Commons:Village pump/Archive/2009/11

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


Tour Total

France is another country with a lack of panorama. Here is the Tour Total: File:Tour Total.jpg - Would this design be strictly utilitarian, or would it be architecturally distinct? Should this stay on here, or should I start a deletion debate to determine whether this should be moved to EN and FR? WhisperToMe (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, sadly I fear it can't stay here. --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi to all the wikipedians
I am lucky to live in the suburb of Paris and to work in Paris, near Opera. I can take photos of this wonderful town that I love. If I understand well, it is forbidden to publish images of recent buildings (no Freedom of Panoramas in France). It is allowed only if the building is a part of the image, but not the main goal of the image.
If it is true, why can I find so many skyscrapers of "Category:La Défense" on Commons ? I only added one skyscraper : File:Tour Total.jpg. I have other ones to add (tour Areva, formerly tour Fiat). And my friend WhisperToMe asked me another ones.--Tangopaso (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that it is OK in Franch law if you publish an image of a panorama, in which the building in question takes up only a small portion of the image? If so, could this restriction (im my opinion a ridiculous, one, but that's of course only my opinion) be circumvented by using more panoramic pictures? Given the maximum image size, a panoramic picture can be quite large, and anyone viewing this picture can zoom in on a building that he is interested in. When he then decides to crop the image, we'll, that's hardly our responsibility, is it? To put lawyers' minds at rest, we might add some sort of statement to the effect that cropping such an image may constitute a breach of French intellectual property law, and that anyone doing this is doing so at his own risk. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect licence tagging + Unruly editor

Thelad101 (talk · contribs) has uploaded 5 scans of signatures under CC licenses: File:Guy de Maupasant Signature.png, File:Signature of Leo Tolstoy.jpg, File:Robert Burns Signature.jpg, File:Andrew Carnegie Signature.JPG, File:Chaim Weizmann Signature.JPG. Shouldn't these be tagged with {{PD-signature}} or {{PD-ineligible}}?

I would re-tag them myself, but the editor seems very unruly, making legal threats and avant garde legal interpretations of copyright law. I told the user as much. Maybe an admin can take a look at this situation, re-tag these images, and see how to deal with Thelad101?--Blargh29 (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Um... gently? :-) Yes, the uploader appears to have misconceptions about copyright, but they sincerely seem to believe that copyright licenses were being ignored. Even if not copyrightable, people who do valuable work like that often do want to be credited, and there is no reason not to -- sources don't have to be for copyright reasons only. He is correct in that if you make a modification of a valid CC-BY or CC-BY-SA work, you *should* link to the source (which I think was done), and it is also a good idea to credit the author explicitly as well (in addition to the author of the derivative portion). The only problem in this case was that the original could not have that license to begin with... making a scan of a work is not a derivative work, it is a copy, and it has the same copyright status as the original. If the original is public domain, then so is the scan, and it cannot be licensed differently, as the scanner is not the "author" and cannot hold the copyright. In the case of signatures, in most places (including the U.S.) they are probably uncopyrightable. In places where they might be, then the copyright would be held by the person making the signature, not the person making the scan. There is no urgent need to change licenses though, as they are fine to keep as they are, so there may not be much reason to pick a fight. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have issues with Thelad101 (talk · contribs)'s edits to this image File:Robert Burns Signature.svg, hes completely changed the author from Connormah (talk · contribs) to himself. Plus this site ( is a commercial site, another issue. Plus these images are {{PD-signature}} and his edits has no license! Many many issues. — raeky (talk | edits) 07:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Technically, per our current assumptions of UK law, the Robert Burns signature should be {{PD-old-100}}, not {{PD-signature}}. He can link to the commercial site if he is the uploader. Yes, changing the SVG's "authorship" is bad. I went and fixed that one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

TIF-File ?

I cannot open a file, File:98planwikipedia.tif - it is uncategorized. It starts Quicktime on my computer. Is there anybody out there who can understand it? Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why it tries to open it via Quicktime on your computer: the MIME type seems fine (Content-Type: image/tiff), the filename extension too, so it's probably something weird in the file associations on your computer. OTOH, the image is the same as File:Wiki-98plan.png with a shaded background; unfortunately, the thumbnailer cannot handle neither TIFF files, nor PNG files larger than 12.5 megapixel, so both images are currently unusable for Wikipedia. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
TIFF files are more for archival, not direct usage. I'm not sure I see a reason to have a TIFF though when we have a just-as-big PNG (which is unfortunately just too big, pixel-wise, to be renderable by Wikimedia). It appears to be a diagram for bus route 98 in Brussels -- it is the same information as the diagram on this page, but arranged completely differently. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
On some systems, Quicktime is set to handle TIFF files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to all for your answers - I have added a category, that was my main intention. Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

licensing of these videos?

I took video of the musical fountain at the Bellagio hotel. It is my understanding that I have to remove the audio since it is some copyrighted American song. After doing that, is it ok to upload?

Secondly, I have video of my brother using a category:Microsoft Surface device. I know that screenshots of non-free software is not allowed. Is this the same with Surface? If so, then do all the images (like this one in this category need to be deleted?

Last question: If I take video of a dance performance at an event, am I allowed to upload that? It was a city sponsored outdoor event (Worldfest), though there was a $5 cost to get in. Photography and video-recording was allowed and encouraged. For example, something like this (assuming it's released under a free license? mahanga (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

On the fountain, if the song is gone... yes I think so. Pictures of the device itself should be fine... screenshots may be a problem, if the content is copyrighted. An argument for de minimis can be made for the one you point out. Video of a dance performance... hrrrrm. Choreography can be copyrighted, so I'm not sure. For an event like that, it may be OK. Depending on the country, there could be performer's rights for both dancers and musicians. And the music could be an issue there too, unless known to be an old song. Video can really explode the possible complications, and can be different between countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the response. Sorry, I didn't link to the files I was referring to. Here they are.

File:Peterbilt_application_on_Microsoft_Surface.ogv and File:Bellagio fountain feature.ogv. The dance performance was in the U.S. I'll remove the audio just to be cautious. mahanga (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. doesn't really have performer's rights. Choreography is a possibility, but for something like that (especially where photography was encouraged) it's probably not worth enough to sweat it. The song could be an issue depending on who wrote it and when. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Reclaiming public domain images copied from Wikipedia

I have been an editor at Wikipedia for a few years who has uploaded a number of photos into the public domain. A while ago I noticed some of these were being copied to the commons and my original was deleted as a duplicate. Now that I have an account here is there any way to reclaim these under my commons username so my contributions and gallery are accurate. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe you can upload a new version of the files, and they will then show up in your gallery. What I don't know is whether you have to change a bit or two to get the new version to upload. Powers (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Just fix the name link in the "Author" field. There's no need to reupload anything. It doesn't really matter whether they appear in your upload log or not. --Latebird (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought Shiftchange was talking about the gallery feature. Powers (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

uncategorized japanese Symbols

I need some help, because I am not fluent in japanese :) - in the uncategorized files there are some symbols used in the japanese WP, see for instance: File:千葉県我孫子市市章.svg File:新潟県新発田市市章.svg File:神奈川県川崎市市章.svg File:群馬県前橋市市章.svg - can someone add an english description and categorize it? Best wishes Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are some people making template and upload form image links unclickable?

I don't see the point. It just makes accessing those images difficult if people want to learn more about those images, or if they want to use those images in other templates or outside the Commons. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide some examples to show what you mean? --Túrelio (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe he refers, for example, to the magnifying glass icon on MediaWiki:Uploadtext. On localized versions it's clickable. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
See this diff for MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fromflickr. People need the image icon links in order to research the images, and similar images in the same category. For example; that is what I did when adapting that table to other locations, and to wikia. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I strongly think that the icons in templates etc should not link to image's page but should link to something relevant to whatever the icon symbolizes. These images are not displayed in these contexts to give you access to the image, but to illustrate some function. The last thing most users want is to be weirdly taken off to a page describing the image when they are trying to use some feature or find out more about whatever the icon is illustrating. If there is nothing sensible to link to (eg it is just for decoration) then linking it to nothing (so clicking it has no effect) will mean the user will look for other links rather than being taken off on an unrelated path. Yes it makes it a bit more difficult to locate the image used but that is a rather secondary, 'backroom' use. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
In that particular example I would have put null links for the OK/NOT OK icons, and link the other CC type icons to the appropriate page (ie the page the corresponding text description links to). --Tony Wills (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
If someone designs templates, he knows how to edit the template to display the wiki-code and discover the filename of the image. Sv1xv (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure it is a good idea to get people in the habit of clicking images on Wikipedia or the Commons to get to guidelines, policies, help, navigation, and so on. This will confuse people. Clicking images should always go to image info in my opinion. The only exception should be links for images that are copyrighted by Wikimedia, and are not free images. Such as the Main Page icon image at the top left of every page.
People shouldn't have to hunt around for images to click in order to get help. So making some images not clickable as a path to making them clickable later for help is not a good idea. Please stop making images unclickable. I believe it causes more damage than good. All images should be clickable. The copyrighted images at the bottom and top of every page are linked to the Main Page, the Wikimedia Foundation, and Everyone knows of those.
Some of the best web site images are template and form images. People can use them everywhere, and not just on the Commons and Wikipedia. Sometimes people find even better images for templates and forms by clicking the existing images, and looking in the categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
It is bizarre to have images on help pages, info pages or templates go to information about the image and not related to the context in which the image is used. A users experience of practically every other website on the Internet teaches them to click on links and icons to find related information, or to go on to the next step. I agree that icons should be clickable and take you to predicable places, but they should take you to what they represent (eg license info) and not the image's info page. For the very, very few people who want to know about the image, I know it is annoying, but this is a minority use, not the objective of having them displayed there. There are many ways to find the image, right click on it and look at the alternate text/copy link location, or turn off auto loading images on your browser and reload the page to see the alternate text giving the filename, or look at the page source. If you need any help finding an image's source, just ask :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The most related information for an image is info about the image. 99.9% of the time that is what people get. Clicking images on the Commons in order to find guidelines, help, etc. is not natural, and would be a new policy, and would only confuse most users. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is the norm for wikimedia as we are all about the media, but icons are there for a utilitarian purpose not related to being an image that happens to be hosted on Commons, think of the images used as icons as part of the software, part of the user interface, part of the background. Context is important, when images are in galleries, categories, or being discussed on talk pages - anywhere that the context is about that image, it makes sense to link to info about the image. Other places it does not. Yes, until recently (the link= option is a recent addition) there was no choice about where the images linked to, whether it made sense or not. It may not be natural for people who are used to the strange behaviour of icons previously, but it is natural behaviour for the other 99% of the web universe that come here for the first time. I agree that because it is a recent change, that usage is inconsistent. I think there will be discussion, about whether a null link or a link to a particular page makes more sense, on a case by case basis. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, much of the web universe does not put links behind images at all. Oftentimes there is no logical pattern for image links, and what they link to, even on the same web site. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
One other consideration is that making them not link to the image page is probably a violation of the license (unless the image is PD). The author should be attributed, and on many projects it is felt to be enough to satisfy the license if clicking on the image went to the image page which had attribution and license info. But if we don't do that, or provide an alternate way... then we are not mentioning the author or license. File:Stop hand.svg is not PD, for example. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Having icons link to something else than the file description page is not unheard of even on Wikimedia. The star at the top of any en.wp Featured Article (example) links to en:Wikipedia:Featured Articles, not the star image. The globe at the top of a geo-located article (example) is a similar situation. These are actually licence violations, since File:Cscr-featured.svg and File:Erioll world.svg are not PD. I don't know whether this has ever been discussed on en.wp. Pruneautalk 13:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The reason why these images are unclickable is that a lot of people unwillingly click on these images, but they simply aren't meant to click on them, since they only illustrate something. Making them unclickable is for usability. Considering the license, I don't see an issue. I mean, the image is still under CC/GFDL or whatever, the license doesn't change if you make it clickable or not clickable. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
What about unclickable CC-BY or GFDL images (expecially when the author is not a Commons user himself)? I known that may sound a little absurd, but could we really say that Commons is giving proper attribution if no link is provided when using such images? I'm not trying to make a point, just wondering. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this is a potential issue. Images requiring attribution should always link to their description pages, because that's how we do attribution. Powers (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
If that's an issue, a solution could be a specific license exception for Commons (or for all Wikimedia projects) for what concerns attribution. The rights owner could grant it via a new license tag (but then it makes things difficult in case of derivative works). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Requiring the backlink would also make image maps much less useful. I think that as there is a clear advantage to usability to unlinking images (or linking them to pages other than the file page) we shouldn't get too worried about it.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Please see the image link incorporated into this image map: w:Template:PRC provinces big imagemap. I was recently asked by the author of an image to better attribute his image when I used it somewhere. So people do care. I think the minor advantage to usability in one area (unlinking the images) is matched by some more serious disadvantages: of attribution, and usability in other areas (reuse and category access). --Timeshifter (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In the case of images used in the interface, the usability of the interface is the critical usability issue: >99% of people viewing MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ownwork do so whilst uploading images. Any links not relevant to the purpose of that form make it harder to upload files. Access to categories (and the other issues you raised at the start of this thread) are insignificant behind-the-scenes issues compared to that: Anyone who needs to translate/copy a MediaWiki page can just look at the source, whilst the users of the interface may get confused/irritated etc by irrelevant links.
Attribution is a different issue, with wider implications than the uses discussed here (eg Template:Welcome doesn't link its images). Like some of the others above, I don't see a problem with this. Just because we "always" attribute by links to the file page doesn't mean that is the only way we can do so. For example, we could put a byline in the image's alt text. That way the distracting link is gone, but the people curious about the image can still get info about it.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Another possible way would be to do it similarly as on en.wikipedia with the "Cite this page" link (which is also available on any gallery here on Commons, for a reason that I didn't yet understand), but with a link that says "Reuse this page's images" which gives help to reuse images. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't thought about the attribution issue. I agree it needs to be addressed. Maybe we just have to be more selective about the images we use as part of the interface, or instead have a credit line on the page using them - a link to a page with links or credits for each image. Not only icons, but images used in the background may need credit links. Something automatically generated like the "media" link found on the "View page info" right click menu under Firefox browsers, there are a surprising number of media links for any given wikimedia page. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this is heading towards Bugzilla. For example, consider the MediaWiki logo. Who created it, what license is it under? How would we get that information into a wiki page? A special page listing the images used on w:Manchester Mummy would be genuinely useful especially if it could provide license details too. Perhaps Special:ImageCredits? Incidentally Special:Book (on WP) provides details of the images when producing PDFs.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Special:ImageCredits --Tony Wills (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Not a bad start, think I'd prefer a more verbose special page (with textual details of the files on it) as opposed to having to follow more links to get to that info.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I fundamentally disagree that having linked images is a "critical usability issue" for people uploading images. Nilfanion, you recently removed the image links on most of the upload pages. Others have been removing them from templates. All to solve a problem that doesn't exist in my opinion. And without discussion first. I notice that intuitive user interfaces are often made less intuitive over time by feature-creep. I am talking about features and complexity added over time by geeks like us who have forgotten the new user experience. I am talking about the web in general. Until recently, everyone using the Commons and Wikipedia knew that clicking an image took one to the image info. Simple, intuitive, and habit-forming. Clicking an image and arriving at the image info is not a problem! It does not confuse people who upload to the Commons. They quickly learn that clicking images takes one to the image info. To send them anywhere else is what would fundamentally mess things up, and confuse many people. Then people would not know where to look for help. Currently we all click labeled text links to get help. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say that "linked images" are a critical issue. I said that the critical purpose of the upload forms is to upload files. Anything that makes that harder is a bad thing. Links to help pages may assist uploaders, especially new ones who don't know what they are doing. Links to locations that are irrelevant to that purpose, such as image descriptions, are not helpful and can make it harder as its not that hard to accidentally follow those links. IMO no link is better than links of dubious value, whether that's to non-useful image pages or to useful help pages accessed in a unusual manner (I agree with you that 'counter-intuitive' links should be avoided). Any link on the interface should be there because it is helpful, not just a legacy from the (recent) past when we had to accept all images linking to the description page. Unlinking these images is simplfying the interface (the attribution problem is only issue that concerns me here).--Nilfanion (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I can confirm from my daily work with normal web users that linked icons are a critical usability issue. Web users are clicking on everything when they are not familiar with a website. Icons, which are linked to their file description are conufing the people heavily. The people expects by clicking on an icon to see more information about the image license of the image they are viewing (but not the license of the icon) or how to continue with uploading. But not an information that is useless at this time. Sure, they can hit the back button but it's waste of time. In other words: Bad usability.
At least the icons should be linked to the same page as the following text link. If this is not possible the icons should be delinked.
Please keep in mind that more than 95% of all users are readers only who are not interested in details how Commons works. In case of potential reusers of our copyrighted images we should make it as easy as possible to show the license info. Linked icons in the license templates are confusing as written above. The people are interested in the full license text and not in the icon's file description. Most used icons are PD or have not threshold of origin so it is not a copyright violation. Raymond 06:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I am taking this page off my watchlist. I already replied to all the points made. I see that some of my points are being ignored by some. The discussion is becoming more about taking sides, and less of a discussion. I have better things to do with my time. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The very active Wikipédia:Atelier accessibilité (Accessibility Workshop) on the french Wikipedia has made it very clear that « decorative images » should not link to description pages as it is a major accessibility issue. Since then, it has made one of its priority to convert them to CSS backgrounds or to properly link them using |link=. French-speakers can read the community decision here. The non-PD pictures are listed in fr:Wikipédia:Crédits graphiques, which is linked in the footer on every page. Jean-Fred (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think doing like on fr.wikipedia would be a great idea. This would solve the attribution problem and still make usability high. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


COM:AN. Please see:


I don't know what a village pump is please send me what it is

A village pump is a pump in a village. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The term is used here because it is a traditional gathering place. - Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Russian help needed

Hi. Can someone familiar with Russian browse the contributions of Жизель (talk · contribs)? Most or all images are from web sites and I cannot see the copyright there. Thanks! Wknight94 talk 02:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as images sourced from go, the site states "Коммерческое использование изображений каталога без согласования с авторами запрещено" ("Commercial utilisation of catalogue images without the agreement of the authors is prohibited"). Man vyi (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
However, it looks like most of the images are old enough to be almost certainly public domain, so the catalogue's "prohibition" may be copyfraud. This probably bears some looking into. - Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Vietnamese ebook

In December 2007 a user load up an ebook in vietnamese, for instance File:Chuong157.gif - and about 50 other pages. All uncategorized. What can be done with these files? Best wishes Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ick. If that one is representative, it is a) lacking any kind of proof of the license, and b) probably out of scope anyways -- pure text (even in .gif form) should not be uploaded here, but rather on projects like wikisource (if in fact the book is free). Usually scans of original documents are fine, but pure text like that not so much. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure, thanks, I will start a deletion request in the long run. I fear the uploader is long gone Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
There are pages with illustrations, eg File:Chuong152.gif, there appear to be 56 File:Chuongxxx.gif files --Tony Wills (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
These pages appear to be the same book as found here[1]. May not be the original source, but may give clues ("free" in the URL sounds hopeful :-). The site may be somewhat defunct. The page [2] was perhaps the home page. The site appears to be an internet service provider, maybe these are user files or free ebooks provided as a service. French and/or Vietnamese speakers might help here :-). --Tony Wills (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Also here [3], which has a note at the bottom "EYETECK.NET, Theo: Chương 15: Hiện tượng cảm ứng điện từ, Thông tin khoa Điện tử - Viễn thông, Trường Đại học Khoa học Tự nhiên TPHCM" which roughly translates as "Chapter 15: electromagnetic induction phenomenon, Electronic information science - Telecommunications, University of Natural Sciences HCMC" --Tony Wills (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
(and there was me thinking "chương" was someones name, whereas it seems to mean chapter ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe from this[4] university --Tony Wills (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

drawings for children - copyrights

There is a series of drawings (15 files) for children/teens about law-making in the US, example: File:Bill law begin.gif - they are used in a subpage in the english WP, two of them are in the process for regular deletion for copyright reasons, see the gallery: [5] - if two of them have no proper copyright, they should be treated all the same Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - I have not seen this. When will the discussion be closed? And what are proper categories (if not deleted)? Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


Wich is the copyright status for audio recordings of people saying something? Surely, interviews or quotes from radio or TV programs may be as copyrighted as screenshot images, but what about political speeches, government announces and other such talkings wich were not "published"? (meaning, not being recorded or generated specifically for some audiovisual media product). Can we consider them to be ineligible for copyright, or wait the usual terms? Belgrano (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If the words were written down beforehand (usual for political speeches), then the author owns a copyright there. If not, at least in the U.S., then I'm not sure there is any copyright in the words. There is a separate copyright in the recording itself, owned by whoever made it. In some countries, performer's rights may come into play (in the U.S., performer's rights I think are limited to permission to make the recording in the first place). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a complex area of the law, and a few cases come to mind. One involves Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Dr. King publicly performed his speech, and even provided written copies of it to the press to aid them in reporting the event (so that newspapers could go to press the same day the speech was delivered). He later registered the work with the U.S. copyright office as unpublished. CBS tried to claim the work should have been counted as having been published without a copyright notice. See w:Estate_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.,_Inc._v._CBS,_Inc.. While the case was settled so there is no binding precedent, intermediate court rulings make it plain that the copyright would have been upheld. See also w:Bootleg_recording#Laws_and_court_rulings where it is made plain that according to WIPO treaty and U.S. federal law, bootleg recordings are illegal, even if they are based on live performances where the performers are ad-libbing, that is performing material that they are inventing on the spot. In the case of politicians, you must confront this question: are they speaking as a government official (ie an official press release) or as a private individual (ie if you happen to catch a few words from a politician while he is doing his grocery shopping). This is further confused by the fact that U.S. law generally does not allow copyright in unfixed works. While it seems confusing, in my opinion (as especially given how cautious Commons usually is) it is a very simple matter. As Carl said, anything that is based on previously composed work would share the copyright of the previous work. As for work that is not previously fixed, Commons is extremely cautious, even deleting photos where for instance people are on stage talking and there is a projector set up to help the audience in the back see. Such a work is not fixed under U.S. law and would not seem to be copyrighted, but Commons deletes these photos nonetheless.
Which brings me to the second part of your question. Government works. Often this question is brought up in the context of re-using work from C-SPAN. See [6] for a breakdown of this. As Carl points out, it all depends on who owns the camera. If the U.S. government owns the camera, and is broadcasting federal employees doing their work, it's public domain. If C-SPAN owns the camera, then the recording is copyrighted by them. I know all I did was generate more questions but I hope I've pointed you in the right direction. -Nard the Bard 00:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
One thing to bear in mind is that the published/unpublished question, which was crucial to the King decision (which had been written down beforehand), is irrelevant for works first published/created after 1978 -- so for modern stuff it really doesn't matter. Fixation still does though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

contributions by user:misatur

all the contribution of this user seem to be out of scope , see - he has been told this two times (not from me), but he still is loading up new files, just now. What to do? Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

They have marked a good portion of them for deletion themselves, so they are probably listening. Perhaps a Spanish speaker could engage with them. Apart from the "upskirt" versions, I don't see why photos of skirts are out of scope (even if the model is not professional and probably male). To be more generally useful a better description would help (eg are these actual styles from when mini-skirts were first introduced, or just recent copies). --Tony Wills (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Alcoholic beverages

Hello. There is some cleaning to do behind the bar Smile, in the photographs in Category:Alcoholic beverages. Any help to categorize them will be appreciated. Thanks, Jack ma (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Book covers

If a book isn't itself in public domain, but it's cover is made with an image that is in public domain (such as an old portrait) and titles and subtitles in simple fonts, can it be scanned and uploaded, or would that be a copyright violation? Belgrano (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the country of origin. In many countries (however not in the USA) the publisher has exclusive rights for pagination and typesetting and the actual extend of these rights may vary. Sv1xv (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Really? I thought that copyright requires the work to break the threshold of originality in almost all countries. Surely that is not the case with a couple of words set in a standard font on top of a public domain image? -- JovanCormac 15:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I know there's a type of typesetting copyright at least in the UK, where if you print a copy of Gulliver's Travels, with the exact text of an 1850 edition, no one can make an exact copy of your printing, even if you just dumped the text on the page. They'd have to retypeset it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
That's what I thought: At least in the UK. AFAIK, the UK with its "sweat of the brow" doctrine is just about the only country where originality is not a requirement for copyright. So the claim of "many countries" is almost certainly exaggerated Smile -- JovanCormac 07:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, "originality" is their criteria, or maybe "skill and labour". I think it is often interpreted not really to mean "creative", but more along the lines of "not seen before" -- it is that interpretation which causes at least one scholar to speculate that signatures may be copyrightable there. The typesetting right is only 25 years I think, technically different than copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
There is some originality in the typesetting of the cover, which may or may not be eligible for copyright, but it's best to remove the typesetting using image editing - we can help you with that if necessary, just leave a message for me or at the Commons:Graphic lab. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Japanese culture and tangled categories

I need some help disentangling a few categories. I don't see exactly how this should work out, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. If there is a more appropriate forum, I'd be glad to move the discussion there.

