Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010/01

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.


Meet Firefox video

I just uploaded File:Meet Firefox.ogv and it contains some windows and other logos. Would de mini mis apply or is this video gonna be deleted ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  • The original webpage does contain a cc-by-sa-3.0 release. All inclusions do seem to be de minimis but I have no idea if it's small enough. -Nard the Bard 16:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Uploading a new version of a file

Ok, I thought I knew how this worked, but I realized that I have admin permissions on the english wikipedia and that might have an affect I'm not aware of. I removed the border from an image and tried to upload the new version. I thought perhaps I'd selected the old version instead of the new one and tried again, but for some odd reason it doesn't seem to over-write the file. I've double checked that my file does indeed have the border cropped off and even deleted the version I downloaded to work on just to be certain I wasn't making a mistake. I also tried purging the page just in case I was having a problem with the image being cached -- is there something I'm missing? :-( Shell babelfish 09:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a caching issue with the system. The original file dated 06:34, 26 October 2009 has the border, but the last upload dated 23:18, 30 December 2009 seems to show the image without the border. I had to click on each timestamp to review it, since the thumbnailer seems to be wrong. Killiondude (talk) 09:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Ouch - purge didn't seem to work but individually clearing my cache for each one (full size) finally showed the last one without the border, though the thumbnail still has the border for me. If any admin hops by and would like to delete the two intermediate revisions which did not apparently have the border removed, please feel free. I may very well have grabbed the wrong file; its nice to know that the last one at least did get there correctly. Thanks for checking Killiondude. Shell babelfish 09:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
✓  Done , I've deleted the 2 files that still had the border but have kept the original and the borderless version. Bidgee (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it might have been better if you had used a "lossless" cropping tool like jpegcrop etc. to avoid irreversible JPEG Generation loss -- this is a best practice suggested by the wording of Template:Remove border etc., and should be preferred when it's possible to do what you want by using such a specialized lossless JPEG manipulation tool... AnonMoos (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've worked that out now. For some reason, when I tried it with irfanview it was leaving the top and left cropped incorrectly; jpegcrop works like a charm though :) Shell babelfish 16:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

December 31

New tool (in testing)

Hey all. I've just built a new tool for those of you who like geocoding, and, hopefully, some people who don't.

Having myself uploaded a few shots from around town, geocoding them was taking ages, despite their geographical proximity. My tool aims to help with that, by re-interfacing the tool so that a number of images with only slightly different locations from the same category can be tagged in quick succession.

I have literally just programmed it, and it could still have some massive bugs (and probably some of my own idiosyncrasies) - shout if you have problems. Instructions are included. Have fun :) Jarry1250 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No matter what category I place in the box, it always outputs File:En-uk-Colchester.ogg as the result. Huntster (t @ c) 00:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
.*facepalm* Oh, that's me overriding it for testing purposes, obviously forgot to change it back(!). Should fix fixed now, sorry about that :P Jarry1250 (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


Can somebody please rename Noordwijk_kantongerecht_voorstraat.JPG into Noordwijk_voorstraat_56.JPG. The old name is probably incorrect. Thanks! Rudolphous (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there's no way to rename a file. You need to download it on to your computer, upload it under the new name, and tag the wrongly named file with {{bad name}}. You don't need an administrator to take such action; you can do it yourself. — Cheers, JackLee talk 20:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It would be great if such basic actions can be made easier. Rudolphous (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Admins can move images now. Well, since September I think. Please see Commons:Moving files. I've moved the file per their request. Killiondude (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, cool. I didn't know. Is there a specific page for making such move requests? — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
You would just stick {{rename|newname.ext|reason (explanation for why the file needs to be renamed)}} on the file itself and it gets put into the right categor(y|ies) so an admin can review it. For more info about which scenarios are okay to rename things, you can see the link I gave above. I'm glad we have this ability now. :-) Killiondude (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2

Ajax template translation

As some people might've noticed by now, a new JavaScript feature, MediaWiki:AjaxTranslation.js, was enabled for all users on December 24. This feature modifies the behavior of the language links on a number of autotranslated license (and other) templates so that, instead of taking the user to the template's translation subpage, clicking the link instead replaces the template with the translated version directly on the page.

Since no-one seems to have formally announced the feature so far, I figured I should do so here. Documentation of the feature can be found at MediaWiki talk:AjaxTranslation.js, where it can also be discussed.

I should note that the current implementation is hardly perfect, and has a number of known problems (perhaps most importantly the lack of support for passing parameters to the translated versions), mainly resulting from the fact that the existing template translation system was not designed with such use in mind. In the future, I think it would be a good idea to try to extend the current template translation system or replace it with a new implementation that would allow even more reliable and seamless in-line translation. However, in the mean time, I do believe that the current implementation should be a welcome improvement over the earlier behavior for most users.

Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation of Undercategories or Media

How I can create an undercategory or media, f.e. Spaniel under Dog?-- Haubi (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Before you create a new subcategory, check to see if there is already a suitable category that exists. For example, there is already a category called "Category:Spaniels" so there is no need to create another one. Anyway, this is how you create a new subcategory: say you want to create a category called "Category:Spaniels" which is a subcategory of "Category:Dog breeds". What you do is go to the page "Category:Spaniels", and put the category "Category:Dog breeds" inside it. Go to "Category:Spaniels" and click on the "Edit" link to see how this is done. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Problems with .tif

I Have just uploaded the .tif file "File:Unbenannt-1.tif". It should not have been uploaded woith this name, but however, the File seems to be void. Is the picture visible? --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Its the same problem with the file Donautal Linz Winter.tif now. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
TIFF files can be uploaded to the Commons for archival purposes but cannot currently be displayed. If you know how to, you should also upload a version in PNG or JPEG. See "Commons:File types#TIFF" for more information. If you do not know how to convert the TIFF file into another displayable format, someone should come along shortly and help you carry out the conversion. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Terrorists or freedom fighters

One person's terrorists is another person's freedom fighter so I think it's time to bring up the need for inclusion criteria for Category:Terrorism again. It was up for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Terrorism and it ended with a keep so now we have to live with it. For instance should Nelson Mandela be included? He was considered a terrorist earlier, but not nowdays (I think even the US have removed him from the terrorism list). Or what about Category:Jan Guillou? He has also been labelled a terrorist for exposing the IB affair. // Liftarn (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I read the deletion debate, and don't understand the problem. "Terrorist" is an essentially contested concept, so the only usable criterion is: "called a terrorist by <verifiable source X>". So, yes, the US Army belongs into the same category as Bin Laden, in this case. I can understand that people feel uneasy with that, but then again, would you really deny that Gandhi and Hitler belong into the same category, if that category is category:human? Paradoctor (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is when people disagree. You know the old saying that one person's terrorists is another person's freedom fighter so if a person considers bin Laden a freedom fighter and removes the terrorism category. // Liftarn (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
On the Wikipedias, users who persistently remove verified material supported by reliable sources and relevant in the given context are sanctioned sooner or later. "Terrorist" is clearly a useful term for navigation, which the principal use for categories, so we need it. That its application is controversial is a fact of life we'll have to live with. But nobody says you can't have subcategories by source of claim, like "Terrorist according to Iranian government", "Terrorist according to U. S. government", and so on. Paradoctor (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
"It was up for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Terrorism and it ended with a keep so now we have to live with it."
No, we don't.
There are only militants. Some are state sponsored, some are not. ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Well... I think we do.
Militants sounds like a neutral enough term. // Liftarn (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you really believe that "militant" is not controversial? Try to source that, and good luck with it. ;) We shouldn't try to invent our own PC language, that will never work in an open community of our size. Some topics we cover are controversial, will stay that way, and will attract endless squabbles, no matter what we do. We can avoid controversy, but then we would have to call ourselves Reposicendium or something. ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
How is it controversial? (…and if, as you claim, it's going to be controversial no matter how we refer to it, why would it matter if it is?)
"militant" to me seems both accurate and unbiased. Using it would be prescriptivist, not inventive. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
"controversial": 'Hitler did not like jews.'. That is true, but if that is all the description you get here, people will start accusing us of being fascists. After checking, I'll give you that militant has considerable usage as a 'neutral form' of "terrorist". But that is the problem: People are called terrorists precisely because that is judgmental. It's a way of expressing disapproval, just as "freedom fighter" is a way of expressing approval.
"matter": It would not prevent squabbles, sure. But our concerns is making our files accessible. Not using appropriate "terrorist" categories would restrict the number of paths along which a file can be found.
"prescriptivist": whether you invent rules or words... ;)
Paradoctor (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment : Terrorist is really not a perfect term, I believe. I'd recommend to open a category discussion to find a potentially better name. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    Make Freedom fighter a redirect to it. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget "criminal", "martyr", "saint", "hero", "combattant", "bandit", "soldier", "crusader", "infidel", ... (sigh) Paradoctor (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

First off, that tired old quote "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter" is a shallow cynical amoral stale aphorism which really adds absolutely nothing whatsoever to the current discussion (it really would have been better to spare us yet further monotonous redundant repetitions of something which never made too much sense the first several hundred times around). However, as I've said before in this context, the purpose of Wikimedia Commons is to facilitate things for the various language Wikipedias, and not to try to impose choices on them. Each individual language Wikipedia is free to come up with its own particular definition of "terrorist", or policy on the use of the word "terrorist", and we should leave it up to them to do so. It's really not our role on Commons to try to come up with a centralized standardized all-purpose definition -- which is a good thing, since it would be almost impossible. Therefore I support deletion of Category:Terrorism and similar. AnonMoos (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"amoral stale aphorism": Do you really want a "moral" Commons?
"monotonous redundant repetitions": ^_^
"deletion of Category:Terrorism": What about our need to make files accessible? I can see that you want to avoid controversies always surrounding classifications containing value judgments. But then we absolutely need (undisputed!) criteria for when to trade accessibility for controversy, and when not. Without hard statistics on either, i. e. clicking rates for categories and measures of controversy size, this is probably not going to happen. Paradoctor (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
If you have objections to the language I used, then you should clearly indicate what your specific objections are, rather than just repeating segments of what I said. As I made very clear last time this topic was discussed (a number of months ago), it's my very firm view that the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter" adage does absolutely nothing whatsoever to clarify any issues involved or advance useful constructive discussion of the topic by one iota. It's not about enforcing morality, it's about the fact that a discredited bit of tendentious cynicism which is highly objectionable to many is not the best basis for building consensus for making decisions about changes to category structure. I strongly doubt whether "Women -- you can't live with them and you can't live without them!" would turn out to be an adequate foundation for a discussion about reorganizing Category:Women, and it's exactly the same here.
And I don't really advocate avoiding controversy as such -- just that it's not really our role to impose centralized solutions in the case of things which are really the responsibility of the individual language Wikipedias. When the attempt to impose a centralized definition would be highly disputatious here, then in general we should be only too glad to adopt relatively neutral categorizations here, and push the matter off onto the Wikipedias... AnonMoos (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
"objections to the language": Where did I object to your language? I had and have no intention to criticize your language. From where I stand, your English usage is entirely appropriate. My objections are to what you say, not how you say it.
"repeating segments of what I said": So readers know what I'm replying to. Reduces possible misunderstandings, of which I encounter quite a few, see previous.
"discredited bit of tendentious cynicism which is highly objectionable to many": Please source that. AFAIK, most would consider it a en:truism.
"attempt to impose a centralized definition": Like not using the term "terrorist"? Furthermore, one man's "neutral categorization" is another man's demagoguery, as I argued in my reply to Reisio. Our concern here is accessibility, as argued in the same reply.
(overlooked this in your first statement) "Wikipedia is free to come up with its own particular definition": No, absolutely not. An encyclopedia is about reporting definitions, not about inventing its own definitions. This would be exactly the kind of imposition you argue against here. Paradoctor (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Whatever -- that's exactly what I meant by "language" in my previous utterance above. And since even Kofi Annan (who is hardly a close friend of U.S. "neocons" or Israel!) came out strongly against the phoney glib "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter" nonsense (which seems to be mainly quoted as part of brazen amoralistic attempts to somehow justify vicious crimes) -- consult paragraph 91 of "In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All", the March 21 2005 report of the Secretary-General to General Assembly (United Nations document A/59/2005) -- I can hardly imagine that it has much broad general support among serious people of goodwill. But whether it's right or wrong, it simply does nothing whatever to clarify any issues here or form a basis for constructive discussion about what to do about Category:Terrorism (any more than "Women -- you can't live with them and you can't live without them!" would help with restructuring of Category:Women).
And I really don't know why you think that the Wikipedias are forbidden to come up with working policies on the appropriate use of the word "terrorism" there, but we're allowed to here, when the reality would appear to be much more the reverse. AnonMoos (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
"Kofi Annan": That proves that the "truism" view is not universal. We already knew that from your example.
"can hardly imagine": It seems we imagine differently. A secondary source reviewing usage of the expression would be helpful here.
"does nothing whatever to clarify": It doesn't make things simpler. C'est la vie. ;)
"Women": That analogy fails. The "women" statement says nothing about applicability of "woman" to individuals.
"Wikipedias are forbidden to come up with working policies": Please quote me, where did I say that? Paradoctor (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this last message of yours conveys rather little meaning to me, since it consists mainly of redundant repetitions of my own sentences, followed by some kind of one-line "zingers", the point of whose attempted humor or wit is really not too apparent to me. It would be much easier to conduct a conversation if you would cast your remarks into a more conventional coherent connected paragraph form (using your own wording, rather than repetitions of my own). AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
"easier to conduct a conversation": I think this has more to do with not addressing issues raised, not answering direct questions, and in general avoiding anything resembling useful discussion.
'"zingers"': "something causing or meant to cause interest, surprise, or shock" OED Paradoctor (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Your dictionary doesn't have the best definition, and your highly-idiosyncratic conversation style has unfortunately persuaded me that it would not be particularly worthwhile to try to carry on this discussion... AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually we don't have to exactly define what a terrorist is if we use a definition like "A terrorist is a person who a reliable source has labelled a terrorist.". That way we don't have to make any difficult judgements ourselved, but just report usage by others. // Liftarn (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is not to judge whether someone is a terrorist, but whether a file should be put in a "terrorist" category. Being categorized on Commons is not the same as being judged under the name of the category. What we could do, though, is redirect "Terrorist" to "Labelled as terrorist". That would make clear that these are not our judgments, and keep the paths open at the same time. That solves also the "freedom fighter" problem: Put a contested file in both categories, problem amicably solved. Paradoctor (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have opened up a discussion over at Category talk:Terrorism. // Liftarn (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Image caching issue?

This Commons rendered image and its corresponding upload image don't agree after a new version was uploaded (see map point 5.). I note that another reported a similar problem a few days ago. A system problem of some sort? Can I have a fix or a work-around please...--Glen Fergus (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Clear your browser cache. A true fix would be for Mediawiki to implement the headers to prompt your browser to download a new version when the image is changed, but I don't know how hard that would be to fix. -Nard the Bard 02:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that, as far as I know, there's no mechanism in HTTP for a web page to tell the browser that "this, this and this image have changed, please reload them". We could tell the browser to recheck the status of the image every time, by including the HTTP "Cache-control: must-revalidate" header (as we indeed do for page content), but this would, in effect, require browsers to do a separate HTTP request for every image on the page every time you open a new page. I'd expect this to increase the number of HTTP requests made to the Wikimedia servers by several hundred percent. Even though most of those requests would only receive a terse HTTP 304 "no, the image hasn't changed" reply, generating all those replies would still put a noticeable strain on the squids and the image servers behind them.
Thinking about it, it does occur to me that it might be possible to accomplish a similar effect by including some kind of version identifier (such as the upload timestamp) in the image URLs. MediaWiki already does something similar for the built-in JavaScript and CSS files, so it'd seem that it should work, in principle. I'm not sure if anyone has considered it before, or if there might be some reason why it wouldn't be practical after all. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your advice, but I already did that - browser caching is not the problem. Click on the links. Do you not see the first (the wikimedia rendering) with 5. near of Sydney and the second (the actual upload) with it near the Barrier Reef? Why?--Glen Fergus (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh that is yet another bug that (rarely) occurs. The page gets "stuck". I edited the page and purged it and it finally reloaded. -Nard the Bard 22:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GFDL 1.2 is acceptable in Commons ?

I think that it's yes. but, somebody change the template in an another project. Crochet.david (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is acceptable on Commons.
But since there is some problems with GFDL you could say that GFDL is not good enough and that new GFDL images should not be allowed. If you really wanted to "clean out" you could also suggest that all unused images that is only licensed with GFDL should be deleted. But that is an other story. --MGA73 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The status of the GFDL (any version, since the relicensing option in v1.3 ended) as a free license on Commons is a bit, um, fuzzy. As a practical matter, we do continue to accept GFDL-only files as a practical matter, as we've always done before, but we don't really encourage such licensing. The GFDL is still listed as a free license at (whose definition WMF follows), and, as a practical matter, it would be problematic for Commons to declare it insufficiently free, given that we have a substantial number of existing files that would suddenly become unfree if we did that. Yet it also remains true that the GFDL → CC licensing update was done for a reason, and one of the major reasons was the unsuitability of the GFDL for wikis and media files. Although the GFDL might be technically a free license, the fact is that, in practice, it's quite difficult for a legitimate redistributor to comply with its letter if one is distributing anything smaller than a book.
Anyway, the short of it is that, yes, you can still upload files with the {{GFDL-1.2}} license (or even {{GFDL|migration=not-eligible}}, now that the relicensing period is over). You might want to keep a local copy, though, just in case we some day decide we don't want them after all. That's not likely to happen very soon, if ever, but I can't absolutely guarantee that it won't happen some day. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that in wikiversity German, some change the template to indicate that one should not transfer media to commons, from a file GFDL 1.2 while I said it's possible.Crochet.david (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


Ohai. I dunno whether anyone will actually find it useful, but on the offchance that they do... :D In the spirit of multilinguality, and because I wanted to know what non-English description pages said without going anywhere, I wrote a small JavaScript tool. Basically, it checks if there is file description in your native (interface) language, and if not, it uses Google Translate to automatically provide a machine translated copy of the description (in addition to whatever's already there) into that language.

If anyone feels like testing it, please let me know what you think, and if you find any bugs/whatever. If there's already a script that does this and I wasted an hour, please don't tell me :D! For reference, it obviously communicates your IP address to Google as well (in case you don't want that), but there we go. Link is User:Ale_jrb/Scripts. Ale_Jrbtalk 19:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unable to upload image with special licensing information

I've tried to upload images that use {{FrPMedia}} as license information. On the "Upload file" page, I select "It is from somewhere else". I then fill out all required fields except "Licensing" (I leave it to the default value - "None selected"), and enter licensing details in the "Additional info" box (see screenshot). However, it doesn't let me upload the file; instead, it just gives me a warning (see screenshot; clicking the submit button will just display this warning without letting me submit it). How am I supposed to upload this file? I uploaded another picture with the same license, and I had to include the CC-BY-3.0 license twice just to be able to upload the file (by selecting CC-BY-3.0 in the dropdown menu). Mathias-S (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Select no license ("none selected (add a license tag in the box above, or this file will be deleted)") before uploading. Some of the other choices are treated as evidence of problems... AnonMoos (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
If you look at my screenshots, that's exactly what I selected. However, it still doesn't let me upload, I have to choose something else (that's why I chose CC-BY-3.0, since that's technically the correct license, but by doing this, the license is being added twice). By the way, I'm using Opera 10.10. The bug doesn't occur when I use the basic upload form, even though the license drop-down menu is also present there. Mathias-S (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, unfortunately license templates do not follow any particular naming scheme. The upload form script simply doesn't know that "FrPMedia" is an acceptable license. Try renaming the template to CC-FrPMedia, or creating a redirect from CC-FrPMedia to {{FrPMedia}}, and then enter "{{CC-FrPMedia}}" in the form. Then it should work. Or just use the basic form, where the license checks are less stringent. Lupo 15:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

January 3

Searching for FPs in a category

I am looking to display some featured content for WikiProject Devon including featured pictures, quality images and valued images. Is there an easy way to search for such images within Category:Devon including its sub-categories? Jolly Janner (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Catscan can give desired result, for example this query [1]. Quality images may give you more material to work with.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, it works rather well. I've now added them to WikiProject Devon. Jolly Janner (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

13th dalai lama

Yesterday the image file:13thdali2.jpg of the en:13th Dalai Lama was removed whilst I cannot find a talk on this photo anywhere. This man lived until 1933 and the picture is at least more than 76 years old. I doubt very much that this deletion was effectuated rightfully. The fact that I cannot find any discussion in combination with the Chinese affinity of the particular administrator User:Shizhao, makes it even even more suspicious. Why has this not been effectuated more carefully and was it rightful anyway? Davin7 (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The deletion log states that the image was deleted because its source had not been stated. It looks like someone tagged the image for speedy deletion for that reason. I don't think you should assume that the deletion was for some bad motive. In order for images to be hosted at the Commons, it must be clear that it is in the public domain. Just because the photograph was taken before 1933 does not mean that it is in the public domain. It depends on a number of different factors such as the law of the place where the photograph was taken; whether the photographer is still alive or, if not, when he passed away; and so on. Many countries protect copyrights in photographs until the end of 70 years from the date of the author's death. If, say, the photographer was 20 years old when he took the photograph in 1933 and lived to 70, the copyright in the photograph will only expire in 2053. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, there has not been any discussion on this image that yet existed many years on Commons and was used in dozens of articles. For that reason "speedy deletion" should never have been granted unless a rightful owner would have complained. There is a reasonable chance that this valuable photograph has been deleted unrightfully. Davin7 (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
If it is an obvious copyvio, then speedy is still warranted. A regular DR may have been better in this case though. The image was uploaded to en-wiki in 2005, then transferred to Commons in 2006, giving en-wiki as the source in the upload comment. I can't see either original, so no idea if the en-wiki original had a source or not. Transfers to commons were a lot more lax in those days... but looking at the Google cache there was no legitimate source listed. But, it would be best for an en-wiki admin to look at the original page there to see if there was more information. It is quite possible this is public domain in the US, and therefore should be transferred back to en-wiki before being deleted here. Perhaps it should be undeleted and then submitted for a regular DR. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Just because an image has been in the Commons for a while doesn't mean it deserves to stay there if there is some problem with it. The problem could just not have been spotted for a while. There are thousands of images in the Commons. And it is not the case that images should only be removed if a "rightful owner" complains. The onus is on the uploader to ensure that an image is free. Any editor may nominate an image for deletion if it does not comply with policies. If you think that the deletion was wrongful and are able to demonstrate that the image was indeed in the public domain, then contact the administrator who deleted it and show him the evidence. He or she can then undelete it. But it is not right to upload an image when one is not sure of its copyright status. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, of course. The only question here is if a regular deletion nomination would have been better than speedy -- I think so. It definitely deserved to be nominated, but speedy may have been too much, as it is not a known copyvio. The source not supplied, but standards have changed since 2005, so more investigation should have been done to make sure there was no better source on the en-wiki original for an image in such wide use. A DR would at least give people fair warning, and the ability to discuss it and do research, rather than putting the onus on a single Commons admin who is processing the speedy deletion backlogs. The "uploader" was four years ago, when standards were more lax (and it may be PD in the US only, so maybe the en-wiki upload was valid). Unless it is an obvious copyvio, the "onus on the uploader" shouldn't really apply for ancient uploads -- it is now more the responsibility of the project as a whole -- and should probably not be speedied, as research is much easier by non-admins prior to the image being deleted rather than here in undeletion requests. As for the image, it appears it was taken from the cover of this book (direct image URL here). Dunno if that has further photo credits or not. If it was taken by the book's author, w:Charles Alfred Bell (died 1945), then it could get very interesting -- he was born and lived in India, and {{PD-India}} may well apply. Bell died in Canada, so if the original book was first published there, and this was the first publishing of the photo, then {{PD-Canada}} may apply instead. Ironically though, the U.S. copyright may have been restored in either case unless the photo had been published before that book, or if the book was simultaneously published in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Village pump really isn't the right place to discus this issue. If you think that File:13thdali2.jpg was deleted by mistake and have any evidences of {{PD-US}}} as it was marked or at least any other "free" license please fill undeletion request at Commons:Undeletion requests. Every day Commons administrators delete dozens or even hundreds of images marked with "no source" or "no permission" tags and in 98.5% it's copyright violations so I really dont see any "bad faith" of administrator who simply do this routine job.
The real mistake in this case was done by User:Damiens.rf who marked file as no source on November 9 and didnt notified the uploader / transferrer about such act. Even considering "no source" tag as very reasonable it's hard to expect any source from user who simply dont know about problem. From what I can see same user tagged more files and didnt notified the uploaders. --Justass (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The original uploader was w:User:Hottentot, who hasn't edited since early 2006, and who has a talkpage full of image deletion notices. The original enwiki upload gives (a dead link, but available in the Internet Archive) as the source. That page does not indicate where the image came from, but does have a very nice "All Rights Reserved" statement at the bottom. --Carnildo (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, so the original uploader followed the rules correctly (except for that little copyright detail), but the source was not carried over to Commons (or vandalized later if it was). It is pretty unlikely that the website's copyright statement applies to the image though :-) All things considered, I think we don't have quite enough information to keep (unless we can assume India), but it would be nice for some of these ambiguously-sourced images where copyright is not clear, if they have been on Commons for years and are in wide usage, to be converted to regular deletion requests instead of being speedied. That's all. There are so many things a deleting admin can miss, and it's better to have a visible record of why we deleted it in these cases.Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The original description on en.wp had a {{PD-China}} tag. If that is correct, the image is free. But Tibet was independant back then, so Tibetan law should apply. I have no idea what the Tibetan copyright laws stated at that time or whether Tibet had a regulated copyright law at all.
But one thing is for sure: speedying this file was not correct. The file is no obvious copyright violation and it was used for years. In a case like that the admin should at least check the original upload at the local project before the transfer. --Slomox (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps someone can contact the deleting administrator and request that the file be undeleted and sent for deletion review? — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have asked prof. dr. Dieter Schuh on German Wikipedia, and he knows the picture from a book of Charles Bell, first print in 1946. See here. He asumes that the picture must have been made shortly before his death in 1933, however, doesn't know either who had made the picture. Davin7 (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming the book is silent on the authorship of the photograph? That is a problem. The image will not pass deletion review if it cannot be satisfactorily established that the photograph is in the public domain, for example, because the requisite number of years have elapsed since the photographer's death. — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Apparently those photographs had previously all been attributed to Bell himself. Though apparently, at least for some of them, a Tibetan assistant learned how to use Bell's camera and may have taken some himself.[2] Reading that though, their association ended in about 1921. Bell did publish earlier books too, so 1946 may not have been the first publication. This link gives a list of the photos in the 1946 book, but only has details on the negatives that project owns, which is only a handful. One is a 1932 photo of the Dalai Lama, maybe that is this one. It does seem as though the books were published in the UK... which could mean they are still copyrighted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

January 1

Copyright for pages from newspapers?!

