrighted in the US due to URAA restoration are tagged but kept.

Is that a temporary deviation, or is Commons moving towards truly becoming a repository for free images, without any US bias, or are the URAA restorations special cases where the US copyright is considered somehow invalid? I'm asking because there are lots of images that are public domain in their country of origin, but copyrighted in the US, but not because of URAA. (For example, unpublished works by unknown authors are protected 120 years from creation in the US, bur only 70 years from creation in the EU. That is an educationally very important class of works because in many cases the only pictures about some minor historical figure are owned by their family and thus technically unpublished, and the author - the owner of the photography shop on the corner, hundred years ago - is totally impossible to identify.) So should I take the same path as is done with URAA images - make a template saying the image is PD, but the US is an exception - or should I not upload them at all (which would be a shame as often that image is the only existing illustration, even more often the only existing free illustration, for some biographical article)? --Tgr (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this one: {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} is what you asked for. See also recent relevant discussion on Commons_talk:Licensing#Requirement of being PD in the US. Sv1xv (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm talking about PD images which are copyrighted in the US for reasons other than the URAA. I could make a similar template for them - I am asking whether that is a good idea. --Tgr (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
"free images, without any US bias"? How much of the world does an image have to be in the public domain in to be free? The US bias is not coincidental; it happens to be part of the legal demand that running a server in the US calls for. I fail to understand why we should follow any copyright law at all, if we choose not to follow the copyright laws that we are required to follow.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The obvious thing would be to require that the image is PD in its country of origin - this would also mean that it is PD in all countries which respect the rule of the shorter term. Of course the US bias is for practical reasons, but it is still a bias and it is still harming Wikimedia's mission. Our aim is to get knowledge to the people, and doing that is regulated by copyright law - consequently each project follows the copyright laws of the countries that are most relevant for its readership. Commons, however, is a multilingual, multi-project repository - there is no reason to single out the copyright rules of one country, other than not getting sued. And that is not guaranteed by following US law (you can be sued by the laws of the country where the images are viewed, not only by those from where they are sent from), nor is it necessarily required by the law to remove copyrighted images - we could claim fair use, and eventually the foundation could move image hosting to a country that respects the rule of the shorter term. --Tgr (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The only way requiring that an image is PD in the country of origin is obvious is if you assume the rule of the shorter term, which has done far more harm to Wikimedia, in convincing countries to increase their copyright term so that foreign countries will treat their works as under copyright, then it has ever done good. That assumption is purely Commons' choice and does as much harm as assuming US law; notice the images of The Tale of Pigling Bland which were just deleted despite the fact that they're free in the US and much of the rest of the world, just because they aren't in the UK. Getting knowledge to the people is not regulated by copyright law; reproducing specific copyrighted works is. You can't be sued by laws; you can only be sued by people, who need jurisdiction. So long as Wikimedia is a US non-profit, those people won't have jurisdiction to sue. If some court decides to claim jurisdiction and rule against the foundation, then the US won't generally let them attach the foundations assets, and the ruling will have little to no effect.
You can claim fair use; the judge can also slam you with triple damages for willful copyright infringement, on the grounds that thinking you can claim anything you want under "fair use" is a self-serving position no reasonable person would take. Wikimedia Commons has a very weak fair use justification, since it puts forth its material out of context and with claims that it can be reused without royalty.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not the rule of shorter term is harmful on a policy level is irrelevant unless you suggest Wikimedia Commons basing its scope on that rule might influence legislation, which sounds rather far-fetched. Good for copyright laws in the long term or not, it already exists, so no reason not to take advantage of it.
It is also not necessarily true that you can't be sued for providing an online service to a country which breaches local laws as long as you are following the laws of your own country; see e.g. [13] or the various troubles of Google and Yahoo in Europe. Of course such a thing happening to WMF is very unlikely, but so is anybody suing them for PD images that are still copyrighted in the US. (Also, keep in mind that I was talking about images with unknown authors, in which case there is likely no one to sue.) And I don't see why hosting the images for a non-profit educational purpose would be weak justification for fair use; en.wikipedia does that all the time. Of course the image descriptions should correctly state that the image is copyrighted in the US and freely reusable in certain parts of the world only, but no one suggested otherwise.
As for the obviousness, there are two main types of images: those that are of interest to Wikimedia projects related to one country only (local people/places/events that would be non-notable in other projects) and those that are of interest to all projects. In the former case, where the objective is to disseminate the contents in a single county, obviously the laws of that country (which is usually also the country of origin for the work) are the most important, and in the latter case, there is no reason to single out the laws of any country (as long as we keep to a minimum which is enough to not get sued). PD status in country of origin seems to be the most reasonable choice in either case (supposing, of course, that it doesn't mean too much legal risk to the Foundation - but that is a question that should be addressed to them, not the Commons community). --Tgr (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
We're not taking advantage of it, we're letting it handicap us, and by doing that, we're normalizing it. Yahoo France was sued for commercial acts, not copyright law. Fortunately, Wikimedia has avoided the "we're-not-likely-to-get-sued-for-it" approach; clean hands do matter in law and life. If you pay attention to en.wikipedia, you'll notice that they carefully select which materials are available under fair use, and actually do scale them down pretty strictly; they don't just claim things indiscriminately as fair use. They're also an encyclopedia, which is why the educational purpose is strong for them. "Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to everyone", which is pretty awful for any sort of fair use justification. There is no such thing as things that are of interest to one country any more; there's a million Greeks in the US, and 3% of the world's Greek speakers live in the US, just to pick out one group. There should be no need for the Wikimedia Foundation to run around telling us we can't upload whatever copyright-infringing stuff we want to the servers; they're in the US, the servers are in the US, we should be following the laws, not seeing what we can get away with and not get caught.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, but the conflicting license tags on File:Philip Alexius de Laszlo-Princess Elizabeth of York, Currently Queen Elizabeth II of England,1933.jpg just make us look silly. The first says it's public domain in the US, the second one explicitly says it's not, yet "a valid license template must accompany this tag".. Rocket000 (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Limit to Wikimedia projects?