We have, appropriately, two different categories Category:Culture of Japan (for cultural things that are geographically in Japan) and Category:Japanese culture (for things that would generally be considered culturally Japanese, regardless of where in the world they take place). So, for example, a Japanese festival in Seattle should be under Category:Japanese culture, but not Category:Culture of Japan; a Western-style symphony in Japan should be under Category:Culture of Japan but not Category:Japanese culture.

In principle, great. In practice, this has not been followed well. So under Category:Culture of Japan we have Category:Traditional dance of Japan and under Category:Japanese culture we have Category:Folk dance of Japan. Now, I would imagine that "folk dance" should be a subcat of "traditional dance" (not everything traditional is "folk": for example, it might specifically be courtly). But none of the images in Category:Folk dance of Japan were taken in Japan, so they don't belong indirectly under Category:Culture of Japan. Further, many of the images in Category:Traditional dance of Japan were not taken in Japan, and it has an entire subcategory Category:Bon odori (the dances associated with the Bon festival) which I'd expect belongs under Category:Japanese culture, not Category:Culture of Japan. Yet further, Category:Seattle Bon Odori, which I carefully didn't place under Category:Bon odori (because despite its name it is a general Bon festival, not something specific to the dance) was nonetheless added by someone else to that category. Oh, and to complicate things further, there is a Category:Festivals of Japan outside Japan that is, paradoxically, under Category:Culture of Japan but not under Category:Japanese culture, which is precisely backward, as far as I can see.

I'm sure there are many further examples of this mess. As I say, I don't have a specific suggestion to fix this, but at this point it is an utter mess, and ideas would be welcome. Perhaps this has been more successfully worked through for other countries, and there is an approach that should be imitated? - Jmabel ! talk 06:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is an illusion that you can maintain two separate categories Category:Culture of Japan (for cultural things that are geographically in Japan) and Category:Japanese culture (for outside Japan) with such subtle differences, properly categorised. Moreover, many (if not most) internal aspects will eventually link to the international items. --Foroa (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
So would you suggest merging Category Japanese culture into Category:Culture of Japan and having it cover both what is geographically in Japan and what is culturally Japanese? That leads me to maybe a different suggestion:
Any objections? Do I need to bring this to Commons:Categories for discussion first? I'd rather not, because that process can take months. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that a {{rename|Culture of Japan abroad|reason:less confusing name}} on Category:Japanese culture might be quicker (and less intrusive than merging) and more efficient. Once it is renamed, you can clean it up and arrange it properly. --Foroa (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
No, that would do little or nothing about the mess. As I say, the problem I am trying to address includes the fact that most of what is in Category:Japanese culture is about things inside Japan. I think it would be better to get it all into one place—Category:Culture of Japan—then start identifying what is outside Japan. Or, possibly, do it in the opposite order: first build Category:Culture of Japan abroad and its subcategories (under Category:Culture of Japan), then merge Category:Japanese culture into Category:Culture of Japan, because in practice there has been little distinction made, whatever the theory. - Jmabel ! talk 03:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I know, but after creating the new category, I can merge it as the old name "Japanese culture" makes no sense anymore. --Foroa (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion also the two cats Category:Culture of Japan and Category:Japanese culture are way to similiar and should be merged. I am fine with an additional subcat of Japanese culture outside of Japan or similar. BTW, thanks to Jmabel for dropping me a note. -- Chris 73 (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Revised image not reflect to article

The height of en:Tokyo Sky Tree is altered to 634m from 610m in design and in under construction. The image file File:Tokyo Sky Tree - Silhouette & Cross section.jpg is up dated to 634m [7]. This update image, however not reflected to article such as en:Tokyo Sky Tree, ja:東京スカイツリー and other articles. Can anyone help, or remedy the trouble.--Namazu-tron (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see en:Wikipedia:Purge. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

November 4

changed data

Here is a file, where the foto was changed from a cathedral in Mexico to a cave... File:Catedral.jpg - I am to new to look through. Can it be reverted to give some sensemaking data? Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverted the image. If you don't see it now, please clear your browser cache. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
And for the ones interested in the cave photo, see File:Catedral de Las Güixas.jpg. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Ianezz and Turelio for the prompt corrections Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
However, I fear this nice cave photo wasn't shot by the uploader and will likely have to go. --Túrelio (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Found larger version here. Uploader seems to have taken the thumbnail on Flickr. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Tagged it accordingly. --Túrelio (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Privacy of people

Something is wrong when Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donauradweg.jpg ends in deletion of a very innocent image of practically unrecognizable cyclists, while Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burning Man 228 (241613953) crop.jpg is kept. In both cases the uploader was requested by subjects to remove the image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it just illustrates that it's different from one country to another. -- User:Docu at 12:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, something is wrong.... lets fix it! Lets make it mandatory to delete any file whenever anyone requests it. What? No? Ok, lets NEVER delete ANY photo when someone requests it. No? That doesn't work either? Drats! I guess we gotta judge this on a case-by-case basis then. --J.smith (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
@Pieter, though I wasn't involved in "Burning Man" case, I somehow fear that such decisions are too often based on a "that's your or the photographer's problem" attitude, that in the end is very bad for Commons. As I wrote in the rfd for the "Donauradweg" image, that per se would have posed likely no problem as of our written policies, that we can stubbornly stick to our principles and at the same time (sort of) spit in the contributors face, which will result in a far bigger damage to Commons than the deletion could ever have done. However, in the "Burning Man" case, the situation seems to be more complicated as the images are still available on Flickr which is strange if the claimed restrictions are true. --Túrelio (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe the one image which the photographer asked to be removed when he/she re-opened the nomination (not any of the others listed there) has indeed been removed from Flickr (as the photograph's subject also asked to have it removed). That was a tangled DR; lots of wide-reaching claims were made (such as all of Burning Man is a private place thus all photos must be removed) and a lot of people were reacting to that. I did argue several times though that the one, specific, re-opened image was a good case for removal though -- it was a CC-BY licensed Flickr image which someone else uploaded (perfectly fine), but the photographer and subject asked to have it removed, which I felt was a reasonable request -- but there were lots of unreasonable other arguments thrown in there. This thing is always a case-by-case situation, and since different admins always close, there will always be somewhat different decisions made. I felt the harm caused by the photo far outweighed its educational value, but some may disagree. Between the two, it does seem like the Burning Man one had better reasons for removal, but... there you go. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Donauradweg was a fairly easy request nominated by the uploader. The Burning Man 228 request was nominated by an IP claiming to be the photographer, and was twisted up with the whole Burning Man mess. I didn't ask for D. to be deleted because of privacy; I asked for it to be deleted because it would make it easier for the contributor and there was no real need to keep it. I would have deleted the BM 228 picture on privacy rounds, but I see them as distinct cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's another case where the call wasn't listened even if another better picture was proposed in exchange of the deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:YJacques.jpg. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, "proposed" pictures don't inspire me. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Upload the new picture, and I'd be much happier to agree to deletion of the older picture.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
OK. I'll see if he agrees to give the picture even without the deletion or promise of deletion of the other picture. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Now a photo of a semi-professional model was deleted minutes after a kind of order from the Office... why does nobody delete the photo of the dancing woman at Burning Man? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerns: my three uploaded paintings/subcategory:Painters by country/PainTers from LUXEMBOURG/WIKIMEDIA COMMONS..


I saw the represention concerning my file in the subcategory:painters by country-painters from Luxembourg and I have the pleasure to announce you that I am very glade. However, I have to declare that the three uploaded and represented paintings are my own works and I still am the owner of these works.Indeed, concerning the painting named:Wintry symphony I committed a mistake that has to be redressed knowing that this painting as well as the other both had never been presented elsewhere other.Concerning the field:PERMISSION I marked sometimes "none".Or,being the owner I could mark:PERMISSION: LINKELS Josy"JOLI" and/or see below "licence attributed".How could these items be redressed?-When could links to other wikis be created —Preceding unsigned comment added by LINKELS Josy (talk • contribs) 19:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2

Category:Titanic Engineers' Memorial, Southampton

It was sculpted by Thomas Sharp from London. Anyone here who finds his livedates and his lemma, because there are some more Thomas Sharps around. Thanks 20:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Thomas Sharp made the sculpture of Viscount Palmerston elsewhere in Southampton, which was erected in 1869. I found a reference to him being a "Royal Academy Silver Medallist" in 1830, and living at 27 Cartwright Gardens from 1859-61[8]. No idea about birth/death dates, and was not able to find who made the Titanic Engineer's Memorial, which was unveiled in 1914. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Clindberg, thanks. I have found an official site of Southhampton [9]. It claims: It was designed by Messrs. Whitehead & Son. Should it be categorized as Category:Whitehead & Son or is a more exact author possible? Regards Mutter Erde 10:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
That is a pretty generic name; there have been lots of Whitehead & Son companies over the years (google finds a ton). I could see putting it in the category description page, and mentioning it in the image pages, but beyond that it doesn't seem like anything else should be done unless more defining information on that company is found. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Clindberg, what do you think about Category:Joseph Whitehead (sculptor) as here in en:Horse Memorial or Category:Joseph Whitehead & Sons for the whole family? This would be no longer generic, or? Regards, Mutter Erde 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

November 3

Issue of deletion for Files used cross projects

[I am not sure of the exact place to start the discussion, so I will start it here, and watch for recommendations of a more appropriate forum]

I am an admin at Wikisource, and we encourage files to be stored at Commons. There is an issue where files that we use at enWS are deleted here, and as a site we have no indication that it is going to occur. Generally this will be images that are taken from .djvu files that are already on Commons. At the moment the only means to know if something has happened is to watch the logs and see where s:User:CommonsDelinker notifies. So then we have to come over here, address the admin who has deleted, ask for it back, and then go through a series of fixes. This is all VERY REACTIVE, and there surely is a better way. [Note that I am not talking about my personal responsibility, I am looking for a whole of wiki approach]

Suggestion for a pro-active approach. I would have thought that it was possible for there to be a means where files that are used on other wikis, and have been nominated / listed for deletion (here) are able to be listed on a file on the wiki of interest (first choice) or otherwise on a specific and respective page here (second choice). My reasoning is that I would have thought that systemically it is easy for a bot to identify a file when it is nominated, and if it is being used on our family of wikis to then make some sort of notification/listing. That would then enable each wiki to have the responsibility for knowing that its files here are at risk, and pushes the p+ve responsibility to those wikis to manage their assets.

Really happy to hear opinions, though do feel that it is high time that we look to an innovative solution, rather than having to run around and apply a treatment after the fact. As the supposed guardian of the files, I feel that Commons needs to be part of the solution. Thx. Billinghurst (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that this is what the Commons Ticker used to do. I'm not sure why that stopped operating (I wasn't around when it went offline), but it did exactly what your request is for. I'm not sure if the ticker can be revived easily or whether we should start from square 1. From the perspective of Commons, I certainly agree that something should be done - I'd much rather editors on other projects get notified of problems and fix them, without waiting for CommonsDelinker to "notify" by removing the deleted image.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea, what Commons Ticker used to do. I agree with Billinghurst in that something should be done, however, I'm not sure how a bot works much less how to get an interproject bot to work. Killiondude (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Overwrite or switch?

There are used many maps as File:Treaty of Lisbon ratification.svg and many other maps or diagrams. I think, it is no good idea to overwrite old versions. The older versions should remain usable for illustrate of progress. I think, for switch of images, we can use only one switch-redirect, not overwriting of the old images. What's your opinion? Can somebody bring in some solutions (suitable switch templates) and positive examples? --ŠJů (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The current file history of that map resembles one of an article in Wikipedia.
If a minor error of the initial version is fixed, I think it could be overwritten. If it's update for a given date of reference, a new filename should be chosen. In any case, the map should be renamed to include a date of reference. -- User:Docu at 02:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I think all these maps should be deleted; they are completely useless today. Progress can't be illustrated usefully unless it's a GIF animation, which none of them is. No information on the history of the ratification progress will be lost, since e.g. the article called Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon contains all the vital dates in its table. - Ssolbergj (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Choosing a new filename is a bad idea as that would mean updating the file name in all projects using this image. If you want to have versions with timestamp, you can copy them from the version history, but the main map should always be overwritten so that the current status is displayed. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
This assumes that the most recent uploader went through all articles using the image and updated the descriptions. Obviously, this is not the case as not even the file description page was updated. Currently, the present version of the image is incorrectly used in some articles and wikinews articles can't be updated to fix it. -- User:Docu at 17:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

GIF animations are very little suitable for articles. Such articles cannot be printed completely, an user cannot bring a specific stage to a stop and look it etc. A deleting of old images is extra-bad idea. Do we have to delete images from 19-th century as soon as we get some actual image of the same place? It's a nonsense. The history exists for ever, it don't disappear. There are many articles, news etc. which may need only some chosen stage(s) to accent. The last version displays only area of the EU, it says no more anything about the ratification process of one specific treaty. The basic principle of Commons is that many files should be assembled here and users can choose whichever of them, not that we choose instead of them. --ŠJů (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There exists absolutely simple way how treatment actualization of all wikiproject-pages which use a given image. We can use a permanent name of redirect-page in all articles through all projects. Afterwards there suffices only to change a direction-name at this one redirect-page (see an example) and all concerned articles will change without editing of their source codes. The only problem remains that a cache management is very slow and unreliable here but the same problem concerns the overwrited files as well.

What about change File:Treaty of Lisbon ratification.svg to a pure redirect which links to name of actual version of the map (e. g. File:Treaty of Lisbon ratification-2009-09-23.svg) and the link can be changed to File:Treaty of Lisbon ratification-2009-09-27.svg etc.? (File:Treaty of Lisbon ratification-2009-23-09.svg exists allerady.) --ŠJů (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Old newspapers first published in the USA

Hello you all!

I have found this image on Commons [10], that is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1963 with a copyright notice, and its copyright was not renewed. Well, I plan then to upload some images of the Sputnik satellite [11] that were released in US newspapers in 1957. This might be the same case as it is in my example stated above, isn't it? Michael 09:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Who created the Sputnik images? Where they first published in the USA? More information is required to decide if they can be published. Sv1xv (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
If image was originated/first published in Soviet Union, USA law is irrelevant in this case. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Many U.S. newspapers did not renew copyrights for a while; you can see more specific information here and here. As noted above though, that would only be for pictures first published in the United States; for pictures first published in foreign countries, we would follow those laws. Presumably the Sputnik pictures were first published in the Soviet Union, so the U.S. renewal rules are irrelevant. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Scan of old photograph from a new book?

I was wondering if it's ok to scan a 1912 photograph that was published in a book that came out in 1996? mahanga (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends. If the 1996 book was the first publishing of the work, which has not been previously published at all, the publisher would receive (in the EU, at least) a so-called publication right, which is practically a shortened version of copyright. However, if the photograph has been published before, then the publication date of the book you use as a source does not matter much. In that case, the only relevant thing is the copyright status of the original photograph itself (which might be PD-US, PD-Old, but also it can be still copyrighted, e.g. if first published in Europe, and its author died later than 1938). --Mormegil (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
If the photo was already in public domain, it does not receive new copyright just by being republished by someone else. In fact, it means precisely that anyone is free to do whatever they want with the image, including using it in a book. We only need the original photo to have been published before 1923, or whatever the corresponding national law sets, but it's not required from us to get a copy of that 1912 newspaper and scan it Belgrano (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Unknown publication dates

There are some licence tags where the author (and his date of death) is not the key point to determine if it is or not public domain, but the publication date. For example, {{PD-1923}}, {{Anonymous-EU}}, {{PD-Algeria}}, {{PD-AR-Photo}}, {{PD-Brazil-media}}, {{PD-India}} among others. Ideally, one should upload the image stating such first publication. But what if the image, despite being reused, has an unknown origin (or at least unknown for the uploader) but even so it can be reasoned that it was made within the time period required? For example, if a photo in a given country needs to have been published X years ago, then a press photo of a person in that country that died more than X years ago would be PD regardless of wherever it was published. Similar reasons could be provided for photos of certain events or under certain circumstances that only took place within a determined time frame that fits completely in the PD side (for example, a music band that was active only from A to B years).

It may be replied that, even if a photo has all the typical traits of a press photo (profesional design, signs of printing, place or circumstances beyond common people to be) someone could have produced the work, keep it in a closet, and only recently publish it. But is that a real possibily, or an exaggerated one? Belgrano (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a possibility, but it happens infrequently. I recently took possession of a 1931 anonymous and unpublished photo and I uploaded it on Flickr, so theoretically I have a 25 year publisher's right according to greek copyright laws. Usually it happens when a library acquires an estate with unpublished old photos and documents and starts publishing them. Generally I believe that this particular risk of copyright violation is exagerated on Commons. Sv1xv (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
What I said to Belgrano in Commons:Café (in Spanish) about this issue in a discussion started by user Ferbr1 is that not all pictures taken from press photographers are finally printed in the newspaper (there are space concerns). So we do not know whether the pictures he uploaded to Commons from the website (and finally erased by himself) are really scanned from a newspaper, book or other publication if he does not cite the source. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC) (I edited this paragraph in order to clarify the issues).
Whatever discussions (and feuds) you had with User:Belgrano on another page are not relevant to a general question about possible copyright issues of unpublished old images. Sv1xv (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the "it was never published" hypotetic scenario is that, if such case was true, how would they have arrived to massive internet distribution otherwise? And consider for example this image: if it was never published, how is it that it shows so clear halftoning? Belgrano (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Each particular case is different. The uploader should try to sort it out and must provide some evidence (or at least some pointers) about the date of first publication. BTW, it was a very impolite action by you and by User:Alpertron to start a general discussion here and ask the opinions of other editors, when your actual intention is to lure them to your feud. Sv1xv (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I bringed the topic here because I understood that the issue is bigger than originally stated, involving many licence templates and not just 1. I mentioned that photo as a mere example of question I'm making: if all realistic analisis (death of the portrayed people, circumstances unreachable for casual photographers, print characteristics, etc.) all point it to be a press photo within the time period needed for it to be public domain, is it needed to find the exact source? Any other example would do: if the one of Peron raises any problem, consider for example a photo of Roosevelt in the white house with government ministers tagged with 1923. Belgrano (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
In this case, instead of posting a general question, you should have stated the actual problem and listed the pictures with uncertain date of publication. Sv1xv (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Transclusion of deletion lists

What is going on with Commons:Deletion requests/2009/09 and some of the other months with open deletion debates? Some of the days for the latter half of the month are not being transcluded. SpinningSpark 21:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we're hitting parser limits:
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor node count: 33733/1000000
Post-expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes <-------
Template argument size: 278514/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 1/500
Multichill (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Can I suggest in that case that they are transcluded in weekly lists instead of monthly lists so that this does not happen. By the way, it looks like you do not have nearly enough admins to deal with this backlog - it goes back many months. SpinningSpark 08:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

November 5

Sidebar help

I've tried asking on the sidebar discussion page, but received no help. I've been trying to find information on translating the sidebar dependent on the user's default language but can't find any decent information. All people ever say is use "$wgForceUIMsgAsContentMsg" which means absolutely nothing for me and other people who are not experts. Where can I get more information on making my own wiki behave the way this wiki does. For example I want my wiki to have a Korean sidebar if someone changes their default language to Korean as well as automatically trying to find a Korean version of the page and linking that page first, otherwise just going to the English page. For example "Welcome" gets changed to "환영합니다" on the sidebar and links to Commons:환영합니다. Help would be greatly appreciated. --Bluesoju (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, as they said… You need to add a line setting $wgForceUIMsgAsContentMsg into the LocalSettings.php file in your wiki installation. See the linked documentation at On Commons, we use
$wgForceUIMsgAsContentMsg = array(
        // Sidebar
        'village pump-url',

        // Other
        'helppage', #
--Mormegil (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I have seen the linked documentation but it's not really specific. I for example want to know how does it fetch the text for "Village pump" in other languages like Korean and Japanese, where are those strings exactly stored for each language? For example Village pump is "사랑방" in Korean (with link to Commons:사랑방) and 井戸端 (with link to Commons:井戸端) in Japanese. Where are these titles and urls set for each language? Thanks --Bluesoju (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
That is exactly the contents of the MediaWiki:Sidebar definition. It could contain e.g.
   * mainpage|mainpage-description
Which means there would be a heading defined at MediaWiki:Navigation(possibly with /en), and below it, link defined by MediaWiki:Mainpage(/en), which has caption defined in MediaWiki:Mainpage-description(/en). --Mormegil (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Your information is leading me in the right direction, and I think i'm getting a hold of it. Thank you for your help so far. One thing though, MediaWiki:Navigation and MediaWiki:Mainpage are deleted and says it is no longer required. I also saw the same while looking at: where is the sitesupport-url being redirected from for each language says there is no longer a page there? --Bluesoju (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Just ignore the deletion log shown there. Pages in the MediaWiki: namespace are only a way to override built-in message text. If the page in the MediaWiki: namespace would be equal to the built-in text, there is no need to keep it, so it has been deleted, but the functionality is still the same, no matter if the text comes from the built-in translation, or from a page in the MediaWiki: namespace. --Mormegil (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I've also just come across the fact I don't even need to use $wgForceUIMsgAsContentMsg(I guess I do need it to go to the proper url after all), instead I just go to MediaWiki:Portal/ko[12], MediaWiki:Sitesupport/ko[13] (and so on) to change the contents on the sidebar. Also works for custom things, i.e. on my wiki I have "Grammar" on my sidebar, so I went and created MediaWiki:Grammar/ko and changed it and it works like a champ. --Bluesoju (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Normally, the left-hand part of MediaWiki:Sidebar, i.e. the definition of the link target, is taken always from the wiki language (e.g. English here on Commons), no matter what the user specified as his/her preferred language (while the right-hand part, i.e. the definition of the link text, is displayed in the user language). $wgForceUIMsgAsContentMsg allows you to use user’s preferred language even for the link targets. Specific example: On the English Wikipedia, the first sidebar definition item is “mainpage|mainpage-description”. Even though en:MediaWiki:Mainpage/ko is “대문”, the Main Page link leads to the English “Main Page” (defined in en:MediaWiki:Mainpage) even for Korean users. However, here on Commons, Mainpage is listed in $wgForceUIMsgAsContentMsg, so that even the link target depends on user language, and we have many Main Page versions.
P.S. Note there is some detailed information at mw:Manual:Interface/Sidebar. --Mormegil (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

1945 World War 2 Photo

I have a photo of my dad, William Bee Ravenel III, that was taken in Germany at the close of WW2. I know the German photographer's name, but I'm unable to discover anything about him. I have the only copy of this photo. What is the proper way for me to file attribution for uploading?Vermont Ferret (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

According to this it's not in the public domain, thus can't be uploaded without permission of the photographer. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
If it is a portrait commissioned your father, I would assume that your father also had acquired the copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily - most, if not all, professional photographers - in the States at least - reserve the copyright to the photo (to ensure you order your reprints/Christmas cards from them). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Limits of the PD-Art tag

I know that the {{PD-Art}} license is restricted to two dimensional works, excluding "anything that could cast a shadow." But where precisely is that line drawn? Specifically, I would like to upload an image of a portion of this—not the bas-relief, just the etched-and-painted section at the top. I think there are Rembrandts that cast more shadows than those etchings, but as this probably counts as sculpture rather than painting I want to be certain. A. Parrot (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Etched or not, I'd say those are two-dimensional. Powers (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The etchings at the top are most likely okay. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

November 6

invitation to category:Collaborative work

Dear friends;

I kindly invite you to participate at the development of a new game at category:Collaborative work. Please take a look at the related talk page. You might be interested on some card tricks. Just look at Medias (examples). Best regards
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 11:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


File:Clean.JPG (NSFW!) is the first hit for the search term "clean". I'm unconvinced that this is ideal. Perhaps it could be renamed to something more specific, at least. Rd232 (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved, thanks. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

November 7

Are plaques under FOP?