Are those files copyrighted? File:Destino 26-12-79.jpg - User:Carjac has uploaded four similar files, see his gallery at - more or less all is uncategorized self-advertisement (but that is not the question). Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the pages as wholes are copyrighted, but the text and images each page contains are almost certainly so. Powers (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
✓  Done : I've deleted the newspaper images. Newspaper clippings are copyrighted and in Spain it is copyrighted for 70 years so they have about 40 to 50 years to go before they are in the PD! The other image expect three of them seem to be promotional though I'll not be deleting. Bidgee (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

January 4


Will you please take a look at this: Commons:Deletion requests/Images Uploaded by User:Rowland Goodman (Ukraine FOP), Thanks.   ■ MMXX  talk  15:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolve dispute

I would like to get outside comment on a dispute I am having with Lar. I have been having a discussion with him here, and in my view his replies are not to the point. The discussion on his talk page is here. The disagreement has to do with my comments here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the link to the discussion on Lar's talk page does not seem to be working, but I do not understand why. If someone could fix that I would be grateful. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This actually belongs on COM:AN/UP as it's a problem with a user Malcolm Schosha, who has been warned repeatedly (and not just by me) that his approach is insufficiently collegial. This is the same general thing that got him indefinitely blocked at en:wp. As for the link to my talk, try User_talk:Lar#From_User_talk:Mbz1 which seems to work. Can someone move this thread there please? ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The warnings Lar refers to are in the past, not current. This disagreement concerns discussion here, and I think there there is nothing in that discussion which deserves a warning. Malcolm Schosha. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
A question about Lar's statement, above, that I have "been warned repeatedly". There is the warning from Lar [3] in the noticeboard discussion that this thread is about. There are no warnings on my talk page at all. It would be helpful if Lar could give diffs to the other warnings so I know what he is referring to. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Lar didn't say you had loads of warning templates left for you. He said you have "been warned repeatedly (and not just by me)". Adambro (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. But I would still like to see diffs, because I honestly do not recall being given warnings. I do recall you and others urging that I cool down. But I do not recall warnings, and I certainly have no Commons blocks. Please try to understand my complaint. What I am objecting to is being presented as some sort of defective wiki-criminal, when (in my view) the actual work I have done on Commons is constructive. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
From my experience to call this user "insufficiently collegial" is - to me - the understatement of any year I have worked on Commons. As an ordinary user I'll take a look at the thread tho and post something. --Herby talk thyme 16:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes - reading through the thread I see nothing of any importance here. There is a dispute with Lar as far as this user is concerned however my personal experience of this user leaves me unsurprised. His postings tend to be unduly aggressive in my view. However I am well aware that he dislikes me and will probably have a view on this posting. --Herby talk thyme 17:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Herby, I admit that I am sometimes abrasive, and because of that I do not make a good mix here on Commons. That is a major factor in why I am leaving Commons. I am leaving, but I do not want to leave with unfair accusations being thrown at me. That is what I am trying to resolve here.
I am sorry if I was too rough with you in that noticeboard discussion. I know I can be irascible. And I do not dislike you, and do not know why you think that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are leaving, you should actually leave instead of just saying you are leaving (see meatball:GoodBye for some thoughts on this). Not everyone has the temperament or interest to contribute constructively here (both are necessary), and there is no shame in that. We would welcome your participation, but not your irascibility, argumentativeness, and abrasiveness. Those are just not needed here. Leave them elsewhere, or leave. ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lar, has it occurred to you that this edit of yours is irascible, abrasive and argumentative?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Schosha (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave that evaluation to others, I'm always open to constructive feedback. However I stand by what I said. You've admitted you're irascible and abrasive. Those traits are not wanted here. Discontinue them, one way or another. ++Lar: t/c 22:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Right, I have admitted that I have human failings. But I am not the only Commons editor who is less than perfect. It is allowable for me to criticize myself. But the general WP principle is to criticize the editing of other users, not the users themselves. That is why I took this discussion to the Village Pump, for comment from users who are not involved in our dispute. For instance, in this diff [4] you are attacking me directly. Please refer to WP:CIVIL [5].
You have stated that I have been "warned repeatedly (and not just by me) that his approach is insufficiently collegial"[6]. I do not recall being warned by anyone but you. I have already given the diff to your warning, but you have not responded to my request to give diffs to other warnings. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
[7], [8], [9], and [10], all from your talk page. At least 1/2 of the traffic on that page is people pointing out issues with your behavior. ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the four diffs, Lar. But, as I understand it, none of those four are warnings [11], and none of the administrators said (as your warning clearly did) that a block would follow if I did not desist. What you have said is that I should either 1.leave Commons or 2.change my behavior, and that if I do not fulfill your expectations of one or the other that you will indefinitely block me from Commons. That warning follows from discussion that occurred here. Herby did me the kind favor of reading through that noticeboard discussion and said in his edit (above) "...reading through the thread I see nothing of any importance here."
I continue to see your original warning (and other warnings from you that followed) as expressions of your personal dislike of me. I do not care if you like me or not; but your warnings against me, based on dislike of me, is not acceptable administrative behavior, and you should have let other administrators deal these things. When another administrator asked you to weigh in on that noticeboard discussion, your contribution could have been helpful, but when you got to the noticeboard discussion you immediately took more interest in giving me a hard time, instead of helping resolve the actual dispute over the Latoff cartoons. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
What is the point of this exercise? Malcolm seems to suggest he is leaving Commons and does "not want to leave with unfair accusations being thrown at me", but I am sure he is intelligent enough to realise that the Commons community doesn't necessarily condone all that is said by anyone and so I don't see what he wants to achieve, an apology from Lar or for the community to criticise Lar's remarks? Personally, the more I see from Malcolm, the more I can recognise the concerns Lar has expressed. Malcolm seems to be being unnecessarily pedantic about whether or not he has been warned about his behaviour, suggesting only a warning template qualifies. This seems quite odd when he himself suggested that quick comment I made about his unhelpful behaviour was "not so much a complaint as a warning" so just a few weeks ago he was looking to describe comments from others as warnings and yet now he is struggling to find any. Lar's observation that Malcolm has shown a "consistent pattern of inability to get along with others" on Wikipedia and that is also the case here seems more and more appropriate. Adambro (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Lar's warning, unlike the other 'warnings' (call them that if you like), carried the clear implication that a block would follow. But a block for what?
Yes, I said I am leaving Commons, but that does not mean that I do not maintain an ability to edit more if I choose. Lar's 'leave or get blocked' alternative is not acceptable because there is nothing I have done that justifies an indefinite block...or any block at all. I certainly don't want an apology from Lar because his negative view of me is of no particular importance. But I would like an end to his threats of an indefinite block when I have done nothing worse than annoy him. He has dredged up a few reasons why he thinks I should be forced to stop editing Commons, but all those reasons really add up to nothing more than his apparent dislike. That is not, in my view, good administrative behavior. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome to your assessment of the situation, but it appears to not be widely held. Further, I think you're unnecessarily personalizing this by introducing an unwarranted theory of mind (that I'm "annoyed") as a means of avoiding the necessary addressing of your own behavior. If a person can't edit collegially, there's no place for that person here. It's as simple as that. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Annoyance is "not a theory of mind", it is an emotion resulting from an incorrect judgment. As for your being annoyed, you said that I had annoyed you [12], I did not make that up. You accused me of "snarkiness", ie of annoying you [13]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
"Snarkiness" is a statement of perception about your posts. (that they are, quoting from your source, "sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner") It has nothing to do with any state of my mind, only yours, and your continuing to ascribe motivation to me, improperly, isn't helpful. This isn't going anywhere useful, perhaps because you're not constructively engaging in meaningful dialog but rather just tendentiously arguing, which damns your case sufficiently without my needing to explicitly refute it. If you push things far enough, you'll be blocked, for a length of time in accordance with the severity of the disruption that you engender. Simple as that. ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It means that you are irritated. What you claiming is that, because you are irritated, that constitutes proof that I need to get booted out of Commons, because your irritation is my fault. It would be just as logical to blame your pain on the wall you had just walked into, and then (additionally) blame the wall for your getting angry over the whole thing.
First you said your are not irritated, then changed that to it was my fault you are irritated. Amazing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Malcolm, I am your friend, we share the same important values, and I know you are a very good and a brave person. So because I am your friend, I would like to share with you my opinion on the matter. Here it is: Please let it go now. You will feel so much better, please trust me on that. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. In the discussion on Lar's talk page I told him that if he stops his attacks on me that there will be silence between us, and I will bother him no more on this matter. That applies as much now as then. All I want is for him to leave me alone and let other administrators deal with any future problems that may arise. I do not think that is asking for very much. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an unreasonable request, because your spin (that I'm attacking you, that I'm annoyed, that I'm holding grudges, whatever your latest theory advanced may be, it's hard to keep track) is incorrect. If there is a reason to take administrative action, and no one else has done so when I become aware of it, I will take action if I see fit. That's a general principle. While we have lots of administrators here, no user gets to say "so and so is disqualified from acting with regard to me, merely because I claim they don't like me, or because I smeared them with unfounded allegations in the past, or because I don't like them, or because I'm cantankerous, or what have you". It just doesn't work that way. That's not an "attack" or a "grudge" or a "dislike", it just is what it is. Take it or leave it, I don't really care. I'm done, you can have the last word. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that you said yourself that your are irritated with me. As for "holding grudges", I do not recall saying that. And I do not think it is at all difficult to keep track of what I have said. As for attacks, anyone who chooses to can read the talk page discussion that proceeded this and decide for themselves.
Lar, if it should be that I am in the wrong, I am sorry. If it should be that you are in the wrong, it is of little further importance to me, and certainly not to be carried into the future. So, all things considered, I agree that it is best to end this discussion, because nothing further can be accomplished...if anything has been accomplished at all. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Search for wanted pages

Does anybody know a way to search for non-existing pages (like Special:Wantedpages) that only contain gallery pages? Special:Wantedpages give out to many templates.. --GeorgHHtalk   18:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, there's no option to do this. I don't know how many results you have on one page, but it's at least a bit more convinient to have 500 results on one page. The template links are in there due to {{Lang links}}. This template checks with {{#ifexist:Template:{{{1}}}/LANGCODE|[[Template:{{{1}}}/LANGCODE]]}} if a subpage like /en, /de, /fr and the like exists. If they exist, it returns a link to the subpage. Unfortunately, links to nonexistent templates also appear in such link tables even if they're not visible (don't ask me why, but it is as it is). Same applies to the Potd templates (which are linked on hundreds of Potd pages) and the translated tags (which use {{#ifexist:Template:Translated tag/local category-{{SUBPAGENAME}}|{{Translated tag/local category-{{SUBPAGENAME}}|{{{1|}}}}}}} to see if a specific language specific categorization exists). A namespace selector, as on Special:ProtectedPages, would be good for this page. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorted and numbered, how's that for service? I could only get the first 5000 results, after that you get
The following data is cached, and was last updated 12:03, 19 October 2009.
Updates for this page are currently disabled. Data here will not presently be refreshed.
There are no results for this report.
Paradoctor (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
That´s helpful. Thank you all. --GeorgHHtalk   10:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Uploading misses the information template and the license

When I uploaded File:Winchester Model 1911.jpg I filled out everything, but after the image was uploaded nothing was displayed and I had to repeat filling the information template and put in a license. Do others encounter this problem as well ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, only issue I have had in the past 24 hours is when the image page contents lag behind the uploaded image. Bidgee (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I got an API XML result with the same effect (all text wiped) a couple of times a couple of days ago, thought it had been fixed by now. Jarry1250 (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

sorting of category with date

sorting of category with date, is it possible an example I will check category Category:Copyrighted free use so that the newest pictures are first. If this are possible then it's more easy to find copyvio pictures what are with this permission.--Motopark (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It sorts by date of the last edit to the file description page. It also displays the upload date. -- User:Docu at 18:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
something must adjust because result are "Maximum potential result objects exceeded, aborting", I have entered last edited after 20090101000000, what else I must give.--Motopark (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
In general, if you type in a category name and click "Do it" it works. Using "After" with, e.g., "20100101" seems to work as well, but I generally don't use that option. -- User:Docu at 19:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, now it will works--Motopark (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome. BTW If you choose to sort "not at all", the output is by page_id. This is generally the same as by upload date. -- User:Docu at 20:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Prairie Postcards

The University of Alberta has published online 15,000 historical postcards [14]. About half of these seem to be pre-1923 and are therefore both {{PD-Canada}} and {{PD-1923}}, although the University is claiming copyright and has put a CC-BY-NC licence on all of them. Pruneautalk 12:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

For the few that still might be copyrighted, they would not have the authority to release them. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

video conversion

Was wondering if anyone has an easy method of converting Youtube videos to a Commons compatible format (Ogg Theora). It's a PD animation (released in 1916), the creator (director and animator) Victor Bergdahl died in 1939 and as such the film is in the public domain (PD-old) according to Swedish copyright law. The one I was thinking about was Kapten Groggs underbara resa (5min 43sec) but Kapten Groggs ballongfärd (8min 12sec) would also work. Cheers / 13:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

YouTube videos is either FLV of MP4 and ffmpeg can convert both of them to Ogg Theora. I also found ffmpeg2theora that may be worth a look. // Liftarn (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I find SUPER (Simplified Universal Player Encoder & Renderer) by eRightSoft works simply and in one step. Drag the FLV to SUPER and select OGG, Theora and Vorbis in fields 1, 2 and 3 and click Encode. See also Help:Converting video and Help talk:Converting video. ffmpeg2theora also works, but is a command line application: I use it to make adjustments for quality, cropping, time slices and so on. Try to get the best quality source video directly from the Youtube uploader, though. -84user (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia by country?

Are there other wikimedia sites for other countries as there are other sites for WikiPedia? For example, I am looking for a photo of Pont-Canal des Herbettes which is an aqueduct in France. There is nothing here, but was hoping there was a French version I could check. thanks GloverEpp (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Try to search some keywords. Or browse Category:Aqueducts in France. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Commons is international even if the most used language is English. // Liftarn (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


According to {{PD-US-record}}, sound recordings before February 15, 1972, "can be considered public domain in the United States generally, except in New York". Is this really an appropriate license, considering that Commons only accepts media that's either freely licensed or PD in at least the US and the source country? Furthermore, it even seems questionable to assume that the recordings can be "considered public domain". I asked about this at enwiki (see thread), and it seems from that discussion that the recordings are in fact covered by state copyright (and therefore not PD). If this interpretation is correct, the template will have to be changed and quite a lot of sound recordings will have to be either retagged or deleted as copyright violations. Jafeluv (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. Yes, the copyright status of old U.S. recordings are extremely complicated. Prior to the 1972 date, recordings were not considered as eligible for U.S. *federal* copyright protection; the law was changed that year to add them. At the time, unpublished works were still protected under *common law copyright*, which was ill-defined and differed from state to state, but which followed a general sense of right and wrong (and usually lesser penalties). Once a work was published, or registered for federal copyright, the common law copyright ceased and there was only federal protection. Sound recordings though, since they were never under federal protection, retained their common law copyright. And while the 1976 Copyright Act extinguished common law copyright almost everywhere else (it now applies to unpublished works too), the old common law copyright still applies to those pre-1972 recordings (i.e. the federal laws were not retroactive). Most or all states would recognize copyright in commercial sound recordings I would think, so don't go uploading albums by 1960s bands or anything like that, even if the musical composition has expired). The New York thing was about a specific court case but I'm sure most other states would be substantially similar (at least in regard to protecting some such works; that case was about a foreign recording which expired in the country of origin; New York decided it was still protected in their state, which may not follow everywhere). Where it gets a lot more difficult is for sound recordings in which nobody really has a monetary interest; those may not be treated the same way by common law as it is not at all like the absolutes in modern statutory copyright law. And as always, any music or lyrics may have separate copyrights which need to be respected. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with everything Carl Lindberg wrote, except the first sentence. It's not that complicated. Pre-Feb. 15, 1972 sound recordings: state copyrights. Post-Feb. 15, 1972 sound recordings: federal copyright. Because the Wikipedia Foundation is headquartered in California (§ 653(h)), and its file servers are hosted in Florida (§ 540.11), we should concentrate on the sound recordings copyright laws in those states. The template needs to be rewritten with accurate information about state copyright laws. But then there is the question of Wikipedia policy. What this will come down to is risk assessment: what is the likelihood that any copyright owner will claim infringement on sound recordings made before, say, the 1920s? Especially when the Wikipedia Foundation serves a non-profit, educational purpose? And the recordings are out of print and have negligible commercial value? — Walloon (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately very little case law exists on this, and I do differ from Carl on one point, the states will have radically different interpretations as to what is protected and for how long. I have a feeling we will not see enough of these cases to pinpoint exactly what every state would do (there's been one significant case on the matter since 1972, that's how rare it is). -Nard the Bard 22:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
There is more case law than that. And while I'm pretty sure that most/all states would find a way to protect recording companies from others distributing/selling their own commercial recordings, I would agree with Nard the Bard that the details of that would (and does) differ wildly from state to state, and those details may have large ramifications in how we deal with it. So while it is "simple" that pre-1972 recordings mean that only state common law copyright applies, that is when things get horribly, horribly complex. There are two considerations -- Commons itself can't violate the law, which is why it would make sense to look at Florida's laws in particular, and maybe California's. But we also have an obligation to only host "free" works, and trying to decide which state laws/precedents are actually copyright-related (meaning someone would not have the rights to put it under a "free" license to begin with), and which are considered Commons:Non-copyright restrictions (which we treat very differently -- those works can still be "free", and thus hosted here) is an awful problem. Hypothetically speaking, if a work would be technically legal in both Florida and California, but would likely get re-users in trouble in the other 48 states, we probably don't want to consider it "free" and host it here. And for works not "free", we can't host them on Commons, even if the specific usage in Wikipedia or other projects is legal.
To give an idea how complex it is, the Library of Congress has sponsored, for several years now, several studies on the copyright and other legal issues of sound recordings. You can find links to them on or on this page; three reports (#135, #144, and #146) are directly applicable and contain a wealth of information. They look at pre-1972 commercial recordings, pre-1972 unpublished recordings, and at legal restrictions from the point of view of a non-profit institution specifically. They give a good idea of how complex it is, and a decent sense of what is "legal". However, obviously, they don't try to consider what is "free" or not since that is a uniquely Wikimedia problem. Additionally, many sound recordings contain other copyrighted works (such as lyrics or musical compositions); we have to deal with federal law as well with those. The U.S. doesn't have many performer's rights, but you do need permission to make the recording in the first place -- so recordings may be illegal in the first place. Many states have anti-bootlegging laws, and virtually all of them have anti-piracy laws, both of which may have aspects which may apply to Commons hosting sounds.
The last report looks at ten states in-depth, including both California and Florida. California actually has a copyright statute as part of their civil code; § 980(a)(2) is the sound recording part and makes it fairly clear that California copyright exists on all such recordings. (The section before also makes a California copyright on works without fixation, which is also outside the purview of U.S. federal copyright law -- that may make recordings of impromptu speeches in California rather interesting.) And yet there was one case, about some Lone Ranger TV shows being leased by another company who had copied them, where it was decided that the act of general publication meant that the California common law copyright was *lost* (it only applies to *unpublished* works apparently). And that same case then ruled against the company doing the copying, not on copyright grounds but on "unfair competition" grounds. So... is that "free", or a non-copyright restriction? The issue of "limited" versus "general" publication is a contentious one at the federal level (only "general" publication triggers the heavyweight copyright stuff; "limited" publications results in works still being deemed "unpublished" by copyright law). And apparently the California state court differed in their definitions from federal cases... and Florida went a completely different direction in one of their cases. You linked to the related California penal code... but apparently that section does not apply to "not-for-profit educational institutions or federal or state government entities that have the primary purpose of advancing the public knowledge and disseminating information regarding America’s musical cultural heritage." And of course there are several hoops an institution must jump through to qualify for that status, but Wikimedia may well do so... which may make it "legal" for us, but are such works "free"? There are other bits of their penal code (§ 653(s) and § 653(w)) which may also apply. I'm getting a headache reading it, but... yes the whole situations is messy, and substantive restrictions apply in more than just New York. But I'm not sure that declaring all U.S. pre-1972 recordings off-limits is the way to go either. An awful lot rides on if there is someone making money off of the recordings which "feels" like would rightfully belong to someone else... not many other cases would make it to court. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
But any criterion based on "someone making money off of the recordings" sounds like fair use, which means move the images to English Wikipedia under a fair use rationale. --Damian Yerrick () 02:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Except that fair use requires the presence of a copyright law to begin with ;-) Your recommendation is basically to completely ban all U.S. sound recordings from Commons unless explicitly licensed. That seems like overkill. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Overkill, yes, but is there another option? (Not a rhetorical question.) Commons does not allow non-free content. Sound recordings are protected at the state level, so that means they're non-free, doesn't it? Our current practice (in use since June 2006) reads to me like "This may be protected, but we're assuming it's not until someone proves us wrong". This is the case only regarding sound recordings; all other content needs to explicitly demonstrate either PD status or a free license.
The kicker to the story is that according to this comment, even non-U.S. recordings would be non-free, since the U.S. does not apply the rule of the shorter term. Deleting recordings such as File:Alessandro Moreschi.ogg that are PD in the source country would of course be nonsensical, but this demonstrates the need to codify exactly what material is acceptable and what is not. Jafeluv (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, which is part of the problem. We have no idea if individual states would apply the rule of the shorter term or not -- each state can decide that (New York does not, but that does not necessarily apply to any other state). The statement "U.S. does not apply the rule of the shorter term" is specific to U.S. federal copyright law, not to state common law. The definition of "free" is mostly the issue here. For example, in the California court case mentioned above, they ruled that the state common-law copyright was terminated upon publication, but ruled against the defendant on other grounds. That part (losing common-law copyright upon publication) may not apply to sound recordings in that state, but if it does, then it would be "free" -- since there are no copyright entanglements, and anything else is a non-copyright restriction, which does not change the "free" status (for example, a fully trademarked logo can still be "free" even though usage in the real world is greatly restricted). Or, you could argue that, since pre-1972 recordings are PD-ineligible as far as U.S. federal copyright law is concerned, which would be the only copyright respected by other countries via international copyright agreements, that they are all "free" and Commons just needs to avoid breaking any other laws (and we could not host many commercial recordings for those reasons). The situation is somewhat mitigated in that most commercial song recordings still have a valid (federal) songwriting copyright, so most problematic recordings will be deleted on those grounds. Common-law copyright, despite the name, does not have anything like the same rules and international complications that federal copyright does, so maybe we could consider that a "non-copyright restriction" as well, and only delete works where the simple fact of hosting the file could get Wikimedia into trouble. (Of course, even though a work may be PD-ineligible in the U.S., other countries may well grant it statutory copyright overseas.) There are different ways of looking at it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


Could someone please get a copy of File:Suvarnabhummi.jpg for Wikinews? This has been deleted despite being in use in an archived enWN article. If it is not suitable for Commons it is quite likely it can be used on enWN per the project's EDP. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Adambro (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
File:Suvarnabhummi.jpg was deleted a suspected copyright violation. It was originally uploaded on enwikip by w:User:Rootje who provided no other information than {{self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}. I'm not sure that it could really be uploaded as fair use to reinstate the image on n:Tourists struggle to escape as Bangkok airport blockades enter sixth day since we don't know who the source is and it doesn't look like n:WN:EDP would allow for such images, particularly since it says "Image descriptions must include a link to and description of the source of the image. Images without source links may also be removed expeditiously." and it doesn't seem to fall in any of the whitelist categories. Adambro (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

January 7

who can sure that this film is nasa's ?

File:ALIEN SPACESHIP ON THE MOON flyover before landing APOLLO 20.ogv I am looking at the url this file gives,but it is not nasa's website. I think theNasaTopsecret (talk · contribs) chooses the wrong copy License; --Mys 721tx (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)-

Hoax. There was no Apollo 20 mission. See w:en:Canceled Apollo missions#Apollos 18–20, so this is definitely not NASA, a bogus license, and a speedy delete. -- Avi (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks,because this user is making up Apollo 20 on zh.wikipedia.--Mys 721tx (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest you delete it as a Hoax/Vandalism. The source is certainly unreliable (some private video webhosting site??). -- Avi (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Shizao helps to delete that,I will delete same thing next time--Mys 721tx (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.---Albert Einstein ” .I'm sorry to say that you might make a same mistake while judging the so called "HOAX" on Apollo 20 (leaked videos) that were originally uploaded by the former CDRs of Apollo 19 and Apollo 20 who are still alive.(Please see [15],[16],[17])And the videos that I quoted were put on a Chinese new index page of ( )that I'm working on. So, literately, it is a new index to be edited by different language versions and I will be workig on the English version once I finish the Chinese one. So, please do enough research out of the current old "resources" before making any decision to either deny or confirm it. By the way, NASA did not make any announcement about the Leaked Apollo 19 and 20 Videos since 2007, so you can imagine what consequences would be in the very near future. Please respect and protect the TRUTH of the Apollo program that belongs to all mankind. --NasaTopsecret (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. These are not NASA files and so are a copyright violation of whomever created them and they may not be hosted here.
  2. The images are out of scope per COM:PS#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose. Fostering conspiracy theories is not an educational purpose.
-- Avi (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.I fully respect the WIKI policy, and before making any decision by using WIKI policy, please do your own research to make sure whether NASA owned those videos before or not.