Sample caption (Image courtesy of John Doe)

I remember someone told me it's not possible for someone to upload an image and restrict it for use only on Wikimedia projects. Can someone confirm this and if possible, direct me to the policy page stating this. Thank you. mahanga (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct, images restricted to Wikimedia projects only may not be uploaded. See Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses. --Kjetil_r 00:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll direct the photographer to that page and hopefully convince him of the value to switching to a free license. Cheers. mahanga (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
One more question: what's the policy in having the photographer's name in the caption of the thumbnail, not just on the image page (e.g. Photo courtesy of John Doe)? Is that acceptable on Wikipedia? mahanga (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
That is a individual Wikipedia question not Wikimedia Commons question. Every wikipedia might have different policy, but from what I have seen user have to click on the image to see photographer' name. --Jarekt (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
For en-wiki, at least, that license condition is acceptable (though it will tend to make us prefer an image without that restriction, if available). For example, en:File:Subgenius-JHVH-1-by-St-Ken.jpg (an artwork, not a photo) has this requirement, and it is used in en:Church of the SubGenius. I happened to know the artist and was able to get use of the picture on this somewhat restrictive, but still conformant, license. Of course, there is nothing we can do to make the notification appear in a category gallery, but that's par for the course on almost any online usage that includes auto-generated galleries, going to happen in Google Images no matter what we do, for example. - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It's up to the individual Wikipedias (or whatever), but generally, it depends on the context. If it's used in an encyclopedia article, there's usually no credit line because it's irrelevant (even if the license requires it, Wikipedia's use would almost certainly be fair use, same for most outside reuse, commercial or not, these are thumbnails remember), however, in certain contexts, giving credit makes sense. For example, look at the "Today's featured picture" section on the English Wikipedia's main page. Rocket000 (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


I don't have an account over here and don't know my way around, so my apologies if this is the wrong place. This file has been added to several articles on en.Wikipedia during a vandalism spree of articles related to the band Weezer. It is a copy of an image in the gallery on the left at [14] and appears to have been uploaded solely for vandalism related reasons anyway. 04:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted as copyvio. --Mormegil (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Contributions on Commons

Does something like this exist on Commons, too? `Were? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:37, 2009 September 29 (UTC)

No, but here's a list. Rocket000 (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

September 30

Anyone knows a good Flickr set? Easy Batch uploading from Flickr

It's now fairly easy to upload from sets on flickr to commons via Multichill's Flickrripper. There is now a section on Commons:Batch uploading just for the purpose of uploading from flickr so if anyone knows a set of free images on flickr that are of educational value please add a request over there.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, I've added a request. But am I really supposed to add the request page two times (see point 1 and 2 at [15])? Nillerdk (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot not working

When trying to move images, found with a search, in to categories using cat-a-lot mode, I am getting errors for almost all files (the only file that worked was an .ogg file). For each image it tries to edit a page without a filename:

and comes up with the error:

Bad title

The requested page title was invalid, empty, or an incorrectly linked inter-language or inter-wiki title. It may contain one or more characters which cannot be used in titles. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

October 1

Media Wiki SVG rendering engine error or rather a SVG markup error

It seems that the MediaWiki SVG rendering engine is unable to render this SVG under 58 px. For example 30 px is white! Could anyone explain this to me?? -- Haquino (talk) 09:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It worked for me after removing "px" from the URL, but not at the first attempt. -- User:Docu at 10:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It works now after the blur filter was removed from the SVG. Thanks for the help MichaelPhilip!! -- Haquino (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)