I've managed to get user pvsbond to take pics of all plaques on the Phillies wall of fame. He has released them as cc-by-sa on this set. Would these photographs be considered copyvios or are they allowed on commons ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The files are allowed on commons as per Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses. Just remember to follow the Flickr files guidelines and that CC-BY-SA on Flickr is {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. The plaques may be trademarked and as such all files should be marked with {{Trademarked}}. --Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 12:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I forgot that "17 USC 120 applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures." so i retract my previous statement. --Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 13:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
No, there is no COM:FOP#United States. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Not without permission by the sculptor and eventually by the person who wrote the corresponding text. --Túrelio (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like splitting hairs. I can not imagine someone claiming copyrights to a plaque in a public place or a text on it. --Jarekt (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I can. The Hall of Fame might not approve. But you can always ask them. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
@Jarekt, what do you think why is this image only available under fair-use? It's also on a public place. --Túrelio (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Media from

I have come upon a couple of media, that specifies as a source: Coat of arms of Grude.gif, Genomma logo.jpg and Q8 logo.jpg. Having looked at I'm very much in doubt if is an allowed source. The title of (in <title>-header) is: - Logo Vector Download Free (Brand Logos) (AI, EPS, CDR, PDF, GIF), but I'm having trouble finding other statements regarding this. Actually the only information I can find is on in the Copyright-section, which really doesn't provide an answer. All pages are however marked with Copyright 2008 © SeekLogo.Com in the bottom. I'm inclined to mark the three mentioned media-files with {{Copyvio}} as I suspect that their term "free" is a matter of availability, and not licensing information and that the term only applies to the vector-files and not the raster-versions generated by Any thought would be much appreciated. --Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 11:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that Q8 logo.jpg qualifies for {{PD-ineligible}} at all: there's the choice of colors and the peculiar way the striped sails intersecate. Same for Genomma logo.jpg, where the letter "G" is deformed to look like a piece of the DNA helix. I don't know if {{PD-Yugoslavia}} can also apply to coat of arms (are they considered "official texts"?). I'd say that most of what's on seems to be copyrightable as well, so I'd avoid it as a source of media for Commons (it may come handy for wikis where fair use is allowed, though). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Based on this I have deleted the three files as copyright violations. Only if has obtained permission to publish the logos under a free license or they qualify as PD-ineligible it can be allowed on Wikimedia Commons. As they do not prove any permission for a free license only PD-ineligible should be okay. --|EPO| da: 18:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Can anybody help me please? I recently bought an oil painting, "westphalian mill" by andreas achenbach... how can I find out whether it's an old/good/original? Or a later reproduction? I know this random, but the only place I could find reference to it in image form was on Wikimedia! Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Red in Hull, UK.

Considering that the scan we have File:Andreas Achenbach - Westphalian Mill.JPG says the painting is at en:Museum der bildenden Künste, then contacting them to see if they still have the original would be the first step to see if you have the original. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

November 8

SVG versions for many Pearson Scott Foresman line drawing files already available!

Users at the Open Clip Art Library have created many SVG versions of line drawing files by Pearson Scott Foresman here. They should be uploaded with the DerivativeFX tool, and the raster version tagged with Template:SupersededSVG. File:Catfish (PSF).svg is one file I have uploaded so far; use it as a basis for formatting new SVG upload filepages. --Siddharth Patil (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

List of uploaded SVGs

Here is the list of all uploaded SVGs so far. --Siddharth Patil (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Flag of Afganistan?

Is that a joke, error, or a real flag? --Jarekt (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

According to it appears the Taliban did use an all-white flag for a year. So, not an error. Not sure if counts as a flag of Afghanistan though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
According to w:History_of_Afghanistan_since_1992, the Taliban declared themselves the government of Afghanistan in 1996 (and controlled enough that it wasn't an absurd claim) and was recognized as such by Pakistan in 1997.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It's a duplicate of File:Flag of Afghanistan 1996-1997.png - although ,strictly, not an exact duplicate, I think we could make an exception in this case ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
We also have File:Flag of Afghanistan 1996-1997.svg which, of course, scales much better ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
405 B? Surely one of our SVG hyper-optimisers can do better than that! :-) Lankiveil (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC).

Duplicated LangSelect script

Do we really need separate MediaWiki:Common.js/LangSelect.js and MediaWiki:Multilingual description.js? They are not exactly identical, but the differences are really small… --Mormegil (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to suggest the necessary fixes. -- User:Docu at 14:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

When is it proper to speedy delete or speedy close a DR?

We have a rule that a DR should be open for 7 days unless they are very clear. If it is disputed then it will often stay open for a longer time. Yesterday a DR was closed as a speedy because closing admin wanted the image deleted. I have made an undeletion request here Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Bonnie_SG.jpg objecting against closing it as a speedy. To my surprise it seems that others agree we can close as a speedy. I would like to hear other opinions about this matter since I feel it is bad if we start speedying just to "win". --MGA73 (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there was no hurry at all, as the image is still on a free license on Flckr. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It was speedied on the basis of the person in the picture would rather we didn't use it. We have other similar pictures - deleting the image was no real loss to us, and made the subject happy. I see no issue. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Among other things, it wasn't so speedy - it was three days, not counting several more days in discussions elsewhere. But this was simply the right thing to do. If you read all relevant discussion, this woman didn't realize that the naked picture of herself was going to be offered freely - either here or on Flickr. She asked nicely and was clearly on the verge of getting upset. Have some empathy. When she asked the owner of the photograph to remove it from Flickr, they did so (without hesitation I assume), and they had more reason to leave it up than we do. This was an "ignore all rules" case. Wknight94 talk 16:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
False information: it is still on Flickr. She is also showing skin on her facebook pages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Shouldn't it of just been tagged with {{Personality rights}} and NOT deleted? The license is clearly compatible with Commons, but since we don't possess the actual model release we'd have to tag it Personality rights. The setup is clearly a photo shoot and consent is clearly implied. So it's VERY hard to argue she didn't know she was being photographed. I see absolutely no reason to delete this image based on the model not wishing it to be used on Wikipedia, when the copyright holder has released it and shes consented to be photographed by the copyright holder. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Common decency? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the model of thought of that before she took off her clothes for a photo shoot? — raeky (talk | edits) 16:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
@mattbuck The undeletion request was now closed. Whats next then if I still think the process is wrong? A desysop? Why the rush killing discussion? --MGA73 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The rush is that common decency is taking precedence, so the outcome is already determined. Wknight94 talk 17:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Similar requests ended in a keep so outcome was not determinated. If you think we should always delete when subject or photographer request it should be inserted in DR-policy. --MGA73 (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
There seemed to be no one but you arguing for undelete, even those who said keep in the original DR were saying don't undelete. I'm not trying to cut off discussion, I'm quite happy for discussion here to continue, but that UDEL had just degenerated into a load of hyperbole, and going nowhere fast. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
By closing it less than 24 hours after it was opened you didn't give anyone the opportunity to voice their opinion on undeleteing it. I call foul here. Bad admin behavior. — raeky (talk | edits) 19:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I have just reviewed the entire OTRS mail correspondence and I don't see any lawful argument for removing the media from Commons. The media was released under CC-BY-SA in good terms and as such it can be used on Commons. In this case I think that the media should have been a regulard DR and not a speedy, but the UDR is there for catching these cases, so I don't think that's much of a problem. I think that the UDR-process was to quickly closed (<24h) and that posses the biggest problem in this issue, but that is another discussion. --Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 19:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "lawful argument". I think the project was within its rights to keep the image, but I also think the project was within its rights to remove it. Under the circumstances removing it was the right thing to do, it showed kindness and consideration. Whether it should have been done early or not is a different matter. But talk of desysopping is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
By "lawful argument" I simply am referring to the fact, that Commons had every legal argument for keeping the media, and thus was not forced to remove it (by law). By the same terms Commons had all legal grounds for removing it as well (as you also states). That said I'm really not that fond of speedy deleting media based on 'kindness and consideration' as these are subjective values (as is the earlier mentioned 'common decency') and in particular see a problem in quick-concluding on UDR's. I don't think this is as much a matter regarding this specific media (no loss there), as is the general debate regarding admin-behaviour. Any sort of punishing talk (like desysoping) isn't helpful in any aspects, but in my beliefs there is an power-abuse-problem in this case. --Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 19:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
While I understand the need for proper process, I don't think it's a big deal in this case. As far as I can tell, deleting it early was more beneficial than it was detrimental. We didn't suffer a terrible loss with the removal of this image, so I suggest we all move on. (I'd also like to note that suggesting that a desysop is necessary isn't particularly productive.) –Juliancolton | Talk 19:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

To the larger question that the section heading poses, the answer is no, we should not allow admins to speedy things to get the result they wish for. However if, in the general case, if something is for example clearly a copyvio or clearly something that is egregiously violating policy, a speedy is appropriate, even if local consensus (that is, the folk who happened to turn up at that DR) says differently. Consensus doesn't trump everything. ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how violating policy (consensus) to delete something "egregiously violating policy" is either logical or correct. "Concensus" as defined only by some admins is not concensus at all. Unfortunately most of our policies contradict each other, so this is a pointless statement, weeee! ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Problem is that for some it is a clear case of delete and for others it is a clear case of keep. That is why we have deletion requests for cases that is not speedy. A similar DR for Burning Man was discussed for several weeks and ended with a keep. The DR here was speedied and the undeletion was speedied so how are we ever gonna get a discussion?
As for desysop I agree that it is a bad solution. I told admin several times to be carefull but he continued to speedy. So I opend this undelete request 1) to get a proper discussion of this file and 2) to get support for a clear signal that speedy is not a good idea. But that was denied so thats why I asked how else I should get user to understand that speedy is a bad idea unless it is copyvio etc.? I got the inspiration from an other undeletion request with same admin here where one of the comments was "Deleter should be desysopped, depending on follow-up". Please note that it can take many days for other users to comment so I do not agree that just because no comments was made within 18hrs then no "undelete" comments would ever come. --MGA73 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
You are the one who closed Commons:Deletion requests/Dancer dressed only in butterfly wings within an hour... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Correct. It has been discussed twice and has been open for several weeks both times. You can't keep nominating just to get the result you want. --MGA73 (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Plus the topic of that image was HEAVILY discussed here and the consensus was clearly keep. Photographer and model both wanted it removed, we kept. Plus the sticky legal issues of the event it's self trying to assert control over the copyright, and still we kept. In this image here the model wants it removed, no word that I know of from the photographers wishes, copyright status is clearly in the green, no dispute there, yet we get some pro-active admins deleting and squashing discussion on it. Definitely not consistency in ruling here between these two images. — raeky (talk | edits) 21:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that this model clearly gave her consent to being photographed by the photographer. Once she gives him the release to use that photograph for whatever, which apparently included releasing it under a free license on flickr, she'd have to prove there was a breach in contract or some other pre-arranged legal restriction on use of that image. For us to just delete freely available artwork because the model later in her life decides it was a bad idea sets a bad precedent. If of course the model and photographer did have an agreement on use of the image that didn't extend to freely releasing it to the internet, then there would be grounds for its deletion here because there would be legal issues that the model could bring against the photographer and ultimately it's use here. I do think it's bad form to just delete an image because the model later claims she didn't agree for it to be used on wikipedia. Some line needs to be drawn, and clearly there is no consistency on how we handle copyright/subject requests for deletion. We routinely keep images where the photographer wishes them to be removed and same with model. But then we get cases where we delete on weak grounds out of "compassion" when there is no precedent to do so. Although my biggest gripe is the closure of the undelete request less than 24 hours from opening and the closing admin using the argument that those who supported keeping the image didn't voice that support in the undelete, when he clearly didn't give them time to do so. That just rubs me the wrong way. — raeky (talk | edits) 22:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we agree that Undeletion requests shouldn't be closed speedily with "keep deleted"? There isn't really a problem with undeletion being discussed. -- User:Docu at 14:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think we can agree to that in all cases. There are some cases where that's an appropriate closure, although hopefully that's extremely rare. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Can you give us a sample of such "extremly rare" cases you don't want people to discuss? -- User:Docu at 15:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Not offhand. But absolute rules are usually not a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
@Lar First, do you think this undeletion request was so special it could harm Commons to have a discussion? And if so how could it be such a threat to Commons?
This particular one? No, I think it would have been better to let this one run through to completion. As I said above. ++Lar: t/c 23:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Second, What do we do if some admin speedy close an undeletion request that should not have been speedied? Do we just forget it or do we do somthing about it? --MGA73 (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Bring it to COM:AN so it gets more attention. ++Lar: t/c 23:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

OK thank you for the tip. It is now moved to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Discussion of deletion denied. --MGA73 (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

November 8

Category:FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives

These images are all classified as public domain because they were created by an FBI or US federal government employee. But if they're mugshots they might have been taken by state or local authorities, and some of them aren't mugshots, e.g. File:Semion Mogilevich.jpg. It doesn't seem like just being published in an FBI document would make them public domain.Prezbo (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

PD-ineligible on Danish Parot License Plate.jpg

I'm a little in doubt regarding the use of {{PD-ineligible}} on File:Danish Parot License Plate.jpg. The jpeg-file it-self is stated as having the Danish Road Authorities (which presumably is as source. While the content of the media is clearly ineligible, I'm not sure that the specific media (and derivatives) is. I think that this has been discussed before but can't find the conclusion anywhere :( Any pointers would be much appreciated. --Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 09:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, is ineligible, however {{PD-text}} is a more descriptive tag for this image. Sv1xv (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Nationalist fakery in a political map

I stumbled upon the map File:Nationalities in Second Polish Republik ca. 1931.png and out of curiosity compared it to its source map the much older File:HistPol-narodowosci1931.png - there have been made changes to the new map, which reduce the Polish settled area in favor of the Ukrainian settled areas, although the image description claims that the original map has only been "colored and translated in June 2007"??? Digging deeper I found that the new commons map is actually a version of another map which is correct in all details to the original and sourced map! The correct map is File:Nationalities in Second Polish Republic ca. 1931.png

Some examples for the crude faker of the unloader of the fake map:

  • the city of Chelm: in the correct maps it is clearly marked as Polish - in the fake map Chelm is suddenly deep in Ukrainian territory
  • all around Lviv and Tarnopol the Polish settled areas have been crudely painted over with the color used to denote Ukrainian settlements
  • at the Slovak Polish border the Ukrainian settled area suddenly extends into Slovakia and much farther west then in the sourced maps

Therefore I request a speedy delete of the fake map File:Nationalities in Second Polish Republik ca. 1931.png as it misrepresents sourced material and is clearly a no good faith assumable fake for nationalist purposes! --Noclador (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you need {{fact}} not {{speedy}}. If the description is incorrect, please fix it. -- User:Docu at 14:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it not reasonable to demand that a map at least claim a source? A map that's been randomly altered by a user has no reasonable educational purpose if no one can tell how or why the change were made, or if the changes were made for strictly non-factual purposes. I would distinguish this from the political arguments; this one has no claim of sourcing or accuracy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not think we need to put a "fact" template on the map - if a user vandalizes an article changing sourced data to a nationalist POV his edits will be reverted. We have a correct and sourced map by an historian with his own wiki article en:Henryk Zieliński and a graphically updated version of this sourced map and even an article of the source material: en:Polish census of 1931. Therefore I see no reason to keep the crudely manipulated map at all as it is in my view nothing but an nationalist POV vandalism. --Noclador (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

License migration - need help please

Hi everyone! As you might know there has been a license update from GFDL to cc-by-sa-3.0 on commons and many wiki-projects around the world. 99.x % has been checked but there is still some left.

There are two categories with files that needs to be checked:

"Why is that not over yet?" You might ask? Well new files keep comming to Commons "messing up" the category. Most are new and not-eligible but some are transfered from an other wiki and might be eligible for relicense.

Therefore we have been on a "special mission" on enwiki to help migrate files there to reduce the number of new "not-migrated" comming to Commons, we asked uploaders of new files to update the Commonist-tool and we asked for a fix of the upload scripts to reduce number of errors. But that is not enough we need human assistance.

I will try to handle the files in the first category with my bot but I could really need some help checking the files in the second category. It would be nice to close this project. --MGA73 (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Now down to 177 files in first category and 1096 in second. Can still need a hand :-)

Public domain film caption

I've uploaded four captions from a Disney's public domain film The Spirit of '43. You can visit its page at Internet Archive so you can see why it's in public domain (Was created FOR the US Government). Here are the files:

Spirit 43 - Scrooge - Oncle Picsou - Garrepa.JPG Spirit 43 - Title card - títol.JPG

Thank you. Is there a reason why you did not upload the entire movie? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I just uploaded it here. –Tryphon 15:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Er, not everything made for the US government is PD; only things made by the US government. In this case, there's a clear copyright notice at the start of the movie (5 seconds in on our version), and I would find it quite possible that Disney renewed it, though there's a couple war cartoons they didn't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, the internet archive does cite this film as PD. --Coentor (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Yikes. I'm not sure I like the reasoning there -- unless it could be considered a work for hire, then it is not public domain by virtue of being a work of the U.S. Government. The fact that there is a copyright notice (per the above) also means that was not the case, since they would not have been allowed to claim copyright if it was, and therefore the copyright tag is incorrect (as well as the PD reasoning on, which unfortunately is being used as a reference for en:List of films in the public domain in the United States). lets users simply upload movies I think, so I'm not sure that can always be considered a reliable source (unless further info is provided). I do recall reading that there were a number of those made-for-government propaganda films that Disney (or maybe it was another company) forgot about, and therefore did not renew the copyright -- that is a lot more likely. I can't find a reference to absolutely confirm that though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Let me say that that is something I do not understand. The citations are clear, but given that legal theory, how on Earth has everyone and their brother gotten away with releasing DVDs with, eg., the Superman animated shorts, usually with a big picture of Superman on the front? They have had a broad enough distribution over enough time that surely DC Comics taken legal action to stop it if they had had a shoe to stand on.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is not as simple as Nard the Bard says (and I think that earlier DR may have been largely incorrect). But... it is not completely clear either. First, a "character copyright" has to do with a character's specific backstory, personality, etc. as described in (say) a book. It is a literary-based copyright, and the protection is against someone else using the same (or very very similar) character in another book. The copyright is on the specific details, not a broad idea of a character. But all of that is irrelevant here, as that has nothing to do with a graphic image, which cannot be a derivative work of a written description. However, obviously, the drawings of Donald Duck made by Disney are copyrightable in their own right, and images in these movies would be derivative works of that specific representation of Donald Duck. Movies themselves can be derivative works of source novels or written screenplays, and courts have ruled that book authors could prevent distribution of derivative movies even if the copyright on the movie itself (the graphic images) expired (since only the one movie studio had a license for that). On the other hand, in this case, the author of the source image is the same as the owner of the movie -- and they gave "permission" by not renewing the copyright. There really should be no issue making copies of frames of the movie. On the other hand, extracting the donald duck image so it is no longer seen as part of the frame, and using/altering it for other purposes... that may be considered more a direct derivative work of the original drawing (and thus a problem) rather than a copy of the frame. Is that still "free"? Dunno. Obviously the character is trademarked as well, though that does not disqualify it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, in that situation, then, the title screen and the other duck whould be free to use for sure, because there is no copyright in "Spirit of '43" and that duck is also free of copyright because is previous to "Uncle Scrooge Mc Duck", which I presume is copyrighted trademark since 1947. The Donald duck images are full representation of the frame (specially the one of the face, where We can see that the text of the US government has not been deleted, despite been non-stetycal, so they should be also free images. --Coentor (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong coat of arms (Bellinzona)

I have processed a ticket in the Swiss Chapter queue in OTRS. An user says that the coat of army of Bellinzona is wrong Image:Bellinzone-coat_of_arms.svg because the snake should have 7 coils and not 6 (See here [14] and here [15] at page 23). The number of coils has got an historical sense. The problem is that I don't know how I could receive the source of the file and change it. I have tried with inkscape but I cannot split the objects. --Ilario (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The first thing to do would be to add {{fact}} to the file description page, possibly note the inaccuracy in the description, and remove the file from Wikipedia. -- User:Docu at 16:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The file is now at File:Snake-coat of arms.svg and was removed from Wikipedia. See also File talk:Snake-coat of arms.svg -- User:Docu at 06:40, 16 November 2009

Different XML/HTML in edit preview and the actual page

Originally posted on Commons:Help Desk

I do not know if it is just me having this problem or not, but I recognized one thing when editing – the Wiki produces different XML/HTML in preview than after saving the edit.