2.By the time you find the way to get to know a bigger picture of what's going on behind the Apollo Missions, you would define it as "conspiracy" which might be the best way to deny or confirm a point in order to conquer the fear by not denying an old world view. Anyway, you have the right and free will to do anything you think to be right, me too. But please remember this talk if the whole truth reveals in the coming 1 or 2 years. Do not stop thinking. That's all I can say about the files that I uploaded. --NasaTopsecret (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"do your own research to make sure whether NASA owned those videos": That's not required per ☭:EVID.
That's why I put the following licence ({{PD-USGov-NASA}}) before files were deleted.--NasaTopsecret (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood COM:EVID. I'm assuming you were not the original uploader of the file, but merely added a licence to it. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I do not know what licence the file had previously, but judging from the above discussion there is no evidence it was created by NASA, so {{PD-USGov-NASA}} is the wrong licence. If there was no other appropriate licence, then the file was correctly deleted. COM:EVID clearly states: "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that so far as can reasonably be ascertained ... the file is properly licensed (or is in the public domain)". Therefore, according to policy, the onus is on you as an editor arguing for retention of the file to show that it is properly licensed. So far, I've not seen sufficient evidence of this. — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I fully understand the policy of COM:EVID. What I do not understand is the meaning of 'sufficient evidence' that you need to accept. That's why I quote “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.---Albert Einstein ” . I mean what kind of evidence is the evidence to make the decision to confirm or deny AN EVIDENCE itself ? If you know it, please tell me your point.--NasaTopsecret (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
What is your basis for claiming that the file was created by NASA? Can you point to some reliable, published third-party source that states this? — Cheers, JackLee talk 20:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
If you can read Chinese, take a look at here which I am working on, or here:[18],[19],[20],[21]). That is lots of homework. By the way, what kind of "third party" can you accept except NASA itself.———NasaTopsecret (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
An organisation which qualifies as a reliable source - such as the major newspapers and TV networks. NASA itself would also count, if you could provide a link to a NASA website.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the introduction link about reliable source. I think I was doing well while editing on the (Chinese) new index . --NasaTopsecret (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that article up for deletion? Paradoctor (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
If you understand Chinese, you are welcome to join the discussion, otherwise you have to wait until the English version is done.--NasaTopsecret (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Good luck, but I have a very strong suspicion that the English version will be speedied just about as quickly as it is created. There is little tolerance for conspiracy theories unless those theories are widely published. I mean, it *is* supposed to be an encyclopedia. And Paradoctor, from my translation I gather that the Chinese version is headed towards redirection rather than outright deletion. Huntster (t @ c) 02:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it. It is all Chinese to me. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, truth is just truth, no matter how you deny it, you have to face it sooner or later. But I believe it is coming soon. Please do your own research and become a little more professional, then come back to discuss the details of Aopllo 20 event without a suppression tongue. Thanks and good luck. --NasaTopsecret (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
"truth is just truth": First, on Wikipedia, and by extension here, verifiability, not truth. You may not like it, but it is a fundamental principle, and will not be ignored. Second: "The term has no single definition about which a majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various theories and views of truth continue to be debated." That's the reason Wikipedia insists on verifiability. Paradoctor (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
When I say "truth is truth", it has thousands of meanings to all kinds of responsers, and it depends on how you explain it according to what kind of policy, in what language, under what circumstance and culture background,etc. You have your own right and free will to discuss and understand what "truth is truth" means, I have mine, he has his, she has hers, etc. I think it is a very common or natural phenomenon for different human being to have different opinion or understanding on a certain "sentence" such as "truth is truth", I hope you agree with it as well.--NasaTopsecret (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid you hope in vain. Anyway, it is terribly simple: No credible license, no file. Paradoctor (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think it's terribly simple that you just came here too late to witness every detail. I hope this answer would help you out of the puzzle.--NasaTopsecret (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

NasaTopsecret strikes me as a single purpose account who may not be well aligned with the mission of Commons. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

NasaTopsecret, whether there are reliable sources for (1) the content of the article you are working on; and (2) the source of the file and whether it is licensed to the Commons under a free licence or in the public domain, are two completely different things. In this discussion, I am only concerned with whether the file is properly licensed. I do not know which was the file that was previously in the Commons but has been deleted, but just looking at the first website you mentioned, there are some images on the left side of the web page, and the first one has the caption "Source: picture from a video added by 'retiredafb' on YouTube (year 2007)". That is not a proper source – there is no indication of who created the video, and whether the copyright holder has properly licensed it or released it into the public domain. We do not accept such files in the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you do not need to get involved on the YouTube's uploading policy. Same idea. You want to know who created the video, right? So, it's all about who "created" the Video but not "uploaded" it. I think I have answered you with the permission {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. By the way, I don't know if you have checked this site [22], if you don't have time, just forget it.--NasaTopsecret (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
YouTube can never always be trusted! Most videos hosted are copyrighted and a high percentage are copyvios. Bidgee (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Nothing can be trusted unless you trust it. Try to do the research to connect the dots, then you can find the whole picture, that's the truth.--NasaTopsecret (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
We do not only want to know who created it, we also want to know how we can verify that. Is there a download page on a NASA website? Is there an email from NASA confirming the file's origin? Provide that, and everything's fine. Paradoctor (talk)
When you use the words "We do not", I would consider you might be a representative of an organization or a group. If so, please let me know with proper detail. Otherwise I do not like to deal with an unidentified representative in this area. If not, please be careful to avoid using "We" to represent yourself. By the way, can you give me a reason why I need to help you to give a link if NASA did not want to put it on the Internet, but chose another way to provide the information to the public domain?--NasaTopsecret (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
When I say "we", I mean that this is policy, which rests on broad community consensus. I do not "represent" Commons anymore than you do. We don't have that kind of hierarchy.
Sorry, I can not accept the reality of any human being who claims himself/herself as policy to appear in this world, because it is just unbelievable to me. --NasaTopsecret (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
"need to help you to give a link": As I said, it's policy here. If you don't like the rules, why play? Paradoctor (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I need you to help me give a link of the policy that describes NASA needs a link to prove its production.--NasaTopsecret (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Not NASA, you. Here is the link: COM:SCOPE#Evidence. Paradoctor (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
"We" means the editors who volunteer at the Commons and accept its policies that have been decided by consensus, such as "Commons:Licensing". You can't just claim that a video or some other file was created by some institution such as NASA without providing some published, reliable third-party evidence of this. Any editor who isn't convinced by such a claim is entitled to challenge it, and if an administrator agrees with him or her the file has to be removed. Anyway, we've been discussing this issue for a while now, and it's clear that you are not prepared to be convinced. If you want to upload the file to some other website which does not have a policy prohibiting it, you are welcome to do so. But you cannot upload it to the Commons because it doesn't comply with the policies here. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
When you say "We", it has thousands of meanings to all kinds of responsers, and it depends on how you explain it according to what kind of policy, in what language, under what circumstance and culture background,etc. You have your own right and free will to discuss and understand what "We" means, I have mine, he has his, she has hers, etc. I think it is a very common or natural phenomenon for different human being to have different opinion or understanding on a certain "word" such as "We", I hope you agree with me as well. I think your questions are just simply repeatings of the above discussion, and I think I've answered enough about the similiar issues. You like to use "reliable", but how reliable is reliable if you do not to prove it by yourself? --NasaTopsecret (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I've had a look at the website you referred to ([23]). It is the user page of "retiredafb" on a video sharing website called the Revver Video Sharing Network. I note that the website's copyright information page states very clearly: "At Revver, we staunchly support copyright laws. Our mission and business is firmly rooted in the idea that artists deserve to control and be rewarded for their intellectual property. We screen every video that is submitted to our system in an effort to promote legality and to police obvious copyright infringement, and we respond promptly to Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) content takedown requests. ... By uploading your video to Revver ... [t]he default license attached to your video is the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 license, which basically means this: Viewers are free to copy and share your video as long as they attribute credit to you as the creator. Viewers may not make money off your video. ... Viewers may not edit or alter your video without your consent." There is no information on the website stating that any of the videos uploaded by "retiredafb" were created by NASA, and the default licence applicable to the videos (CC-BY-NC-ND-2.5) is not acceptable for the Commons (we only allow content tagged with CC-BY or CC-BY-SA). — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I have to copy my former similar reply and repeat "I think you do not need to get involved on the Revver's uploading policy. Same idea. You want to know who created the video, right? So, it's all about who "created" the Video but not "uploaded" it. I think I have answered you with the permission {{PD-USGov-NASA}}."The site [24] that I introduce to you is trying to help you get to know the "fact" of the Apollo 20 event, not the site policy. If you don't like it, just forget it.--NasaTopsecret (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
"I have answered you with the permission {{PD-USGov-NASA}}": No, you haven't. You have made a claim. Now prove that claim with COM:EVID. Paradoctor (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, "Apollo 20" was supposedly a joint US-Soviet mission. Given the Soviet involvement its not clear {{PD-NASA}} would apply anyway (why not Soviet copyright?)--Nilfanion (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Good point! But the Soviet Union(CCCP) is never the same as Russia as we have today. I think nobody would need a policy for a permission which might have been terminated since the year 1991.--NasaTopsecret (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect. There are several successor nations but copyright ownership remains; the Soviet Union and its successor nations were at the time, and still are, members of the Universal Copyright Convention, and have since joined the Berne Convention. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This whole thing was apparently a hoax started in 2007 -- there was briefly an en-wiki article on it named "Apollo 20 hoax" but it was deleted as the hoax itself was non-notable (though it looks like a version was archived here). Apparently someone claimed credit for the hoax, including these faked videos. The Chinese article referred to above, if Google translate is accurate, looks like it is on track to being redirected to an overview article on NASA hoaxes. I'm sure some segments are NASA footage from actual Apollo flights, but a lot would seem to be original authorship. There doesn't seem much point in arguing with someone who believes it lock, stock, and barrel; at any rate to host the video we need much, *much* better documentation that it is entirely a NASA creation, otherwise it is indistinguishable from any other faked video uploaded to youtube/wherever without any other documentation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
If someone is trying to cover up the truth, he/she has to be very patient to wait and see how deep the truth is. Who is this guy "Thierry Speth, a French video artist" in the site here you quoted? Did he know the former Apollo 19 commander also has started uploading other LEAKED Apollo 20 mission videos since Sept. 14 in 2007 on the Internet? Take a look at another interview to find out the related links for it(Apollo 19 CDR interview). Please do your own research before you named anything hoax--NasaTopsecret (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Can't believe you didn't see that one coming... ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I have seen nothing to change my view about NasaTopsecret being an SPA. Further he/she seems to be actively resisting engaging in constructive dialog. I think enough time has been wasted here for now. Blocked for 24 hours, with an admonishment that on return, this user needs to focus on answering the questions posed constructively. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

After viewing all of the above comments, to end up my discussion in here, I have to say that we are the prisoners and also the jailers who have been living in a huge prison that built by ourselves, in where we always call it "FREEDOM". I hope at least some of you guys will wake up in the coming 1-2 years, and good luck to all of you! -- A CHINESE --NasaTopsecret (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2

Should we add Category:Country lanes?

The category "Walkways" and its subcategories. such as "Paths", aren't really accurate. Country lanes are unpaved single-lane paths in rural areas (particularly in Europe) that are used by pedestrians, bicyclists and I suppose, farm vehicles. I propose a category "Country lanes" to be a subcategory of "Walkways", or perhaps of "Category:Land transport infrastructure". Comments? Downtowngal (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

yes, it is needed. the only cat for this until now is Category:Dirt roads as far as I see. The German equivalent is "Feldweg", which was sometimes even used by philosophers. Country lanes sounds good. Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely not all country lanes are unpaved? Would this category cover "ruettes" and "allées"? Some pics:

Man vyi (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard the term "Country lanes" in US and thought that it is a strange name for country borders. I am not sure about Europe but in US all dirt roads/paths are accessible either by foot (trails or footpaths - Category:Trails), by car (Gravel roads - Category:Gravel roads) or by Off-road vehicles (unmaintained Dirt roads - Category:Dirt roads). I would propose to use one of those categories and not add any additional categories. --Jarekt (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I've got concerns with use of "country lane" in this manner. In the UK, a "country lane" is a commonly used term for a quiet rural road and these are typically properly surfaced. In British terminology, the type of route you are describing would probably be a "Bridleway.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The term in use in this image gallery is trail, and that seems good. Also see the WP article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea about a good english name for it - my example is

a "Paettken", a special German expression I have never heard before - trail would be OK for it, as far as I see. Than there is no need for a new category. Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It is car accessible unsurfaced road. I would call it a Dirt road.--Jarekt (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the number of categories we already have, I have no objection to a cat Country Lanes.;) MartinD (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

January 6

Shameless plug

{{LanguageSelector}} permits users to comfortably switch between interface languages:

This page in other languages : Arabic | Bulgarian | Bangla | Czech | Danish | German | Greek | English | Esperanto | Spanish | Estonian | Finnish | French | Hebrew | Hindi | Hungarian | Indonesian | Italian | Japanese | Colognian | Lithuanian | Latvian | Macedonian | Dutch | Norwegian | Polish | Portuguese | Romanian | Russian | Northern Sami | Tamil | Tagalog | Urdu | Yoruba | French | Chinese | +/−

Useful also when testing i18n work. The list can be configured, new languages are easy to add. Currently up to eight languages supported, consisting of the official UN languages and German and Esperanto. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: The switch only applies to the page the template is used on, clicking other links will return you to the language set in your MediaWiki preferences. This does not generally apply to ECMAscript calls, e. g. "hide/show" links, or controls for sortable tables.
It is a great template, but I would much more prefer something with similar functionality to be added to every page on commons, with wider set of languages. Maybe some drop-down menu on the left hand side in the navigation menu? --Jarekt (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look at modifying skins. No promises and no deadline, though. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
"wider set of languages": ✓  Done Now supports all languages supported by Mediawiki.


Not 100% sure about the choice of images. A US/UK combined flag for "English" is common web-practice but I'm not so sure about the others. The "Spanish" one is particularly contrived and just using the Spanish flag would be clearer.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for French, for instance, what happened to Belgium, Switzerland, Cameroon, Gabon, Côte d'Ivoire, Monaco... ? And what is this weird thing that stands for Spanish ? I would certainly not recognise this if the text was not there. Just drop the flags. Rama (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not like flags as symbols for languages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ladies, gentlemen, and others: Please continue the flag discussion at the template's talkpage, that's what it's intended for. It's hard enough to keep up with this page as it is. Paradoctor (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have found what I belive to be a valuble resource, State Records NSW

State Records NSW's photostream appears to have some valuable images which have licenses suitable for use on commons. Is there a way that a bot can batch upload these images? I have transferred a couple to commons but there are rather a lot of images here. Oxyman (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

January 8

Strange categorization into Category:Other speedy deletions

Why is File:Gymnadenia rhellicani (spike).jpg categorized into Category:Other speedy deletions? It seems that Template:Picture of the day is responsible. --Leyo 13:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ö found it: a transclusion on Template:Potd/2009-11-29 (bs). -- User:Docu at 13:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Any easy way to upload a whole bunch of NASA images?

I would like to upload all of the public domain US-NASA images (e.g., almost all of them) on -- However, I wonder if there is an easier way to do it than to "save as..." all of them and then fill out the upload form per each. Does anyone have an easier way? If so, please help do so. If not, would you please help out with manual uploading? In either case, please reply with the ones you've uploaded here. Thank you. Dual Use (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Lot of these images don't seem to be work of NASA, so be careful with what you upload. You can pull all the files with a tool like "wget". Multichill (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Which ones aren't NASA? 21:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
To reiterate what Multichill said, you must be absolutely certain the image in question is a work of NASA and be able to prove it. Just because a website claims an image is "courtesy of NASA" does not mean anything. regularly hosts images from ESA and private companies, and such images must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis as to whether rights have been released. What categories would you suggest these images be placed in? I'd be more than happy to move over a selected assortment so long as they have a place and potential value here. Huntster (t @ c) 21:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


Should Category:Radius be renamed as "Radius bone" (or similar), and maybe a new category should be created for File:Parallaxe diurne.png, File:Poluprecnik K..PNG, and File:Circle-withsegments-notext.svg, which were a short while ago included in it? I'm at a loss for ideas about the name of this geometrical one, though, so if you could help out... :-) -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest "Category:Radius (geometry)". On the other hand, if you are transferring all images of the radius bone into its own category, then perhaps all that is needed is to place a usage note at the top of "Category:Radius" directing editors to place images of the anatomical part in the new category. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, on second thought, I'd suggest "Category:Radius" for the geometrical concept and "Category:Radius (bone)" for the anatomical part. I suspect that most people would associate the word radius with the former rather than the latter. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I would go the other way, as the geometric concept is much less readily imaged than the physical object that is the bone. Powers (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv categorization

When is this going to be fixed? Previous discussion was:

This was brought up twice in November - see under and I've asked twice about this, and twice been told something would be done, and yet nothing is happening. Several users have remarked how useful it is to have the Bundesarchiv photos categorized by year. Example:
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)
I concur; my own experience was reported as:
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.
There is no point in adding simple "categories" to these photos since you can't possibly predict what categories people will be searching the photos for; for example one photo of a soldier in uniform could conceivably contain a necessary glimpse of a set of binoculars, an insignia type, be representative of the year 1942, represent the Eastern Front, a specific battle in Romania, the fighting in a town, be a named individual, a military unit, a type of military unit (i.e. infantry, panzergrenadier, etc.), a type of soldier (infantryman), a specific rank (private, sergeant), a type of status (officer, non-commissioned officer) - the variety of things the photo could represent are endless. You couldn't possibly categorize them all in a meaningful way that would make them easy to find. When will we see the "by date" categories returned? 04:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone noted: "I am still planing to create Category:Images from the German Federal Archive by year assuming nobody beets me to it. Lately I was working on Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek by year and Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek by author and I am not done with that set yet. One has to remember that since all the categorization work is done on commons by small group of volunteers, it does not happen very fast. As for Category:World War II by time category, it is a new category tree someone created without adding hardly any content and at the moment containing mostly images from Canada. --Jarekt (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)"

Then someone said: "I could recreate the year categories right now, but I'm afraid Multichill would revert me. I would like to know if Multichill has warmed to the idea of the year categories yet. Kaldari (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)"

Is there any reason to not just go ahead and do it? The previous discussions seemed to indicate to me that this would happen. I rather thought the point of the archives was to make them easy to use. Incidentally, is it not possible to have photos belong to multiple categories simultaneously? 13:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Categorization is ongoing. Feel free to help to improve the categorization. I would recommend logging in and enabling hotcat to make it easier (and faster). Multichill (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
That isn't what I'm talking about. The images were uploaded into a "by year" template. There was talk about restoring the very useful BY YEAR template. When is that going to happen? 13:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the original captions were often erroneous or incomplete - and the photos often contained so much good "stuff" in them that the categories don't begin to capture what is in them. See all the previous discussions for detailed examples. 13:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As promised, I started rebuilding "by year" category structure (see here) per discussions in this forum and the predecessors (from July 19, Sep 4, Sep 24, Nov 9 and Nov 22 to name a few) . However I was promptly blocked by User:Martin H. for "Vandalism", which might be the first case when categorizing images is considered vandalism. --Jarekt (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. An incredibly useful archives of photographs is now going to sit in the database in a state of near uselessness because someone thinks that assigning it into useful categories is "vandalism"? Is that what I just read? I mean, despite a consensus of editors/users who agreed that the by year templates would be a very handy thing to have indeed? 01:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation in the reproduction of Wikimedia Content: what to do?

I have just discovered an external website which, I believe, is reproducing images from Wikimedia Commons without following the terms required by their licenses (mostly cc-by-sa-3.0+GFDL). Is there any guidance about what one can do in this situation? In this case I'm not interested in pursuing a copyright claim against them, but it might be worth contacting them so they can correct their error. The English Wikipedia has a page with Standard license violation letters: does Commons have something similar? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Do they use only your image or also image of other users? Could you post the URL here? In addition, here is a guide for re-users of "our" images: Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia, and here is a template for images re-used by media: Category:Commons as a media source. --Túrelio (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The website is a blog called Geography Directions. They used my image here (Image:Leicester Market 2009.jpg), but there is at least one example of a possible copyvio here (Image:Nuclear Power Plant Cattenom.jpg) by another user. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
While IANAL, I would recommend you to notify the owner about the violation of your copyright in regard to your image and, eventually in less strong words, inform them that the same may be true for many other images they have taken from Commons. You could direct them also to the above linked guide. --Túrelio (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Email has been sent; thanks for your advice. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Improved Creative Commons templates

As you might have noticed by now, most of the Creative Commons templates have been changed. Most important improvements:

  1. Translations are being done at . This is going quite fast, we already have every Creative Commons template translated into 23 languages and this number is rising. Please help with getting these templates translated in as much languages as possible. Current progress can be seen here
  2. The rights (You are free:) and conditions (Under the following conditions:) are included now. Hopefully this makes it easier for (re)users to work with these licenses.

Multichill (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I updated {{self}} so the attribution field can be used more easily. See for example the CC license at File:Rosmalen standerdmolen bij nacht 2.jpg. Multichill (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I like the new and improved CC template, but it become even bigger than before. May be we could use pull-down table (like template:creator does and hide most of the text there. Also all CC licenses require for the attribution to "keep intact all copyright notices for the Work". CC template should not allow attribution lines not mentioning the license type. Otherwise we are advising reusers to break the the conditions of the license. --Jarekt (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Improvements look good, however IMO one thing that is a bit too much is best illustrated on {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}: Are 4 lines really needed to say what licenses apply? The English version is also inferior as the loss of the "and" in the list of licenses isn't ideal. I can see why its been done that way, but could we just add a couple extra internationalisations for "This file is licensed under the CC-x 1.0, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0" (and the similar)?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

January 9

uploading .ogg files with proper categorization

I have a number of .ogg files which contain German pronunciation. For example "De-adeln.ogg". There are about 500 of them and there will soon be more, so I'm looking for an automated upload tool. Commonist is a tool which does the upload, but, unfortunately, the files should be inserted into Category:German pronunciation, but not just like this, but instead, "De-adeln.ogg" (for example) should be uploaded with [[Category:German pronunciation|adeln]]. How could one accomplish this task in an automated manner?

Many thanks. This request is related to a project of a handful editors of German Wiktionary to endow the articles there with spoken examples.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob.scholbach (talk • contribs) 15:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Try Commons:Bots/Work requests. Someone could probably write a custom upload bot for you, or run a bot to fix the categorization after the files have been uploaded. (I could do the latter in 15 minutes or so, although I don't currently have a bot-flagged account. I also have a simple mass upload script lying around somewhere, but it's old and klugey.) In fact, a generic regularly running bot to fix the category sort keys of pronunciation files (presumably, the same rule should apply to all of them, not just the German ones) seems like a good idea, if there isn't one already. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Why not upload them with names like "bechern-De.ogg" and they will default to the correct indexing? 18:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Probably because there's a standard convention for naming such files. We could argue about whether the convention should've been something else, but like it or not, most pronunciation files on Commons are named that way and it seems counterproductive to change it now. (And in any case, most of the time having the files sorted primarily by language would seem to be a good thing. It's only in the language-specific categories that one would want to omit the prefix, and even then only so that all the files won't be listed under the same first-letter heading.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I have indexed over 300 that have recently been uploaded by the author above. The one I have not done is a name "Kurt ....", which I will leave to the author to index, it probably should be indexed with the surname. I used a rather clunky way to do it in a two stage procedure, and I think that there must be a easier way. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

uploads from the WLA-Pool

in the uncategorized images from January 4th are several files from the Wikipedia loves art pool, for instance [25] - normally there should be added a temporary category to it, right? Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

They already are in a temporary categoryCategory:Media needing categories as of 4 January 2010. Hopefully uploaders will add them to appropriate permanent categories. --Jarekt (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

January 10

Exif data shows incomplete gps data


if there are any gps-data in an image it's not shown in the extended details exif data here on commons. An example File:Baths_o.f_Caracalla_01.jpg has the coordinates in the exif data but the extended exif data shows only

North or South Latitude North latitude
East or West Longitude East longitude
Altitude 41
Geodetic survey data used WGS-84

which is useless. It should show the real coordinates.


  • That would be pleasant. Instead, as seen in File:Spiderweb BB jeh.jpg a bot runs, a day or two later, to read and convert the EXIF coordinates, making them visible and highly useful. Even pleasanter if this service could be instantaneous, but with a little patience you can be much pleased. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, DschwenBot converts exif coordinates to {{location}}. The template has the advantage that it can be edited.
    There is bugzilla:13172 (of February 2008) about the display of coordinates in EXIF. -- User:Docu at 01:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

January 11


Could the non-English messages in this picture be translated by some of the wunderkinds here? Thanks. Mask of Picnic (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are thumbprints not updated?

The latest version of the pic File:Buurtspoorwegen Namen.png was uploaded on 20 november 2009. The thumbprints are stil not corrected. It is only when you zoom in that you see the latest details. Is there some size limit for regular updates? Technicaly it is very easy to select the pictures that have changed. Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You can try the "purge" link at the top of the image page, maybe a couple times if the first doesn't work, and see if that helps. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
And press CTRL+F5 to refresh your browser cache --Justass (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but that is not the problem: The first picture shown is (look at propertys) =

then after click-on:

In the history section the pic is:

The tumbnails have not been rebuild from the latest version (30th of november)Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what you are seeing; every image you linked above shows the same thing. The Nov. 30 differences are very small, just the labels along one road (and a slight change in that road). You can barely see the difference in the small thumbnails in the history, but they can be seen and the thumbnails do seem correct. It is possible that a caching web proxy has not updated the thumbnails, but the versions on the wikimedia servers seem fine. Some browsers make you reload twice (or more) to truly refresh all the images on a page; sometimes that can also force proxies to update. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I suspect the images are not refreshed by my provider. It is certainly not at my PC. I must have restarted my PC at least a hunderd times after 30 of november. But is you see the rigth images i am satisfied. Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

sorting in categories, the 2nd

I have a question concerning the sorting of files in pronunciation categories. Currently, it appears that German diacritics (and other non-English letters, I presume) are not well-sorted. For example German words starting with "t" are sorted as "tingeln", "toll", "traben", ..., "töten". In German, there are two ways to sort such things. Either ö is treated as oe, or ö is treated as o. In this case both these ways to sort would give "tingeln", "toll", "töten", "traben" (but of course in general the two would be different). What (if anything) should be done to get the sorting right (in one or another way)? This question may be of borderline importance to non Germans, but I guess this will be even more critical for non ASCII-coded languages such as Chinese. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

In Swedish, äåö are sorted at the end of the alphabet. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
As stated here, just use the proper sort key. See also w:WPSORT#Typical sort keys. File is now in the right place. HTH Paradoctor (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

January 12

How do I add photos from here to an article on Wikipedia?

I have several photos that I would like to add to the Delft Dragons page, that come from my Wikimedia Commons page. However, I have no clue how to transfer or even add them on the edit section. I've tried looking up the instructions on the help section, but it was just too complicated and I am still at a loss.

If you can please assist me with this matter, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you.

-Jerrold Icban <email redacted>

The code for including images is thus: [[File:filename.ext|thumb|caption]]. There is no need to transfer anything; articles on Wikipedia can include Commons images natively. Powers (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You can find detailed information at en:Help:Contents/Images and media (for everything related to the usage of images in wikipedia) and en:Wikipedia:Picture tutorial (for this specific question). Wikipedia in other languajes may have their own tutorials, but the rules are usually the same. Belgrano (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

January 13

Copyright protection of utilitarian objects..

Maidu woven coiled bowl.jpg

A very nice lady at the Maidu Interpretive Center informed me that one of my photos should be removed from the website. Apparently this bowl was on loan from the State of California and they do not permit photography of their exhibits. According to the tags on the exibit the bowls were woven in the late 1800s, so I don't think copyright is an issue... is there any reason I should be worried and remove the photo? --J.smith (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In general terms, museum cannot claim copyrights on old stuff like this. All copyrights of this image belongs to you as photographer and only you can issue license on this image. This case is not copyright one but legal contract between you and the museum. Such restriction may be valid only if you were informed about them before entering and in any form agreed. But from what I understand you were informed only now with the request to remove image, so any claims are highly doubtable. See also Commons:Image casebook#Museum photography --Justass (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The copyright on the image is fine, although you need to put somewhere in the image description the fact that the bowl was woven in the late 1800s (and thus the original copyright on the work is expired). Whether or not you broke some sort of admissions contract between yourself and the museum by taking the photograph, however, is another issue. But that's between you and the museum and does not actually involve the legal status of the photo. Kaldari (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough... I'll add a note about the age to the image's description page. As for photography... I asked as I entered if photography was permitted and they said it was fine (just no flash). The lady who contacted me only had issue with this one image... she said she liked the others in the set. From what I gather the no-photography only applies to the works on loan from the State of California. --J.smith (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It's up to you whether to respect the request or not, it would seem. I can't see any copyright-based reason to worry, but none of us are lawyers, and we can't know all possible ramifications of the law, and really can't give you good advice -- so it's up to you. Especially if there was no warning against photography, it's hard to think of even a far-fetched reason you should be worried, but stranger things have happened. Still, it may cause friction between the state of California and the museum, which may be behind the request. Personally it seems like a pretty overbearing request from California in the first place, but it's up to you. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a remark: if I were the photographer, I'd probably support the museum's request for removal of the one image, much as I'd accede if a private individual asked me to remove a particular photo from a routine set of pictures I took of them. On the whole, it seems best to continue good relationships; otherwise, museums are likely to go very far the other way and not allow pictures. - Jmabel ! talk 01:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I think Jmabel has an important point here. Let us be seen to be cooperating with those who have good policies for us. That applies both to the photographer and to commons. When there is request for deletion of a single image out of many, we may well gain much in the long run by complying with the request. Haros (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. If the uploader is threatened legally, it is, of course, OK to remove the image for the sake of the uploader. Its should be re-uploaded with an untraceable sock puppet account ASAP, though. We should never steer away from our strong belief that what is in the Public Domain is there for everyone. Even the smallest step towards these despicable copyfraud idiots is a surrender we should never even think of. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright protection of Cars?

Since designs of cars, motorcycles, planes, trains, ships... are still mostly protected by copyright, should we only allow pictures from countries with COM:FOP, or photos whose author is the owner of the object, or all are fine? --5ko (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Vehicles are allowed in Commons as long as image was taken by you or you have written permission from the author of the photo. See Commons:Image_casebook#Vehicles, --Justass (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Industrial design is outside of that scope in most countries, and in the U.S., industrial/utilitarian works can only be protected if there are separately distinguishable copyrightable elements in it (which by our interpretation, means like say, painted designs) ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Designs of cars, motorcycles, planes, trains, ships, etc. are not at all protected by copyright. Photos are always fine. Some countries may protect them as industrial designs or with design patents, but that generally only prevents others from using the same design in competing products, and has nothing to do with photographs of the designs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know this -- I assumed these designs were like Sculpture and Architecture, photos of which are currently not allowed from countries without Freedom of Panorama. --5ko (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Nope; architecture is explicitly mentioned in copyright laws, and not any of that other stuff. It is actually fairly recent for the U.S.; it has only been part of their copyright law since 1990. I think the Berne Convention has required it for some time, and most every country today which has a copyright law is a signatory to that treaty, so they would be protected in most any country these days. But, many countries allow unrestricted photos of buildings; the protection there is mostly limited to 3-D reproductions (other buildings using the same design, or maybe 3-D models). Many other countries allow "non-commercial" use of such photos; that is fine for 99.9% of situations in real life but unfortunately not for Commons, due to our policies. In general though, "utilitarian" items (like cars, bowls, shoes, everyday-use items) are not copyrightable; the form is constrained by the function instead of being free-form artistic expression (which is what copyright is more intended to protect). Although, a painting on the side of a car is copyrightable in its own right (in U.S. terminology, the painting is "separable" from the car, i.e. you can conceptually separate it from the car without the car losing any of its function). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Mexico vs. Starbucks

Aztec calendar

It would be better to have an encyclopedic article citing the laws and cases in en WP --Historiograf (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite interesting Mexico claims intellectual property and asks Starbucks for money for their use of the image of the Aztec calendar. --Jarekt (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting news find! Luckily this doesn't affect us, but it's unfortunate that they are attempting to create an intranational IP concept. Once copyright's gone, everyone should be able to use public domain content, not just the source country. David Fuchs (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
They aren't alone; several countries try to do the same (Greece, Italy, many others). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you cite sources for many others plz? --FrobenChristoph (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, Historiograf, it's probably not many, but as you know well there's at least the attempts of Egypt to "copyright" antiquities (and to claim this Egyptian law applied anywhere).[26] And you also know of the somewhat different, but in its outcome virtually identical case of the "Nebra sky disc", where a German court decided that the state of Sachsen-Anhalt had "copyrights" (publication rights) on a roughly 3'500–4'000 year old artefact.
Similar are the attempts to copyright folklore and sometimes centuries-old traditionals, see e.g. the article 7 of the Copyright law of Morocco. And then there's the "domaine publique payante"... (the idea that for uses of PD works, one has to pay a (royalty) fee to the state; common in Eastern European copyright laws. An example is Georgia, see article 34(2) of the Georgian copyright law). If you count these last two types, I'm sure we'll arrive at "many" others :-) Lupo 21:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Several African countries, and I think Pacific island nations, have protection for "folklore" in their copyright law, or other law -- apparently WIPO has been struggling for some time to come up with a protection scheme that can work. Maybe not directly "antiquities", but similar.[27] Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Set of cyrillic symbols is incomplete

The set of most used cyrillic symbols on special character panel is incomplete, it lacks of some symbols used in Ukrainian and Rusyn languages: ЇЄҐїєґ and Іі (used also in Belarusian) (look en:List of Cyrillic letters) --AS (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

✓  Done Lupo 07:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


Is this tool down? We seem to be linking an example of its use in Special:Upload (where it says "Use for geolocation tags and other specialized information. Did you know that our images can be shown on Google Maps? See for instance the images taken near Half Dome, Yosemite National Park, United States.") and no pictures pop up on the map, no matter where I scroll. Perhaps we should take this off the upload form for the time being? Killiondude (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It works in Google Earth, but not in Google Maps. I have the same problem with . Multichill (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I left a note on User talk:Para. -- User:Docu at 05:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record: it once did work on Google Maps. Lupo 08:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
And so did my tool. I think it stopped working last week. Multichill (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
According to toolserver logs, the last correctly formatted request from Google came at 2010-01-08 02:19. After that no bounding box for the requested area was defined anymore. I changed viewRefreshTime from 0.5 to 1 now and it seems to be working...ish. Google servers seem to have cached its "invalid" status so it will probably take a while before it works properly. Normally Google fetches the network link pointer file (referred to in the url) about twice an hour, so it should be working when most of you see this. With some null-changes to the Yosemite link above, it works already. --Para (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it. Toolserver replication had some problems last week, so I didn't investigate further. -- User:Docu at 08:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Uploading a film still

If i wanted to upload a still from lets say, "Shutter Island"

Would it be deleted, even if when i uploaded it i said "All rights reserved- Paramount Pictures"

Or is this not allowed at all?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviedude346 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes it will. All copyrights of derivatives like screenshots belongs to the the copyright holder. Only Paramount Pictures can release it's move or screenshots under any suitable free license but it's hmm... very unlikely --Justass (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Fête des lumières

After one mounth in vain, is there anybody here to post an opinion on that subject? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Latuff categorization dispute

There is absolutely no agreement on what categories these things belong to, and beyond a doubt, including them in the categories belonging to the content of the images is unfair. Until we develop, on the Commons, a manner of tagging these cartoons that is more consistent with other image sites on the internet, we will continue to have wars on what sorts of categories these images belong to, including inappropriate, pointed categories such as the one I recently removed here.

I therefore suggest and propose the Latuff cartoons remain in strict categorization containing Latuff, cartoons, parodies, or any descriptor of the medium, and not in broad categories involving the subject matter or people's interpretation of the subject matter. Bastique demandez 19:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree. File:CocaColaIndia.gif belongs in category:Coca-Cola and File:LeiAzeredo.gif belongs in category:Copyright law as much as File:Chodowiecki Werke der Finsternis.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Pieter, you are able to spot the flaws so readily. I know you're an intelligent contributor. Why don't you help come up with a solution that will contain this problem? Bastique demandez 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The solution is to follow policy. As mentioned in COM:CAT, there are source categories. Creator categories like category:Carlos Latuff are a bit like source categories. But images should also be in topic (subject) categories. If many artist have depicted a topic, a "category:xxxx in art" can be created. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree there's no agreement, and I doubt there ever will be one. I would only like to pay tribute to Drork, who removed almost all categories I added to cartoon by Barry Hunau I uploaded, which means that he played it fair. IMO when we adding categories to the images we should mostly take into account our readers. When readers are searching category Category:Israeli West Bank barrier they expect to see images of West Bank barrier, and not highly offensive Holocaust denial cartoon, which has not a single strike of the brush that is saying the truth. I guess, if it is added to Category:Israeli West Bank barrier next move will be to add it to Category:The Holocaust--Mbz1 (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd say that Category:Israeli West Bank barrier should contain media related to the West Bank barrier regardless of the medium. That includes photos, maps, cartoons et.c. // Liftarn (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Pieter, Policy on Commons is not fixed, and is written to account for different situations. We take into account the fact that people have widely divergent opinions about certain subjects, like the incredibly huge leap of logic (see below) that equates a cartoon depicting a Palestinian in a death camp to Holocaust denialism to Anti-Semetism; and we acknowledge that some subjects are going to be highly inflammatory and divisive, like Latuff's cartoons. I think the fact that we've reached a consensus on allowing the cartoons says something. Let's reach a consensus on which category the cartoons appear so that we can get past this issue and move on to the next.
Latuff's cartoons are a special case and must be treated specially. Bastique demandez 20:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The only special thing about Latuff is that he released his cartoons about recent events in the public domain. If some Israeli contributors do not like the message, let them try to "balance" by getting Israeli newspaper cartoonists to release their work on a free license. Let thousand flowers bloom. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It has been done with Category:Barry Hunau. // Liftarn (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In my view the removal of valid categories is a violation against the principle that Commons is not censored. I think that such a dramatic change of policy should not be done in a big "mudfight" like this. I think that a lot of users do not want to spend time discussing Latuff. However if the heading was "Should we start censor on Commons in some areas?" then I'm sure a lot more would participate in the debate. --MGA73 (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


  • I added the antisemitism category, with the reasoning that holocaust denial is classified as antisemitism. Holocaust denial itself is defined as the claim that the Holocaust did not occur at all, or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized. The cartoon, by depicting an equivalence between the Palestinian situation and the Jewish situation in Nazi death camps, falls into the latter. (That is not to say there is anything good about the Palestenian situation.) Catagory:antisemitism does not, moreover, say that Latuff is antisemitic, but that antisemitism is an issue in this cartoon. But: I urge all involved in this dispute to accept Bastique's suggestion as a good compromise that will end the dispute. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    • No, w:Godwin's law is not about antisemitism. Also there is no antisemitism pictured, it is just the an opinion of an editor. So the inclusion of the image in the antisemitism category is both confusing and a disservice to the users of Commons. // Liftarn (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
      • This is the same issue as with terrorism: a category that defines no criteria, and doesn't make sure to distinguish between Commons claims, claims in the file, and claims about the file. I think Malcolm is wrong about inferring antisemitism from an image that makes a connection between West Bank Palestinians and concentration camp inmates, and "antisemitism" is too broad to carry files itself, but a subcategory "works considered antisemitic by X" makes perfect sense. Paradoctor (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
        • @Paradoctor you are wrong, it is not what Malcolm thinks. It comes clearly from by WORKING DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is antisemitism. Besides that particular cartoon attacks every single Jew around the world, and not only Israeli Jews. @Liftarn, Godwin's law has absolutely nothing to do with it. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I wasn't saying anything about what Malcolm thinks, but what I think. But you have brought up something else: This so-called "definition". Is this a hoax site? Because if it isn't, then something is horribly wrong with the EU. If you gave that piece of unmitigated crap any credence, you'd have to admit that there is no fundamental difference between Zionism and antisemitism, because Zionism fits this non-definition almost as well. That is repulsive. Paradoctor (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
            • It is not a hoax site. There's mostly nothing wrong with EU, I am not so sure about Commons. I do not know how from reading the document you came to conclusion about no differences between Antisemitism and Zionism, nor I want to know, because we have already established we speak different languages, and I do not like yours. "unmitigated Crap" , "repulsive" what the words! But of course how I could have expected something else from the one, who said he would have considered it a loss, if he had missed on those repulsive cartoons? --Mbz1 (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It may not be a hoax site as such, but it is the site of European Forum on Antisemitism and they are "a resource for Jewish community representatives, public opinion leaders, and members of non-governmental organizations dedicated to combating antisemitism.".[28] So they are not an official EU body, but an interest organisation. Also note that it is only a working definition. // Liftarn (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
All wrong as usual. Here's how it really was "In 2004 the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) released its first comprehensive study of antisemitism in the EU. Although it relied heavily on its focal points in the then fifteen member countries for its information, a majority of those focal points had no working definition of antisemitism and of those that did, no two were the same.As a result the EUMC, in collaboration with key NGOs and representatives of the newly-formed Tolerance and Non-Discrimination section of the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) drafted a single, comprehensive definition for use in the field. It employs plain language to enable the definition to be easily accessible to a wide range of law enforcement, justice and government officials, as well as to NGOs and experts who assist in the monitoring process.This “working definition” was adopted in 2005 by the EUMC, now called the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and disseminated on its website and to its national monitors. Units of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) concerned with combating antisemitism also employ the definition."--Mbz1 (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Have I finally crossed to the other side of the mirror? Are you seriously debating a rhetorical question?
Sure, this is not Wikipedia, but why should we hold ourselves to less than encyclopedic standards when it comes to our own research?
Did anyone bother to check the bottom of the page, where there is a nice big logo of the American Jewish Committee? Of course, the EFA is an advocacy group, and there is nothing wrong with that per se. But did anyone notice that they state[29] that this "working definition" was "adopted in 2005 by the" ... "European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights"? Further checking today revealed that claim is plain wrong, this "definition" is a draft which has been sent out for review.
To make it absolutely clear: The claim the the EUMC adopted this definition in 2005 is wrong. This is flat-out contradicted by the May, 2006 statement by EUMC director Beate Winkler that "The working definition, which is work in progress, is available through the homepage of the EUMC." (my emphasis). See page 19 of [30]. I cannot rule out the possibility that it has been adopted after May 2006, but my search has come up dry so far. There is no proof that this has ever been adopted by any official EU body, and it seems rather plausible that this draft has gone where it rightfully belongs: nowhere.
All this changes nothing about the draft itself. It is neither "operational" nor useful. Also note, that "the EUMC and OSCE/ODIHR consulted Jewish organisations" and "academics" only in formulating the draft.[31]
Paradoctor (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
You may be interested in the February 2009 update from the EU FRA, specifically pages 20–25. -- Avi (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Care to explain what your point is? I haven't seen anything relevant to the issue of adoption in the source. Paradoctor (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Nothing outside the fact that those pages discuss the current EU definitions/opinions on what is Antisemitism; no other point intended. You said you weren't sure if anything was ever adopted, and this is more recent data. -- Avi (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
"You said you weren't sure if anything was ever adopted": No I didn't. If you still think so, please quote me verbatim. Paradoctor (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Your verbatim quote: "I cannot rule out the possibility that it has been adopted after May 2006, but my search has come up dry so far. There is no proof that this has ever been adopted by any official EU body…" I paraphrased it. My apologies if the paraphrase was inaccurate. -- Avi (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Plain wrong, not inaccurate. No problem, I make my of share of mistakes. Accepted, settled, forgotten. Paradoctor (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
My definition of holocaust denial comes from the lead sentence of the WP article on Holocaust Denial[32], and I do not think the definition is controversial. For instance, in Belgium, where Holocaust Denial is a crime, the law reads (in part) Whoever, in the circumstances given in article 444 of the Penal Code denies, grossly minimises, attempts to justify, or approves the genocide committed by the German National Socialist Regime during the Second World War shall be punished by a prison sentence of eight days to one year, and by a fine of twenty six francs to five thousand francs.[33]. So the definition I used of Holocaust denial as antisemitism is correct. The remaining question is if the Latuff cartoon fits the description of Holocaust denial. Seeing that it was second prize winner in the International Holocaust Cartoon Competition which intended to promote "discussion about the realities of the Holocaust" [34], redefinition of the known historic realities seems likely. In any case, the fact is that the issue of antisemitism in relation to Latuff has been discussed in notable publications, and the existence of the issue requires the category.But the category does not judge the issues, just that they exist. I hope this clarifies my thinking, and why I added category:antisemitism to the image. Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs) 17:24, 5 January 2010
Can't speak for anybody else, but I never objected to calling holocaust denial antisemitic. I do say that file:Latuff nazi camp2.gif is not evidence for holocaust denial. Exactly how does the cited definition apply? Paradoctor (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The WP lead defines Holocaust denial as the claim that "the genocide of Jews during World War II — usually referred to as the Holocaust — did not occur at all, or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized." While the conditions of Palestinians is very grim, comparing that to the conditions faced by Jews in Nazi death camps amounts to a denial of the historically accepted reality of the Holocaust. The reason I gave the excerpt from Belgian law is that its "grossly minimizes" coincides with the WP definition. For some information on the nature of Nazi death camps, you can refer to this WP article, although there is plenty of other information available [35][36][37][38] etc. This equating things that are not alike is recognized form of Holocaust denial, and it is therefore also a form of antisemiticm. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Malcolm, while I always appreciate links, you really don't need to educate me about the Nazi horrors. Between my upbringing and my personal development over the decades, I'm informed and aware. One of my memories is a trip to Buchenwald, so there is an, admittedly ephemeral, personal connection. I still remember the circuit they used for testing shoes and boots.
You argue that the image constitutes holocaust denial because it implies that concentration camps were like West Bank, even though they were in reality far more horrible than anything in West Bank. Is that a correct formulation of your position? Paradoctor (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. The links are to information that you, or others who are following this discussion, can follow or you (or they) choose.
  2. You seem to be missing something. I have explained my reasoning for adding category:antisemitism, but I am not advocating for it because I prefer the compromise solution. If the compromise proposal fails, there will be plenty of opportunity to waste time arguing about it then. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
"explained": That is what my question is about, making sure I have understood your explanation. It's pretty easy to misread other people's words, and having a reformulation in one's own word confirmed goes a long way towards avoiding needless discussions.
"waste time arguing": It's a pity you see it that way. I tend to see discussion as only way towards building a solid consensus. And even if you disagree about that, I can say for myself that I learned a few things, and that the discussion at the very least led to an improvement of w:European Fundamental Rights Agency. Not a waste in my book.
"If the compromise proposal fails": Ok, we'll resume this strand as soon as the proposal has failed. Paradoctor (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Nazi camps were built to prevent innocent kids, women and elderly from getting out. West Bank security fence was built to prevent terrorists from entering in. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(<-)The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights has, as its working definition for antisemitism:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

—European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, [39]

This is the working definition of the EU, and calling it "crap" or a "hoax" does demonstrate an insensitivity to those who have suffered from the effects of antisemtism, directly or indirectly. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point of COM:PS#Censorship. And thank you, I already read that yesterday, why do believe I'm so horrified? Paradoctor (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
So now calling a definition crap is being insensitive, not to those who wrote the definition, but to random other people? The concept that definitions can be beyond criticism is ludicrous.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You can do whatever you want. However, as this is supposed to be a collegial atmosphere, making comments that would be specifically insensitive or hurtful to other commons editors is, in my opinion, not a good idea. Your opinion of antisemitism, the EU, and their definition notwithstanding, do you disagree with my point? -- Avi (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(I'll assume that this is addressed to me) Collegial does not mean "mince words". Above all, it means AGF. As Prosfilaes pointed out, I was critizing the definition, and by proxy those who created. Everybody else may feel free to be hurt by my remarks, but that is the price of living in a society that guarantuees freedom of expression. Paradoctor (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but do not be surprised when what seems obvious and simple to you is hurtful to someone else. Good faith is critical, respect for others is too. Personally, I think we should all bend over backwards a little extra, especially in contentious discussions, as there is the tendency to too much rancor already. Despite the strength of one's opinion, a softer approach tends to garner better results most of the time, in my opinion and experience. Feel free to disagree :) -- Avi (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Simplified proposal

I think it is unfortunate that we are in this position but we are, and we all need to accept that there is no ideal solution to this issue, no solution which necessarily anyone will be completely comfortable with so let us no longer pretend that there will be, we all need to be prepared to accept something less than what we might consider ideal. Where we are currently shows no sign of heading towards a resolution. We all have much more constructive ways we can be using our time that worrying about the categorisation of a few dozen images.

I would therefore make a simpler proposal than Bastique has made, that we should only categorise the Latuff images in one category, Category:Carlos Latuff, and abandon any attempts to categorise them beyond that. The current Carlos Latuff subcategories can just be merged back in to Category:Carlos Latuff.

This isn't a proposal I am comfortable with, I would much rather have images categorised according to COM:CAT, but one which I feel is in the best interests of Commons. I would urge all involved to consider accepting this proposal, despite its disadvantages, so we can move on and stop wasting any more of our time. Adambro (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support --Mbz1 (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support This is not, in my opinion, an ideal solution, but it's better than "categorizing according to subject matter in all cases" -- because subject matter is broadly interpreted. I prefer a more complex solution that allows for better categorization without causing strife. Bastique demandez 20:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Just follow COM:CAT - include in topic categories. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    We've tried doing that for years without much success. Adambro (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    Block the people that repeatedly remove the most appropriate relevant categories, instead of humoring them. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    Agreed... reach a consensus and then enforce it. --J.smith (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  I hate this solution but I think we have no better choice. ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Strong oppose It didn't work because the problem was not addressed: The inherently judgmental nature of terms like terrorist, antisemite, freedom fighter, ... The discussion at Category_talk:Terrorism#Inclusion criteria seems to be on the right track, contribute to it, and we stand a good chance to reduce the heat some, all the while improving accessibility of our files. Which is what we're here for, right? Paradoctor (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't you think that there are some places that are better off hidden Face-smile.svg Please do not get angry with me, it was a joke, but do you really believe that we ever will reach the consensus on what include, and what not include in category terrorism for example? --Mbz1 (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
"do not get angry": ?!? Calm yourself, young one! ;) Though that particular choice of image is, let's say, not really up my alley. Me being a panagnostic who enjoys walking around nude and all that. ^_^
"we ever will reach the consensus": Not in the sense that we can make everyone happy. But I'm positive we can substantially improve upon the current situation. Paradoctor (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