Here is an example:


[[File:Polarlicht 2.jpg|128 px]] [[File:Broadway tower edit.jpg|128 px]]

HTML output:
Polarlicht 2.jpg Broadway tower edit.jpg

HTML in preview:

<a href="/wiki/File:Polarlicht_2.jpg" class="image">
<img alt="Polarlicht 2.jpg" src="" width="128" height="83"/>
<a href="/wiki/File:Broadway_tower_edit.jpg" class="image">
<img alt="Broadway tower edit.jpg" src="" width="128" height="87" />

HTML after saving:

<a href="/wiki/File:Polarlicht_2.jpg" class="image">
<img alt="Polarlicht 2.jpg" src="" width="128" height="83"/>
<a href="/wiki/File:Broadway_tower_edit.jpg" class="image">
<img alt="Broadway tower edit.jpg" src="" width="128" height="87"/>

So are the <div> tags supposed to show up after saving? The thing is that the browser renders the whole thing completely different because of that. --Ernie (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't get an answer here, you might ask on the Commons:Village pump. --Teratornis (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Try asking at

IUCN distribution maps

Hi. I am not exactly new to Commons, but I have not produced many files yet. So, I have a question that perhaps you can answer. IUCN has ArcGIS shapefiles [16] for many species. I can produce some nice maps from these fairly quickly, but I am not sure if I can upload them to Commons. The metadata [17] says that the data should not be used for commercial purposes. Any insight would be welcomed. GoEThe (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the maps would be a derived work of the dataset, and works not allowing commercial use are not allowed on Commons. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
If I made a trace around the range border by hand, would it be considered derived work? Are there any WikiProject, standards or written procedures on how people are producing range maps? GoEThe (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
If you contact them and ask for permission to use the data to create maps for Wikipedia projects, and ask them if derivative maps from the data you create can be licensed under one of Common's free licenses, then OTRS could be established for the maps. Having these maps would be a valuable asset to the project I think, so it's worth contacting them to ask at least. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
One step ahead of you, Raeky ;), I am waiting for their reply now. Thanks for the suggestion! GoEThe (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I got a reply and they seem willing, but wanted some more information on how the data is credited and so on, which I provided. I will report any developments here. GoEThe (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Update abuse filter 16 for timed text subtitles

We are working on a timed text subtitles storing the srt subtitles in the wiki. We need to add to Special:AbuseFilter/16 to check for timedText in the front of the tile (and or add TimedText as a distinct namespace) Mdale (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

For an overview: Special:Prefixindex/TimedText. -- User:Docu at 10:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Please be a bit more exact: Who works on this? What and why are you doing? What purpose do these pages have? What does this have to do with the abuse filter? --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It could be something between Obama's teleprompter and Karaoke, no? -- User:Docu at 14:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
BTW, it's now a separate namespace (102). The above link doesn't work anymore, use Special:Prefixindex/TimedText: instead. -- User:Docu at 14:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there any more information about this? Wikisource has done stuff like this, e.g. s:Transcript of the 'friendly fire' incident video (28 March 2003), and even if it takes extra effort to make machine readable works from the pretty version, it would be better done that way. I'd also like to point out that OGVs can include subtitles in the file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is for a new feature of the new video player that is in the works. Michael Dale (the foundation employee doing much of the audio video support redesign work), has been experimenting with timed text and was demoing this early support during last weeks Wikimedia Multimedia meeting in Paris. TheDJ (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

See the following tech blogpost TheDJ (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A gentler way to tell people when they accidentally violate copyrights

I was wondering if we might be able to come up with a gentler way to tell people their image is out of scope because of rights issues. Quite a few people upload images with entirely good intentions, not understanding that they don't have the appropriate rights. For example:

  • People upload pictures of themselves or notable relatives, not understanding that the photographer, not the subject of the image, has copyright.
  • People upload good work by relatively obscure artists with the entirely commendable intention of making that artist's work more available and better known, but without having any grant of rights. Often this happens where the uploader owns the work in question and, as in the previous case, doesn't understand that intellectual property rights didn't transfer with the original object.
  • Similarly, people upload a scan of a signed celebrity (or semi-celebrity) picture that was given to them.

These matters seem to me to be very different from the person who just goes to a random website and uploads an image to which they obviously have no rights. These are usually entirely well-intentioned people who just don't understand a lot about copyright law.

I've noticed that often when issues like this arise, the way it's handled really irritates the uploader. Often these people storm away, pretty angry at Commons. I was wondering if anyone has any idea how we might handle this better. My first thought is a page in Commons space that gives examples of cases like this and a template we could put on the uploader's talk page directing them there. - Jmabel ! talk 02:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No kidding, copyright violations should be handled differently - and not just in the cases you mentioned, but in all cases. I'm not talking about the action (deleting the offending image). That has to be done, obviously. What I'm talking about is how the user that has uploaded the infringing content is being "told off", using often unfriendly language combined with a big red box that somehow reminds me of the one used to warn people about child pornography in Germany. This is just plain ridiculous, and regularly bears the marks of power play. Even when receiving a cease-and-desist notice from the actual copyright holder it will usually be worded more politely than the average "takedown notice" here. I believe that what many users fail to realize is that in the end, deleting images because of "copyright violations" is enforcing the site rules, nothing more. Administrators are just that, technical personnel. Some act like the are enforcing the law, which is not only false but (if true) would also be illegal, since doing so is the prerogative of the state. And since that means "copyright warnings" are just personal messages in the end, I don't see why they cannot be kept polite in all cases. -- JovanCormac 09:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Good observation Jmabel.
Preparing newbies should help. When explaining a new concept to someone, it helps to give an example of a “near miss” to demonstrate what it is not. For example: if one was explaining a trilithon arch to a class of students, one could show a model of two upright pillars with ‘no gap’ between them – still contains three components in the same arrangement but obliviously not an arch when compared along side a model with a gap (that one can pass ones hand through to add emphases). Maybe we can say right at the beginning: Wikimedia Commons will both frustrate and finally disgorge your efforts if you treat it like Flickr, Photobucket et al. The current page that greets you first is a great improvement on what was. I seem to remember one went straight to a blank field, in which to enter text, code, templates and things. All the guidance on how to do this successfully, lay on pages scattered here-there-and-every-where. However, there is no indication that these new opening questions are not just to put the image into the right category but a necessary requirement which must be got right. It is human nature and laziness that most people who upload to other sites first will not bother to read any instructions when they give WC a try. Yet, if we make the difference clear at the beginning, then they only have themselves to blame if they completely ignore the guidance. If they go on to to get frustrated and its because they can’t be bothered to climb the learning curve -then I have no sympathy. It also makes me wonder if any of their future contributions would have any value on WC anyway – after all, isn’t that what Flickr’s for. At the other end of the scale is fee paying/charging image libraries and they don’t allow self-upload in the same way as WC. So, I think it would help if we make it clear from the start that we are not another Flickr and we are not Getty Images or Corbis (thank heavens). To prepare the serious newbie for any terse comments s/he receives, a line of explanation along the lines of “The volunteers who check the details on thousands of images will presume that you too have made yourself familiar with the WC requirements but have overlooked a small but essential requirement. They will therefore, only provided the briefest of comments to bring this to you attention.” It will implicitly put in to context for them, that it isn’t because we haven't got anything better to do that we are picking on them but that they alone out of thousands of other contributors have fouled up. In other words it will reduce the tendency for them to get upset with us over what they are not bothering to do themselves. After all, the best military training is that which prepares you for things going wrong, then one can immediately review the situation calmly. That preperation, would place the newbie in the right frame of mind. They are also less likely to take too personally any comments that are brief and to the point --P.g.champion (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm skeptical about the possibility of making sure uploaders have read any text in advance. I'm more concerned with treating them more gently when they accidentally violate our policies. - Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Although, admittedly, putting some of that in the "Greeting" message on talk pages might help. - Jmabel ! talk 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I don’t expect all first timers to take the time to read the intro either but people tend to get more upset when they find they have gone up a one-way-street because of bad signage, than if it was because they were just being inattentive. So psychologically we are reducing in the first place the number of newbies who feel their expectations are being thwarted by nerds. After that, we could address your points and think about (say) a simple decision chart. We noticed you are having problems understanding copyright: Did you take this photograph?Y/N Did you take it as part of your employment? Y/N etc. Has it ever been published before?Y/N There must be a similar charts somewhere that we could adapt. Also, people don’t like to be told that they can’t do something, therefore the end of some decision paths could end with the suggestion ‘Upload to Flickr’ for those that are out of scope. Another path could suggest they go to Commons:Picture requests and try again – it keeps their hope alive and acts like a diversion. To my mind it is not so much gentleness as providing a clear route with no baffling hurdles and unexplained (in non-nerdy language) deletions. --P.g.champion (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed during the Multimedia meeting in paris last weekend. One of the ideas was to possibly create a sort of staging area. TheDJ (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that TheDJ, the proposals looks promising. I think though that even a staging area or corral would suffer from the same problems because of those discussions I have come across over the years, those that get upset the most, seem to be the one who would not have attempted to upload to WC in the first place if they realised that WC could not serve as their free image hosting site. So if we can let this be known at the start, it should leave more time to help those who are genuinely having problems with our protocols and policies. A staging area with an automatic expiry period would however be very useful. It would save having to deal with all those images that are uploaded, both out of scope or without any supporting information at all.--P.g.champion (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Blurry thumbnails

I have a problem with image thumbnails - they all appear blurry, whether on image page or galleries or somewhere else. The problem exists only here in Commons, viewing the same file in some other wiki shows a normal, sharp thumbnail. I've had this 'feature' for several days and its becoming rather annoying. I haven't seen any discussion on this, so is it really only my problem or is it supposed to be like this? Hannu (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Examples? –Tryphon 16:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I uploaded an example of what I see, together with what I should see (default thumbnail and thumbnail from printscreen). Hannu (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Must be some technical fault, I just discovered that everything looks ok using Internet Explorer instead of Firefox. Then again, I can't understand how it affects only Commons. Hannu (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Most likely you've set your zoom to slightly more or less than 100%. Press CTRL+0. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that was the issue. Page zoom had somehow got slightly higher than normal. ctrl+/ctrl0 didn't help though, had to install an add-on to reset the page size. Hannu (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Potential serious problem

I realise that the database server seems to be lagging the the moment, but I've just discovered what could be a large problem. I uploaded File:Military_Road_Back_of_Beyond_bus_stop_flag.JPG just a minute ago, and presumably because the server was lagging, not all the information came up (I didn't see whether this was the case or not). The next thing I knew, this had happened, with all the information, including the license, replaced by a template, threatening deletion because there was no license! I've also had a message on my talk page.

Could this have happened to any other image pages? Arriva436talk/contribs 19:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the "problem-edit". Check whether now all is in place. --Túrelio (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
All is fine now. Thanks for your help! Arriva436talk/contribs 15:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

November 10


Hi, Why users of Wikimedia Commons refer to as Commoner. -- 09:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Because Commons usage comes with free Royal Family membership? ;-) -- IANEZZ  (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
So remember you are to walk out of this pump room backwards when you leave.--P.g.champion (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Canadian copyright with a photo taken in 1881

From the Archives Manitoba I found an old picture of the SS City of Winnipeg taken back in 1881. I would like to upload it to the Commons but am a bit uncertain due to the MB Archives copyright notification. Can this be consideres as PD since it was taken 128 years ago, or does the MB Archives possess the copyright? Tve4 (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See COM:L#Canada: All photographs taken before 1 January, 1949 are in the public domain. Sv1xv (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
FYI, the author is probably Israel Bennetto (1860-1946) [18]. Oh, and yes, public domain, any way you look at it. Jarry1250 (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

GlobalUsage is currently being deployed on Wikimedia


As you may know there has been a bug for a very long time about the fact that there is no way to know how much an image is used on other wikis. This weekend, I was in a multimedia meeting in Paris with some other developers and together with Andrew and Brion we have been able to get the extension I wrote for this purpose to work.

So now under each file description page (example) there now is a list of pages that use this image. There is also a GlobalUsage that allows you to search for usage of specific images. We are currently running a seeding script, so not all usages are yet visible.

-- Bryan (talk to me) 10:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's awesome. Thanks for the great work! Pruneautalk 10:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
It is nice but I have two things. 1) How much resources are used doing this? The system is a bit slow now. 2) It would be nice if it would show the usage like so you could choose the wiki you prefer and not have to scroll lots of pages to come to the right wiki. --MGA73 (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the great work, this is a tool which has been needed for a long time. Does it support redirects? I.e. if File:Redirect.jpg is a redirect and linking to File:ActualFile.jpg, do inclusions of the redirect show up on the page of the actual file? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Wonderful tool, thanks a lot. I think it would be great if this cleaner solution could replace the "check usage" tab. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
@MGA73, there is currently a large replication lag: It was also why SieBot (talk · contribs) was not running. Hopefully that explains the system lag, and not the global usage functionality. Wknight94 talk 15:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Great tool! Thank you!
Couple of suggestions:
  • Will be good idea to make this report collapsible as EXIF (and option in user's preferences to set default).
  • Will be great to create global usage report for files in category and watch list. Of course if resources consumption will not be too big.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems the GlobalUsage extension does not capture media files when they are used in templates, like virtually all Ogg and MIDI sound files are. Face-sad.svg -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Even after pulling in all the historical data, the GlobalUsage extension still had some major scalability issues, so we've had to disable it for now. Andrew and Bryan will tweak it in coming weeks to get it restored. This would be a good place to collect some feedback on its brief existence as a production feature :-)--Eloquence (talk)

  • It seems that usage on some wiktionaries is not being shown. See for example File:FoxBassoon.jpg which is also used on the English, Hungarian and Swedish wiktionaries. The file's usage on the Polish and Russian wiktionaries is shown in the list though. I've looked at about 10 images that are on the English Wiktionary and that project is never shown by GlobalUsage. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a good idea to integrate this closer into the interface. The prototype for Special:GlobalUsage seems to be tools:~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php.
    (1) A feature I like of that is the possibility to limit the list to article namespace.
    (2) Sometimes the raw output version is useful, even though I'd rather have something in wikitext.
    (3) For the display of uses on the file description page itself, I'd probably like to see en.wp first. -- User:Docu at 13:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC), edited 14:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
And why en.wp first??? -jkb- (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a personal preference. I rarely visit afwiki (visible in the sample above). BTW, one minor thing: I just noticed that the header "Global file usage" can't be used with section links and isn't listed in the file description TOC. -- User:Docu at 14:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • As far as I have read the reason for the disabling was e.g. the huge traffic about this. As far as I see this extension has two main parts: the Special:GlobalUsage and then the results on the file description pages itself which are being shown every time I klick on the image even if the results do not interest me. Would it be a solution to disable the results on the file description pages only? I guess the traffic would be quite lower. -jkb- (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked: "updates have been disabled for all wikis but Commons and test while we figure out performance issues". So though the extension is still active, the information that it is presenting is not currently up to date. This updating of this information was disabled due to the performance issues. The issue is under investigation, but there is no timetable for fixing it at this moment. TheDJ (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Queensland Copyfraud

From the [ORG-discuss] list (no public archive) 2009/11/9 David Gerard <emailaddress> wrote:

> Speaking entirely for myself here, definitely not for WMF, WMUK, WMAU
> or any other chapter, and not as anyone who does much museum
> negotiation directly:
> Another example: We just got a pile of very precious old photos
> scanned by the Queensland Museum. They make a claim to copyright on
> the scans, and have then released them under CC by-sa. There are
> people upset about that too, but the copyright notice on Wikimedia
> Commons notes only that they make the claim. The pics also did in fact
> take considerable skilful sweat of the brow to scan - they're very
> fragile and needed to be printed to paper and then the paper scanned,
> and that's the sort of care we love our museum staff for - but are
> nevertheless definitely PD in the US and in a state of quantum
> uncertainty elsewhere but quite possibly PD if anyone really pushes
> it.

I wrote: There was no discussion on this Copyfraud in Wikimedia Commons as far as I know (nor in foundation-l which I read). It's absolutely clear for me that each partner of any cooperation has to have the same understanding of the legal implications. The description text of the Queensland photos is exactly the sort of FUD free projects should avoid. --Histo (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Sweat of the brow" is not enough for a claim of copyright in the USA, but I have no idea about Queensland. What images are you talking about? Do you have some examples? --J.smith (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
File:Brisbane-street-ipswich-r.jpg this image for example. See also discussion in the following maillinglist thread TheDJ (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Sweat of the brow can give rise to copyright in British Commonwealth countries, and there is also a publication right on previously unpublished photos. Given these came from glass plates, they could very well be previously unpublished, which would give a publication right in Queensland. Does anyone know Bert Roberts' date of death? That, and whether these photos had been previously published would be needed to determine if they're PD in the US. In any case, cc-by-sa is a good license for us, why would anybody be mad about free works? -Nard the Bard 20:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
A good point Nard but a requirement is that they must still be unpublished by the time the Act came into force before PubRits can be claimed. Also, something often overlook, even by public museum staff and public librarians themselves is that they are members of the public and as soon as a collection gets into their clammy little hands (as custodians) it is made public. Here is a quote from a doc from Queensland Uni."When we use the word “public” in the QUT context, we usually mean the general public – people who are not students or staff or other authorised users of University facilities. However, in the copyright context, QUT staff and students are regarded as “the public”. This means that if you put material on a server, even if you restrict access to only certain authorised users, you will still be communicating it to the public." Page 2 of 3 [19].It is little wonder that so many get confused. --P.g.champion (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You're saying that no one would object if I licensed File:Betty Boop in Snow White.png under CC-BY-SA? I mean, I went through the video file, found that particular frame, chose the video filters to handle the interlacing and video noise, etc. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and the attitude that all contributors are equal, but some are more equal than others, is one that will justifiable annoy some of us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe "Sweat of the brow" is not enough, but "skill and labour" (well, a considerable amount of skill and labour, as in cases of extensive restoration) can justify a copyright. Sv1xv (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
What are they wanting, them to be retagged to {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} instead of {{PD-old}}? Would a custom license template that acknowledges the {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} license for jurisdictions that their copyright by "sweat of brow" could possibly stand, and {{PD-old}} for other jurisdictions? Is this something preventing them from providing us more high-quality scans? — raeky (talk | edits) 07:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
What appears to be upset here is an ‘administrative post’ who is caught between written ‘management’ policy and legal reality. I would say that what management is simply trying to do is preserve a ‘formal’ recognitions that this museum is the legal guardians of the material substrates (glass plate negs). Which it seems WC is happy to do and thus raise the museum’s profile a little. But of course, we know copyright is the wrong legal tool for this. The legal tool for this is the rights of physical possession and ownership (the right to sell or exchange the material substrates) which the law already grants it. Also, through the law of ‘contract’ it can charge a fee for the right to have the images reproduced in say a book because of the afor said law of ownership and possession. These rights to charge fees may further be eroded if the museum is publicly funded or from under the conditions that the material substrates came into their possession. It still has all these these rights to supply high quality prints for reuse. WC does not what to mislead re-users as to what the true copyright situation is. Museum management may not want to appear to be weakening its interpretation of the written policy (remember: policies do not need to comply with the law - they are just policies). Yet it would be wrong for us to ‘knowingly’ mislead re-users by stating:
>Digitisation of this image is licensed under CC BY SA 3.0.< Also, it will serve as a president for every tom dick and harry to making all sorts of claims for old images they have uploaded.
Perhaps we could avoid FUD by simply stating:
>Although copyright has expired on this images, and is thus in the Public Domain which can not be revived by copying, the Queensland Museum has never the less pointed out that it is their policy to place an attribute on this and similar images as if they were CC – BY – SA.< We would still have to keep the Public Domain template and not include a CC one, so as not to mislead.--P.g.champion (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't have any objection to adjusting the wording of Template:QM Infobox to clarify the situation. Note that the wording was deliberately chosen to indicate only that the museum claims the copyright; not that the claim is valid or that it's recognised by Commons. The images are unambiguously PD in the place that the servers are, and that's all that really matters in terms of hosting the images. I am the one working with QM on this project, so I would be happy to answer any further questions. Lankiveil (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC).

Heroes of Might & Magic III screenshots

Can anyone comment here? Regards, --Blacklake (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh I LOVED that game. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure that's the type of comment they had in mind :P -Nard the Bard 15:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
That's ok, this is VP, not COM:L - my comments here need to be merely pumpalicious, not licensual. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Annotations / legends for diagrams

File:Prosobranchia male.png is the anatomy of a snail species, with numbered parts - but the annotations / legends are in Czech! Then I realised that some non-English WP editors might find English annotations / legends less useful! It struck me that file description pages would become huge if the nearly 26 annotations / legends in this pic were translated into 20 languages. Off the type, it might be useful to: put the annotations / legends for each language in a hide/show box; create a sub-section for each language, plus a TOC, so that editors can easily find and expand the annotations / legends for each language. In fact it might be good to create sub-sections to contain all content specific to one language, with a hide/show box round the all contents for one language. -- Philcha (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See File:Abdomal organs.svg for an example of a diagram with key in many languages. Man vyi (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture not showing on IE

File:The_Sundeck_On_L'art_de_Vivre_Hotel_Barge.jpg can only be viewed on firefox not Internet Explorer, Please help.

No surprise, it's CMYK color coded. I've converted it to RGB. Look if the color are correct. --Túrelio (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Find the right name for a new category

Example of Enfeu


In France, we have a kind of tombs which are located inside walls of churches. They are named "Enfeus". We hav not found english translation for this.

We want to create a category for them, but with what name ?

  • Enfeus ?
  • Burial niches ?
  • The right translation, if it exists ?
  • Other ?

If you have any idea, please tell us.