@Adam and Bastique. I'd like to thank you for your comments and proposals. The thing that you are not comfortable with it make it even much more precious in my eyes.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Not the perfect solution, but it is better than the current situation. Kooritza (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support this compromise proposal that is a reasonable solution. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
How is this a compromise? It is giving in to pressure. The pressure will continue. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Commons is a very diverse community. We won't always be able to agree easily. Where traditional efforts have failed, and that is very much the case, we have to consider more creative approaches to problems. This is only my proposal for a possible resolution of sorts, if you can think of something else then please share it with us but we cannot continue as if we can really expect to solve anything by the edit warring or repetitive discussions that have gone on for so long. Adambro (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Just follow policy. This is one of the more humorous cartoons by Latuff. It is appropriately categorized. The category system is for finding stuff, not for tucking it away. Commons is not censored, policy says. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Any policy you can quote for me is just a reflection of community consensus. The community can decide to do things differently in some cases if they wish to. It is surely better to compromise the categorisation than to loose these images. If we continue without success to take a rigid approach that has got us nowhere then that risk is increased. Categorisation is important, but is it that important that you would be happy to see these images deleted due to the hassle they continue to cause if this isn't resolved? Adambro (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason to delete them. As for example also File:Geschändetehostie.jpg was kept. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Whether something is deleted is, again, simply a matter of community consensus. What might in reality be trivial issues might suddenly become more significant if the community considers these images to be more hassle than they are worth. Adambro (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support and yes, I am not really fond of this solution but I do see no workable alternative. I concur with Bastique that we shall avoid a categorization by subject matter in controversial cases as the Latuff caricatures. If we, for example, add this image into this category, we get in my opinion an issue with this BLP resolution of the foundation. These category pages are top-ranking at Google and give the unaware visitor an impression of an editiorial content. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A corrolary of this proposal is that "Category:Propaganda cartoons" would have to be deleted, since Liftarn's claims that Latuff is exempt, while every single non-Latuff cartoon that Liftarn happens to personally disagree with somehow qualifies, has become an irritant... AnonMoos (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  • IMO liftarn should be banned on working with categories all together. That statement proves how confused the user is. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Ugh, whatever is decided, please could someone work towards a technical solution that addresses concerns similar to this one? Commons:Usability issues and ideas#Not censoring Commons, but yet giving an option to censor this site's content might be a start in the right direction. Possible solutions might include w:en:Stylish sheets and/or w:en:Greasemonkey scripts that allow readers to selectively hide things they do not want to see. In other words, provide the user with display tools rather than make the server decide en-masse for everyone. -84user (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support per Bastique. While we may lose some categorization clarity with certain images, this does prevent various commons project participants from using various images (Latuff, Hunau, etc.) as proxies in a political battle. As difficult as it may be, perhaps the best solution is to start with Adambro's single category, and then discuss each image, one at a time. While this will be long, time-consuming, and annoying, it will likely end with a somewhat better categorization that will not be the subject of political posturing. -- Avi (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    The idea is not that we strip back all the current categories apart from the one and then discuss which ones to reintroduce. The idea is that we leave it at the one category, then find other more useful things to do then categorising a few dozen images. As you say, what you propose would be "long, time-consuming, and annoying" and in my view simply be a continuation of the problems that we should be trying to address. It would be preferable to categorise these images properly but we have tried to do that for such a long period that the time wasted is of far greater concern than any categorisation problems. I don't wish for us to risk removing some categories which are appropriate in this process only to find ourselves in pretty much the same situation debating Latuff image categorisation again. Let's just leave it at the one category and forget about it. The approach of trying to discuss each image individually is what has already been tried and failed. Adambro (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    Your simplification, while not optimal by a longshot, above is still better than the constant mess we have now perpetuated by three or four specific editors. I'm almost of the opinion that if we topic-banned four or five people from Latuff, Israel, and Palestine, the rest of us would come to a reasonable consensus more quickly and less acerbically. -- Avi (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    Hey Avi, if you meant me , when you talked about the topic ban, I do not mind at all. It will be my easy way out knowing that I have done what I could. Only that ban should be official something like that for example. I was blocked quite a few times because of that very topic, that's why in my situation the topic ban is the right thing to do. I am not a fighter, I want out, but I like somebody to kick me out instead of getting out myself :)Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose , in the strongest possible terms. I don't know, nor do I care to know, what abuses have been perpetrated regarding these images. But if we do not categorize images by content, we may as well just delete them, as they are useless. Take the Dershowitz image; as offensive as it is, is it free media that depicts the man, and belongs in his eponymous category. Powers (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    Commons primarily serves as a repository of free content for the various WMF projects. That role won't really be compromised by adopting this unconventional categorisation scheme but it certainly would be if we deleted them. Ideally we would categorise all images normally but we have tried to do that with these images for at least a year now and much drama has resulted. I don't see the necessity to categorise normally is so overwhelming that if we can't do, we should delete these images. They are still available for use across all the WMF projects, and can be found without too much difficulty, only they won't be found in broader categories. We would be better accepting the problems here make it very difficult for us to ever categorise these images properly and move on to use our time more constructively. We have thousands of media files which need categorising at all for example, that would be more useful than worrying so much about a few dozen which we have tried hard to categorise. Adambro (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
They will be useless in 2-3 years I am sure, but for now their creator is such a notable person on his own, that his cartoons would be found easily by his own name alone. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
If you already know what you want, sure. But that misses the point of categories: browsing for stuff you didn't even know existed. Paradoctor (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Your point is right concerning all (how should I put it) okay, let's say, usual images on Commons, but the discussed images are anything but usual. Let's say you have a thirteen-years old son. The boy knows that he is prohibited go to porno sites on Internet, but he sees no problem to go to article about Dershowitz, then he continues to the category and... Here's another example let's say we have an elderly Holocaust survivor, who lost all her family to the Holocaust, and never got over it (and who can get over it ever?) Let's say she happened to read the article about West Bank security fence. She hits the category to see more images, and ...In other words I believe that, that those of our readers, who know nothing about the cartoons and their creator, will loose absolutely nothing, if their "ignorance" to continue. On the other hand some others readers will be hurt, and hurt a lot by seeing them by a pure accident. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
You would let a kid surf unsupervised?
"holocaust survivor": With that reasoning, we should also delete all pictures of spiders, milk, clowns, anything containing the number 13, knives, large objects, cats, bees, dogs, and so on and so on and so on...
"loose nothing": Without Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict cartoons by Latuff, I would never have noticed File:Freud have an explanation.gif. I'd consider that a loss.
You might be interested in reading Commons:Project scope#Censorship and Commons:Usability issues and ideas#Not censoring Commons, but yet giving an option to censor this site's content. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
If you consider it as a loss, if you have not seen the image, I am afraid I have nothing more to add. Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose By reasons mentioned by others already. Wouter (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose it is nonsensical to categorise these images only by their creator when categories that categorise images by their creator are hidden as "not helpful" and for "not categorising by subject or content" when the creator is a Commons volunteer. Additionally, I would expect Category:Carlos Latuff to contain images of Carlos Latuff in the same way that Category:Tracey Emin contains images of Tracey Emin. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather expect anything related to these names in or under these categories. You're probably talking about the subcategories category:Pictures by X and category:Pictures of X.
I note that both categories lack "A short description text that explains what should be in the category.", as do virtually all categories, even though Commons:Categories#Creating a new category makes it clear that this is of high importance. Little wonder Commons hasn't been able to keep useless arguments down to an acceptable level. If we don't follow our own rules, then we don't have rules, and have to live by Faustrecht (literally "rule of the fist", similar to "law of the jungle"). Paradoctor (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you propose an alternative way of dealing with the problems which have prevented these images from being categorised normally? Adambro (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support As explained previously, I think compromise solutions are usually preferable to continuing disputes, and this compromise is a good solution to this dispute. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Strong oppose - Censorship of this kind goes against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia and Commons. Images must be categorized according to content wherever possible. Just because something is offensive doesn't mean we can pretend it doesn't exist and hide it away. --Latebird (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    • And how do you propose to prevent the petty political bickering that has been going on for the past year or so? -- Avi (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
      • If people can't behave themselves, and refuse to accept the core purpose of Commons, then they are in the wrong place here. --Latebird (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support . The solution is not perfect, but good enough. --Kjetil_r 16:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Well, the no-censored-mantra isn't above everything. There is also "Taking human dignity ... into account" as of the foundation's April 2009 resolution[40]. Anyway, the current proposal mainly tries to provide a compromise to avoid more months of time-consuming drama and conflict. --Túrelio (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    • So we are willing to bend the rules, in order to satisfy a very small number of highly vocal (and often quite uncivil) individuals? I'd hate to see this develop into a precedent for future consensus building on Commons. --Latebird (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
      • What the words "to satisfy a very small number of highly vocal (and often quite uncivil) individuals" ! So far I see here mostly one highly vocal individual. But I could share with you the images of some more. Back to censorship. Those cartoons is all, but impossible to categorize properly because they are propaganda, (read "lies"). So the proposal has nothing to do with suppressing the freedom of speech at all. If a painter draws a pipe and calls his image :"It is not a pipe", the image will still be added to category pipes. If a cartoonist draws West Bunk Security fence, which he wants us to believe is a wire of concentration camps, it should not be categorized as "West Bank barrier".--Mbz1 (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Of course they are propaganda, and I hope that is clearly indicated in the image description for each individual one. But that is no reason to keep them out of the relevant content categories. --Latebird (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
        • One point of contention... propaganda does not equate to lies. J.smith (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
      • For those cartoons it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
        • 'propaganda, (read "lies")': So we delete everything under propaganda? That we host files containing lies doesn't mean we advocate them. Paradoctor (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Who's talking about deletion? Yes, if we put them to the wrong categories and do not put them to the right categories, it means we advocate them--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    • @Túrelio: I agree. Freedom of expression is one of the foundations of the concept of dignity. Paradoctor (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Strong oppose - Perhaps the current categories are not sufficient or controversial, but the answer isn't to take our ball and go home. The answer is to continue to work towards compromise. Why sacrifice usefulness? Because it's the path of least resistance? No. --J.smith (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I am trying, and trying hard to understand what is the so called "usefulness" of those cartoons, and why in the world we need so many of them, but I am afraid I cannot. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you simply ask, instead of opposing that which you don't understand? Paradoctor (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought this discussion was about the categorizations of images? J.smith (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
You thought right. The user was talking to me and not to you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I was directing my comment at both of you. --J.smith (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I just questioned your statement about so called "usefulness" of that trash, but Martin H. has already explained it to me, and I do not think anybody could have done it better than he did.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1 has signaled that she has a trouble understanding Commons policy. From my observations of and conversations with her, I have the impression that she doesn't know how to participate rationally in this particlar topic. Since this has led to her acting disruptively in the past, I thought she might profit from getting a look from the side, before another exchange goes down the drain. If you prefer I not try to improve the atmosphere, just say the word. Paradoctor (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to review WP:CIVIL. The idea is to criticize the ideas, not the person who holds them. (If I had said even half of what you have said about Mbz1, there seems little doubt that Lar would have blocked me for it.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I would never get tired of studying a human nature, and most of all the darkest part of it. On the other hand I see no surpise here. Everything as expected--Mbz1 (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
This is one of the oppositions that's worth recognizing, because J.smith is discussing continuing to work toward a compromise. I do hope you'll help provide some ideas. We have to reach a solution because the situation at present cannot continue. Bastique demandez 17:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
In theory, no one will ever change their minds, no one will ever come up with any other ideas, and no one will ever decide they have more useful things to do than argue about this one batch of files out of five million. In practice, most will, thankfully, and those who won't, and they will be few, will, unfortunately, be blocked. But we can't say we will make a rule based on the fact that a small group of people will keep arguing otherwise; that doesn't make arguments like this less frequent, that makes them more frequent, because people will see that just being stubborn if they really-Really-REALLY feel strongly about something works. --GRuban (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
      • "Unless we topic-ban a small group of people from either side": So what's keeping you from what you know should be done? Is enforcing policy against against policy? Paradoctor (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Because I'd rather not open a topic-ban discussion if I can prevent it as:
          1. It prevents users who provide valuable edits in other areas of the project from contributing in a certain area, possibly upsetting them to the point that they leave
          2. It will be a big political mess, which I would like to avoid
        • I will think about it, though Face-sad.svg. -- Avi (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • *Symbol oppose vote.svg  Strong oppose as it would violate COM:CAT just to appease a few editors. Keep in mind COM:PS#Censorship, "The purpose of Commons is to serve as a media repository, a reliable resource of useful, open source media content; organized and comprehensive in coverage". By not properly categorising images we fail to be both useful and organized. We have Mormons who don't like that we host pictures of temple garment and tries to hide them[41] and we have Muslims who don't like that we host pictures of Muhammed.[42]. This case is no different. // Liftarn (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg  Neutral Im neutral in the categorization question but I think that this "caricatures" are outscopish trash by an non-notable artist and that they not fulfill any educational purpose here as we cant use them to illustrate anything (besides the artist himself) because the artist not has the required recognition (Anerkennung?) to use his works for educational illustration. I wonder who upload stuff like this. --Martin H. (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Bravo, Martin! At least somebody noticed and said it clear and loud "Emperor is wearing nothing at all", and besides they are of a low quality.For example, what normal cartoonist will draw his own name in the very middle of his work? --Mbz1 (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The major difference is not the quality. The major differnce is that what other cartoonists draw will be published somewhere, most of this is not published anywhere but on a personal website and it will never have a chance to be published anywhere because it is [...] - well, judging artistic value and performance, quality, humour, inteligence etc. here would be my personal opinion. Most of this cartoons will never have a chance to be published in a recognized media because of so many shortcomings in both, the artwork and the artist. --Martin H. (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
A large part of Latuff's work is reproduced by independent media, also in print. But also mainstream media use his work, see for example the last entry on /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The blog of 2006 in 2010.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
And I cannot agree more with your personal opinion. I just was not sure how to name that "art work" without actually naming that. Now I know. It is [....] Face-smile.svg--Mbz1 (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually a lot of his work has been published. Some are also commissioned work, but I think we're not allowed to use those. Also, how many painting did Vincent van Gogh manage to sell? Should he not be included? Regardless of that, personal taste should not ban images from proper categorisation. // Liftarn (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
OMG Vincent van Gogh probably is turning around in his grave now Face-smile.svg Martin meant that none of respectable publishers will ever publish that [....] not now, not ever. Martin meant that it should not have been ever uploaded in the first place, and then it would have been nothing to categorize. BTW about commissioned work, the Holocaust denial cartoon is also "commissioned work" Should it be deleted? --Mbz1 (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, then he would be wrong since actually several publisher have published his works. He have drawn a cover for Mad Magazine and been published in for example The Toronto Star and he had several carttons published in Stockholms Fria Tidning. The van Gogh example shows that commercial success is not required to be included in Commons. Since Latuff have made no Holocaust denial cartoons it is a moot point. // Liftarn (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I have spoken of most of his works, so of course my comment was intended to adress that some of his works are notable to some smaller extend. Cant we distinguish between his notable artwork (e.g. that cover or the disputed ghetto image) and his non-notable personal artwork? We do the same for our own, precious users and forbid them to upload personal poems or articles in pdf format or self-created watercolor paintings. Why do we serve an artist with uploading his (anti-)fan art and even mess the educational categories with his works? Thats the whole point. I furthermore think, Im sorry that I assume bad faith here, that some users recognized that they can stretch the Commons is not censored principle whith uploading this artists biased artworks under the guise of the artists notability (mainly: his wikipedia article). I think to separate recognized and non-notable works would be a (of course difficult) compromise. --Martin H. (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
As the artist himself is notable it follows that his artworks also are. I know you may not like them because you have different political views, but that is hardly a valid argument for censorship. // Liftarn (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Who cares? For God's sakes, this is part of the reason these issues are such a pain in the ass; it doesn't matter how good his drawings are. It doesn't even really matter whether they should deleted. The later has been discussed and we've had a conclusion, and if you really need to reopen it, this is not the place. Stay on topic and we might just be able to work something out here; reopen every issue every time, and you keep the burner nice and high on every attempted discussion on the topic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg  Support - i don't like it, but in order to stop the bickering a compromize is needed. Deror avi (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg  Support This makes immanent sense, and works as a compromise leading to more collegial editing. Always a good thing. Stellarkid (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Perhaps we need to draw a distinction between the intent of a cartoon and the topic of a cartoon. If we cannot agree on the cartoonist's intent, then we cannot categorise based on the intent. But perhaps we can still agree on the topics? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
We don't need to agree. If an editorial judgment is contested, PROVEIT. Original research is not our job. If the reliable literature does not clearly support the assertion that a work is antisemitic it does not belong in category:antisemitism. It may belong in category:works claimed by X to be antisemitic (if that claim is sourced, of course). If the literature is ambiguous, the files belongs in categories category:antisemitic according academic X. Does anybody really have problem with this procedure? After putting aside personal opinions, I mean. Paradoctor (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Strong oppose as per Liftarn. Can we please stop being so intent on being offended. --Swift (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg 


I am very much in favor, and I want to thank Adambro for coming up with such productive proposal, and I sincerely respect him for doing so. I hope to see similar solutions for other sensitive materials as well. Please bear in mind that whereas the caricatures themselves are not neutral, and are presented here in order to let people learn about different opinions, the Commons as a whole must present an impartial approach, and avoid anything that could be regarded as promotion or spurning of certain views. Drork (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Per Herby. Commons is not censored but it's not bound to becomming a freak show either; these Latuff things might be Free, the amount of drama that they generate outweights their usefulness by far (except for a precious few of them). And I dread the day when an arm race to the most disgusting upload in this vein starts, like the arm race for more drama has already. Stop the nonsense now, with extreme prejudice if necessary.}} -- Rama (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


As of 22:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC), we have:

Symbol support vote.svg  Support 16
Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose 11
Symbol neutral vote.svg  Neutral 1
Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment 2

This tally does not list the number of issues raised and of arguments brought forth.

  • ✓  Done If Adambro wrote the proposal surely, his vote should be counted as a support vote.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Interpretation of the above "vote"

As long as much of the "opposers" fail to address the extent of problem and work toward compromise, choosing only to repeat the same garbage we will continue to have the same problems. Wrong answer, "We should follow policy and block anyone who disagrees" is a fallacy, because there is no policy that is being addressed. "Categorize according to subject like we do with everything else" is also a fallacy, because we don't categorize everything according to every item depicted in every image. Stop repeating false arguments in order to "get your way".

For Pieter, I think this especially applies to you, because you've decided that it's "you against them" and "they win" means anything but your way. That's not how compromise works or how consensus is developed. You have to give something in arguments like this to reach agreement.

If you're not working toward a solution, then you are part of the problem. The way it's been going cannot continue, which means that fallacious interpretations of policy will have to be discounted. Bastique demandez 17:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, this fails to take into account our categorization system is based on an article model, and works poorly for images. Until we have something on Commons designed for "tagging" rather than categorizing, we will continue to have issues such as this crop up. Everyone has to work hard at creating a compromise. Bastique demandez 17:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that lobbying the Office to get them involved like this is a major part of the problem. Bastique proposing "tagging" instead of narrow topic categories is incomprehensible. Shall we junk the present system just because he is getting tearfilled phonecalls about some image someone loves to hate? I believe that the volunteer coordinator is demotivating the crowd of volunteers devoting its time to categorize the millions of images here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I would never get tired of studying a human nature, and most of all the darkest part of it. On the other hand I see no surpise here. Everything as I have expected.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
That is a broad mischaracterization of my involvement and an entirely shallow and fabricated representation of the problem. Furthermore, I doubt anything can "demotivate" you, Pieter, while, on the other hand, you've singlehandedly demotivated an enormous lot of other volunteers. Bastique demandez 18:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I strongly object to my argument being called fallacious and false. I'm operating in good faith here; are you? Powers (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Making this personal won't come to a solution; let's make a real effort not to offend or take offense.
Per policy, we do categorize according to the main focus of the image. From COM:CAT, "what? / whom?: what or whom does the file show? What is the subject? For instance Category:Ferrari 575 or Category:Jimmy Wales". That seems to be as much as we have in way of policy here. I am more than happy to compromise, but I don't see what general compromise is being offered here. Is it: "Don't put pictures of person X in a category for person X"? That pretty clearly undermines the point of subject categories. Is it: "Don't put pictures in categories if anyone doesn't like them"? That will cover most caricatures, pictures of Mohammed, and who knows what.
A reasonable compromise that has been used for other caricatures was discussed earlier - put caricatures in a special subcategory of Category:Person X, Category:Caricatures of Person X, so people going there will know what they are going to get. I'd be happy to support that. Another reasonable proposal was to set up a binding mediation, I'd also be willing to support that. Will others? --GRuban (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
This does not address the question of whether File:Latuff nazi camp 2.png belongs into category:antisemitism or not. A general solution cannot be given, as different works by Latuff belong into different sets of categories.
Your comprise does not apply to works not containing identifiable individuals, which includes most of Latuff's work, and almost all images in Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict cartoons by Latuff.
Finally, at least for the Dershowitz image it's already implemented: it's in Category:Caricatures of Alan Dershowitz by Carlos Latuff. Paradoctor (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we already have an agreement that Category:Antisemitism is unsuitable. AS for the other cartoons we could create suitable subcategories as Category:Cartoons of X or Category:Drawings of X if there is enough content to motivate such subcategory. // Liftarn (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
We've never agreed on that, and never will.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, we have a content dispute. Do you have reliable sources that claim that this or that particular Latuff work is antisemitic? Paradoctor (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It was provided above, remember you called it a "hoax" and "unmitigated crap"? Why to ask the same questions over, and over again? Do you like walking around in endless circles? I do not.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It's called source criticism. But for the sake of discussion, let's pretend that definition came from a reliable source. I say the definition still doesn't apply. I was on the road to clarifying that when Malcolm excused himself, which is his right. If you wish to pick up where Malcolm left, I'm wet and willing. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
As Malcolm tried to explain to you that that [....] is proudly displayed here. If you are to look at the categories of the article you will see w:category:Holocaust denial. If you are to hit that category, it will take you to this page. See what categories the article has? Besides, I and Avi provided you with a reliable source why that [....] belongs to category:Antisemitism. Now could you please provide me with any reliable source why it does not?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
"what categories the article": Irrelevant. If Latuff had entered a printout of the UDHR as competition entry, would that mean that the UDHR is denying the Holocaust? No. The image has to be judged on its own merit, not how it was used.
"reliable source": No. A reliable source has to contain a claim equivalent to "The image constitutes Holocaust denial.". Amplifying on Adambro's reply below, even if you or I evaluated the applicability of the definition, it is contested, and we are not reliable sources. Though I'll gladly show to you that it doesn't apply. Paradoctor (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
If you are referring to the definition from the EU then that isn't a reliable source saying a particular belongs in the Antisemitism category, that requires the definition and the image to be interpreted. Yet again though we have slipped away from main topic of this discussion. Adambro (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of the caricature is w:Holocaust Denial. w:Holocaust Denial belongs to w:category:Antisemitism. Period. I agree that we should stop discussing categories now. You will have time to do it later, when the proposal will fail and be closed. In a meantime one might read more about "the artist"--Mbz1 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
"The purpose of the caricature is w:Holocaust Denial": w:WP:PROVEIT. Also, even if the image constituted Holocaust denial, it still wouldn't belong in category:antisemitism, it would belong in category:Holocaust denial, two levels below.
Conservapedia: Thanks, but no thanks, I don't like to be bored to tears by unsourced slanderous fundamentalist crap. Though it is interesting to note that they admit that Latuff was cleared in court of a charge of antisemitism. Paradoctor (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
By that link, you are spreading slander coming from the Roth Institute. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
That is all pretty irrelevant. Adambro (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
@kuiper. Why so much hate to Roth Institute? Is there anything wrong with Roth Institute? Or do you suggest I should rather believe what w:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is saying? Let me make myself clear. I am spreading nothing. It is you and liftran, who are spreading propaganda of hate by latuff and his owner w:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad .--Mbz1 (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
See the falsification and the original, read the links at User talk:Pieter Kuiper/Archive2009#Latuff. Then call the Roth Institute. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Once again why should I believe to you or to latuff on that matter. Who knows where is the original file? Why should I consider it to be a reliable source? Yet I still should thank you for the link. The images are reveling. Why? Look at the uniform of neo-nazi. Why it looks surprisingly similar to latuff picturing of Israeli soldiers, but does not look similar to him painting neo-nazi (their pants in his cartoons are blue). Besides the cartoon was published on July 27, 2004. It was picked up by quite a few sites. Why did he waited for so long to say it was not his creation?--Mbz1 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Still irrelevant. Please stay on topic. Adambro (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no Holocaust denial in that picture. Quite the opposite actually since it's based on it. Like I said before, w:Goodwin's law is not antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
"no Holocaust denial in that picture": With some minor reservations, I agree. Now w:WP:PROVEIT. Like everybody else in here, you're not a reliable source. BTW, invoking Goodwin law in a discussion involving holocaust denial is, ahem, redundant. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You are talking about w:negative proof now. // Liftarn (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You really should be more careful with me. ^_^ In the exact same edit in which I requested from you proof of your assertion that there is no denial in the image, I challenged Mbz1's assertion that there is denial in the image, in both cases demanding verifiable evidence for a contested statement. Thank you very much for providing me with this smile. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOAP, does it apply on Commons?

I just took a look at WP:SOAP, and what it says seems to have considerable application to this discussion. WP:SOAP says, in part, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Just need to know if it applies here on Commons. If it does apply, then having the Latoff cartoons only under the category of his own name would seem quite logical to avoid having Commons used to promote his political causes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As I recently replied to you elsewhere, no Wikipedia policies apply on Commons although they can often be a good guide as to what would be expected on Commons. Categorising these images normally wouldn't be promoting his "political causes", inadvertently it might do of course but by adopting the normal approach we're being neutral. If we take the approach of deviating from the norm and not categorising these images normally then concerns about censorship could quite validly be raised. Adambro (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure I follow your reasoning. If, for instance, Rembrandt van Rijn was classified only under his own name would there be an issue if censorship? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
My understanding was that it is usual for galleries to be categorised only in the category of the same subject if one exists so I'm not sure that is the best example. The point is that, if it is normal for gallery pages to be categorised like that then that wouldn't be concerning. If a page is usually categorised in a certain way and we deviate from the norm because people find an image offensive then that would be censorship for the benefit of those individuals who it apparently offends. Therefore, in my view the way Rembrandt is categorised isn't an example of censorship. Adambro (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Rembrandt/Paintings#Disputed_works Dissenting scholars might contest the categorization of these images as Rembrandt paintings. Paradoctor (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Abambro, Rembrandt and Latuff are both artists. I could make a political issue of Rembrandt too by creating category:artists marginalized in capitalist societies. It appears to me that using artwork to push a political agenda is WP:SOAP.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If you can prove with reliable sources that a particular artist was marginalized in a capitalist society, categorizing that artist in this category would not be SOAPing, it would be a constructive contribution. Paradoctor (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I just took a look at Category:Ben Shahn. Shahn, one of my favorite American artists, and a life long socialist, makes his political views clear in many of his paintings. But despite that, there seems to have been no effort to use his artwork to make a political point through categories, and no one is claiming censorship because of that either. Personally, I think it would be pretty tacky to try to make a political point on Commons with Shahn's paintings, no matter how much I agree with his political views. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I just checked and for instance File:Fiddlin Bill Henseley, Mountain Fiddler, Asheville, North Carolina by Ben Shahn, 1937 (LOC) (290626613).jpg has several categories like Category:Violinists from the United States and Category:Folk violinists. If someone would remove those categories because they disliked the political views of the creator than I'm quite sure it would be called censorship. // Liftarn (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Adding Category:Antisemitism just because you don't like the political views of the artist would be soapboxing. Adding for instance Category:Birds in art if the image is of a bird would not be soapboxing. Also on Commons we have COM:CAT to guide us. // Liftarn (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what applies, and what do not apply on Commons, but I am absolutely sure that putting this text: "Download for free zip files containing high-resolution artworks (cartoons, photomontages, comics) produced by me from 2002 to March, 2008. All the artworks can be freely reproduced, without my formal permission. Once saved to your computer, share it with people. Upload it on different servers, make it available on websites and file sharing clients, save it to CD, make copies and distribute. Make these cartoons to reach people with no access to Internet."" to the description of the image, as it is put there now is propaganda, and promotion of the trash, and should not be allowed on Commons, if Commons likes to be a respectful site. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I said I am willing to do without that category for the sake of a compromise agreement. You are the one of the users who has rejected compromise. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
@Liftarn, I hope you are not trying to say that Category:Antisemitism should not be added just because you share the views of so called artist, do you?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm saying Category:Antisemitism should not be added to images that isn't about antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
And I am saying it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know that you say that anybody who disagrees with your views is an antisemite, but that is still not a valid reason. // Liftarn (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Then there is the painting of the great Mexican painter Diego Rivera. It would have been pretty easy to make a category to score some political points with his art work. But no one has done that with Rivera. Why with Latuff? Commons should not be used as anyone's political soap box, and artwork should not be used as an excuse to push a POV. (By the way, I noticed that this painting of Rivera's [43] has been given biased file name, and it should be moved.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Diego Rivera's pictures are actually categorized by subject. File:Amedeo modigliani - retrato de diego rivera 02.jpg is marked Category:Amedeo Modigliani, though it doesn't look a lot like him. But Rivera called it Modigliani, so we believe him. The same credit should be extended to Latuff. --GRuban (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I also checked some pictures by Diego Rivera and File:Diego rivera Commies.jpg has categories like Category:Leon Trotsky, Category:Karl Marx, Category:Friedrich Engels and Category:1934 paintings so it's not just listed in the artist category. I also checked File:Rivera-corn.jpg and it's listed in Category:Maize tortillas, Category:Cooking in art and Category:Metate as well as the artist category. // Liftarn (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Latuff and Rembrandt may both be "artists" but there is a major difference between political cartoonists and classical painters. Stellarkid (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Not to make a point, but File:Amedeo modigliani - retrato de diego rivera 02.jpg is a painting by Modigliani (depicting Rivera), not vice versa. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Er ... whoops. Thank you very much. Striking that. --GRuban (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see no one in this discussion has responded to my point. That point is that the artwork Latuff should not be used to turn Commons into a soap box to promote any user's pet political causes. That, of course, applies to all artwork and not just Latuff. WP:SOAP says: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. If someone here can supply a valid reason why it is not ok to use WP for a soap box, but is ok to use Commons as a soap box, then I would like to hear that.

As for the issue of Latuff's cartoon that won second prize in a Holocaust re-evaluation contest, I have explained several times why it is Holocaust denial. Please refer to those explanations rather than asking me to repeat the same things time and again. However, I will repeat this much: neither the category Holocaust denial, or antisemitism, is intended to indicate anything more than these are known issues with the artwork. Latuff discussed accusations of antisemitism in his interview with The Forward[44], so Latuff himself concedes it is an issue, although he denies it is true. The ADL has described the Iranian cartoon contest as ...a bullhorn for the regime to broadcast some of the ugliest anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial...[45], so there is no doubt that Holocaust denial is an issue with Latuff's cartoon that won a prize in that contest. These things are known issues. As a different example, putting a painting under category:Rembrandt is not intended to show that Commons rejects claims the painting may be a forgery. It is enough if a reputable museum displays it with that name on it, or if a reputable art expert has said it is a Rembrandt. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm, you're really standing in your own way. You have the key to finally finding consensus, yet you manage to bury it in a swath of irrelevant text. You have just provided two notable sources with Wikipedia articles giving a good impression of the controversy around the cartoon. This is sufficient to categorize in or under category:Holocaust denial, provided the description contains text properly summarizing the sources. This will avoid the impression that Commons is advocating the contested view that the image itself is denying the Holocaust. I'm preparing the edit and will put it up on the talkpage there when I'm done, straw poll to follow. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I really don't think we should allow the whims of special interest groups to determine what categories are suitable. // Liftarn (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
On your first point, I'm not sure what you're really getting at. Are you suggesting that Commons shouldn't host any art, since that portrays only the creator's opinions? I think you've got to be cautious about trying to directly reference Wikipedia policies. Images are more comparable to quotes than to entire Wikipedia articles. Just as an article which was only based upon a single person's opinion wouldn't be allowed, an balanced article containing quotes, which are of course a point of view, would be appropriate. Adambro (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Adambro, don't be ridiculous. I never said Commons should not host artwork, and it is clear from what I have written above that I think just the opposite. Problems result only when things are done by users to capitalize on the images to score political points, thereby turning Commons into their soapbox. Anyone who wants to make a political point with Latuff's, or any other artist's artwork, can do that on their own blog or website, and should not use Commons for that purpose. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we should host all free images that can or could be used. We do not like advertimsent or probaganda but unlike Wikipedia Commons should be happy when "someone" publishes own work. Our job should be that categories have valid and neutral names. So we should not categorize images at "The best/worst <product> in the world" or "Brilliant/lousy work made by the coolest/worst artist ever".
Latuff might be "different" than other artists but I think we should keep as many works as we can from every artist who is worth an article on Wikipedia. Imagine if Commons had excisted hundreds of years ago and we had said no to a lot of work from aritsts etc. that is now world famous because they were "different".
So I think we should keep the images and try to categorize as neutral as possible. But I really do not think we should spend months or years talking about categories for a few images. So what if a few of the images are not categoried excactly as everyone would like? We have thousand of images with no category at all - lets use the time there or the other backlogs. --MGA73 (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, such "inclusivity" is interpreted by a significant number of people as allowing Wikimedia/Wikipedia to be turned into a platform for the promulgation and promotion of bigoted hatemongering... If there was a KKK "artist" who used his KKK "artwork" to promote KKK ideology, it really would not be too different from Latuff. AnonMoos (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Carlos Latuff is a notable artist. Yeah, I don't agree with his political ideology but I do think it's valuable (for wikipedia) to be able to host the collected works of a notable artist. If David Duke released a series of propaganda comics under the creative commons license, then yea, lets host those too. At the very least isn't it valuable to have something to point at and say "This is what 'wrong' is". --J.smith (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
However, there's a significant issue of whether sometimes instead of just studying bigotry, we're actually providing it with a platform to advocate from, and whether or not we really want to get into doing that. AnonMoos (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Excellent argument, bravo! Paradoctor (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
@J.smith. If you noticed nobody suggesting to remove any trash by latuff It is here to stay until the end of commons. We're talking about categories now. Everybody has agreed that our notable "artist" is controversial to say the least. It means that it is all, but impossible to agree how his works should be categorized. You know better than many, we started talking about it more than a year ago, and here we go... I would argue that if we are not to add category:Antisemitism to some of his [....], it will mean that Commons is in agreement with his view. On the other hand liftran and kuiper would argue that, if we not to add to the same [....], it will be categorized improperly. That's why the simplified proposal, which is offered, and which you and others "strongly opposed" is the best solution at least for the time being. There's also other solution, as absolutely officially topic ban me, as the most active precipitant on the issue. Then I guess liftran and kuiper will get their way, and the issue will go away until the History will have her say. I am not sure about others, but sometimes it's getting really scary that very soon commons will host more of that [....] by latuff than by w:Rembrandt and w:Francisco Goya combined.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe more files, but I'd say a single Rembrandt has greater artistic merit than much of Latuff's total output. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I am happy to agree with you on that one :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where this nonsense about deleting files comes from. This entire discussion has to do with file categories, and has nothing to do with deleting any file. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand that people do not seem to understand that political art is not merely art but a subset of art. It is part-art, part-politics. This Sendak cartoon is simply a cartoon, a subset of art. It will not cause us to get hot under the collar. But Latuff is not an artist in that sense, despite the artistry in his depictions. Latuff's work is political, not merely artistic. All the argument here is evidence of it. To categorize this simply as "art" is to rob it entirely of its meaning. Political cartooning uses artistic rendition to editorialize. Wiki answers says "Political cartoons are the legitimate offspring of graffiti." When we argue over how to classify the subject of this cartoon, we are acknowledging our varying interpretations. But it is not up to us to explain each one, or even this one, only to give a broad category, like -Latuff- and maybe like -political cartoon- and -political cartoons of the ME conflict- and clearly it is saying something about the -Holocaust-, particularly since it was entered into the Holocaust contest. Any more specifics would simply be some editors' interpretation of its meaning. I think it isn't up to us to determine the message of this particular medium. Stay broad. Stellarkid (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Announcement of complicated proposal

Ok, fellow Commoners, proposal is ready for prime time, head over to the epicenter, and start casting. Votes. Paradoctor (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

continued growth in sexually explicit images

so having just browsed through some of the rather low quality pictures of - well, blowjobs and fucking (sorry! it's really the easiest way of describing the media) (see for example the contents of Category:Fellatio - or recent contrib.s of User:Max Rebo Band) - with some trepidation, I once again wish to state clearly that it's really high time the commons community was willing to engage in a discussion about better policy / guideline in the area of sexually explicit images. Personally, I don't believe it's unreasonable to support the position (no pun intended) that 'hardcore' media (perhaps photos and videos of actual oral, anal, and vaginal sex?) should be considered 'out of scope' and not really a good fit for this project. Thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we generally try to limit them to some extent. What has concerned me more is the likelihood that these are being posted without the knowledge of the people in the pictures - or even the people who actually took the pictures. They should require COM:OTRS at a minimum in my opinion. Wknight94 talk 03:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It's one thing to say that adding more and more pictures of a topic when there already are plenty of images is unhelpful and not necessary (I agree completely with this). It's another thing to say that pictures on a certain type of topic are 'out of scope'. That to me does not make sense. Our scope is, essentially, world life and history. That includes many things that are distasteful etc.
So, I would not support going from having 20 pictures on a category to 30 pictures, but taking it to zero and deleting a category is not a good idea in my opinion. Cousin Kevin (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I also don't really understand why sexual nude images and realistically drawn images of actual sex are considered different from photos of actual sex. Why would there be a line there? Yes, the latter is under the label "hardcore", but so are pictures of people suffering debilitating diseases and images of real violence considered "hardcore". Cousin Kevin (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
We have continued growth in Category:Kittens, too. Unlike kittens, sex is a universal part of human life, generally considered of high importance in most societies, as can be noted by the number and importance of the rituals, taboos and laws surrounding it. Unlike Category:Kittens, there's regular deletion requests for "unnecessary" sexual images. Personally, Category:Fellatio strikes as not even beginning to cover the pan-cultural relevance of this phenomenon.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, there we have our "naked is evil" forum shopper again. For the people who don't know Privatemusings: This user doesn't likes pictures with naked people. Starts discussions about it, people don't agree, so he starts the discussions somewhere else again. Some references : Commons talk:Sexual content, en:Wikipedia talk:Sexual content/old and en:Wikipedia talk:Sexual content & en:Wikipedia talk:Sexual content/Archive 1. Multichill (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
silly multi - you've not been paying attention! It's a tough job trawling through all the wiki-porn, you can see some of my collection here - I'm quite partial to educashional material... I just don't think it's a great fit on WMF projects, in the way we currently handle it. What do you think of wknight's suggestion? Privatemusings (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In this precise case, the great majority of the images uploaded by User:Max Rebo Band are nothing remotely like hardcore pornography; as for their quality, if anything, it is almost suspiciously excellent. Rama (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes the number keeps growing but so does the number of total images on Commons. So that is not a problem.Lets face it sex is something that people find interessting. How many of you can say "No I do not know what sex is and I'm not interessted ind finding out"?
I do not agree that we have enough. We might have some that is not needed and some where the person in the image did not give permission. But there is also areas where we have no good images. Just take a look at Category:Sexual intercourse in humans and the subcategories. Most of it old paintings, illustrations or low quality photographs.
So I suggest you make 10 good images to put in each category and then we could delete some of the bad ones. --MGA73 (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
And how does that number relate to the question of scope? w:List of sexual positions is already using 17 images. Considering that our coverage can only be considered anywhere near complete when we have a handful of quality files (photos, diagrams, videos, diagrams) for every major aspect of every position in the list, we'll need at least 10k files before we can say "ok, that about does it". And that's only for files directly intended for illustration of the sexual aspects. What about the countless depictions and allusions by countless artists which we (will) have primarily because the artist is of interest? They rightfully belong into the category, too. So, anything below 100k will be "not enough". That would be 2% of our current collection. Considering the importance of sex in our lives, that seems pretty reasonable. Paradoctor (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I ran some numbers last night. Category:Sex has something over 90,000 files in it (recursively) and Category:Nudity has a bit over 74,000 files (recursively). After running those reports (which took forever in AWB), I got tired and went to bed. So there could be other categories (that aren't members of each other) in which to get a list of recursive members, just to see how many "sexually explicit" files Commons has. Killiondude (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Privatemusings' position "that 'hardcore' media (perhaps photos and videos of actual oral, anal, and vaginal sex?) should be considered 'out of scope'" is wholly incompatible with the project's aim of being "a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content". Educational media content doesn't mean stuff that doesn't offend anyone. Whilst I agree with the principle of deleting low quality redundant sexual images, like any other images but particularly more of an issue due to privacy concerns, any such work has to be done very cautiously. As Paradoctor suggests, this is a very big subject and so there is a risk that if people aren't careful useful images illustrating a rare condition, for example, could be deleted because it was only recognised as simply another penis photo. However, this is a subject that is often raised but Privatemusings doesn't seem to have offered us anything new so I don't see what there is to discuss. Adambro (talk)

The way sex pictures are different is that, if they are not policed well enough, we will be flooded with copyright and personality rights violations. That is not the case with Category:Kittens, etc. No one is going to upload a picture of their ex-girlfriend's kitten for revenge. The will however upload a picture of their girlfriend's naughty bits. COM:OTRS. Wknight94 talk 17:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I have a picture of my ex-wife's cat uploaded and I didn't use OTRS. But I do have permission and it would be trivial to provide proof. So nyeh. -Nard the Bard 18:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just out of interest. Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but do we have to worry about the w:Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act? Should we require that people uploading sexually explicit materials submit to OTRS proof that the required records are kept? —JeremyA (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I feel strongly that Commons should not be censored for anatomical explictness of subject matter, and that human anatomy and human sexuality are topics within the project scope. I agree, however, that we have something of a problem which if not addressed is likely to get worse. An observation I've made elsewhere on Commons: Most of the problem images, be it blurry cel-phone photos of genitalia or sex photos yoinked from porn sites, tend to be uploaded by "drive by accounts"; accounts that upload an image or series of images on a single day and then never participate on Commons again. I suggest addressing the issue not focused on the single issue of potential sexual explicitness, but rather on the intersection of sexual explicit uploads with "drive by accounts" with no history of other useful or in scope contributions. Possibly we should give less benifit of doubt to such situations. (Certainly established editors sometimes upload things other editors consider objectionable, but this is far less common and such examples are much more likely to be in project scope.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    • As I proposed on that "Usability issues and ideas", I believe that people who want that, and only those, should be able to censor the Commons for themselves. But I can only agree with Infrogmation: Those "drive by accounts" are in my opinion a problem for the Commons: Usually (of course not all the time), they upload copyvios, out of scope files, promote their company or themselves or confuse Commons with Wikipedia. Cleaning up after them takes quite some time, which could be used better for other things, like categorizing, creating galleries, uploading images and the like. But I must be honest that I don't know any workable solution for this problem. At least for all the out of scope galleries, there seems to be a solution with abuse filter 16, but it isn't really perfect (some people simply prefix their external links with "File:" so that the filter doesn't trigger them; and the filter also isn't able to recognize if the added images actually exist, so one can also simply add non-existing pictures). We also have an abuse filter which blocks the uploading of some files (like the Windows example images), but this isn't really much. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
      • If an account does more harm than good, just mass delete it's contributions. Considering that we have more work than we can handle, we should prioritize. We need to keep the percentage of copyvios low enough to keep our collection usable. If evidence of suitable license is provided later, we can always undelete. Tell that to the newbies, so they don't get angry at "deletions". Is there no copyvio/spam heuristic for Commons, so we can leave it to the bots? Paradoctor (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The following data could add a different dimension to this problem. If you observe, among the first 30 files, every non-special page is related to sex. Are we becoming a systematic pornography source? Leonardo (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I had no idea... Thanks for pointing that out, Leo. That's quite interesting. Killiondude (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
That is very revealing (pun not intended). Something needs to be done to address this issue. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
What issue? Paradoctor (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Who said anything about server performance? I didn't. The issue is that we have thousands upon thousands of almost identical sexually-explicit images, and any attempt to delete some of the unused and less important ones is dismissed with "Commons is not censored". Penises and breasts and such are within the scope of Commons, but only to an extent—and at the moment it seems we've gone over the line of what's reasonable. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Performance is the only reasonable objection. "Important" is a non-criterion, see the discussion on country lanes elsewhere on this talkpage. "Unused" is another non-criterion, it ignores the fact that the images may be used outside of WMF. I for example use Commons images in my personal wiki via the direct inclusion feature. ☭:CENSORSHIP is a convenient shortcut for saying: Excluding "indecent" files is against the very core of our mission of providing free educational files for all. Paradoctor (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Importance is most certainly a criterion, else we'd have billions of personal photos like Flickr or Photobucket. All I'm saying is that if we have hundreds of thousands of amateur, poor-quality images of sex-related things, we stray from our mission of serving as a repository for educational illustrations and instead become a gallery of porn. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
"Importance is most certainly a criterion": w:WP:PROVEIT It's not policy, and it's not usage. Paradoctor (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
nude lady
First, we don't have "hundreds of thousands of amateur, poor-quality images of sex-related things"; Category:Sex has only 90,000 pictures it, according to the above (I wonder if that didn't count images found in multiple places in the tree multiple times) and that includes Category:Virgin Mary and many, many other pictures that aren't in any fashion obscene. That also includes a huge number of pictures that aren't in any way amateur, like the one at right; nudity and sex have been interesting since day one, and hence have attracted a number of artists. Nor are the people searching really interested in porn; if they were, they'd go some place that offered it. It's titillation they're generally looking for, and encyclopedias have always provided that. Even if we delete all the amateur photos not in use, I seriously doubt we'll change the searching viewing habits of the public.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
And glancing through these files recently, only the photographic categories were not filled with historical work. Delete every modern work with a person in it in these categories, and it wouldn't drop the size by a third.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
To an unrepentant anti-feline such as myself, I would personally like it if we took an ax to the number of kitten images that we have. But then the response would be "but they're not all the same, they're different". Kittens are all the same to me and I don't get the appeal. But whatever.
It's a similar thing to the number of sexually related images that we have. They are different. An artistic nude of a freckled red-headed 21 year old with B-cups and small pink nipples done in darkened mood lighting is different than an explicitly sexual picture of a 34-year-old brunette with D-cups and larger brown nipples done in flat lighting in someone's apartment, and both of those are way different than a picture of locals done by a tourist in an African village.
You could technically accurately describe all three images as 'Topless women', but that would be specious reasoning to say that they're the same and thus redundant. Cousin Kevin (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Anti-feline?!? I'm afraid we two are never going to make good hot strong love. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
You forgot to describe the nipples of the topless African villager in your fantasy example... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
But that's what internet users in general choose to look at, which we have no control over. You can go to Wikipedia itself and see that articles on Miley Cyrus and similar articles are more popular than articles on health care reform/ Is that a fault of Wikipedia editors? No. That's merely a reflection of what a modern internet surfer wants to see. Cousin Kevin (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Images from drive-by accounts like the one in this DR should be deleted on sight. Can be restored in the unlikely case of proof of model permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

✓  Done , If the uploader can prove that there is model permission/authorisation (OTRS would be needed) and that they did take the photograph (Reuploading the photo with EXIF data), then the image can be undeleted. Bidgee (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I brought this up at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Age_verification but people seemed to feel that OTRS was not the right place for such things; confusing those of us who do contribute "explicit" images but have no system in place to show evidence/keep records of the age of the subject in a photo. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 21:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hein? Isn't that what OTRS is for: Handling the sensitive evidence? Paradoctor (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I definitely wouldn't want to censor such images, but I do think we should apply a higher-than-usual level of scrutiny and higher-than-usual standards of eveidence when there is any doubt about the photos being the photographer's own work. - Jmabel ! talk 01:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Birthday facial.png is another one that should be speedied. This kind of junk should be deleted on sight. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And this. And this. Such DR's should not need to be kept open. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Note that in no way is File:Female gives male handjob.gif a redundant file; there are exactly four files in Category:Handjobs, and in no way can any two be described as nearly identical. And there's no reason to doubt that it's photographer's own work. The very concept that discussion is not needed here and we need to rush the deletion of a video that's been around for years is absurd.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded just a fortnight ago. If the file has been circulating on the internet, it is not very likely that uploader is the creator - copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, you're right about the age. That changes some of the issues, in that we can't yet honestly describe this as a drive-by uploading. You've offered no evidence that it's been circulating on the internet, and there's not even a claim at the DR that it has been circulating. These are issues to be discussed at the DR, not to be speedily deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
¿ But you stated that this clip had been around for years... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wanted pages

I searched for over an hour in vain for a page to request a change of a SpecialPage (I wish to have a namespace selector field on Wanted pages like this on Special:AllPages) . Where is the right place to start such a request? --GeorgHHtalk   19:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bugzilla is the place to go. However, SUL doesn't work with this and your e-mail will be used as your username there, so it's recommended to use a secondary e-mail there. Furthermore, it's a bit more complicated than MediaWiki. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
See bugzilla:12942. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I hope anyone will make the requested changes soon. --GeorgHHtalk   18:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

January 16

Graphic credits

Some time ago, it was complained here that the unclickable icons from templates and MediaWiki messages wouldn't be findable and that they would break licenses unless they're PD. To solve both problems, Jean-Frédéric proposed to create a page where all those would be collected. As I liked the idea, I've created such a draft. I've sorted them by their usage (though some should probably in multiple sections, as they appear in more than one type of place where unclickable images are used). I also listed those which are under the public domain, so that one also finds those on the page if they're looking for where to find the unclickable images. It's probably not perfect, so don't hesitate to edit it according to what you think is the best for such a page. Unless there are opposes, I'd like to move the page to the Commons namespace and write a short section about unclickable icons in Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. I admit that this page is not really perfect, it's more like a reuse guide for Wikimedia in general and doesn't really concentrate on Commons and the language is quite difficult to understand for people unfamiliar with copyright (Commons:Derivative works is what I believe to be understandable to people without copyright knowledge), but this page is the place where such a section and linking belongs to, IMO (FYI, this page is the most linked to page on Commons, thanks to {{Information}}). There might be better ways than including a section into this page, and I would be happy to hear such ways if you know one. I'd also be happy if you have other feedbakck about this page and tell me or fix it by yourself. Thank you, --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me and it makes sense to move it to project space to me. However a fair bit of work is needed still: A lot of the images in the system interface are still excluded such as the ones in MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ownwork. I'd check the pages at Special:Allmessages and Special:Prefixindex/MediaWiki:Uploadtext for starters... As for other improvements, would be good if the listing was a bit more structured: eg have all the CC license images, PD-USGov images, all the voting type images bunched etc etc.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
As I said on my talk, this is an awesome piece of work. Nilfanion makes some good suggestions for improvement but what I'm keen on hearing is whether anyone has any concerns or objections to the general idea here. I'd be surprised, as it seems an exceedingly sound idea to me. ++Lar: t/c 11:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
As I said before, it looks good to me. More structure would not hurt, but I have no idea which criterion would be the best. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓  Done the first one, will do the second thing in some days. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓  Done the second concern as well. IMO, there's still too much in the "Miscellaneous" section, but I haven't found any images that fit together in an own section. If you find some, let me know, and I can do so.


There's a wonderful Template:PD-FLGov that says that works of the Florida government are in the public domain. I ran across w:File:State_senator_scott_p_brown.jpg which seems to claim much the same for Massachusetts. What do people think about this for Template:PD-MAGov?

Public domain This work is a public record created by a branch of the Massachusetts state or local government, and is in the public domain under Massachusetts law. See (1) "Records created by Massachusetts government are not copyrighted and are available for public use" ( ) (2) Guide to the Massachusetts Public Records Law: "The Massachusetts Public Records Law applies to records created by or in the custody of a state or local agency, board or other government entity" [p. 1]; "These records include minutes of local board meetings, town meeting documents, warrants, street lists, municipal financial documents, etc." [p.3] ( ). Massachusetts seal

--GRuban (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it may not apply to anything useful. It only specifies "records" rather than "all works", and the examples given are of text. --Carnildo (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Um. Interesting. That is an enticing comment, but I'd really like to see what the basis for it is. "public record" is very different than "public domain"; it implies a right to inspect, but possibly not distribute, and definitely not derivative works and commercial exploitation. Public records can come from government and non-government sources; clearly copyright is retained on the non-government ones so it is also clearly possible that government-created works can still be copyrighted despite being public records. There is a guide to the Massachusetts law, which makes clear that public records do mean most works by the government (Every document, paper, record, map, photograph, etc., as defined by law, that is made or received by a government entity or employee is presumed to be a public record) though there are a series of exemptions. However, it also makes clear that public record status does not affect copyright, even for government-owned works (The Public Records Law does not serve to preempt federal intellectual property law, nor does the Public Records Law exonerate those who violate intellectual property rights validly held by private individuals or governmental entities once the public GIS records have been released.) (my emphasis). So... I think it would be best to find out what the actual basis for the above statement really is. The website that comes from even has a copyright notice (©1996-2009 Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts), which would seem to be invalid if their statement is true. Also... the statement is about the Massachusetts state government; that does not necessarily imply the same for works of county, city, municipal governments etc. Most Mass. government websites I see have a copyright notice on them... it's possible they are there out of habit, but it is also very possible that that comment is mistaken (or there are important details not mentioned). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
[46] is the Mass. Public Records Law; I ran a search on that site in Google for copyright, copyrights and intellectual property, and it turned up nothing of interest (except that a library or museum has an exemption to the laws against selling obscene literature, but I guess that's really besides the point.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The policy page has a section on "Public Record and Copyright", which states that most everything on the site (unless it requires user authentication to access) is a public record and most of it can be copied, but then only names things like laws, regulations, and judicial opinions, which are unambiguously in the public domain in all states, and then claims full rights over "material copyrighted by the Commonwealth", naming the site layout and design as an example. Not really conclusive, but does indicate that the state does claim copyright in some public records. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
No copyright on the text of public records is generally a matter of public policy in most countries, because the public cannot be restricted access to the laws. So there is nothing too exciting or novel about this in my mind. -Nard the Bard 03:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Public records go far, far beyond the text of laws, court decisions, and the like, and includes a lot of material owned by private citizens or companies. I'm not aware of any country which grants a blanket elimination of copyright on that stuff. The tag is claiming that all Massachusetts-government-created public records (which is almost all works produced) are public domain, which I have not seen justification for. Of course laws and court decisions and the like are not copyrighted, but the claim is very different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Soccer Expert Needed

I would like to find some help for our club's wiki page. The club logo was designed and donated in exchange for advertising space. I am new to wiki, and am having a difficult time with the upload process.


Stephen Heisler Regals Football Club

— Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenHeisler1966 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment : I'm not sure this is the best place to ask for football experts. Wikimedia Commons is a free media repository with files that are usable by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. We know more about copyright than football. You might get better help at Wikipedia's football project than here. --The Evil IP address (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The user has uploaded a file which is currently tagged with the {{Template:Image permission}} template, because the uploader has not shown that he has permission to upload it. I think this might be the problem referred to above. The file in question is here, and the user's talkpage is here. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The Wiki-solution which has been found for soccer club logo copyright problems is the so-called "fake flags"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How long does an image rename take?

I uploaded a couple of images with non-descriptive names by mistake and then inserted the rename template. But nothing seems to be happening since January 5. Did I do it right? Or should I just be more patient? Melikamp (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The first one appears to have already been done. I just now moved the second one. You did fine, this sort of thing just isn't a priority. - Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks! Melikamp (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the copyright?

I found this image: Image:DisNormal01.svg, however at the time of upload the author/uploaded specified two licenses: PD-self (template) and GFDL (Under "permission"). Which is it? 21:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC) PS. I would have asked the uploader, but they seem to have last edited about 2 years ago...

If multiple licenses are granted, you can choose whichever you want.
I hesitate to read a stranger's mind, but it is possible that this should be understood as "I'm putting it into the public domain, but I know that there's some legal question as to whether somebody can even do that, so I'm covering my options by also offering a free license." - Jmabel ! talk 23:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't photograph an image then wind up owning the copyright

This image is a photograph of a photograph. The copyright claims to release the photograph into the public domain, by the photographer of the photograph. Guess what, I'm a photographer, and, no, you can't photocopy or take an image of one of my copyrighted images and you now own the copyright. You can't film a video of a movie, then you own the copyright. You can't record a song off the internet, then claim you own the copyright and release it to the world. -- 23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously; it should be nominated for deletion (or, as someone just did, mark it as lacking evidence of permission of the photographer, meaning it will be deleted fairly soon if nobody provides more information). It could be read that it was done with the permission of the photographer, but looking at it, it's a photo of a book and probably just the yearbook owned by someone in the same class. If it was a U.S. photo, there would be a rather good chance that it would be missing its copyright notice (which was required at the time), but this is a UK photo, so zero chance the photo is PD. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, in many cases the copyright status of a photograph is distinct from the copyright status of what is photographed, and the Wikipedia/Commons system of tagging sometimes obscures the issue (though this doesn't excuse copyright violations). AnonMoos (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not distinct; it would still very much be a derivative work and subject to the copyright of the original. But yes, in some countries, a photograph of another photograph (or painting) may well be considered a derivative work, which can have its own additional copyright, rather than a "copy" which doesn't. The UK is one country where it is thought that the former applies, and if so that additional copyright is licensed. However in both cases we need permission from the copyright owner of the original, which has a basically 100% chance of still being under copyright, and there is no indication of that whatsoever, so it's an easy case for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

January 17

Tiptoety nominated for checkuser

Deutsch | English | Español | Français | +/−
Hello. There's currently a checkuser request for Tiptoety to see if he/she fits the requirement. Your input would be much appreciated. To vote or comment, please go to Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Tiptoety. Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Potential Accuracy Issue With Important Image

I was recently reading a series of articles on nuclear detonations and saw an image on the English wikipedia page for Trinity (nuclear test) hosted here on Wikipedia Commons which may contain a significant scientific inaccuracy. The image in question is:


The first diagram depicted in this image has a label which reads "Sub-critical pieces of uranium-235 combined". However, to the best of my knowledge concerning this "gun type" design for a nuclear weaspon, the projectile element is at least one critical mass but is shaped in such a way that it cannot reach criticality on its own (it is formed so as to have a larger central hollow cavity). As such, only the target would be sub-critical and the projectile would be considered a shaped critical mass. 17:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You could contact the author of the image about this. Paradoctor (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Might depend on your definition of "sub-critical". If it doesn't become critical on its own, due to either mass or shape, maybe it is termed sub-critical. That is the term used on w:Little Boy and w:Gun-type fission weapon anyways. Although the shapes in the diagram don't match what was used in Little Boy, from the looks of it. Reading the above articles, not many other gun-type bombs were ever made (known, anyways) though there were a few. But, since it is illustrating a concept rather than the actual weapon, it may still be OK. But yes, probably better to take it up with the author, or on the talk pages of the above articles, where you are more likely to find knowledgeable folks. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

January 18

Is possible to upload pictures from MoMA Flickr group?

They're all under CC licenses, from different users, and it seems the museum allows them to publish pictures there...