Sémhur (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just pick one. Categories are easy to rename. If someone finds a better one later, he/she will simply suggest to rename it. -- User:Docu at 15:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
"Enfeu" seems to be very rare term. I couldn't get any online translation for "enfeu" into english or german. In case this kind of tomb does exist in the anglosaxon world, there should be a word for it. Might be good to wait for some more input from english-native speakers. If there's no really common english word for it, I would prefer the descriptive term (your 2nd one), because an unknown term will likely not be used and found. --Túrelio (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with Túrelio. 1st this is a mulitlanguage portal for media, used in hundreds of native languages. Enfeus is much easier to understand, to read then many other non latin character based names of categories and articles. 2nd, an origin name is much better then an descriptive one, furthermore you can redirect a) for example "burial niches" or "Wandnische (?)" to this cat and b) you can use a description in different languages in the head of this cat as well. 3rd and last, how many readers come to a page or even a cat by typing the name ? 1% ? I think 1 of a million hits fits better. The mostly used way is going to hyperlinks - that means the name itself is not so much important (so you can of course use english descr) its much more nessesary to put in right categories, i.E. Walls, Churches. or what ever - only my 1/2 penny NobbiP 17:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Try en:Loculus (architecture) or search there for "burial niche". So Loculi or burial niches. --Foroa (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Found in the Glossaire de termes techniques à l'usage des lecteurs de la nuit des temps, 3e édition, Zodiac, 1983, ISBN1282-3-83: enfeu = all. Wandnischengrab; angl. wall-niche tomb. See also tomb+niche and [20] --Bohème (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
First: Create new parent Category:Entombments within walls for all wall niches that are re-sealed (?) and that are already grouped under their normal cultural nomenclature. This would also include cremation ashes both ancient columbaria and modern ones. Both inside church building, other religious buildings and free standing structures out in the open (and I will add an explanatory text in its introduction to this effect). Second: Create a new category with the plural noun for “Enfeu.” Then write a few polyglot definitions to explain what the category is for (i.e. burials in walls in France and its overseas department). Make this category a child of the parent (Category:Entombments within walls ). In turn, because ‘Category:Entombments within walls’ are structurally enclosed interment spaces or burial chambers, this should be made a subcategory of Category:Tombs by type. Verica_Atrebatum and myself were having a similar conversation about the use of the term ledgerstones. If one looks at those in Poland for example(Category:Figured_ledger_stones_in_Poland), a couple of those memorials in that category could well turn out to be “enfeus” memorials. There is probable already a whole gallery’s worth of wall interments that could do with burials -in-walls as a separate category. There already exists Arcosolium but that seems particularly restricted to Italy and is for interments under arches only and the walls appear to remain unsealed. Also, it does not suit burials where temporary breaches are made in the wall to remove some of the rubble infill to make space into which to place the remains; after which the wall is made good again and a memorial plaque is fixed to the wall. Some people in Britain may use the ‘Sepulchre’ for this or any other niche inside a church but I do not consider this to be right for the purposes of this category name either. Other cultures very often have their own nomenclature and because “categories” are used to help in searching, then preserving these differences is probably the right thing to do despite some of them being technically duplicated categories. Therefore, the fact that there does not seem to be a proper English word in current use for wall internments does not really matter. Also, putting the lot into a new Category:Entombments within walls will help those searching for images of wall interments across multiple countries for which they do not know all the local names.
If others think this is the way forward, I am willing to start. How does that sound Sémhur? Comments...? --P.g.champion (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the term you're looking for probably is Arcosolia. As P.g.champion says, it does already have a category. Strictly speaking, in English, this refers to such arched niches in Roman catacombs, but the term seems to be broader in other languages and I'd be interested in Continental opinions on this. Do Enfeus always have covering arches? Are they internal or external or either? Can you provide a more detailed written description? Arcosolia in catacombs are certainly tombs, but I'm not sure that the 'enfeus' of the type shown in the example are necessarily. Of course some of them may be and the example seems to have room for this, but similar types in the UK are often directly onto the floor, so there is no 'tomb' in the photograph, just a monument. In such cases where you can't tell, it's much better to classify them as types of monument (ie. church monument or grave marker) rather than tomb anyway. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Geograph has well over 1 million free images which can be uploaded under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license. May I ask why these have not been uploaded by a bot. If you want to build a real depository uploading these images of very valuable locations in the UK is a must. Ther eis no reason why these can't be uploaded iwth a bot from that site is there?Perry Rimmer (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just for your information: The Geograph images are acceptable here and they are tagged with {{Geograph}}. Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project contains now 21748 images. Sv1xv (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
We had this discussion already in the past. The arguments was that we want to look more for quality than quantity. The resolution of is unfortunately very low and some image very boring. So I think that a hand selection is the better way. --Kolossos (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
A cow would find that image hardly very boring ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Google has pigeons, while Commons has cows? You may be onto something here... ;-) Jokes apart, less boring images have been deleted from Commons in the past for being out of scope (i.e. no evident educational use). Indiscriminately Replicating all the content of on Commons may be a little overzelous, since is not going away anytime soon (and should it happen, I doubt that the collected data would disappear in the bit bucket...). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I find that outlook lazy. If I wanted an image of Ogmore by sea here, there is nothing. Yet we have all these good images here. Most images I think a pretty decent and if this project is serious about building a free depository it is a terrible waste to ignore hundreds of thousands of GOOD images which would really help people on wikipedia or whatever. Also you are likely to drive new comers away by the persisent secure thing to "protect against automated spam". It would make most people with good purpose to turn away and give up contributing here. Perry Rimmer (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to upload images from geograph, please do so. It would certainly not be considered "spam". There is a built in structure at geograph that makes uploading here easy, click the link "Find out how to reuse this Image" just below an geograph image, scroll down that page[21] to the heading "Wikipedia Template for image page" and follow the intructions/ links. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I looked over the site and I think a batch upload of this site is useful. It contains a lot of images of places where we currently don't have an image. It might contain some noise, but the number of useful images outweigh that. We already have a tool to upload single images, looping over all images shouldn't be too difficult. Before we do so the category tree of the United Kingdom should be checked and enlarged so image can be put in the right categories right away. By enlarging I mean adding all counties and villages. This way the upload bot can probably categorize most images right away. Multichill (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I created Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph for this. Probably best to continue over there. Multichill (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

November 9


For those of you who are interested, or had experience with the Popups application on, (w:WP:POPUPS), it is extremely useful with navigating around the wiki quickly. I just figured out how to import it to use on Commons, you would put this in your monobook:


I don't know if anyone had figured this out before me, but I felt so smart when I figured it out. ;-) Killiondude (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I use Popups on Commons also :-) If everyone thinks the tool is highly useful perhaps an admin could add a Gadget entry for Popups like, to make it easier for people to activate it (from their preferences).--Commander Keane (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Copying the entire gadget on Commons would be helpful, since cross-including Javascript like that from triggers some XSS filter on NoScript, and adding an XSS exception apparently does not work (text/x-wiki is the wrong MIME type) -- IANEZZ  (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The following line works for me:
apparently there was just a typo in the URL. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. The code in my monobook is the one I pasted above, and it works fine... But I mostly feel my way through this stuff by trial and error, I don't know much about technical aspects. Killiondude (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Please note that en:User:Lupin/popups.js has a bug that may prevent other scripts here from functioning properly. en:MediaWiki:Gadget-popups.js seems to have that error corrected. Lupo 08:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Lupin/popups.js is no more than a loader and redirect script these days for the English Gadget version. Users could also importScriptURI the gadget version and importStylesheet the gadget's css and that would skip an unnecessary redirect. TheDJ (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

For those interested, my own local scriptloader for popups. TheDJ (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I like Popups as well. If it could be enabled as a gadget, that might probably help even more people. However, it should be localizable for users of other languages, because not everyone is familiar with the English language. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The script supports localization (see en:Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/Translation, and User:Ianezz/vector.js for an example using the italian translation), but that currently requires some fiddling with the user Javascript page. To turn it into a gadget, a loader selecting the right translation file from the user language is required. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv photo categories

Why were the "photos by year" categories removed? I can't begin to describe how useful a finding tool these were, especially given the very bad photo captions some of these had. I realize they were temporary, but why couldn't they have been made permanent instead of simply dumping them all into the 82,000 photo main category? Anyone wanting to actually use the archive is pretty much hamstrung from finding anything useful with the useless captions (many of which don't have accurate dates in them) and the archive is useless for many purposes. Having them categorized by year, on the other hand, made it very handy for "flipping" through, for example, the war years and finding military photos specific to individual fronts. Enormously useful. You've removed the point of having access to these photos if no one can find them easily. Please reconsider categorizing them, or consider having multiple categories and including a "by year" category. I don't see what the harm would be. 17:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This topic is becoming a FAQ, see also here, here, here and probably few other places. It seems to me that subcategories of Category:Images from the German Federal Archive like Category:Images from the German Federal Archive by year, and Category:Images from the German Federal Archive by location were very useful for brousing the Archive collection, which now resides as 82k files in a single category. As I understand, the reason for removing all those categories was that they were added automatically by a template, and were only meant to be kept temporarily until other categories were added. Once every image had at least one other category then the "temporary" system of categories was dismantled. Unfortunately for a lot of images the current categories are not as useful as the original category structure. Maybe we should recreate the original category structure creating a bot which would add appropriate categories to all the images (to avoid the very unpopular categories created by a template). --Jarekt (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I second this --Leafnode 10:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
AgreeMichael Dorosh (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I assume this is not about Bundeswehr (the German military) but Bundesarchiv (the German federal archive)? - Jmabel ! talk 04:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That was my assumption --Jarekt (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
That would be correct. Oops. 13:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that you now ask the community about the issue instead of charging random users with making Commons useless for many users. --Martin H. (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Random? -->07:37, 26 October 2009 Martin H. (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Images from the German Federal Archive by year" ‎ (Empty category) 14:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Please first have a look at the log. And read my comment on you accusation. --Martin H. (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree. The year categories were extremely useful, both for finding images related to particular events and for assigning images to articles. They should be restored. Kaldari (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems the previous objection was to using automatic categorization based on template parameters. What if the year templates were hard coded by a bot (based on info in the template) instead of automatically generated by the template? Would that be satisfactory? Kaldari (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I would agree on two conditions: 1. No template hacks, 2. Temporary structure. Multichill (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • For the "by year" categories:
    • In general, they are much more useful than, e.g. the temporary ones generated for the Navy upload.
    • I don't see an advantage in not leaving them in templates (it could just generate discrepancies with the descriptions).
    • As they are collection specific, I think they should be hidden categories.
    • I don't think it's a problem leaving them in on a permanent basis. At least until we have a reasonable way to search images by date other than through hand-made categories. -- User:Docu at 17:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Docu mentioned "I don't see an advantage in not leaving them in templates", I agree it is simpler and the final result is very similar, but I also agree with User:Multichill dislike for categories "automagically" added by templates. My proposal to add the categories to all the images was an attempt to find a compromise. I also agree with Docu's statement "I don't think it's a problem leaving them in on a permanent basis" and with all due respect for User:Multichill work on Bundesarchiv collection (and countless other projects) I do not agree with his opinion that directory structure within Category:Images from the German Federal Archive should be temporary. I think that just like any of the subcategories of Category:Paintings by museum is allowed to categorize collections of each museum whichever way they seem fit, we should treat image collections from Bundesarchiv, Fotothek or LOC in the same way we treat image collections from museums and organize them using permanent, non-hidden category structure integrated into our larger category schema. This category structure should not interfere with need to also add other categories to all the images from those collections. --Jarekt (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
You want to find images by year, sure, that sounds useful. So the images should end up in one of the subcategories of Category:Germany in the 20th century. Multichill (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I hope most Bundesarchiv images ended up in appropriate "by country by year" categories and that is where I would look if I was searching for images from Germany but it is harder to find Bundesarchiv images from US. The beauty of the old system was that one could browse Bundesarchiv collection which is impossible now. I for example enjoyed picking a year and seeing all the Bundesarchiv images from that year, mostly looking for pictures of Poland, and east of Poland. Now it is impossible. I also dislike idea of temporary categories because I put some effort into integration Bundesarchiv categories into commons schema. Most of the Western Polish cities had in the category "History of City" a subcategory of images from Bundesarchiv in addition to adding Bundesarchiv images to subcategories of "History of City" or "Year in City" categories. Now all those links were erased together with the categories. I would not want to recreate them is the Bundesarchiv categories were to be erased again. --Jarekt (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia's 2009 Fundraising Campaign

If anybody was on Commons (or a WMF wiki) from about 13 hours ago until just a few hours ago, you would have seen a fundraising banner at the top of every page. There was a massive backlash from users on the English Wikipedia due to quality of the "slogans" and the banner's appearance (the currently set banners can be viewed here and more here). Please see here for the thread on enwiki where that discussion took place. The centralnotice was shut off due to problems with it in Internet Explorer, but there's now a subpage set up on meta to discuss changes or alternate banners. I urge anybody who has any ideas, comments, questions, etc. to please make your voice heard on m:Fundraising 2009/Alternative banners. Killiondude (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

commons specific banners are at m:Fundraising 2009/Alternative_banners#Incorporating_graphics.Geni (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Interwikis broken

Hope it is a temporary problem that all interwikis [[de:example]] turned into red links in all namespaces, for all language codes. --Martin H. (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

was a temporary problem :) --Martin H. (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Multitudes of categories for churches

I had been categorizing British churches by saint's name and by county (e.g. Category:Churches in Buckinghamshire), but I found out a day or so ago that there is a whole set of subcategories by county in Category:Anglican churches in the United Kingdom. Just as a matter of good naming and categorizing, should Commons have such parallel categories? Should we have Category: Churches in X with subcategories for Category:DenominationY Churches in X? Inquiring minds want to know? Estillbham (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. We've got Category:Roman Catholic churches in New York and Category:Episcopal churches in New York which are subcatted to Category:Churches in New York and to their respective world-wide hierachies. Some are also in the subcats of Category:Stone churches or whatever. Parellel? Not exactly. They are linked together as a mesh with Protestant and Category: Maronite churches and Category:Cathedrals in the United States and Category:Churches in Harlem and other sub and supercats. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it depends whether one categorizes images or categories of images.
    If you are categorizing images, it might be preferable to do this primarily by location, possibly by architectural style.
    Once churches have their own categories, full parent categories by location/style/saint/denomination/year of construction would be nice.
    Adding parent categories doesn't need to be done manually, e.g. it's not necessary to add Category:Church of England churches in Buckinghamshire to each subcategory. You can request a synchronization by Eusebot at User talk:EuseBot/commands. Note that categories don't need to be strictly identical, one could use e.g.
Please synchronize Category:Anglican churches in the United Kingdom with en:Category:Church of England churches in Buckinghamshire.
BTW, when simply categorizing images, Category:DenominationZ12321 Churches in A might be more interesting to have than Category:DenominationA Churches in A. -- User:Docu at 04:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the British church category trees are indeed parallel because they not meshed. Category:Anglican churches in Kent for example is not subcatted to Category:Churches in Kent and as far as I see other county church cats are running similarly as parallel trees rather than as a proper mesh. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Would the following make more sense? Create two categories for each county, e.g., Category:Anglican churches in Kent and Category:Roman Catholic churches in Kent. Those 2 would be subs of Category:Churches in Kent. The Anglican categories would also be subs of Category:Anglican churches in England. In that way, folks can look up churches by "brand" or by geography. (I don't want to slight the Methodists, Baptists, etc., but there are fewer than 30 of each in their respective "__ churches in England" categories right now. We will get to them later.) Estillbham (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I just made Anglican Churches in X subcategories of Churches in X for all X's. Wknight94 talk 01:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the way. New York has only one Maronite church that I know about, so it is listed directly in the worldwide Category:Maronite churches as well as in the interfaith Category:Churches in New York. Some denominations have few churches in New York but several in the rest of country, so they go in a USA sectarian category besides the New York non sectarian one. With plenty of RCC, CoE and Baptist church pictures, they get their own New York sectarian cats, children to the respective national sectarian cat and the intersectarian New York one. Hmm, including the various western and Orthodox churches we've got at least seven cathedrals in Greater New York City (four of them have my Commons photos), yet no NY Cathedral cat. If I make such a category, it will of course be subcategorized into Category:Cathedrals in the United States as well as Category:Churches in New York. Mosques are scarcer hereabouts; Commons has my photos of about four, so their cat structure is still pretty simple. Local synagogue categories were being well tended by someone else, last time I looked. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:World War II by country

I did not like the name change from Category:Poland during World War II to Category:Poland in World War II or the fact that it was done without any discussion. New name is unclear, uses poor English and much more rarely used, just compare 121,000 google hits for "Poland during World War II" with 9,840 hits for "Poland in World War II". It also creates name incompatibility with dozen subcategories named Category:X during World War II..... Than I looked around and similar moves were done to Germany, Lithuania, Ukraine, etc. I would like to ask for opinions (below) of users with good grasp of English about preferred form. --Jarekt (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually both terms are vague and terms attribute different context the grouping xxx during WWII would to my reading be about forces, eg such that anything related to Australian forces and the physical territories Australia during WWII, where as Australia in WWII would be about events in Australia and it territories. In the case of Poland while all events in coutry would be in both the forces of the free Polish Army in France/Belguim/UK etc would be only in the Poland in WWII. Gnangarra 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Votes for Category:Country during World War II
  • Votes for Category:Country in World War II
See Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/02/Category:Belgium in World War II. I think that changes here need a cfd on all "world war x by country" categories. --Foroa (talk) 11:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
So that is how the new name schema affecting dozens of directories was decided. Unfortunately I missed it somehow. --Jarekt (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I will take the votes as a general preference for Category:Country during World War II over Category:Country in World War II category names. I agree with User:Gnangarra that they have slightly different connotations, but I think "during" form is more general. The directories usually hold anything remotely related to WWII in a given country. I would like to propose to change all "in" categories to "during" categories In order to standardize the naming unless there are objections. --Jarekt (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

November 12

Picture search

I am looking for an old-fashioned painting of a librarian (or the like) carrying or arranging books. I want it to have the idea that he is adding books. Thanks. Arlen22 (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

File:AlvarLibrarian1940.jpg? Try your luck at Category:Librarians and Category:Librarians by country mahanga (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
For a painting - Category:People with books in art? Category:Library interiors in art? Man vyi (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
File:Carl Spitzweg 021.jpg is very beautiful and, as you can see by the usages of the image, many Users choice for that scope. --Martin H. (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


bar chest from southeast asia brought to us in the 1950"s as a gift from a merchant marine. Want to find any information about a handcarved bar that tells some kind of stories. It is teak wood and in a black laquare and all hand carved. Can anyone help please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 21:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Try asking on the Wikipedia Reference desk. If you can upload photos of this item you may have better luck. --Teratornis (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

November 13


en has an article en:Candlestick, but it links to Category:Candelabras. commons has a second collection as Category:Candlesticks. What to do? 12:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster, candelabras are also candlesticks when they hold candles, so linking to Category:Candlesticks seems to be more appropriate. Perhaps Category:Candlesticks and Category:Candelabras should be linked together via {{Cat see also}}. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Please also note there's an article on en:Candelabra. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Should be clarified, linked and cleaned by now. Don't forget the various chandeliers. --Foroa (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. And I have added a candlestick file and a second commons link in en:Candlestick. Regards Mutter Erde 15:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

November 14

Note from the dep. for funny categories

Did you know that we have a Category:Useless Stuff? --Túrelio (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the images are icon thumbnails which were converted to svg and are kept as a reference. I do not see a problem with them. But generally the content of the category could be a good candidate for deletion as not in scope. --Jarekt (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
...and most of the reference bitmaps are still in scope. Not sure this is a good solution to hide images that some people think is "clutter", by removing them from categories they should be in. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, this category shouldn't even exist on Commons, but nobody is perfect. --Túrelio (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Even if our thumbnailing engine doesn't like the images, the contents of the category can be merged into Category:Firefighters insignia of Lower Austria and the category deleted. -- User:Docu at 10:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done. Multichill (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art at the V&A images

Hi all. Thanks to User:Kaldari, the images taken at the en:Victoria and Albert Museum as part of last February's Wikipedia Loves Art photography contest are now on Commons; see Category:Wikipedia Loves Art at the Victoria and Albert Museum. They're now all ready for categorization here, and incorporation into articles on Wikipedia.

We're currently planning a follow-up event within the UK this February - Britain Loves Wikipedia. Help developing this event, suggestions of topics where we need more photos, and general comments about the event would all be most welcome. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Toolserver down

"maintenance is in progress, but is taking longer than the expected 3 hours. sorry for the inconvenience." Please see toolserver-l. -- User:Docu at 07:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No wonder: Friday 13th November. ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Is the MayFlower search down indefinitely? mahanga (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for a picture of David Barish's sailwing

Hi. I'm looking for free pictures of David Barish's wings (see the pictures on that page). As far as I understand, David Barish designed those wings for the NASA, so do you know if there is any chance I could find public domain pictures in a NASA database? --PiRK (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Searching for uncategorized videos?

I'd like have a listing of videos that are not in Category:Videos or any of its subcategories. How can I do a search for that, so I can appropriately categorize those videos. The file extension is .ogv and sometimes .ogg. Thanks. mahanga (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a very complicated thing to do. I'd imagine a query could be written to find all the files that have ".ogv" or ".ogg" in the file namespace, then run a check against that list to see if it is in the category tree you mentioned. But that would take somebody very bot-oriented to put together. :-) Killiondude (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have a list of all videos in that category (using AWB). If I were given a text file list of all ogv files, I could do a comparison and easily find those needing categorization. .ogg is a little trickier, since most are sound files. Maybe there's a way to search for Ogg multiplexed audio/video file or Ogg Theora video files? Actually, I'm gonna try downloading one of the database dumps and using AWB to work with it. mahanga (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, for those curious on what I did.
  1. Downloaded AutoWikiBrowser
  2. Downloaded Commons Database Dump (Articles, templates, image descriptions, and primary meta-pages)[22] - 651mb compressed archive, expanded to ~6gb.
  3. Use AWB Database scanner to get a list of all ogv files
    1. From that list, remove ogv files already on the category:Videos. Found 414 ogv files.
  4. Ogg files was more difficult since most are audio files and unfortunately, the file description pages don't list filetype information (such as mimetype or resolution) which would help in differentiating audio and video.
    1. Get a list of all ogg files with video|videos|ffmpeg in the file description.
    2. Remove ogg files already on category:videos. Resulted with 321 ogg files. I estimate 10-20% are still audio files.

A total of roughly 735 videos were found. I've listed them here User:mahanga/ogvlist and ogglist. mahanga (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, I found thousands of .ogg files not in any of the audio categories. mahanga (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Nice! I didn't think about doing that. Maybe we should set up a page for these kind of reports? I mean, I have User:Killiondude/sandbox 2 which lists talk pages with no associated article/file/category page. Something like w:Wikipedia:Database reports, but for Commons. (Maybe there's something similar, that I don't know about?) Killiondude (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a good idea, though I'm not sure how active it would be. mahanga (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

November 15

HTML appearing in file history

The file history section of File:Muskingum County Courthouse Zanesville OH.jpg, instead of showing a thumbnail of the original image, displays HTML as follows:

<a href=""><img alt="Thumbnail for version as of 16:41, 12 April 2006" src="" width="120" height="90" border="0" /></a>

This image was reuploaded with a few changes, and a few similar lines of HTML appear in the reuploaded line. Any idea what could be causing this, and what (if anything) we could do to fix it? Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not the "real" file history. The image seems to have been moved from File:MuskinghamCtyCourthouse ZanesvilleOH.jpg, and the bot copied over the file history. More of it seems to be on the talk page of the current file. That move isn't very clear... Killiondude (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's not the actual file history, just a poorly made reproduction by a bot. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary_Hover: a JavaScript on double-click

Wikinews proposes a script to display the Wiktionary definition in a small board, when one double-click on a word. It's already been installed in the following Wiktionairies gadgets: in French and in Italian. The interface of the board depends on the user's language preferences.