--Esenabre (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, as generally there is no freedom of panorama in the United States for artworks. It appears that artworks permanently installed in a public place before 1923 are in the public domain. However, MoMA opened on 7 November 1929 and only moved to its present building after that date, so none of the works in the building can be regarded as falling within that exception. — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
If any of the artworks predate 1923 (wherever they were from), that would probably be enough. I doubt many of them do however. Photos which do not substantially contain artwork would be OK too, if there are photos of the museum itself. But most look like they would be problems. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Did I misunderstand "Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States"? It says: "[P]ublic artwork installed before 1923 is considered to be public domain, and can be photographed freely. (Prior to 1978, when the definition changed, works of art such as statues or sculptures that were permanently installed in a public place were considered in general to be published, so usual U.S. copyright law such as {{PD-US}} or {{PD-1923}} applies.)" I got the impression that this meant the artworks had to be "published" by being installed in a public place before 1923 in order to enter the public domain. If they had not been so installed (perhaps they were kept in a private collection until after 1923), then even if they had been created before 1923 they would not be in the public domain. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Any works published before 1923 are fine. Display in a gallery doesn't necessarily meet the (court-defined) definition of the era as a matter of fact (the ruling was based on how much the proprietors tried to prevent photography and other copying), but if the works were published elsewhere before 1923, then they are PD today whether they are on display or not. Permanent, outdoor, public display was one way to publish a work (since there was no way to prevent copying), but there were others. The definition of publication changed as of 1978, and is more nebulous when it comes to works of art. Publication without copyright notice would also apply for old works if there was no notice, but you would have to show something was in fact published (which is not always as easy as it sounds). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the wording at "Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States" should be adjusted, then. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It's just saying that normal copyright law applies to them, and that permanent, public display (the usual situation with freedom of panorama) is one way a work was "published". But you are right that works kept in a private collection until after 1923 may still be copyrighted (but, of course, may not -- they needed a copyright notice on them once they were published, they would have had to be renewed if published before 1964, etc.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

File missing


The picture Tutnum2.jpg is not appearing, I need it for creating service Awards, can someone help? - --Peterdownunder (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Do you mean it doesn't appear on a page you're editing? More details of the problem would be helpful. Paradoctor (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
It is strange, the file page comes up, but the file simply is not there - I get the picture border, but just the chequerboard pattern for transparency. Other versions of the same image work fine. I can not see the picture included above, just the file name in a box. --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I can see the image a s thumbnail here [47] but it is not visible if I click on it to go to the file page.--Peterdownunder (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a guess, but maybe some cache is corrupted. Have you tried to purge? Paradoctor (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Good guess, purging worked, many thanks --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Candidatos presidenciales de Chile (2009).png

This file File:Candidatos presidenciales de Chile (2009).png (deleted record) was deleted. I uploaded this image, and was not notified on my talk page. The reason was other deleted image, because File:Candidatos presidenciales de Chile (2009).png was derivated from File:Jorgearrate.jpg, but i not be noticed for this deletion request. I request restoring File:Candidatos presidenciales de Chile (2009).png in order to correct the image with other image of Jorge Arrate. Thanks Shooke Flag of Argentina.svg Flag of Italy.svg(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 00:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Take it to Commons:Undeletion requests; that's the only place this can be fixed. - Jmabel ! talk 05:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Help needed for copyright licence info

I created an image by combining two images from Commons. I thought I had filled in the correct info when uploading the file, but I am now getting a message telling me the image does not have sufficient info about its copyright status. The file page is a bit of a mess, something has not formatted properly, and I have no idea what extra info is needed, or where it should be entered. Could some kind person have a look at it for me? The problem file is File:SEWP Ultimate Ribbon.gif, the two original commons files were File:Apprentice Ribbon.png and File:Barnstar.png. --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Think I've fixed the formatting. There was a stray <nowiki> in the template. Man vyi (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thumbnail not following the changes in the original file ???

Uploaded an image File:2009_RRussia_Flodin_Podium.jpg , inserted it into a Wikipedia article, then decided to crop it. But a thumbnail in the article didn't follow the changes of the original file. What should I do? Basilex (talk)Basilex 12:28, 18 January 2010 (GMT +3)

See Commons:Help_desk#new version added and problem and some 1000 posts more. Refresh the cache and be patient please. --Martin H. (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
See also COM:FAQ#Why is the old picture and not the new uploaded picture on my screen? (Or-- my thumbnail is wrong.). It provides some useful workarounds. Killiondude (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi there!

I am unsure because of these two images: Image:Rosamarialopez.jpg and Image:Rosamaria.JPG. The first one is linked in the spanish wikipedia with her full name. The user on did nothing else than linking this picture. Either she did it by herself or someone else did it in which case we should probably delete them. Opinions? --Amada44 (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The first one is used on her user page. Two usernames actually, and one of them did make a couple of edits. One wonders if they will ever make another, but ... enough to keep I think. The second image was used, or was at least attempted (used ".jpg" not ".JPG"), on one of the user pages first before being edited to change to use the first image. So, it would be an unused personal photo at this point. The full-user-name one seems like a second account opened the same day and the user page is a copy of the first. No idea about es-wiki policy on that, but if they allow at least one of the accounts, the first image seems OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

POTD page format

Frustrated by the huge lists of redlinks, I tried a redesign of the POTD page. I have prepared two samples:

2010-01: current version proposed version

2010-07: current version proposed version

Does anyone have issues with this layout? I believe it is much easier on the eyes of the casual reader (non-translator). The translators might have a click or two extra to find the caption they want to translate from, but I don't believe that's much of a stumbling block.

If we go ahead with this, it would be best if people could add their language to the templates Template:add image and Template:add caption.

Please discuss :). --99of9 (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment : The potd pages aren't only for translating, but also for browsing. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Exactly my point! I believe my new format is much better for browsing because you don't see huge lists of redlinks. --99of9 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
But the translation are useful, they're not the problem. The problem are the redlinks, these are what we should eliminate. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

When you can't tell which is the original image...

I was recently working on en:Museo Picasso Málaga and had occasion to look at, which has the same image as our article - File:MUSEOPIC.jpg - though not at the same size. I did a Tineye search and found half a dozen other similar images, although it might just be that there is such an obvious place to take a photo that a lot of people essentially took the same picture. Offhand, nothing that Tineye finds has obvious dates attached or photo credit, nor does the one I ran across that got me looking.

If we had a high-res version with EXIF data, I'd presume our image was the source of the others, but that's not the case. Several other images with the the same uploader have been deleted, apparently over rights issues.

The image is used in 7 Wikipedias. Unaware of problems until just now, I recently added it to a nomination at en:Template talk:Did you know.

How should we proceed? Should the image be nominated for deletion as a possible copyvio? If so, should we be looking through all of the uploader's other images for possible problems? - Jmabel ! talk 05:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

So this sent me looking at our other images of the same museum, and pretty much all of them look at least a bit suspicious to me. I've seen almost all of these on other sites; I'm pretty confident I've seen some of them on sites that would not be likely to take a picture from Commons without giving credit. We may have a big mess here. - Jmabel ! talk 05:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Looked again. I may not have seen these exact images. There seem to be some "obvious" places from which to take photos, and I'm seeing a lot of very similar, but not identical, images. - Jmabel ! talk 08:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The image is also at this URL, same filename, with a modification date of August 11, 2005. The image here was uploaded in 2008. Clear copyvio to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
How sad. Carl, you seem to be one of the most expert people here in these matters; would you agree that we need to look at everything from this uploader, and everything of this museum? - Jmabel ! talk 08:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks like Lupo is one step ahead of me here, going through everything from the uploader. - Jmabel ! talk 08:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) We clearly need to look at everything by the uploader, yes, and assume bad faith at this point. I found another pulled from imageshack, uploaded there a year prior to the upload here. That doesn't necessarily imply anything about images uploaded by others, but some scrutiny never hurts, and if other uploaders are serial copyright violators it may be enough to assume they are bad. If you can find the same images published elsewhere prior to their upload here, and they are claimed "own work" with no source, that is additional strong evidence. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of the rest of these were uploaded by User:Boqueronnn, his only work. I can't find specific other online sources, and some of these are higher res than the similar images I can find online. (For example, compare File:Secciones museo picasso .jpg, shown at right, and the first image at [48], which is obviously part of the same drawing, but at a lower res.) Still, I have to say, claims of "own work" on things like File:Secciones museo picasso .jpg strike me as doubtful. Clearly produced by (and labeled in the lower right corner by) the architectural firms that did the project. No OTRS, no explanation of the uploader's connection to the firm. Again, makes me doubt everything by this uploader, even what I'd otherwise consider prima facie legitimate. - Jmabel ! talk 08:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

  • And I see that these aren't his only uploads: just the only ones that haven't been removed as copyright violations. I hate to lose all of our images of the museum & palace, but that looks like what we are facing. - Jmabel ! talk 08:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thankfully, we have at least one image that looks unproblematic: File:Malaga Picasso-Museum2004.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 09:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems pretty doubtful. It looks like it was generated from a PDF or other vector file (some people think that is enough for "own work", so sometimes this is done out of ignorance rather than being intentional). It is also possible that the uploader works at the museum, and may have some access to files others don't, which gets a little more interesting. Incidentally, a large version of that original pic is in this PDF. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, funny, I'd looked at that document in my research for the articles but hadn't remembered seeing this there. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I've started Commons:Deletion requests/Images in Category:Museo Picasso Málaga uploaded by User:Boqueronnn. - Jmabel ! talk 21:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Missing images

I run into several File pages without images:

I could not figure out what the problem was. Was it failed image upload or was the image deleted somehow? --Jarekt (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

These pages were created as new pages, not uploaded. Multichill (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I will talk to the uploader. He uploaded 16830 files so far, so I assume he knows what he is doing. --Jarekt (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I already informed User_talk:G.dallorto#File pages without media: Category:Giacomo Brogi, but a reminder would be good, very good uploads, nice presentation. My thinking: Maybe he forgot to upload after page creation or skript/bot upload ran into bugzilla:16583 reported also in Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009Nov#Weird error message (Images with some characters in the first 1024 bytes will not upload). --Martin H. (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I find that about 1 time in 1500-2000 my image doesn't upload, but the file page is made. - Jmabel ! talk 21:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

French maritime flag flown by American whalers in 1793

In 1793, American whaling ships sailed under the French flag on their whaling voyages to the South Seas. What did this flag look like and are there any examples in museums? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


Do we have a policy similar to the Ignore All Rules policy at en:wp? I've just discovered an image that includes a warning of "Warning: This file may contain malicious code, by executing it your system may be compromised"; while it doesn't fit any of the speedy deletion criteria, it surely should be speedied if we have something akin to Ignore All Rules. The file is File:Great Moravia not cropped, eng labels.svg. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the warning is the result of problems with the file's SVG syntax. I don't see how this could be a reason for speedying. There is already a regular DR. Paradoctor (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
There shouldn't be an IAR for commons, because our rules are generally about copyrights, and ignoring those would be bad. Just DR it. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Rendering problem


If there is a more specific page for this, thanx to tell me.

I have a rendering problem with File:Ballon de reflux ensemble.svg

Ballon de reflux ensemble.svg

The rendering with Firefox has some flaws too, but minor ones.

The former version File:Ballon de reflux ensemble meca.svg was perfect.

Ballon de reflux ensemble meca.svg

There are several differences between the two versions; the one that may cause problem is the use of texture for some lines.

Any clue?


Cdang (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You have two embedded images as patterns in the new one. Safari didn't show them either, though it rendered the rest of the SVG fine. Mediawiki support for embedded images in SVGs is a bit spotty, and maybe the presence in patterns is causing an issue. I would try to remove the patterns -- it will reduce filesize considerably too -- and try again. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Great, it works, except that the axis lines (long dash-short dash) and two Bézier curves are missing; I have them on the other file.
Cdang (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK, the UK chapter, is organising an event called Britan Loves Wikipedia. Britain Loves Wikipedia is a cultural event bring organised in partnership between Wikimedia UK, the Collections Trust and the MLA (Museums, Libraries, Archives Partnership) starting on January 31 which will encourage members of the public to visit certain participating museums around the UK and photograph certain exhibits and make those photos available for use on Wikipedia, and other projects, through Wikimedia Commons. There will then be various prizes given out based on the pictures people produce. For this event, we need a logo. While we are getting quotes to have a professionally produced logo made, we would much prefer one produced by a member of the community. The community has produced excellent logos in the past and we are sure it will be able to provide us with one that is just as professional looking as what we could get by paying an enormous amount for it. If you would like to have a go, the brief is as follows:

  • The logo must include the words ‘Britain Loves Wikipedia’
  • The logo does not necessarily need to feature the Wikipedia globe
  • The logo must work in black and white and colour
  • The logo must not be year-specific

Unfortunately we have very limited time so deadlines for this project are as follows:

  • Expression of Interest (and, ideally, a first draft of your idea or ideas) - 12:00 midday UTC Thursday, January 21 2010
  • Final Logo 23:59 UTC Sunday, January 24 2010

We understand that that doesn't give you much time, and we're sorry we didn't organise this sooner. Hopefully a few people can knock something up in that time! If you want to have a go, please let us know here. Thanks!

-- The Wikimedia UK Board

Posted by Seddon (talk) (WMUK Director) @ 16:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The pages Logo and Logo specifications on Meta might help prospective designers. There's also Category:High-resolution official Wikimedia logos. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

January 21

Application of FoP rule

I find that by the application of the no FoP rule, one should also look at the intention of the artist. When a artist places a controversial statue in a very public place he wants it to be seen and talked about, not to be hidden behind copyright walls. For him it is free publicity. The controversial subject “animal sex with human characteristics” is certainly not copyrightable, only his representation of it. Furthermore the statue cannot be reproduced from a 2-dimentional picture. You need to take a cast to reproduce the statue faithfully. A similar statue or drawing is not a violation. (The idea is not protected)

The same can be said for information boards. The intention is certainly to inform and there is no intention to limit the further spread of the information. (The logo’s may in this case be a problem but can easily be cut out.). What possible abuse is there?

Where the no FoP rule is useful is in the case of the canvas mural. The cartoonfigures are certainly protected and no excuse “this was in a public space” will be accepted. By the way: Is this legally a permanent work or temporary?

In general one should look by the FoP rule at the "intention" of the laws not the literal interpretation. Luckily Europe is not as legalistic and claim driven as in America. Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The aspects you mention are probably why some countries allow photographs of public works and allow them to be exploited by the photographer -- the original artist has already likely gotten their reasonable return by having the work in public. However, not all countries do, and if (in those countries) the photograph is legally considered a derivative work, then there is an issue with placing a "free" license on it, since legally the original artist is still supposed to be able to control distribution etc. There are some that argue that photos are not derivative works, but there are many court cases which say they are, and not many which go the other way. And yes, a photograph would capture the specific expression (the exact outlines, etc.) as well as the idea, and yes a two-dimensional work can very much be a derivative of a three-dimensional work (and vice versa), so there is little to argue against there. For your "informational" image, some countries would treat that as "applied art" rather than purely artistic, which is sometimes given less protection, but not always. And some countries allow photography of all public art, including the cartoon characters in your photo -- in certain other countries that photo would be fine here. You are arguing for a more pragmatic approach, but that runs into the "free" philosophy, and the requirement to have a valid copyright license. If we can't legally apply the license to the photograph, then we run into issues of our own policies, and really can't be pragmatic, and so we need to look at the details of the law in all the different countries. There are many which allow full "non-commercial" use of such photos, which would cover everything we do on the Wikimedia projects just fine, but it is at odds with the "free" philosophy, which is the main stumbling block. There have been court cases in France and Germany about photographs of buildings being ruled derivative and thus copyright violations, and of course the Eiffel Tower lighting claims, etc. The U.S. at least allows photos of buildings, but yes other cases can be just as twisted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
As I see it, wikipedia is only a third party wich is only insignificantly involved, between the copyrigth holder and the abuser. After all the abuser can use a picture from many sources (or take it himself). A commercial or other "professional" abuser certainly knowns that use of a wikipedia picture wont protect him. Unfortunately in America lawyers chase after every posible third party (with money) if the abuser doesnt have the money to satisfy them. Should the people outside america suffer from the legal jungle in the US? Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that Wikipedia's use of such photos is a legal problem in the U.S.; it is almost certainly fair use. The same would be true in almost any country, which is the frustration with them, as most countries intended such uses in educational contexts to be just fine, and it feels like we should be able to. However, we have chosen of our own accord to only host "free" works, and result of that definition (needs to be free for commercial use too) is the stumbling block. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes. To the original poster, please take a look at Commons:Licensing/Justifications for some discussion of why we chose the licensing policy we did. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

January 15

Soviet aircraft images

I'm using file:Petlyakov Pe-8.jpg with a PD-Armenia tag and file:Pe-8.jpg with a PD-Russia-2008 tag in the Petlyakov Pe-8 article currently undergoing a FAC at en:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Petlyakov Pe-8/archive1. Questions have been raised about the copyright of both photos. If I read the {{PD-Russia-2008}} license properly the Russians have reasserted copyright over almost all WW2 images despite the fact that they were out of copyright under earlier law. Am I correct in my interpretation? Do we need to delete every single WW2 image taken by the Soviets outside the narrow parameters granted by the new law now that they're back in copyright?

And what about the Armenian image? There's no real source given so it's hard to properly assess its copyright status.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Image should have relation to Armenia (author live there or first published there).
Also copyrights law of Armenia were changed in 2006 retroactively and prolonged term of copyrights protection to 70 years (see Commons:Licensing#Armenia. So {{PD-Armenia}} should be updated accordingly.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Russia retroactively lengthened terms to 70 pma, yes, so many previously uncopyrighted images became copyrighted again in Russia. The same is not true for all of the other countries which used to make up the USSR, so things can get a bit messy. Works by the USSR government may be particularly messy... you could make the argument that it was "simultaneously published" in all successor nations, as I think all USSR works will be treated by the national laws while inside those individual countries today, which per the Berne Convention means to find the shortest copyright term of all those countries (this is in the definition of the "country of origin"), and use that term to figure things. It's not clear if these images are government or personal though. The source on the "Armenian" image is a Latvian army website, so not sure about that either... it was originally uploaded with the {{PD-Russia}} tag, then changed when that was deprecated following the copyright law change there. If it was first published on that Latvian website though, then the USSR argument wouldn't work. At the moment, unfortunately, yes the copyright status does seem uncertain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Upload to en-wiki as a FU. The winter photo and Armenia just don't fit together. The referenced photo dump doesn't state any location, but there's a clear disclaimer amounting to "We found it somewhere, use it at your own risk". NVO (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

January 20

Summary vs. {{int:filedesc}}

There is a bot, Emijrpbot (talk · contribs), that changes == Summary == to == {{int:filedesc}} == and == Licensing == to == {{int:license}} == . If these are useful changes, shouldn't the upload wizard use the int versions rather than Licensing and Summary? If what the bot is doing is not useful, should it continue? Eastmain (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The changes the bot is making are useful because they allow the section headers to appear in whatever language a user has set in their preferences. The upload form should be updated to provide this but I'm not sure how that is done. Adambro (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
If I read m:Manual:Special pages correctly, you'd have to modify SpecialUpload.i18n.php. I don't know what rights are required, though. Where's the Commons grease pit? Paradoctor (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
You can’t do it just by modifying the localization, since if you’d change MediaWiki:Filedesc from “Summary” to “{{int:filedesc}}” it could not work, obviously. You need to have a more complicated logic directly in SpecialUpload.php (function getInitialPageText). See also rev:55558#c3980. --Mormegil (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
And using the {{int}} feature in this way is, I believe, still considered a bug by the developers. Until that is resolved (either way), I don't think any changes are going to be made to the .php file. There are discussions in the archive... Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This issue was discussed to death with no resolution in sight. See FAQ#Why_is_the_text_of_my_new_uploads_corrected_soon_after_upload.3F --Jarekt (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Do we have a faq? This should be in it. Multichill (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment : We have an FAQ and this is already in there. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Would it be inappropriate to grin now? Paradoctor (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

how to link to Outlook contacts from a wiki page?

Hello, I have a list of names on a wiki page, and I want to create a link from each name to the appropriate contacts listing in our Outlook Global Contacts list. How do I do that? thanks, Tova

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Does this belong to a page used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons? Please go to some Outlook forum or their support [;)] to find help. --Martin H. (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

How to go about correcting identification of a species incorrectly labelled on a photograph

Sorry but I'm quite new here and common sense navigation doesn't tell me where I should go to ask this question: I have just seen a photograph on Wikimedia COmmons labelled as a Golden Eagle when in fact it was portraying a Black Kite. What is the procedure for correcting this error?


You can edit directly the file description page to fix it. Be sure to include the binomial name.
If it's incorrectly categorized, you change the category on the edit screen too.
If the file name includes the (incorrect) name, please add {{rename}} to request a rename to a correct file name (see Commons:File renaming). -- User:Docu at 12:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Images of actors needing categorization

There are 200 images of actors and celebrities in Category:Images from 2009 Venice Film Festival to check that need categorization. Please help and after u add which actors are in there replace the "to check" category to category:2009 Venice Film Festival.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Privacy concerns regarding photographs of car plates

We have many photographs of cars where the car plates can be read (see here for an example). This raises, at least in some European countries, privacy concerns (see, for example, the conflict regarding Google Street View). In case of my photographs, I followed the practice of making them unreadable before uploading them (see this example). I wonder, however, how we shall address these concerns at Commons in general:

  • Shall we recommend or require that car plates become unreadable?
  • Shall it depend on the context? A readable car plate in a public exhibition (see here for an example) is perhaps ok, a car plate in front of a brothel perhaps not (see here).
  • Shall it depend on the legislation of the country where this photograph has been taken?

The point is that the educational value of these photographs is usually not touched when car plates are turned unreadable. Hence, it could be worthwile to consider a template comparable to {{watermark}} to tag such images. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think its both polite and good practise to obscure the number plates of private vehicles in all cases, unless its your own vehicle and you really don't mind. For government and municipal vehicles, e.g. police vehicles, I think there might be a public interest argument for keeping the plates and other identifying markings legible.KTo288 (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I would not worry about it. If my car is parked in front of a church, it does not mean that I parked it there. It does not mean that the person using the car attended the church. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
(EC)While in Australia it is not mandatory to block number plates on vehicles, however I choose to block them on private and also unmarked police vehicles. Bidgee (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
To reduce the risk of any consequences for a car owner, all pictures showing parked vehicles and enough background to allow an exact conclusion about the location should be altered or erased. The commons community usually cant tell whether we see a harmless carpark in a shoppingmall or the garage of some "bordello" - but maybe somebody else can. So, in order to keep it simple, better erase the image or alter the license tags. But there is no legal obligation to do so (afaik). Alexpl (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
While I agree on moral sides of making plate numbers unreadable but I think it isn't just a moral issue, it's pretty same to different privacy laws in different countries, although finding all images of vehicles and censoring their plate numbers is not very easy but I think we should act based on the country or state law. however we can also say that someone who parked his/her car in a public place should have expected that it may get photographed, it's same to taking photographs from people in public places, in other side there is absolutely no harm in tagging images with visible plate numbers and also making them unreadable.   ■ MMXX  talk  21:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
At least we should allow any user to upload new versions of images with unreadable license tags - without asking for consensus first. Even if the original uploader opposes. That shall be limited to images with motives no older than a few years and must, naturally, include the permanent deletion of the original file, as it still contains the readable tags. Alexpl (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this should be done by Wikigraphist, because we don't want to lose quality, here is a proposed text to be used in template:
" This image contains visible private information such as vehicle plate number, using and exposing this kind of private information, in some jurisdictions, restricted by laws pertaining to Personality rights and Privacy laws , independent from their copyright status. before using this content, please ensure that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. it is highly recommended to protect people privacy by removing such information or by making (part of image) unreadable and/or unidentifiable. you are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's privacy. "
IMO, the template should add images to a category that is subcategory of Category:Images for cleanup. btw, what are other photo sharing websites like Flickr do? I don't think that we need to urge users to blur all plate numbers and ruin their photographs, we should do it just on case by case basis.   ■ MMXX  talk  15:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
If we "Assume Good Faith" I agree with you. If not - well, there is no way to tell for us wether a photo has not been manipulated in order to do harm before beeing uploaded (false ID plates for example) or if the shown location itself does raise privacy concerns for an insider. At least instructions for a way, easy to follow, allowing even a noob to ask for a speedy deletion of such pictures, should be implemented. Alexpl (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Even now if someone (even an anonymous user) request for deletion of an image which may infringe someones privacy, we should consider removing that image or find alternative ways for keeping that like blurring part of image and permanently remove the original file from system. but we should not force the users to upload their images with censored plate numbers, all that I am saying is we should only act when it is needed, not on all the images, but just on the images which may make problem for someone or per requests.
I've also created this template {{Private information}}, of course it needs some addition and changes.   ■ MMXX  talk  23:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I would remove the "personality rights" part; that is about using someone's image or likeness in a "commercial" (i.e. advertising) manner, which I don't think has any ties to this situation. I'd also make the icon yellow, or something a bit less alarming, as it is only an issue in some jurisdictions. Otherwise though I think it is well worded and a good idea. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree, this yellow sign would be much better then the red one as it is just a caution information template rather then a warning. Bidgee (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
MMXX: public, not private. Surely each jurisdiction has its twists, but logic suggests that plate numbers aren't private data. The names and addresses behind the numberplates are private. NVO (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Nice work. Maybe the template should have a descriptive text including all major privacy concerns to allow a wide usage of it. Those are recognizeable faces in the first place and all information allowing a link between property and specific individuals (houses via adress/doorplate, cars via plates a.o.). Btw, what are the steps I would have to take to use that template on a file? Alexpl (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a difficult problem in some cases - it is clear that, when it does not affect the educational purpose of the image or its overall quality, removing of personally identifying information in a subtle, low-key way is perfectly acceptable. On the other hand, obscuring (say) the face of a person who is the subject of the photo directly interferes with its educational depiction of the subject, and should be avoided. This is a subjective sort of test that needs to be carried out on a case-by-case basis. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
As I said before, we should act on a case by case basis; people in public places should expect being photographed but there are sometimes that people are not main subject, they are just passing by and blurring their faces dose not harm the image value or quality, that's when we can act, but it is not necessary to do this for all the images on Commons. same thing also applies to other elements such as vehicle plate number, ID card or any personal card scan ... or anything that my reveal some private information like someone's real identity, residence address, a place that he/she visited recently, jobs, beliefs ... of course these are not everything, IMO we should create a page containing all moral and legal privacy laws plus a list of everything that's may infringe someone's privacy and then link the template to that page, I also made few changes in the template's text.   ■ MMXX  talk  23:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
In the UK only the police can do identification from number plates. I think that there not really a privacy issue regarding number plates for almost all cars photographed in almost all places - very few people will happen to remember that a car had a certain number plate - probably only family members and friends of the car owner. Generally speaking car photographs are of cars parked or on roads, and there is nothing very remarkable about that, and no particular privacy issues I would have thought. I think that there may be very occasional special circumstances that need to be considered for individual cases. Snowmanradio (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Depending on the country pictures were taken, I think it's generally good practice to obscure car plates. If it's done only when there is a problem reported to us, this would actually increase the problem. If there is a template that allows others to request the removal of the license plat, I think it's a good idea. Besides, I don't think it should be possible to search for car license plat numbers on Commons. -- User:Docu at 03:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
While I agree with both of you (Snowmanradio and Docu) about plate number, but we have a real issue here that is not limited to vehicle's plate numbers, for example see this deletion request, currently there is no urge in Commons for speedy deleting such image.   ■ MMXX  talk  06:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
"removal" in my comments means suggest to a specialist to edit the image to obscure the license plate. -- User:Docu at 06:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that the sort of personal information on a passport is not the same as a car number plate and the two should not be confused. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I also think that the personal information on a passport or an ID card and etc. are completely different by pictures of plate numbers and any other photo which taken in public place, because the car owner should expect that his/her car may be photographed if it is parked in a public place, but I think it's possible to have a single template which can be used for any case. also about that deletion request, I withdrew my nomination because I didn't see the "specimen" word on the passport.   ■ MMXX  talk  06:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The car owner you mention would be in the state of California? -- User:Docu at 10:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Puzzled.svg Me?! which car owner? why California? I meant in general, any car in any country or state.   ■ MMXX  talk  21:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
In general, most explanations at Commons apply to uploaders in the US of pictures taken in the US only. For those is other countries, this generally has to be sorted out first, e.g. for this it was done, but, e.g. that lacks any detail regarding other countries. -- User:Docu at 04:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You are right, I think we should create a page that we can link {{Private information}} template to that for providing more information on privacy laws in different countries but we need help from users who are familiar with privacy laws and legal issues about private information in their country to be able to create that page.   ■ MMXX  talk  00:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
An IP user has made some changes to the {{Private information}} template, I like some parts of it but I think this template should be more strict about persons privacy, IMO in some cases that morals and law says us, we should even remove the whole image, in other hand, it should also be flexible to the different situations, your comments are very valuable for improving and developing this template, so please don't forget to tell your opinion, thanks.   ■ MMXX  talk  22:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not see any consensus in agreement with the wording of the new template, and I do not agree with the wording on the template. There is already a {{Personality}} template to deal with use of photographs of people. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Not just people, but any image with any kind of private information.  ■ MMXX  talk  00:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

New spam finder template

I recently modified and copied over a template from enwiki (w:template:spamsearch) and made all the links point to Commons, so we can clear out some of the spam on our site. The template here is {{Spam finder}}. It probably still needs some work. Feel free to add/remove search terms, etc. I've already found and deleted several userpages that were clearly promotional and outside of our project scope. Killiondude (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I realize that this is a multilingual project so in the future (or now) we may need to insert spammy phrases on that template from other languages, etc. Or maybe we could have different spam finder templates for different languages. Killiondude (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Great tool, but why is it a template? --Jarekt (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I would move it to a Commons: page. --Leyo 15:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, should not be in the template namespace. Commons namespace is better suited for this. Multichill (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it was put in the template namespace so people can put it on their userpage (if they so wish). Many people choose to do that on enwiki, and I didn't really think about putting it somewhere else. Not a big deal to me if everyone wants it in the Commons namespace, I personally wasn't planning on transcluding it. Killiondude (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg  Agree : Not really a template, and btw, it's also possible to transclude Commons namespace pages. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't "All rights reserved" not search talk pages, since that causes a ton of false positives. 21:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

January 14

Hirtle Chart now CC-BY --Historiograf (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A good, then User:TheDJ/cornelltable is no longer illegal  :D TheDJ (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Would you object if I move that chart to Commons space now? Kaldari (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
718smiley.svg Awesome!