To add it here, we should vote for an administrator, in:

  1. MediaWiki:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover.js, copies without the guillemets : "importScriptURI('');"
  2. MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, adds "* dictionaryLookupHover|dictionaryLookupHover.js"
  3. MediaWiki:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover, describes the gadget. JackPotte (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done Otourly (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

November 16

Can someome move/rename this?

I uploaded "Electronhom Telidon terminal.jpeg". That first word should have an e at the end. Can someone fix? Maury Markowitz (talk)

Fixed. Kaldari (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Two claiming authorship on same photograph

Compare File:First Bank of US (2).jpg just uploaded by User:Rfj0906 with File:First Bank of US.jpg uploaded in March 2007 by User:Euthman. Each claims "own work," but the Metadata is almost exactly the same. Should picture (2) be loaded as a New Version of the earlier one? Estillbham (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a bit interesting. I will assume the original one by User:Euthman is legitimate; it was uploaded 2.5 years ago and the same user does appear to have a Flickr account which some of his photos are linked to. User:Rfj0906... hrm. That user just uploaded 5 photos, with 4 different types of cameras (3 different Nikons and an Olympus). Possible, but given the problem that one image is just a slightly processed version of Euthman's image (same exact metadata), that seems a little more dodgy. It is possible they are the same person, just forgetting they had made an account earlier. It could be a user improving existing images, then incorrectly thinking that the changes made them the copyright owner. But, I don't see User:Rfj0906's other uploads previously existing on Commons. It may be the user earlier downloaded some photos into their computer from elsewhere, then forgot they did not take them, and is now uploading them. It would be best to ask on their talk page, probably. The four-different-cameras thing is a little dubious, but not impossible. And no, unless they are the same person, the newer version should not be uploaded on top of the old one -- it is not an obvious improvement; better to have both versions available. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Retro Console Pics (Gaming)

Hello, I've just launched a site,, which offers high quality images of retro video game/computer systems. The images are available for download as well as canvas prints, posters and framed pictures.

I wonder if there's some mutual benefit from you being able to offer my images within your existing product line? Whether I offer the service white labelled to you or it's a simple referral with a commission I don't know. However I do think there's something here which may be of use to both of us.

All the best,

All images here are free to take by anybody, if you follow the terms of the license. If you upload your images here under CC license, they will have a lot of visibility and you will be able to add a link to your website in the text under images. You can also specify that anybody reusing your images will have to add "(c) Your name / / CC-by-sa-3.0" nearby. --Jarekt (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
That looks like spam -- a "commission"? At any rate, screenshots of old games would still be copyrighted and most likely not acceptable here anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
No, but pictures of the hardware would usually be free. As Jarekt says, if he wants to upload the pictures, we'll be happy to offer all the attribution that CC-by-sa provides.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, quite right -- misread that. Yes, photos of the consoles themselves are quite welcome, provided the photographers are willing to license them with CC-BY-SA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Doubt about my own upload...

Hi everyone. I have uploaded this file, thinking that it was PD-US since the film was released in 1914. But I realized that it was written "old time action drama" and "Cecil B DeMille's first epic" on the poster, which could suggest that it was made long after the movie... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Either of those two slogans are also consistent with the hypothesis that the poster was contemporary with the film.
  • The film is set in a time well before 1914; hence "old time". The film was based on the 1905 play which was already a period piece.
  • Even in 1914 it would have been possible to say that this was "Cecil B DeMille's first epic." Since the poster does not state that there was more than one epic, we only know the poster cannot be older than the oldest date when it was apparent that DeMille had produced his first epic. In other words, we only know the poster cannot be much older than 1914. We have no idea whether the poster is much younger than that.
I suppose you could invoke the precautionary principle, but in this case that seems like copyright paranoia. You might try to track down whoever owns the copyright to the poster and ask them. The Squaw Man (1914 film) says the film was from Famous Players-Lasky which today is Paramount Pictures. Someone there might know if they hold the copyright to this poster. If they do then you could try following the procedure in COM:OTRS. --Teratornis (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess you're right, that may be copyright paranoia! Actually the style of the poster seems pretty old to me so I don't think it's much younger than the movie itself. And I think DeMille was quite well-known before his cinema career because of the plays he made or acted in. So I suppose you're right about the interpretation of the sentences. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear, note that I'm only claiming the poster could be as old as 1914. For all we know it might be younger. The Wikipedia article says the movie was remade twice, so you might check to make sure the poster does not apply to the later remakes. If the poster is really about the original film, that might suggest it is not younger than the first remake. But this is not conclusive. I think given the probable age of the poster and the obscurity of the film, the odds are low that anybody is going to complain even if the poster is still under copyright. Copyright is ultimately about money, and when it comes to movies, money is about how popular a film is going forward. A film which has no present or future market value seems unlikely to be the first concern of the MPAA's lawyers. Not that I'd expect them to give an inch if they have a case. --Teratornis (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Well since it's written "DeMille's first epic", it DOES concern the 1914 movie. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

unclear missing permission at File:Christine Chen.jpg

Here is a missing permission since may 2009, but it is not properly deleted or kept, checked or what else ?! Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Attribution to the author

Let's say I would want to use this picture File:70_x_70_-_Alien_Nation.JPG on a website. I can't find the information how I should attribute the author. Also on the page there is text Author and a text: Schwarzes-flimmern which is actually a link.

Then there is also text Categories: Paintings by Frank Schwarz. So how do I attribute the author? And will I use Frank Schwarz or Schwarzes-flimmern? I found some information here but I don't know which credit line I should use..

Thank in advance!

See Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. If you want to credit Schwarzes-flimmern, then you might write Commons-user:Schwarzes-flimmern, eventually with an underlying link to his talkpage. However, as of Category:Paintings by Frank Schwarz we can safely assume that User:Schwarzes-flimmern is the painter Frank Schwarz himself. So you might well credit him under that name. Beyond the artist credit don't forget "For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page."[23] --Túrelio (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest "© Frank Schwarz / cc-by-3.0". --Jarekt (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies! Still one more question: How do you know that the license is CC-BY and not for example CC-SA? I mean, CC is clear to me, but I can't see anything in the page that states it's CC-BY..

BY stands for the license condition Attribution. See the license template on the image page, the type of license is identifiable through the name of the license written in the template (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported), it is also identifiable throught the weblink, the license template uses the symbols described in Also you have the name of the license template {{cc-by-3.0}}. We have lot of Creative Commons license here on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy on summaries?

This file came to my attention. IMO, the text following the template in the Summary section doesn't belong here, but should be part of the article, properly sourced. COM:POL was no help, could someone point me to the relevant page(s)? Paradoctor (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Upload protection enabled

It's now finally possible for admins to protect a file only from reuploading, but not from editing the file description page. If no one else does, I'll start moving down the protection level of most files within the next days. However, I've unprotected a first file already now: Feel free to give File:Wikimedia-button-for-homepage.png the categories that it needed since 6 September 2009. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yay :) Huib talk 18:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Awesome! I can help out if needed. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Probs with purging

I would like to purge the cache on that file using ?action=purge. But if I am doing that, the system claims: "No file by this name exists, but you can upload it."

Do you have any suggestions? Cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I just used the "Purge" button in the upper bar, and the system didn't complain at all. Firefox 3.5.5 here. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Just for reference, the link was -- IANEZZ  (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC) works fine as well. Perhaps you made a typo when adding ?action=purge to the URL? -- IANEZZ  (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thx Ianezz! You made it! Could have been an typo, though I used c&p....Cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong plates

File:Koeh-250.jpg originally was a scan of a botanical plate showing a kind of almond; in 2007 it was replaced with a different plate of another kind of plant. The second editor's other work may need to be checked and fixed. What is the best way to do this? --Una Smith (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The real problem may be that on Köhler 1887 alphabetical english the replacement plate is still identified as an almond. --Una Smith (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It looks like someone uploaded the wrong replacement images for File:Koeh-249.jpg, File:Koeh-250.jpg, and File:Koeh-251.jpg. I think I've fixed them all. Kaldari (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Scope? : Team and Logo of "Cook Ross", Washington DC

The user "Interncookross" unloaded several files and logos with portraits from people from a consulting firm in the US, named Cook Ross, see - all of them are without categories, one category is wrong. Are these files in the scope of the commons?? - they will be perfect for a homepage of the company, but I personally think they can hardly be used here. Two of them look like portraits from a studio, not self taken. Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, I deleted the files as out of scope, none of them where in use.
Best regards,
Huib talk 19:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! - next case: see below Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Internationalization of categories?

Hello, I haven't found this topic in the archives, so I place it here. At the moment Commons very english language centric. This limits commons for a wider audience. Are there some change requests for the software which will allow internationalization of categories?--Avron (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes (sorry, can't find a link), but until then use sum-it-up to at least add descriptions in multiple languages. Multichill (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd love to have them in multiple languages, but the main reasons for opposition of this is that category redirects don't yet work. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Information Request

Can anyone tell me where I can find information on the average of Iowan's by county or city. I have printed out the pyramid with ages for Sioux County and see that we have quite a few young people, but I would like to know how that compares to other counties in Iowa. I believe I heard once that we have the 5th average youngest age in the state, but I would like to verify that. Any help would be appreciated. Bonnie Meier

Hi! This is Wikimedia Commons, which is the image repository for a lot of wikis on the internet. Your question might best be suited for Wikipedia's Reference Desk at w:WP:RDM. :-) Killiondude (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

November 18


Am I correct in thinking that files with {{Ngw2}} need another tag on them for a license...? I came across it on File:Countymonaghanarms.jpg. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. And I don't think this tag should be made to look like a license, either. Its appearance is in complete contradiction with its content (it looks like free license, but is in fact a strange warning — BTW, do we really need it? A tag saying this image has nothing to do with this website?) –Tryphon 09:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You are right, this tag does not show a source (I mean the real source) or copyright status, therefore it is misleading. Would you please file a deletion request? Sv1xv (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Done, here it is. –Tryphon 10:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
(I realized you probably meant the file, not the tag. But I think the tag is questionable at best, and I'd like to hear more opinions, so anyway...) –Tryphon 10:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
No, I do mean the tag, it is useless and potentially misleading. Sv1xv (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I see... Please disregard my last comment then :-) –Tryphon 10:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
On a side note: is the information in {{ngw}} correct? The disclaimer at the bottom of apparently says something quite different. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

.svg-image with an unwanted black line

I uploaded Oslo Metro map.svg, and discovered a black, horizontal line in the image. I noticed a similar, vertical line has been made in a previous upload, Copenhagen Metro with City Circle Line map.svg, but has not bee uploaded with the diagram Copenhagen Metro map.svg. These lines do not show up in Inkscape, so I am uncertain how to remove them. Arsenikk (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Help:SVG#Fonts possibly. --Martin H. (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed it. You need to remove flowed text elements, because they're not properly supported by Common's SVG rendering software. –Tryphon 11:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot :) Arsenikk (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


Does anyone understand the intent of Category:Historism and its subcategories? Some of these seem to relate to various types of revivalist architecture, but I can't even say that is a theme running through them all. en:Historism is not particularly helpful in elucidating the matter; I suspect it is not the meaning of the word intended here. In any case, whoever created the subcategories clearly has ignored the supercategories (and/or vice versa). Something needs to be sorted out here. -- Jmabel ! talk 23:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

One thing useful in en:Historism, though: it is quite specific that historism is not a synonym for the more common English word historicism. Historicism would have an plausible relationship to revivalist architectural styles. - Jmabel ! talk 23:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done my best to notify everyone who has done closely related categorization, hoping someone can provide some insight. I notice it's mostly Germans, so it may be a problem of a false cognate. - Jmabel ! talk 23:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)</ref>

en:Historicism (art) is probably what is meant, of which a subcat would be en:Architectural revivalism. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Historism (or historicism or revivalism sometimes eclecticism) in architecture of the 19th century is a well-defined concept. However, this definition is simple for any given culture, but not so simple for the whole world. The boundaries between preceding neoclassicism and historism, and between historism and modernity are different in each culture. I am not sure that all national varieties (en:Victorian architecture and its subgenres, en:Beaux-Arts architecture, etc...) deserve being piled up into one catch-all category. NVO (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
just have a look at de:Historismus and see, you dont have to read German...--Kresspahl (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Ich kann ganz gut Deutsch lesen. Aber… "Historism" is not a term I have ever heard a native English speaker use in this sense. "Historicism"? Sure. But look at how this thing is fit into the category hierarchy:
Supercategories Paintings, Art by subject
Category Historism
Subcategories Academic dress (Historism), Historism architecture, Exterior views of the Altes Museum Berlin, Historicist architects

… and as an aid in looking at the most important part down the hierarchy from there:

To display all subcategories, click on the "►".

No matter how you slice it, this makes no sense, and can't be solved just by turning "Historism" to "Historicism". For example, academic dress is not a subcat of paintings. - Jmabel ! talk 04:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Agreed in general... take out dresses and inkpots, leave architecture - what is the proper, uncontroversial name for it ? Category:Eclectic architecture is fairly well filled, its parent Category:Eclectic art is not, but I suspect this concept is narrower than historicism in general. NVO (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Recently there was somewhat related, though far more narrow discussion on Forum (german language only) about subgroups/cats of Historism architecture. --Túrelio (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I created this during the import of the Yorck Project where some of the paintings were labeled as this genre (probably in German) and I did my best at categorization and translation. My guess is a bad translation of Historismus into Historism is why I created this. Some of the files have "Historienmalerei" on them and maybe I turned that into Historism instead of "history painting". I'm not fully sure, but I think the root of this is the translation from German to English. Feel free to change as makes sense--that's just the history of it. gren (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
You find the translation "Historismus-historism" in online-dictionaries like (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I say that just goes to show how far you should trust an online dictionary. - Jmabel ! talk 23:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

November 17

FOP in Philippines?

Does anybody know whether there is a freedom of panorama law in the Philippines? Our FOP page has nil information about that. The immediate cause for this question is whether File:Combat de la Hoya Pacquiao.jpg might be covered by FOP. --Túrelio (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Much of Philippine copyright law is based off US law (since the country was a US territory for a good part of the 20th century), even their fair use clauses are the same as ours. ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Lithographies" vs. "Lithographs"

Is there any reason we have some categories with names that begin with "Lithographies" and others that begin with "Lithographs"? I'm guessing that the former were just someone's poor English, and they should all be renamed "Lithographs…" but thought I'd check here first in case I'm missing something.

For examples, see Category:Lithographies, Category:Lithographs. The latter is currently a subcat of the former. - Jmabel ! talk 22:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been a few days, no one has commented, I'll put in the request. - Jmabel ! talk 17:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The histories of these category pages indicate they've been around for a while. You might see whether the early editors are still active on Commons. The first contributor to the Category:Lithographies page was an IP address. I guess that was back when unregistered users could still create pages. It would probably be difficult to identify that person and ask him or her to explain the naming choice. --Teratornis (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

RESOLVED. Undoubtedly happened because Lithographies is correct in French. - Jmabel ! talk 21:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

November 11

scope? - bacardi-party

Similar (a bit) like the files above: here are the contributions from Domzki, about 5 pictures from a party, one has Categories (Leapfrog), but what is with the others? Useable? I doubt it... Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks! there were some reactions. for me this case is closed. Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

November 19

Nominate for Deletion button broken

Just a note that the "Nominate for deletion" button in the left toolbox appears non-functional. Searched around to see if this has already been reported but came up empty. Huntster (t @ c) 05:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Does your browser block pop-ups? --MGA73 (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
No. To be precise, the button does function, but it simply went to a page that showed some broken code. I just tried the function again, and it did not do this (obviously I didn't try submitting a nomination on any random image!), so the problem may have been temporary. Huntster (t @ c) 01:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Best way to upload source files?

I would like to upload the source files used to create an image, but the files are in the GGB (GeoGebra) format. What is the best way to upload this type of file? SharkD (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether Commons is set up to do that. See Commons:File types for what is allowed here. Is the GeoGebra format text or binary? If it is text, an ugly way would be to paste the content of a source file into a section on the talk page of the image you generated from the source. If the format is binary, that would be even uglier. The GeoGebra article links to GeoGebraWiki which runs on the MediaWiki software like Commons. You might explore GeoGebraWiki to see how they handle uploading. If the site administrators there have worked out something nice, you could propose something similar for Commons. Or maybe you could upload your source files to GeoGebraWiki and link to the source files from here. I see we have a Category:Created with GeoGebra, a GeoGebra gallery, a {{Created with GeoGebra}} template, etc. You could look at the history of those pages to find other Commons users who know about GeoGebra. Maybe some of them have figured out a way to handle source files. --Teratornis (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The Upload Materials page appears to document how you can upload .ggb files to GeoGebraWiki. It looks like you can create an account there, upload your .ggb files, and then add links in your image descriptions on Commons to the corresponding .ggb files over there.
  • The GeoGebra XML Format describes the .ggb format as a zip archive containing an XML file and some other stuff. That format is probably not suitable for Commons.
--Teratornis (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You are correct that the GGB format is a binary ZIP file containing one or more XML files as well as other files. I'm not sure whether it would be appropriate to upload my files to the GeoGebra site as the finished illustration utilizes other source files that are of a different format. Here is a page describing a MediaWiki extension. I don't know anything in detail about it. Thanks the help anyway. SharkD (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I tried to check whether GeoGebraWiki is running mw:Extension:GeoGebra, but it appears that GeoGebraWiki is running a very old version of MediaWiki (1.6.1) which doesn't list the installed extensions on its Special:Version page. You might ask on mw:Extension talk:GeoGebra if anyone knows of a MediaWiki wiki that runs the GeoGebra extension where you could upload your files. I searched for GeoGebra on WikiIndex but found nothing. --Teratornis (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Google copyright?

Google digitalized a XVII century edition of the classical work Satyricon, Petronius, for Google Book. Can I upload an image of this? --Fiertel91 (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe so, see {{PD-scan}}. You might have to remove google watermarks from the document. --Jarekt (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No refresh

I uploaded a new version yesterday of File:Buurtspoorwegen Namen.png but it still shows the old image after 24 hours and repeated use of the refresh button. And of course I logged on and off in that time. Normaly when I update an old picture it is refreshed immediatly. Is the some technical problem?

Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see the difference. You might have to purge your browser's cache (refreshing the page will still show the old version that is cached in your browser, most of the time). Most browsers use ctrl+F5 as the shortcut to purging. Killiondude (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I have linked the picture in NL wikipedia (Lijst van NMVB-tramlijnen in België#Kaarten) The map in the article is OK. When I double click I get the old picture. When I double click again I get the correct full size picture. On the commons I get the wrong down sized picture. Only after I double click do I get the correct full size picture. I think the problem is that the tumbnails bigg and small are not updated. The refresh button doesnt affect the tumbnails. The tumbnails are made on the server. Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There are 3 images involved, only the first and last one are updated:

Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem is now solved. Thanks. Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

November 21

"Greetings from the user "Appleworm"" see [24]

User:Appleworm has loaded up several self-designed greeting cards, some of them are used in discussions of the english Wikipedia. All of them have no categories. Speaking clearly i cannot imagine that there is any use of these cards for the commons, but they can be appropriate for the english wikipedia. What to do with these files? Export to the english WP? (no idea, if this can be done). Or assign categories? Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If they're useful for the English Wikipedia (or any other Wikimedia project), then they're ok for Commons and should only be categorized. --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I did only check the use of one of them - and what category? its not clear for me Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

How about category:Wikimedia-specific media? Paradoctor (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

... OK, thanks, the case is closed, we have about 10 new Greeting cards Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

London categories

Can editors who live in the London area and who are thus already familiar with London place names and nuances of usage, please cast an eye over the work I am doing to enable easier diffusion of the huge image backlog in Category:London. There currently appears not to be enough knowledgeable editors reading the Categories for Discussion pages who appreciate the the need for these amendments and the advantages to doing it in such a way that is both coherent in its local context and remains consistent with the rest of the UK categories. So I appeal to you here to provide the necessary support to vote the right changes through. This “should” be easy, but between the limited times I have available each day to edit WC, other well meaning editors are making changes which confuse issues, so I find my limited time has been spent on trying to sort that out instead.

The background for these improvements are:
The old borough category names were too ambiguous or unclear for many up-loaders to Wikimedia Commons to know which was the proper “place” category to put an image in, so we have amassed a truly huge backlog. Whereas, a clear category system has already been worked out and adopted by [[25]]. Also, as up-loaders appear to consult en:WP before uploading it seams sensible and in keeping with Wiki policy to adopt the existing en:WP names as well, rather than invent something new.

The “London Boroughs” nearly got done by giving them their proper names but some of the possibilities for confusion has survived due to the way they were initially renamed. Example: Category:Haringey got renamed >Category:Haringey, Borough of London<. This cat then got redirected to the correct form of “London Borough of Haringey. This means that ambiguity has now been shifted to confuse editors using the hotcats tool where >Category:Haringay, Borough of London< can still be seen. What this means means in practice is, that it still stays the easiest choice for hotcat users, to place an image in too high a parent cat (where there are too many already) instead of lower down -bad practice. Because of the way humans recognize things in groups, it is obviously better to have the error going the other way; as should the image get placed too low down in the hierarchy it becomes easier to spot and correct by other editors, such occurrences tend to jump out at you. This needs to be fixed by deleting all occurrences of this bad formate ( >Category:X, Borough of London<) . The ‘WikiProject London’ way of arranging things appears to work quite well and is simple and clear.

Most of the images waiting diffusion, will also need to be added to their appropriate and currently underused Category:Districts_of_London (it is almost empty of existing entries to show up when cat searching, so it’s a chicken and egg problem). This cat is best thought of as a gazetteer type (the boroughs being local government groups). The efficient and most helpful way I can see is: if I was to create them ‘en masse’ using the same name as used on en:WP. Then add some gazetteer text so that uploaders know for sure that they have found the right (or wrong) category. This will take me some time as there is bound to be ‘districts’ added during the school holidays that are miss-categorised, so will have to check all those I don’t recognise. Problem: It is normally WC practice to delete empty categories, and the empty categories that appeared during the last change have already been deleted before anyone has had the opportunity them to use them. Also some ad hoc entries seem to have appeared in their place which perhaps ought not be there. Because this approach would initially mean a large number of empty categories, I was wondering if a template would stop them getting deleted by passing editors doing their normal tidy-up exercises. I am thinking of something along the line:

Administrators: Do not delete this category because it is empty!
This new category is waiting for images of London by district to be diffused into it.