It's always easier to have things around here on Commons than navigating to an external site. I'd be happy if you could move your userpage in the Commons namespace. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

@Kaldari, if you have a good name to move it to in Commons, you are more than welcome to. TheDJ (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

January 22

Possible issues with a site using Commons materials?

I'd appreciate some input from people more knowledgeable than me on this one. I was contacted by someone who I guess is involved with who had found my images (and other peoples) on Commons.

To me the site might be legally correct in places but they do seem to be seeking "donations" for using it. However sharing this with another user by email (I was unsure about some aspects) they have suggested that there may be some issues in the terms and the absence of backlinking for example. I felt others may have some input in this. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The terms of use are definitely misleading, but otherwise it looks okay. I think whilst backlinking is good and useful, it's not explicitly required (the only requirement being some sort of attribution). If people follow the licence link (which they are probably more likely to do that follow the terms of use link) they get the corrrect information. Jarry1250 (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the GFDL, which it calls the "GNU" and links to the Wikipedia article GNU Free Documentation License as opposed to the text of the license. I'm inclined to agree on bigger picture though, not truly 'wrong' but misleading in places.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, the requirement isn't just "some sort of attribution": for many licenses it is the specific attribution requested by the uploader (or other rights holder). Consider, for example, my photos taken at Seattle's Century Ballroom (mostly in a subcategory of what I just linked). These state quite clearly that the credit must read "Joe Mabel/Century Ballroom". These pictures were taken with the permission and cooperation of the ballroom, based on that formula for the credit. While this sort of thing applies to only a minority of our files, it is part of the license where it is present. - Jmabel ! talk 20:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Naturally (I was merely referring to the bulk of uploads). I wonder if there are any specific infringements of this nature? Jarry1250 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Further info. I've had an email back after expressing my concerns. "Thanks for contacting back, you have a point the licence is regarding our pictures with a license of freehqphotos but it is confusing we will change this before next week. The other point i think we can try to fix this also. I will get back to you on that one. Thanks for watching,"

The other point was on linking re attribution. Thoughts welcome - thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

January 24

January 25

Need to do a mass file move

I'm hoping there is some process for this, as I really don't want to subject an admin to moving this many images, but I need the names changed on about 200 odd images. The reason for this is that the images show an old version of something, and the more recent version should hold that name, whilst the former version should be given a suffix.

The files are at file:Ontario X.svg and should be moved to file:Ontario X jct.svg, where X is anything below 499 (there are few, if any, between ~169 and 499). I used the template process, but it's taking too long and I'm about to just overwrite them with the new version and reupload the old ones (which would remove the credit from User:NE2).

Any help would be really awesome. Truly sorry if this is not the place to post this. - Floydian (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Try Commons:Bots/Work_requests... they should be able to help with this kind of work. J.smith (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Uncategorized featured pictures

A new report lists featured pictures by the number of non-hidden categories they are in. The report is at Commons:Database reports/categorizing FP.

Most featured pictures could easily fit in three or more categories. A few are currently in no topical category!

Thanks to MZMcBride for preparing the report. -- User:Docu at 09:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

New request for CheckUser rights

In accordance with Meta policy this is to inform the community that there is a new request for these rights here. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Single block of citation text needed

It seems to me that a bit of SINGLE, TEXT-BASED information needs to be provided on the page with each WikiMedia item so that someone can EASILY CITE everything relevant about the work (i.e., be able to just copy & paste a single block of text to, e.g., paste into a field of the EXIF header of images that are repurposed). For example, instead of the generic "I, the copyright holder...this work...", it should say "I, John Doe (my@email.address), the copyright holder of the work represented at, on 20 January 2010 hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."

At this point (unless I'm missing something [in which case, please, someone, fill me in!), it's very cumbersome to try to collect all the info in order to adequately cite an image(/etc.)--and it seems that this should not be the case.

Any chance this could be addressed...???? -- 19:14, 22 January 2010 User:Philiptdotcom

Similar proposals have been made in the past, but it's somewhat complicated in the general case (such as when several people have successively edited an image, or an image is derivative of another freely-licensed image, etc.). And people wouldn't necessarily always like to have their e-mail address out in plain view (and supplying an e-mail contact address is not actually a requirement in order to upload images to Wikimedia Commons). AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. However complicated it may be, it's an issue that could (and should) be addressed. It's less complicated for whomever is setting up the Wikimedia pages to do ONCE than it is for EVERY USER of Wikimedia to have to figure out how to do it every single time they cite something. Of course, I'm betting that 98%+ of folks just don't even try to correctly cite Wikimedia stuff now, because it's so complicated to do a reasonable job of it. As theoretically interesting as "free media" is, I nearly always simply disregard Wikimedia--because, although I could use/publicize its work DAILY in my line of work, I also care whether I correctly cite things. And it's such a pain in the butt to do it correctly for Wikimedia items that I simply don't do it. (Others probably just use the stuff & don't cite anything, but that's not the way I like to do business.) What I'm hoping for is a way for people who want to do things the right way to do it reasonably easily. Thanks again, 02:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
"such a pain in the butt to do it correctly for Wikimedia": Citing is a pain regardless of the source. ;) I think you want to post this suggestion at Commons:Usability issues and ideas. Paradoctor (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

January 23



I recently modified the file file:Europäische_Krankenversicherungskarte_(Rückseite).jpg to blank out the personal informations, as i wanted to use the picture on several article in fr and en wiki, and as the original user signature is something that really should not be showed.

But I see that the thumb versions of the picture have all retained the old apparence. has anyone an idea of what happened, and how to correct this ?

Zeugma fr (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The usual answer is that the thumbnails are cached and it takes a little time for the changes to work through.--ClemRutter (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, we'll see if it's ok... thanks a lot Zeugma fr (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not in category (Mayflower Search)

Mayflower Search used to have the possibility to search for images that are not in a given category.

As Mayflower is gone, I filed a bug to request the same for Commons search: Bugzilla:22269. Maybe this interests others. -- User:Docu at 20:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

January 26

Copyright status of collections in German museums

Please read this and comment if possible, it might affect a whole lot of images on Commons: FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because some museum employee says it is so doesn't make it so. Someone who is experienced with German copyright law and independent of the museum should comment before we do anything at all. --Aqwis (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Carefull not to scatter this issue on various places. Funk Monk created Commons_talk:Licensing#Copyright_status_of_collections_in_German_museums for this. --Martin H. (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wanted to give it more exposure, since editors in the know who have that page on their watchlist might not necessarily have this one too. FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The discussion should also be announced on the German-language Village pump. --11:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Question of accuracy in opening paragraph of "When to use the PD-Art tag" Policy

The discussion here seems to have gotten a bit stale. Would anyone spare the time to give an opinion? 9carney (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Text logos

I found out, that it's possible to have text logos here (Template:PD-textlogo). Now I have following issue:

The company has logo created from letters only. So do the products of such company. However the font used is not publicly available, it has been created only for this company. It actually has been reverse process, since the logo was first hand drawn, then the font has been created so it could be used on other places as well.

So the question is: Is the PD-textlogo applicable in such case?


Danny B. (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Usually the main thing to worry about is whether each letter in the logo is individually and separately customized. AnonMoos (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Well if the letters are just letters (no graphic part), then it doesn't matter how "customized" the font is; under U.S. law (and most likely others), it isn't eligible for copyright.
Danny B., maybe you can provide us with a link to this company's website, so we can give you a more specific answer. –Tryphon 16:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If I may chime in here, I'm wondering the same thing as the OP. The Evanescence logo is created entirely from a specially-made font and doesn't employ any graphical parts. Would this also fall under PD-text or PD-textlogo? Huntster (t @ c) 00:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not expert, but I'd guess that was stylized enough to be considered art, and only incidentally typography. Similarly to an elaborate graffiti-style tag, in that respect. - Jmabel ! talk 03:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
That was my initial interpretation as well, but given that this particular font is in wide use by the band and within the Evanescence community, I'm not as certain as I once was. I would consider it art if it was a one-off usage, but when it begins seeing many variations, I wonder if the "utilitarian" aspect of the clause doesn't kick in. Huntster (t @ c) 04:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Not copyrightable in my opinion. It's a custom font, but the characters are still very recognizable as text, and there is no graphical element original enough to attract copyright. –Tryphon 08:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
If we are talking US law, then ""...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring ... [are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection ]"[49] We have taken this to mean that things like signatures and and text logos, even if written with a very ornate font, or hand drawn, are still not eligible for copyright in the United States. Since this is the Commons, the copyright status in the original country or origin may also come into the discussion.-Andrew c (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
My only hesitation is on the cross and partial circle; it's possible those (or the arrangement with respect to the other letters) could be held copyrightable. I don't think the letters themselves are, as that is just typographic ornamentation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that as well. Those are more than typographical elements, but as the template states "This image, or text depicted in it, only consists of simple geometric shapes and text." I guess the question is "Are A cross and a circle simple geometric shapes?"-Andrew c (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Individually, no, I don't think they are copyrightable (so yes, they are simple shapes). But, a creative arrangement of non-copyrightable elements can be copyrighted. This seems to be right around that borderline for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The cross and circle elements can easily be removed and not impact the overall logo. If that's what is necessary to render PD, then so be it. (By the way, I really do appreciate everyone providing their views here.) Huntster (t @ c) 22:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Contributions by Stan Spanker

I think that the files uploaded by user:Stan Spanker are of such a nature that we should invite him to look for another type of website. I am sure there are many sites where his contributions will be greatly appreciated. What do you think? Best regards, MartinD (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg  Support . --Túrelio (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg  Info There was a discussion on a similar topic recently. It's archived here. -- User:Docu at 12:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Not to my taste, but they are technically good photos, and if we mean what we say about the Commons not being censored, it's hard to imagine we will get significantly better photos of such subject matter. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Jmabel, although I've not looked through all of the images in any real detail due NSFW. Adambro (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Dokdo poster.JPG

A question to common regulation regarding speedy deleting: File:Dokdo poster.JPG was tagged {{speedy|}} by an user and retagged by me with {{delete|}} in order to start a discussion here. Now another user tried to change template back to speedy delete several times ([50], [51]) so I'm not sure anymore if he is right or not. Question: Is marking that file as an file for speedy deletion in this case (after discussion already began) appropriate? Thank you and greetings --Valentim (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Once a file is up for Deletion Requests, you can't remove that and put a speedy tag on it. If necessary, an admin can promptly delete it, but that can be done with the deletion request on the page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your immediate answer. Greetings --Valentim (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

January 27

Multimedia Usability Project Underway

Interesting news at

Just a note for those that didn't notice it being mentioned a few lines above (thanks DJ). -- User:Docu at 10:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi everyone, I did a request for bureacratship at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Multichill. Not a lot of people seem to have noticed this and it was suggested to post it here. So here we go! Please vote, comment and ask questions over there. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Advice on improving images

I have a lot off old colour slides, wich I scan and then upload. The problem is that through chemical reactions the original colours of the slides have changed. (30 years) I try to correct this, but the results are not satisfactory. Different parts of the slides discolour differently, so I never can correct everything and I have to make some compromises. Are there some tricks I can use? The standard editing doesnt work. Examples: File:Afvoer NMVB trams.jpg, File:Ligne d'Auteuil 1.jpg (and other images in the categories (1984 rail, 1982 rail, etc)) Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

These are pretty washed out, especially the reds in File:Ligne d'Auteuil 1.jpg. You'd probably do better to bring this question to Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. - Jmabel ! talk 23:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
They are washed out - but that is fine. It might be actually helpful by making it easier to tell historical images from contemporary ones. They are MUCH better than my photographs from the same time (see Category:Funeral of Jerzy Popiełuszko). --Jarekt (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I wil put the question to the workshop. Is there a workplace where I can put the original scan (before editing) so that I dont clutter the normal categories? Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I put two of the cases to the workshop with the original scans. I am curious if they can better it. I leave the originals only in one category. Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Unless you are doing dozens of these at a time, I'd say don't worry too much about cluttering categories. Better that everything be in categories and easy to find. - Jmabel ! talk 04:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

January 19

Relicensing to more permissive license

As the copyright holder and uploader of some photos on Commons which have been licensed by me for some time as CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL (see example), I'd want to relicense some of them to CC-BY 3.0 and GFDL (basically, I want to drop the -SA requirement in some cases).

It is my understanding that, being CC-BY more permissive than CC-BY-SA, that's well within my rights, and I should be able to just update the license template on the individual files (i.e. replacing {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0}} with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0}}, but I wonder if there could be objections to that. Of course, I still have to keep GFDL. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That shouldn't be a problem. Multichill (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Large File with errors?

Hi, someone got an ida what's wrong with File:Grandcanyon skywalk hd.jpg? It can't be displayed, neither here nor as a thumb in the articles. Resetting it to a former version that worked did surprisingly not help. Hope someone can fix it. TIA --h-stt !? 21:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Works just fine for me, did you purge? Paradoctor (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I did, twice. Now, half an hour later it works for me again. Who ever did what ever, thanks *g*. --h-stt !? 21:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Probably connected to the image server being migrated. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The error was noticed first several days ago on de-WP. Well, right now it looks fine. --h-stt !? 22:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

January 28


Currently, this license template categorizes images in Category:Hubble images. Unfortunately, not all images to which this license applies are in fact taken by Hubble (see File:Close-up of Sirius.jpg for example). And with the current implementation, there is no way to remove this misleading categorization from just a few images. So I'd like to suggest that we remove this category from the template, but before doing that, it would be best to run a bot to add Category:Hubble images on all the file pages bearing this template; then the category can be manually removed where not appropriate.
Does this suggestion make sense? Or is there a better way that I didn't see? Any volunteers to implement and run the bot? –Tryphon 14:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How many of the images that use {{PD-Hubble}} aren't categorized in Category:Hubble images? The few I spot-checked are. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
This I don't know. Personally, I always add the category even though I know it is already there through the template; and since the categorization is not documented on the template, I guess a lot of people add the category simply because they don't know it's redundant. I just thought running a bot would be a good idea, just to be on the safe side; there are only 996 images in Category:Hubble images, so it shouldn't take too long. –Tryphon 15:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Update: I've counted 219 images which didn't have the category explicitly set, out of 998 images in Category:Hubble images. So I think I'll go ahead and put a request on Commons:Bots/Work requests and implement my initial suggestion. –Tryphon 10:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
In general, one would create a hidden category that groups all images using a given license template. For such a category, the name "Hubble images" might not be ideal.
The topical category of images, e.g. made through the telescope shouldn't be hidden nor assigned through the template.
If the difference is just one or two images, it might not be worth going through all the troubles of creating two ;) -- User:Docu at 14:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The template also adds the hidden Category:PD NASA, which is fine. And again, I don't have numbers, but it's definitely more than a couple of images (and many more not uploaded on Commons yet, such as ground-based DSS2 images which can be found on or –Tryphon 15:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Supposedly it could use a more specific subcategory than PD NASA. If you sort out the category names, you could then make a request at Commons:Bots/Work requests or try CommonsDelinker to add the topical category to all files with the template based one. Some manual cleanup might be needed afterwards. -- User:Docu at 15:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the hints. I'm not sure a more specific category is needed at this time, and it's quite trivial to change if the need arises. –Tryphon 15:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
If it is a relatively few images which use the template, then you could implement a "nocat=true" argument on the template, as documented in w:WP:CATSUP, then use it on just those few. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, good idea, I hadn't thought of it. The only problem with this solution is that HotCat would still fail to remove the category, and probably most users wouldn't know about this option. I'm still in favor of removing the topic category from the license template entirely, but if (as it seems) no one thinks it's such a big deal, I might just do what you suggested. –Tryphon 18:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't {{PD-Hubble}} the wrong license for that image anyway? According to their copyright page, images from are normally {{cc-by-3.0}}, not PD. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
No, that is the ESA status (explicit cc-by-3.0). The NASA status is: This basically means that because ESA is not 100% sure if they can claim copyright in non-USA regions, they have explicitly chosen to release the imagery under cc-by-3.0. Yeah, international copyright. TheDJ (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it used to be public domain on too, but they changed that to cc-by-3.0 at some point (unfortunately, I don't know exactly when, but for an image uploaded in 2007 I think it was still PD). Now we have two license tags for Hubble images: {{PD-Hubble}} for images found on, and {{cc-Hubble}} for images found on; if an image is present on both sites, {{PD-Hubble}} is preferred. –Tryphon 12:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Britain Loves Wikipedia

Britain Loves Wikipedia, a free photography competition / scavenger hunt, launches this Sunday at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, and then runs in 21 museums across the UK throughout February! Full details are on the WMUK blog, and . Any questions, please let me know. Hopefully we can get lots of great photos from British museums uploaded here over the next month and a bit... :-) Mike Peel (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

January 29

two duplicating categories: genetic disorders and genetic diseases

They seem to overlap, or maybe I dont catch the difference as a non-native speaker. Anyway, I thought to make you aware; I only upload images and dont know how to fix this issue. --CopperKettle (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Images in "Category:Genetic diseases" have been transferred to "Category:Genetic disorders". You can list uncontroversial requests for categories to be renamed at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands". — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

How do I edit an SVG file on wikimedia commons?

NFPA 704.svg

To be specific, I want to update File:NFPA_704.svg to replace the original XML:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.0//EN" "">
<svg xmlns="" version="1.0" width="600" height="600">
  <rect x="0" y="0" width="425" height="425" transform="translate(0 300) rotate(-45)" />
  <rect x="0" y="0" width="200" height="200" transform="translate(159 153) rotate(-45)" fill="red" />
  <rect x="0" y="0" width="200" height="200" transform="translate(12 300) rotate(-45)" fill="#0040FF" />
  <rect x="0" y="0" width="200" height="200" transform="translate(306 300) rotate(-45)" fill="#FFE000" />
  <rect x="0" y="0" width="200" height="200" transform="translate(159 447) rotate(-45)" fill="white" />

with the more compact form that wraps up the rotate(45) in a <g> element:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.0//EN" "">
<svg xmlns="" version="1.0" width="600" height="600">
 <g transform="translate(300,300) rotate(45)">
  <rect x="-212" y="-212" width="424" height="424" />
  <rect x="-204" y="-204" width="200" height="200" fill="red" />
  <rect x="-204" y="4" width="200" height="200" fill="#0040FF" />
  <rect x="4" y="-204" width="200" height="200" fill="#FFE000" />
  <rect x="4" y="4" width="200" height="200" fill="white" />

This is all {{PD-shape}}, so no copyright worries. But I can't figure out how to get the XML into an editor... Any advice? Can someone do it for me? Thanks! 09:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this may be my Alzheimer, but how can you post a message like this without pasting in the XML from some editor?!? Paradoctor (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess you mean you can't find an editor on Commons? The way to update a file is to create the new version on your computer, then click "Upload a new version of this file" on the file description page. You can't edit the file directly online. You'll also need to login or create an account. Pruneautalk 10:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Uh, yes, I meant that I couldn't find an on-line editor like provides for wikitext. I guess it hides the "Upload a new version of the file" link, as I didn't see it. Anyway, as I don't have an account and don't want one, I guess I've done all I can; commons doesn't seem to have a {{editsemiprotected}} template. If someone else wants to make the change, be my guest. 11:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I updated the image. As explained above, there is no way to edit SVG files from the web interface directly. You have to write the file locally on your hard drive, and then uploaded exactly like you would with a bitmap image (through the Upload a new version of this file link under the file history on the image page, not the edit page). –Tryphon 12:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
As a side note, there is {{editprotected}}, but as this page isn't protected it is not really the intended use. Killiondude (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

files of User:Albertbayona and user:Bob Charmury

This user has uploaded several files that will be out of scope (in my opinion), PDF-Files with a mixture of photos and text, see - perhaps someone can tell him, how his contributions can be of any value to the project. Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

next case: "Bob Charmbury" uploaded several files (Gallery [52]) with a strange logic of the use of prayers, I think all are unused. Hope this is the right place to talk about it Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Image of painting replaced with higher-resolution version with (three-dimensional) frame included

This concerns File:Charles Boit, Queen Anne and Prince George.jpg.

I intentionally removed the frame from this image, as the photograph of the frame would not be that of a two-dimensional object (thus being more doubtful from a copyright point-of-view). Another user has now uploaded a higher-resolution copy with the frame, and re-uploaded the frameless low-resolution version as a file of its own, File:Charles Boit, Queen Anne and Prince George crop.jpg.

For reasons that will be obvious from the NPG threats against a Wikipedia user, I would prefer not to have my user account connected with a higher-resolution copy (as currently viewed or, for that matter, in the history of the image page). The lower-resolution image suffices for the purpose of illustrating the article on the painter and is less likely to get the Royal Collection to consider sending legal threats.

I can see how someone else may feel differently about this, and if they want to upload a high-resolution version, I am not going to object, as the legal issues are obviously far from clear. I would just hope that, as a matter of courtesy, my wishes could be respected and the high-resolution copy moved to its own page (titled File:Charles Boit, Queen Anne and Prince George high-resolution.jpg or something), not uploaded on top of the lower-resolution image I uploaded.

Is there a precedent for cases such as this one? Can I ask an administrator to delete the higher-resolution version from the history of the File:Charles Boit, Queen Anne and Prince George.jpg? --Hegvald (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not just delete File:Charles Boit, Queen Anne and Prince George.jpg as a scaled-down duplicate of File:Charles Boit, Queen Anne and Prince George crop.jpg, after having replaced all uses? Then your account name would not be associated to the high-resolution version, but it could still be used illustrate the article about the painter. –Tryphon 13:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that we move the high-res on top of the low-res. Then high-res would be used in the articles and your version would still be in the file history. --MGA73 (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
All uses have been transferred and the low res version (which include the frame version) has been deleted, as requested. Kaldari (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! That works for me. --Hegvald (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
In this case the image should have been cropped, not reverted - the three-dimensional frame is not okay, but higher resolution is good. Really someone should do a batch job for the Royal Collection. However, I don't blame you for being wary, considering the aggressive copyright position of the Royal Collection. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

File:The Olsen twins.jpg

The description says "Mary-kate and Ashley Olsen posing nearby their star at Hollywood". Shouldn't it be "Fans posing nearby Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen's star at Hollywood"? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Either press the move button or tag for renaming. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think non-sysops can move files yet. Last I heard. :-) Killiondude (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I changed the description and tagged the picture. I suppose it's OK now. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Page move

Oh, could someone move iterative.ogg to en-uk-iterative.ogg please? My mistake. It will be broken on Wiktionary until that move is performed, and I don't seem to have any move command available. Xonique (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

✓  Done . cheers –Juliancolton | Talk 05:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Help support a missing person search

On Wikiversity a group is trying to develop a new search plan for a missing teenager.[53] We have access to maps but could use help finding or generating area maps under license terms suitable for Wikiversity. --Una Smith (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Try using, where all content available under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 --Justass (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I have been doing that, but am having a hard time climbing the learning curve there. I am hoping someone here, who already knows how to use OpenStreetMap, will lend a hand. I have used the Census Tiger Map tool in past, but right now it appears to be broken, since it is unable to locate place names. --Una Smith (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Snes9x images - possible copyright violations?

A number of icons from the video game console emulator Snes9x have been uploaded to Commons, located here. Although its source code is publicly available, Snes9x is not free software. It is freeware, since it prohibits commercial use without permission.

The source code clearly states the following, with my emphasis in bold:

Permission to use, copy, modify and/or distribute Snes9x in both binary and source form, for non-commercial purposes, is hereby granted without fee, providing that this license information and copyright notice appear with all copies and any derived work.

I have no way of telling whether the uploader is the copyright holder of these images, or whether they received permission to upload them. Should these icons be nominated for deletion? --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll ask the uploader to provide proof of being the copyright holder or confirm that they had permission to upload the icons, or they will be marked for deletion otherwise. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

January 30