This would also save uploaders from having to learn how to create the ‘district’ category themselves, what name they ought to give it (this will also avoid poor names getting created by them which will require further debate to correct). It will save them the inclination and effort to actually do it – which time has proven they don’t have in ample measure. Lastly: by adding these missing categories, they will from thereon, show up for use during category searches. It would also really be a great help to have someone who can both operate the bot to make these changes and understands the nuances so to avoid getting distracted by tangential augments. It then may become a much smoother and rapid process.--P.g.champion (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Empty categories shouldn't be that big of a problem. As you might have noticed I created a whole category structure for towns and villages at the British Isles and that still has to be filled up too.
Don't forget to add commonscat links at Wikipedia, this way users can easily navigate to the categories here and my bots will start putting images in these new categories.
And please do use sum-it-up to generate descriptions and backlinks. Multichill (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Problem is some of our present Boroughs are not historic but political creations to make administration easier, historical districts were stuck together regardless of where people thought (and think) they lived/live, this identification with a historic district is reflected in the Districts of London category, and the category should not be seen as mutually exclusive of the Borough of London categories.KTo288 (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for underlining that KTo288. However, that’s now become a bit of a moot point, because I have been forced to abandon this project by a single editor who continuously churns theses groups of images up, even as I and a friend are working through them. Also, I don’t see how anybody else in the right minds will want to help check for overlaps or gaps, because to join in this game of silly monkeys makes any further work futile. So it has became, sort of, stone dead.--P.g.champion (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Permission Requests Taskforce?

Last week, in the course of this FP nomination, there was talk of an awesome, 24 403 x 13 973 pixel mosaic image showing the same part of space as the candidate but available only by requesting permission from the author. This is not the first time this has happened - a superior image being available in theory, with the only obstacle being that we would have to talk to the author to acquire it (with Flickr images this is particularly common). As on previous occasions, no one proved up to the task (myself included).

I see a strong need for a small group of people on Commons dedicating themselves to the task of requesting permission/relicensing for exceptional images from the copyright holders. Often, when hearing about our project and what CC is, they are very much willing to do so. How about establishing a "Permissions Request Taskforce"? We already have the Graphic Lab, where users can request image improvement, Commons:Requests_for_translation, Durova's Encyclopedic image restoration page, where image restoration can be requested, and probably a few more that I'm not aware of. What I envision is a single place (like Commons:Requests_for_translation) where users, after finding that there is some exceptional image available through the author, can post a request for the author to be contacted that is then picked up by volunteers who will quickly gain experience on how to properly do this (en:Wikipedia:Example_requests_for_permission might provide a few ideas).

While of course not every request will be successful, this should greatly increase the number of requests sent and consequentially also the number of requests that are actually granted, making some of those fantastic images a part of Commons that we now only stare at with envy. -- JovanCormac 07:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems too formal. Is there any compelling reason as to why our current practice isn't working? –blurpeace (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
What is "our current practice"? From the example I gave it appears that it is "well, someone may do it, or someone may not, and in the end it doesn't get done", which is exactly the problem. -- JovanCormac 17:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think a page on commons that guides users on how to best ask for permission would be very useful. This should also include cooperation projects with image databases.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
That's what we need at the very least, yes. -- JovanCormac 07:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I like this idea too. We could also have a place where names of people contacting other parties are kept. It might be confusing to other websites and database administrators to be contacted repeatedly by people representing Wiki[mp]edia that do not know about each other, or about the last exchange. --Jarekt (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I do think a taskforce could be a nice idea, I think I would even join it :) Huib talk 14:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This could be very useful. I have a bit of experience in getting people to release images under a free licence, but I often encounter situations where I don't speak the language of the copyright holder. Having a centralized place (ordered by language) to ask for help would be great. Pruneautalk 14:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I cannot see why a "small group of people on Commons" is necessary. Needless formalities. I'd support an information page or task force though. –blurpeace (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course, the more people join, the better! "Small group" was not a reference to restrictions of any kind. -- JovanCormac 21:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Misinterpretation on my part. Commons:WikiProject Permission requests could be a start. –blurpeace (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I set up the page, and the first two ideas for permission requests. Who's with me? -- JovanCormac 10:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Great work. Maybe a participants list? I'll set one up. –blurpeace (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

November 20

SVG converting?

Can someone help me to convert Image:Modern Talking.png to a SVG file. Thanks, and please contact me if you can... --MisterWiki (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Oversight nomination

The admin Abigor has nominated himself for the oversight rights. Your opinion is appreciated at Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Abigor. --The Evil IP address (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

November 22

Not existing Heckert_GNU_white.svg in Licensing

I have uploaded several images but there is mentioned in the Licensing block "File:Heckert GNU white.svg" in red. See for example File:Tenerife Adeje beach D.jpg. What is the cause? Thanks, Wouter (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#FIle:Heckert_GNU_white.svg Huib talk 10:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Unusual Category

Here Category:2006 photos of Japan is a category, that is very unusual compared to all other categories, isnt it? Comments and ideas about it? Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  • It is unusual, but what I like about it is that it describes its scope better than Category:2006 in Japan would. -- User:Docu at 14:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, at the moment it does, but if (for example) someone had a ticket stub from Japan in 2006, would you really want them to have to make a different category? - Jmabel ! talk 21:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Heckert GNU white.svg

Something is wrong with that image. It seems that all File versions are deleted but the description file is still there. Somebody uploaded several new versions tonight; perhaps they messing it up. It is used in {{GFDL}}. Therefore its used within thousends or millions of image description files. Can somebody (an Admin?) fix this? Thx. --Jutta234 (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#FIle:Heckert_GNU_white.svg Huib talk 10:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, thx :) --Jutta234 (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is the protection on that image downgraded to autoconfirmed?? -Nard the Bard 21:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Because someone wanted to upload a cleanup of the image. I've reprotected it to sysop. --The Evil IP address (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv images

There seems to be an edit war going on with some people cropping the captions off these images and generally tidying them up, while others are reverting the changes. Whats going on? I regard the images as unacceptable for use on wikipedia while carrying a white stripe down one side and advertising the people who supplied them.Sandpiper (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would your personal opinion be of importance in a matter of community standards? 01:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Who is that? that's not the sort of comment an anon contributor makes. Advertising on wiki is absolutely not acceptable. White stripes down images we use isn't either. They have to be cleaned up somehow and also for spots and blemishes on the pictures. I will take a picture like that off any page I am working on. Sandpiper (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on, but I would urge people to take care when cropping and otherwise tidying up images. Image information will be lost unless lossless cropping or lossless rotation is used. Also image sharpening will probably create artefacts. As to cropping captions and reverting, I would urge people to instead create and upload a derivative image (retouched if necessary) of the original and link them together with {{Extracted from}}, {{Image extracted}} and {{RetouchedPicture}}. Should this guidance be in Category:Bundesarchiv? That way all parties should be happy and the database and external commons users should be happier too. -84user (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There certainly needs to be a definitive explanation of what to do clearly available. There are an awful lot of these so that means creating 80,000 derivative versions or something. I think I noticed a bot at work for cropping them and a bot for restoring them? This is a general issue aside from this set: There are very many old images which need cleaning up in some way to make them look good. I assume myself that the reason the old versions of files are still available on the page is so anyone can use those instead if they want, but the tidied versions are automatically used by wiki. I have never seen instructions about what to do. Sandpiper (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that watermarks on bundersarchive images should be dealt with the same way we deal with all other watermarked images, see Category:Images with watermarks and Template:Watermark. We do have a policy about this issue. I do not like the idea of making copies of those images it is hard enough to keep 84k images categorized and with image descriptions. 168k would be even harder. I agree with 84user about need for lossless cropping.--Jarekt (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, I don't know that watermarking is even an issue. How do I preserve a watermark? There is nothing on the page to say they should not be altered, nor that there is any special requirement about keeping the captions, etc. People are doing the apparently sensible thing and cropping the rubbish, but also touching up faults on the images. Sandpiper (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, read the policy. I thought you were talking about invisible watermarks. For my vote, the captions have to go. The current version of an image ought to be the most presentable one. Sandpiper (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Living people

I've started a discussion on this category over at CfD: Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/11/Category:Living people. As this is an important category on the Wikipedias it is used on notifying community here. Any comments there would be appreciated.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

External use

Came across this earlier [26]. Appears all the images are from here. Haven't checked the sources images to see if the license terms are met although each image is attributed. Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoever takes care of that, it would be nice to put on the talkpage of each re-used image our published-template {{published| author= |date= |url= |title= |org= |legal= }}. (Or if that is asked to much, at least put the link to the respective article on the re-used image's talkpage.) Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv Categorization status

Was just wondering...after the conversation here: which is now archived has anything actively been decided or will actually occur? 14:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

People are still actively categorizing these images. Multichill (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand how that is an answer to my question. We were discussing the "by year" categories; the link you provided shows nothing like that. 01:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I proposed recreation of the Category:Images from the German Federal Archive by year category but this time using categories added to the images instead of autocatgorization through templates. Although there was a lot of support for it, it was unclear to me if the resulting categories would be considered to be temporary or permanent. I am hesitant to put much effort into a temporary structure to be deleted latter. Also, at the moment I am in the middle of some other tasks on Commons which I would like to finish before starting a new task. But I assume that it will (eventually) happen. --Jarekt (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I would definitely support them being permanent categories. Before the categories were deleted I was using the Bundesarchiv year categories to find photographs of various European cars. I would find a car article that needed an image, look up the model years for car, look through those years in the Bundesarchiv categories and quite often I would find a free license image of the car I was looking for. Once the year categories were deleted, I gave up on my little project, to the detriment of both Wikipedia and the Bundesarchiv. Kaldari (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

November 22

Should we trust Shavedangie's uploads?

Hi everyone. Should we trust Shavedangie's uploads? (women naked, women peeing... and I'm not sure it's always the same one...) What do you think? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Model is hardly identifiable. Is the images useful ? I don't know... - Zil (d) 08:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Quick googling showed that those pictures are available under the same nickname on few other websites, so probably authorship is OK. Question is, is this in scope? --Leafnode 16:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Well yeah it is in the scope, why wouldn't it be? Peeing is life, Commons can show illustrations of it. And it can illustrate urolagnia too. As for the other pictures, well, it's no less in the scope than most of the nudes we already have so there's no good reason to delete them instead than other similar pics. It just participate to the diversity of choice about related subjects... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Little icon has changed?

Just today, I've noticed a change in the little icon that appears next to "Wikimedia Commons" in any tab in my IE browser that's displaying a Commons page: it's gone from the Commons logo to a white "M" in a blue square with rounded corners. Why was this done? Sorry for the potentially confusing explanation of which icon I mean: I don't know what it's called. Nyttend (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You probably mean the favicon, But i don't notice a change in that, same Commons logo as usual. --Rosenzweig δ 19:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I mean; thanks for the link. When I click on the link that you gave, it gave me the same Commons logo as usual, too. However, I'm continuing to get the M favicon in the tabs. Commons appears to be the only website that's doing this; and it's not a WMF thing, since I continue to get a big "W" at Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

November 25

Feedback on Commons:Video

I created this page because I felt Commons needed a starting point for video-related information. The only article that existed before this one was Help:Converting video. Other video-related information was scattered on other pages. I gathered much of the information from meta:Video policy, w:Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files#Video, and some other pages and condensed it and simplified it for for users unfamiliar with the Theora format. Edit away as you like. mahanga (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Great job. --Jarekt (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Not bad. However, I would do the following: write an introduction that summarizes the page content, try to make the structure a bit better and consider renaming it to Commons:Video files, which would be more exact. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions to help with Wikimedia Strategy.

Hi, good people of Wikimedia Commons.

I've come over from We're interested to know two things about how you work here on Wikimedia Commons.

First, do you have any competitions? On en:wp there are quite a few different competitions that seem to help motivate editors to do good work and more of it.

Here's an example:

More can be found at:

Aside from featured content and Picture Of The Year, does Wikimedia Commons run anything like that?

Also on en:wp there are a number of WikiProjects which help editors to bond as smaller communities within the larger one.

Here's an example:

More can be found at:

Can you point to any sort of sub-communities within Wikmedia Commons which help editors bond as a smaller group within the project as a whole?

Answers to these questions will be valuable to us as we work on Wikimedia Strategy. I will be grateful for any information you can provide. --Bodnotbod (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Besides what you already mentioned, we also have Valued image candidates, Quality images candidates and Featured sound candidates (though the latter is kinda inactive). As something combarable to en.wikipedia, we have the Graphic Lab, which fixes bad images. We also have some projects and WikiProjects, but a lot are inactive. Furthermore, we don't tag talk pages with hundred of templates as en.wikipedia loves to do it. However, we do have some smaller sub-communities: There are people who translate templates, who work with the Bundesarchiv images, Image Annotator people, template guys, copyvio hunters and a lot more, but often they're not within a WikiProject. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
More active subset of Projects can be found here. Examples of ther active projects: image geocodding effort, Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life or Category:Photo scavenger hunts. --Jarekt (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

File usage outside of WMF

Commons provides files to all. File usage seems to be reported only when inside of WMF. Is it appropriate to add links to uses elsewhere on the web? What about usage in print media? Are we interested in such data?

We label files used outside WMF with Template:Published placed on the talk page. --Jarekt (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Other wikis can also use images from Commons, much like any WMF wiki can, if they have the extension (is that the right terminology?) enabled. I've always thought it would be interested if there was a tool like checkusage to tell us which wikis use which image. I don't know if that's feasible, however. Killiondude (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The {{Published}} template is about usage by media organizations. I mean general use, maybe on some blog, a gaming forum, print shops selling posters, scientific publications, b3ta, personal homepages, things like that. I can't find it anymore, but I saw one of our Einstein pics used in an entry for a competition to design an anniversary edition cover for a print(?) magazine. I downloaded this portrait of the Obama family for someone who wants to paint a portrait of the Obama daughters. Paradoctor (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
In case you don't think the published template to be appropriate, just leave a link to the outside-use on the talkpage of the respective image. --Túrelio (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do that. I was concerned that this might be considered link spam. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

November 26

What in the world is "Shoop Da Whoop"? And "Cell"?

Even though this is something not knowlegible,

What the heck is Shoop Da Whoop?

--Mj.Monogram (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Francis, they're 4chan memes. ViperSnake151 (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire

Since the Roman Society was desyroyed by asians in the 300s or so. How is the Byzantine Empire different? But I already know that its culture is probbaly different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mj.Monogram (talk • contribs) 02:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


I am trying to find the artist and label for an old song from my childhood? the song is a parody of the wizard of oz entitled I think-Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is Dead. help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barberswoop (talk • contribs) 03:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ding Dong The Wicked Witch Is Dead (I hope the title is that) was done by a group called The Fifth Estate who recorded it in 1967 and I believe it is on YouTube... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eng446w4 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote from above: This Wikimedia Commons page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. -- JovanCormac 12:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


How does one simply use my talk! Is a separate page needed to be started to use it? Where would I check for replies? Finally, I have yet to receive my email confirmation supposedly sent out twice a while ago. HELP!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eng446w4 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Your user talkpage is here: User talk:Eng446w4. Actually you edited it already twice. --Túrelio (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Superresolution for low-res images

For whatever reason, many images at Commons are not available in high resolution. Modern sophisticated single-image superresolution algorithms can produce zoomed versions of images far superior to those available from standard tools like Photoshop (see e.g. [27]). In light of this, it might be useful to implement a modern algorithm and run an offline batch job to perform superresolution on all low-res images (say, any image below 800 pixels wide). I can think of two main problems with this:

  1. Some users license only low-resolution versions of their images - if a higher resolution version is distributed they may falsely conclude that it is an illegally distributed unlicensed version, rather than derived legally from a licensed version, leading to confusion.
They'd be wrong, then, wouldn't they? Nothing that cannot be cleared up. -- JovanCormac 13:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. Superresolution algorithms may introduce artifacts or inaccuracies in images; if such an image is interpreted as authoritative it could lead to false conclusions.

An alternative is to run the superresolution on the server side when producing image thumbnails/downloads. I consider this untenable because I suspect the algorithms involved are computationally expensive.

Thoughts? Dcoetzee (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to see some examples of up-scaled images, but it seems to me any algorithm, no matter how good, would be making assumptions about the image. Doing so would therefore lower the educational value of the images, as it moves the image from the realm of fact to the realm of supposition. Powers (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
There are some good demonstration images on the page I linked. You might take this with a grain of salt though, since they deliberately chose images containing patterns (which for technical reasons their method performs better on). Dcoetzee (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but whenever an image is displayed on a screen of a different resolution, there's a scaling algorithm involved. Most of our data is stored as JPEG files, where a bunch of information has been dropped on the assumption that it was irrelevant, and the small images get scaled up anyway, by algorithms that make assumptions, sometimes blatantly wrong ones. (Nearest neighbor, for example, assumes that pixelization is a fundamental property of the image.) Yes, we should preserve as close to the original files as possible, but I don't see the clear line between realm of fact and realm of supposition here. If we can find an algorithm we can run cheaply, I wouldn't mind up-scaled images, provided the original files were still available.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
If we could find a cheap algorithm to upscale and use it in MediaWiki I think that would be a good thing. If MediaWiki could generate both 100px and 200px versions of File:Nuvola_apps_important.png it would be useful. Nearest neighbour would be better than nothing, provided it was handled in an equivalent manner to the current thumbnail generation.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that what we have the svg version for...? Regards, —Ed (talkcontribs) 03:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah sorry (poor example), but might be useful if same principle would work with photographic images too.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a batch run is a good idea. The primary purpose of Commons is to provide hosting for WM project imagery. Actual usage on projects is primarily at thumbnail resolutions, how many readers click through to see the larger images? That makes me concerned about the effects of stacking: if you upscale a 200x160 image to 800x640, MediaWiki will downsample back to 200px for use in articles - with the potential to reduce quality. Increasing the resolution cannot provide additional information, and ultimately if downstream users need a higher resolution image they can upscale it themselves (with the algorithm of their choice).
If an image has its resolution increased in this manner, IMO it should be uploaded to a new location not over the original. That addresses the problems you raised, but also restricts the utility. The higher resolution image could then be linked to through other versions. Any such process should be carefully implemented - there is no point to increasing the resolution of these images, whilst there may be a benefit to doing so with many of these.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think its a path we dont want to follow because the potential gain for us doesnt out weigh the probable loss, its not providing anything to Wikimedia Commons or associated Foundation projects. Many of us work with institutions to get improvements in the number of quality of images that are released under free licenses this sometimes means that the images we get are of lower resolutions, but these are large enough for the various project. If our policies are seen as actively targeting these instutions potential income streams(providing Hi-res, print versions) using the images they provide they wont be willing to work with us and they'll more readily resort to Nation Portrait Gallery type methods when a user upload images here. We already have problems with with institutions claiming copyright over effort to reproduce works(in some cases the work itself) the more we provide reasons for them to challenge the notion of this in courts the more likely that the effort will be recognised. We only need a local court finding against a local editor to eliminate all images from that region, irregardless of the current US laws. As an active contributor of photographs I upload downsized images because of the costs and volume restrictions that are a part of the service my ISP supplies, I will if asked provide the original file for any photograph. If I was to start seeing my images upsized with all the problems about quality and detail I would reconsider providing photographs. Gnangarra 03:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
It might be a viable option in some cases, but in most of those examples something just seems very wrong to my eye and they are even making me feel a bit nauseous for some reason, it looks unreal. Maybe it's better if you don't upscale so much though. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm very queasy about providing worse service to our users because some institutions want to make money off the public domain, no matter what the cultural costs are. We should do what we should do, and if they want to go into saber-rattling, like the NPG did, then let them. If they want to sue, and take the massive publicity hit, well, it's possible they could twist the Wikimedia Foundation's arm into deleting the files; at which point the w:Streisand effect takes hold, for one, and they have to deal with the consequences of being widely known for forcing Wikipedia to delete pictures of 300-year-old paintings.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree 100% here. I never understand discussions of that type. Wikimedia is already bigger than any other repository. I don't see why we should try and please the guardians of artworks whose duty it is to preserve them for the public. Just wait, in a few years' time those very institutions will be coming to Wikimedia, requesting that we host their images. -- JovanCormac 13:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

An aside: this topic prompted me to examine the upscaling that various browsers apply to images. I compared this eye-test chart (108 x 135 pixels) from the original post against 3 times upscaling in browsers and IrfanView (324 x 405 pixels). I used Vista with a modern widescreen HP LCD monitor. Best quality at the top, all my own opinion. Size is bytes from upscaled file or cropped browser screencap, all after PNGOUT optimising.

Viewing program how upscaled rank notes size
Super-Resolution website click Our SR Result 1 noticeably sharper than Chrome and Lanczos 41,652
Google Chrome press Ctrl-+ 6 times 2 better than IE; like Lanczos;
upscale limited at 322 x 403
IrfanView 4.23 300% Lanczos 2 like Chrome; 52,148
Internet Explorer 7.0.6000.16916 Zoom 300% 3 better than: Firefox and B-Spline + sharpen ;
less sharp than: Chrome
IrfanView 4.23 300% B-Spline + sharpen 4 - 46,092
Firefox 3.5.5 press Ctrl-+ 8 times 5 better than Opera; like Triangle;
sharper than B-Spline + sharpen but aliased
IrfanView 4.23 300% Triangle 5 better than Opera 39,870
IrfanView 4.23 300% Hermite 6 better than Opera 38,517
Opera 10.01 press Ctrl-+ 2 times 7 identical to plain resize
IrfanView 4.23 300% resize 7 identical to Opera 9,920
Original image 8 - 6,643

-84user (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I added size in bytes and more examples. -84user (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious from the test page that the SR method creates better, in some cases much better, results than any other commonly used method. I think this would be a great feature for Commons/MediaWiki to have. Implementing this could make a wonderful Summer of Code project... -- JovanCormac 13:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
That's amazing. I don't know about automatically upscaling en masse, but having it as an option would be great. Is this Super-Resolution implemented in any program? mahanga (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
There's no public implementation of it, but the paper contains all the details needed to implement it. I think the best think I could do is create a freely licensed implementation which could then be integrated with other tools like ImageMagick, the GIMP, Photoshop, and a Mediawiki extension if desired. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a coomment that this is exactly the kind of tool Id like to have. Most images in articles are perfectly fine as smaller versions of originals, but if an image is interesting I want to be able to enlarge it to see detail. Many images on commons are scanned regrettably small and much worse quality than the original. A tool built into the images page as a zoom option would be perfect, no need then to alter originals. Sandpiper (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Flickr2Commons & GIFs

First, let me say Flickr2Commons is a great tool. It saves enormous grief in the process of transferring images from Commons.

Now, a question/problem. Commons apparently allows GIF images. If the underlying image is a GIF, Flickr2Commons blithely transfers it to a filename with a JPG extension and (at least in Firefox) it displays just fine (including when you put it in a Wikipedia article), so you don't know you've uploaded in a format that is not permitted. This happened to me, for example, at File:Seattle Mayor Braman greeting President Johnson at Sea-Tac Airport, 1966.jpg. Once I saw the problem, I downloaded to my computer, made a JPG, and uploaded that (but of course that leaves the GIF in the version history). And I'm sure this has happened to me and others many times without our noticing.

Any suggestion how to proceed? - Jmabel ! talk 21:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Have the bot check for file type? -Nard the Bard 21:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, for the future, and if someone wants to implement it, that's obviously desirable, but meanwhile we doubtless have a bunch of GIFs on the Commons. Should we be combing all files uploaded by Flickr2Commons to find them? Once we identify them, is there some bot-based way to turn them into PNGs or JPGs? - Jmabel ! talk 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see from Commons:File types that GIFs are allowed (they didn't used to be, right?). So the problem is just one of an inappropriate suffix that might confuse some software. - Jmabel ! talk 22:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I uploaded File:Seattle Mayor Braman greeting President Johnson at Sea-Tac Airport, 1966.png converted from the original GIF because I noticed crops of the JPEG show compression artefacts when examined closely. From what you say the simplest solution would be to just rename those .jpg files which are really GIFs to end in .gif. Any bot conversions should be towards the lossless PNG format, though. -84user (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In general GIF files are allowed, but the format is mostly meant for animated GIF files. Most non-animated GIF files should be converted to PNG format (prior to upload if possible). For about a year now Commons software has a problem with all GIF files and no longer produces thumbnails for them, as a result most of large GIF files do not look right on Commons and if you look at a page with namy large GIF files your browser might run out of memory. The problem with software was supposedly fixed, but so far nobody figured out how to turn-on the thumbnailer, see here for details. --Jarekt (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The old GIF thumbnailer was actually a lot better for certain types of images than the PNG thumbnailer (which is just not very good, and hasn't been significantly improved during the last four years, as far as I can tell); this is part of why some people used to uploaded non-animated GIFs... AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

November 23

Where are the email templates?

Today, I received an email notification for this deletion:


The Wikimedia Commons page File:P. nigra .JPG has been created on 25 November 2009 by Túrelio, see for the current revision.

This is a new page.

Editor's summary: duplicate or a scaled down version of File:Prunus negra .jpg


I'll gladly change it myself, but I don't know where the corresponding templates are.

Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's at MediaWiki:Enotif body. You can propose changes to it by adding {{editprotected}} on the talk page followed by your request. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Amusingly, there is a box on the page stating that it has been deleted almost three years ago. But the message tab is blue, and I can watch the source, and get the message template alright. I'll follow this advice. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Submitted as bug no. 21642 Paradoctor (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, bother! This issue had been fixed three months ago, but returned[28] due to a source revert. Let's hope we don't have to wait another ten months for an already fixed bug to be fixed again. Paradoctor (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Weird error message

I mass uploaded a set of scans using Commonist. When it was done, there was a message about being unable to change the gallery (mine, presumably). When I checked the category, one image was missing. I tried to manually upload the missing image, and got this message “Upload warning: Files of the MIME type "application/x-php" are not allowed to be uploaded.” Anything I can do, or is this related to the toolserver tribulations? Paradoctor (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

MIME type means the format of the file. Perhaps your file has the file name extension ".php"? If that's the case rename it and use the correct file extension. If that's not the case try loading the image in your graphics editor and save it again. --Slomox (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
See bugzilla:16583. --Martin H. (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
And this is still not fixed? I'm a bit appalled that a bug that is known since a year and whose source is known, caused by a bit of code that is known to be effectless anyway, for which several possible fixes are known since long, that a bug like that, that has made hundreds of file uploads fail since, can still be unfixed. It's not even that the developers weren't aware of the bug or overlooked it. They knew about it. And still it isn't fixed. That's ... sad. --Slomox (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I neither know what the bug means nor how to resolve the problem. Is there a way to maybe edit the image so that Paradoctor can evade his problem? --Martin H. (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much any thorough transformation will fix it. Just loading it into a picture editor and saving it might do the job. If it's a PNG, running a PNG optimizer over it (and making sure it changes something) would probably do it. If it's a JPEG, though, I don't know if any simple lossless transformation will fix the problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, checking the file contents with Notepad++ was the first thing I did yesterday. Lo and behold, the 2nd-to-4th bytes spake "PNG", and all was fricken well on that front. Following up on Martin's pointer, I mutilated a pixel in the upper left corner of the image, and finally completed the set.

As a workaround, I suggest amending the text of the error message with information on the bug, and how to work around it.

@Martin: The bug is caused by MediaWiki using PHP's MimeMagic to guess the type of an uploaded file from its contents, rather than relying on the file name extension. In this case, a file is considered to be a PHP script if it contains the string "<?" somewhere in the first 1024 bytes of the file. This happens by chance in about ~1 % of all random files, and many compressed file types look pretty random.

@Prosfilaes: WRT to JPEG lossless rotation, the offending magic bytes may just as well appear in a header section. We have files with dimensions large enough to trigger the bug ("<?"=15423/16188, depending on byte order). If you're really unlucky, you'd have to either crop or pad a huge file for upload just to work around a stupid heuristic. Ah, the joys of non-deterministic automata! ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


Does anyone know if anyone maintains the crop-requests? Would it be possible to make an online tool to perform these requests? Effeietsanders (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Linkje! Multichill (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot :) I cropped a bunch of images... Effeietsanders (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

from the realm of the uncategorized: Files from user:Wendita20

This user has uploaded several files with architectural modells, obviously self designed, see , all are uncategorized. More or less they are in the form of a bookpages. Is it in scope? If yes, what will be the right category? not clear for me. Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Broken thumbnail

This image seems unable to produce a thumbnail. Can someone fix it? SharkD (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It was the usual typical problem of a link to an external raster image ("Zentralperspektive.png"), something which is not allowed on Wikimedia. AnonMoos (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

French building licensing

In regards to these categories:

They need to be checked to see if any images are of individual buildings that are recent. In France images of those buildings inherit a copyright from the architects, so those images need to be moved to the French and/or English Wikipedias. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In regards to Category:Skyscrapers in La Defense - Many of them are under construction. Wouldn't they still be considered copyrighted even if the image shows them under construction? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Tropenmuseum image donation

Hi everyone, as you might have noticed by now the Tropenmuseum donated another 35.000 images. Most of these images are historic photographs taken somewhere in Indonesia (or the Dutch East Indies as it was called at that time). Please help with getting all these images properly categorized. You can read more about how to do this here. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

great - but in the long run it will be necessary to translate the descriptions into English!? Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Some files already have English descriptions, would of course be nice to have English translations for more files. Multichill (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Penguin sculptures, Liverpool, UK

Today I have taken a few photographs of penguin sculptures around and about the Liverpool area, England. Here is the official website of these penguins:- [29] I think in the UK, it is OK to upload photos of 3D sculptures, but not 2D artworks?

These penguins are 3D sculptures but they have designs painted on them. I am unsure if I am permitted to upload my own photographs of these penguins to the commons. Can someone please advise? Thanks very much, Regards Benkid77 (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

They are cute nevertheless! ^v^ Diti the penguin 19:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
This is exactly the same position as images in Category:CowParade. The artworks are 3D. Freedom of panorama applies, I'd say. Man vyi (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the replies. I'm glad there's already a precedent set for this. I will upload the photos sometime later. I guess I should also use the same copyright template as found on the CowParade category. Best Regards, Benkid77 (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, now uploaded. Category is here:- Category:Go Penguins in Liverpool for those who may be interested. Benkid77 (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Very nice. I wonder if there's a logical category for such public art projects which would also encompass Category:Buddy Bears, Category:Munich Leo-Parade and Category:Lviv lions? Man vyi (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia article en:CowParade... AnonMoos (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You think Category:CowParade logically encompasses the penguins, pigs, bears and lions? Man vyi (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

how to make my upload serchable from the search engine ?

Dear sir, I have uploaded an image of a saint of india, RANGANATH MAHARAJ with detailed information regarding it. This image and information was demanded by many devotees in india and other nations , so i have uploaded it. But i am disappointed to see that it is not available from any search engine including google. You can see the image and information uploaded at File:Rangnath_maharaj2.jpg . It is entirely my own work , and free of copyright obviously. Please help me to make it available from search engines like google. I am desperately waiting for help .Please reply on

You only uploaded it today; it will probably be added to the search engine index eventually (after a few days or weeks); not sure which you mean, but Google Image search seem to be updated even less frequently than Google text search. AnonMoos (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Within Commons, it would help people find this image if you would assign it to one or more categories. Also, for some reason, the text refuses to wrap. Maybe one of the technical folks can do something about that.
Estillbham (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "detailed information", information like "For every person seeking the ultimate truth, Rangnath Maharaj is a like a lighthouse" is pure POV and not accepted on Wikipedia nor Commons, thats not the kind of image description Commons aims for. Also someone else claims authorship on the same image, File:Rangnath maharaj3.jpg. The image appears to be a photo of a photo, the original photo is not own work and is missing valid source information - bot uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think user:pinaki and user:pinakibhome are the same person. The name seems to indicate that we're talking to a family member, so the photo might be very well have been taken in the 30s or 40s by the uploader. Paradoctor (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Since the other image was uploaded about half a year ago, the uploader possibly forgot the password for the older account. Paradoctor (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

November 28

BabelBoxCommons needs your help

I created a fully localizable and customizable userbox for use by Commons stalwarts. It's still under development, but already usable. The language file has already German and English, but we need of course much more. If you're interested, go to w:en:template:BabelBoxCommons. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

3D models in scope?

This search yields a lot of files which are renderings of 3D models. Obviously, there are educational uses of 3D models. Shouldn't we start collecting them? Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We are collecting them in subcategories of Category:3D computer graphics. If some 3D models are not included there then they should be added.--Jarekt (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Errm, I should've been more precise: I am talking about 3D models, which usually come in one of these file formats. Many of the files in Category:3D computer graphics, as well as some videos are merely renderings of 3D objects, scenes and animations. Check Gyrate Bidiminished Rhombicosidodecahedron for an example of using 3D models to good effect in an educational setting. Drag the mouse pointer across the color image to rotate the model. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd actually prefer the models over the rendered images, since the former are in general more useful. In theory, the latter can always be generated from the former if needed. --Sebari (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I mean. Problem is, neither COM:SCOPE nor COM:FT even mention 3D models, so the files can't be uploaded. It is of course possible to define a wrapper extension to one of the allowed formats, and create a player in SVG, but that would total nonsense, considering that there are open formats like VRML for which the infrastructure alrady exists. Paradoctor (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Some of the renderings in category:Povray include the code that was used to generate them. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I can see it before my inner eye: An art student following instructions to install Povray and run a script just to look at a model of The Thinker. ;o) Ah well, it's a start.

Support for 3D models is definitely something we should add. Some questions that arise:

  1. Do we need to support several formats or are the formats fully convertible (which would allow us to concentrate on a single free one)?
  2. Is it possible to embed malicious code into the models?
  3. If it's not possible it should be fairly easy to make the developers allow uploading them
    1. (although they most likely will not be displayable by MediaWiki anytime soon).
  4. If it's possible to embed code, the developers will reject it until some way to sanitize them is created (which can mean years if nobody is willing to put volunteer effort into it). --Slomox (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of reformatting your post.

  1. That depends entirely on your definition of fully. Anyway, even if they were totally incompatible, there will always be content creators willing to do conversions or clones. I don't think that that will be more than a technical question in the long run.
  2. That depends entirely on the plugin used. I can't imagine VRML or X3D or whatever being a bigger threat than SVG files. Please note that models are meant to be static, so there is not too much complexity involved, and a simple validation should be protection enough. Of course, there are formats describing entire interactive animations, with corresponding increase in complexity, but I think rating the potential risks involved is something better left to our techies. After they've solved the database lag crisis. ;)
  3. I don't think we can "make" the developers do anything. ^_^ Which file types we allow to be uploaded is determined by the configuration of the Commons MediaWiki installation.
    1. It's not MediaWiki that displays the files, that's the browser's job. Visually, MediaWiki can treat 3D models just like audio files, by displaying a standard thumbnail appropriate to the particular file type.
  4. As I said above, I don't think we need to worry about that.

Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As discussed on Commons_talk:File_types (or its archive), file formats which can be given an automatically-generated visual preview are greatly preferred, while file formats which merely encode abstract data relationships without a specific concrete visual (or audio or audio-visual) realization tend to be dispreferred. AnonMoos (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. See also Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009May#Other_types_of_media:_three_dimensional_objects_and_videos.3F -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. You say that "file formats which merely encode abstract data relationships without a specific concrete visual (or audio or audio-visual) realization tend to be dispreferred". This makes wonder about a few things: Who does the dispreferring? Has this been discussed anywhere else? So far you seem to be the only one who has raised this point, everyone else seems to think this is the coming thing. That's ok, but I don't understand why. What is the problem with providing/attaching/embedding a preview image? Paradoctor (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm 100%-sure that one day MediaWiki and Commons will support 3D models. It's obviously useful and it will happen. The _only_ question is how to solve it technically. If there's no danger in activating it, it shouldn't be a problem. The developers can switch it on and further support will come over time. If activating it is dangerous (active scripting or whatever), then the developers won't switch it on until we've found a way to remove any dangers. --Slomox (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "activating". Most browsers do not currently have 3D-rendering support (as far as I'm aware), so serving the 3D data format directly to the browser would generally display nothing. The only way that people without 3D software installed will see anything is if the Wikimedia software generates a static 2D preview (in a format such as PNG). This is one reason why file formats with a specific concrete visual (or audio or audio-visual) realization tend to be preferred... AnonMoos (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Well we currently have no support for tiff previewing. Why not allow users to upload open source 3d formats, such as blender, and worry about rendering later? This would allow collaboration in improving files and ensure its existence on commons.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
TIFF got in solely due to politics of working with outside archives, and not because of the internal needs of Wikimedia/Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: By activating I mean enabling their upload. Independant of whether they can be displayed. Commons is a repository. Just as Diaa abdelmoneim says, we can allow the upload now and worry about the display later. Media that can be rendered are preferred, but that doesn't mean we can not or should not host media if we can't render them yet. As a repository we still can provide and share free 3D models. Being able to render them is a big bonus but not a necessary one. Commons was created as a helper tool for Wikipedia, but it is more than that. It's a free media repository. --Slomox (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


Everywhere this has been discussed before[1][2][3][4][5], there was unanimous support for inclusion, with the exception of Anonmoos. Anonmoos' concern is about usability for Wikimedia, not about general policy. This implies that there is unanimous consensus that 3D models are within COM:SCOPE.

Agreed? Paradoctor (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not actually opposed as such, just telling you some of the kinds of objections which will likely be raised (or were raised in past) when it eventually comes down to trying to persuade people who actually have powers to change things... AnonMoos (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it's good to hear that. I suggest that anyone interested in adding 3D models to our collection to head over here. The more, the merrier. ;) Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying for months to get them to take DNG raw camera images, which are even less problematic than 3D models (since it's easy to create previews of DNGs using the TIFF engine). It's just really hard to get changes to the upload policy implemented. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
And if I remember correctly, we had a general agreement on the DNG proposal. Sv1xv (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Marktvrouwen met kleine varkentjes en andere koopwaar TMnr 60030913.jpg

obviously there is a massive upload of files from the netherlands Tropenmuseum by kitbot, - where is a description of this cooperation? Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Tropenmuseum and Commons:Batch_uploading#Tropenmuseum --Justass (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Most categories seem to be pretty much useless in their current form... AnonMoos (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Just temporary categories to get things going. I'll write a manual on how to use them tomorrow. Multichill (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
See #Tropenmuseum image donation and Commons:Tropenmuseum#Categorization. I would appreciate it if you continue in the new topic. Multichill (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
see below - the big problem (unless for me) are the descriptions in Dutch, German is my first language, but Dutch is very different Cholo Aleman (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

November 27

File:111 1118.JPG

here is a very good photo, until now buried in the uncategorized stuff. Is there an appropriate category for this kind of photo-technique? I cannot find it Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Category:Long exposure or Category:Motion blur? -- IANEZZ  (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - they fit both! I was not familiar enough with it. Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Other wikis

What do we do with images coming from other wikis from outside the wikimedia project? Usually they don't bother with licence tags or authorship: people simply upload an image and that's it. If the site itself, in a general way, releases content under a free licence (perhaps in the legal disclaimers, a "copy & paste" from the one of Wikipedia), and the image makes no specific comments, it would be likely to asume that the image has been released under a free licence because of such terms. On the other hand, many copyright violations may pass though it: without any authorship information or comments or a watching community working to detect and remove violations, any random user can upload anything, from anywhere. Belgrano (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it depends; I generally wouldn't unless it's pretty obviously correct. There was a wiki for an open source flight simulator full of screenshots that came up recently, and that I wouldn't hesitate for. Otherwise on a wiki there's almost always image histories and user talk pages that you can use to ask the uploader about the image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of latin versus common names/categories for herbs used in cooking

I uploaded a file of Sage Sorbet. I manually input the category Sage (herb) and was surprised there is no such category extant, although there is one for the plant salvia officinalis, from which the sage is derived. If I were talking about the sage growing in my garden, I'd use the Latin category because (among other things) it is unambiguous. But it is really counter-intuitive to me to put a picture of what is essentially green ice cream under a horticultural heading.

I believe the sage sorbet is correctly categorized under "sage" because sage is the primary ingredient, and if I were looking for image examples of sage used in cooking it would be an interesting one.

Also, from what I can tell in reading the help files, one is encouraged to use common instead of "official" names when the common name would be more easily found, and I think this instance would apply. Sage (herb) would be a subcategory under Herbs, which does include cooking examples. But I'm pretty new in town and don't want to go creating new sub-category pages willy-nilly.


(Updated to add sig. Sorry)Akina (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your take on this seems reasonable. We often add English-language categories for a plant or animal in its capacity as food, as a domesticated animal, etc. The worst that will happen if you do something like this (and hook it into the category tree in the right place) is that someone will decide you did it wrong & come back and change it. Please don't be offended if that happens. But I'd say follow your instinct here. - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I'll do. And no worries - it takes a heck of a lot more to offend me than to tell me I've messed up on metadata! Akina (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Some person more clever than I stood up a category for "Herb-based foods" which is perfect. So, problem solved! Thanks all. Akina (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd bug

Uploading a .JPG file (full local name C:\Photo tmp wiki 2\Moscow, Solyanka 11-6,13-3 Aug 2009 01.JPG) I get a "Files of the MIME type "application/zip" are not allowed to be uploaded." - before and after it's ok, this one's stuck. - wassup? Overheat again like the toolserver? NVO (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this is again Commons:Village_pump#Weird error message. --Martin H. (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, resampled it.NVO (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

copyright duration for album covers?

For how long are album/LP covers copyright protected? For example, File:1957PortelaA.jpg is claimed to be from 1957. Could it be already free? --Túrelio (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Is guess like with any other work: we would have to check in the booklet if the author of the album cover is credited (usually it's someone different than the band itself), and then wait the time periods according to the copyright law of the country. However, author's lifetime and 70 years more seems too much for a relative "new" industry such as the musical, I wouldn't expect too much results. Belgrano (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Trickier than that, at least in the U.S. for works published between 1923 and 1963 inclusive. If the copyright was not renewed, it might now be public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 00:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but that's only for US works, and there are music bands everywhere. That's why I said that we would have to consider the copyright law of the specific country, there's no generic answer to LPs as a whole. Belgrano (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Localization, again

Hi. Please, can anyone to change the upload form to avoid people uploading files with == License == and == Summary == sections? They would be == {{int:license}} == and == {{int:filedesc}} ==.

Second: can anyone reply to this question? == {{int:license}} == or == {{int:license-header}} ==.

Thanks. emijrp (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We would need to ask at Bugzilla for this. I might do this, but I'm not sure if they should be changed to the localizable version or if they should be removed altogether. In my opinion, they serve no purpose (and this solution might even be more language neutral). --The Evil IP address (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It is a often discussed bug, already added to FAQ. --Jarekt (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

SCOPE: Jurisdictions policy change, precautionary principle change.

I noticed that the precautionary principle was introduced a year ago when the whole SCOPE policy was rewritten, but there was no discussion of the introduction of the precautionary principle itself into policy. I'm not proposing anything as radical as what Paley advocated a few months ago, but I do propose the following edit to COM:SCOPE: s/there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file/the freedom of a particular file is less likely than not/. This changes our SCOPE policy to conform to our actual actions, WRT/National Portrait Gallery. Do I have support for this? --Elvey (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Jurisdictions policy change

Also, I recall that files needed be freely licensed or public domain according to only the law of the United States/Florida. When did it become the case that it also needed to be according to the law of the source country? (Or am I confusing en and commons policy?) I've seen it stated elsewhere that it needs to be OK according to the law of the location country. When and why did we decide to respect, e.g. Mexico's copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or France's copyright over fashion designs? Do we have any quotes from God(win) on this?--Elvey (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons respects the law of the source country as well as the United States, whereas en gives primacy to US law (that's why w:PD-US-1923-abroad and w:Template:PD-US-1996 caution against moves to Commons). As far as I'm aware Commons has always respected the laws in that manner.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! --Elvey (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
As noted at Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and Commons:Licensing, the PD-Art tag is a singular exception to this general rule. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

November 30

missing categories with files - "filmmaker" etc.

Here are three categories, that have problems, I think:

Category:Female filmdirectors - should be spelled "Film directors"?! (lots of files are missing, obviously)
Category:Filmmakers - contains 5 files, the correct cat should be "Film directors" as far as I see
Category:Filmmaker contains one file, establishes cat Film directors. - sorry I am to new to handle this by myself. Cholo Aleman (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • For "Female filmdirectors",
    • you could add {{move|new name}} to the category. Check its parent categories for consistent naming.
    • or, if it's a simple typo or uncontroversial, you can request the renaming directly at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands
  • For the other two,
    • you might want to create these pages with {{category redirect|film directors}}
      After a 7 day period, the files will be moved.
    • You could also move the files directly, but it's likely that others will use these terms too, so a redirect helps.
  • BTW, you might find hotcat useful (see Commons:Categories#Tools) -- User:Docu at 19:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Cholo Aleman (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

November 29

Search, isn't.

Rather odd fault here, every time I search something on Commons, all it brings back is categories and gallery pages, no files; despite the fact that I'm even going to advanced search and checking the 'files' box. I've restarted firefox, tried searching file names, and I'm flummoxed. Searching 'USS Makin Island' should bring up over 300 images but instead I get...nothing. Any ideas? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Same for me. It seems dead. If you click on "Multimedia", one gets .. nothing. Sometimes this is just temporary. -- User:Docu at 09:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Happens often, might be related with database related backups or updates, index rebuilding, .... In general, when in doubt, I try with a trusted keyword, such as England, to see if the feature is available. --Foroa (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping to pass away the evening by categorising some of the recent US Navy images that were uploaded, but it appears that those plans have been scuppered. :( Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Search indeed is broken a bit. rainman-sr will make a note in the log when its fixed. TheDJ (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that when our own search is FUBAR, Google and Bing both do a fairly good job of indexing this site. Use as one of your search terms. - Jmabel ! talk 20:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

aircraft (sub)categories

Are there any naming conventions to unify the subcategories with three different naming schemes in Category:C-130 Hercules?

-- Common Good (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

SVG versions for many Pearson Scott Foresman line drawing files already available!

Users at the Open Clip Art Library have created many SVG versions of line drawing files by Pearson Scott Foresman here. They should be uploaded with the DerivativeFX tool, and the raster version tagged with Template:SupersededSVG. File:Catfish (PSF).svg is one file I have uploaded so far; use it as a basis for formatting new SVG upload filepages. --Siddharth Patil (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

List of uploaded SVGs

Here is the list of all uploaded SVGs so far. --Siddharth Patil (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)