Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/04

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

How can transparency be added?

I designed File:Commons to Wikipedia.png based on File:Wikipedia to Commons.png, but my primitive Paint edit lost the transparency effect. How can it be added? Could somebody do it like it was done for the original logo? The editor who did it back then ("Make background transparent") doesn't seem to be very active anymore. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Download the free and open source GIMP an do it again. :) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how to add gradient alpha-channel transparency to an opaque image (only GIF-style single-color transparency, as seen at File:Flag-map_of_Kingdom_of_Libya_svg.png). However, I went back to the original File:Wikipedia to Commons.png and just flipped the arrow horizontally, which was easy... AnonMoos (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ehm ... you changed the colors (darker). Was that intended? Regarding your question (how to add trans.): in GIMP you can use color to transparency which also care for gradients with this color/other brightnesses of this color. However - here this would have needed masking before as e.g. the light grey of the wikiball should not be half transparent. Therefore redoing is the easiest way by far. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The program I used inserted a different default gamma value in the PNG gAMA chunk. If you want, I can remove the gAMA chunk completely, so the underlying colors will show unmodified. I don't think that gAMA carries over to thumbnails. Anyway, I've never acquired more than the most basic skills in GIMP (partly because I find the everything-right-click interface to be very offputting), and the version I'm running is rather antiquated... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I have redone it from the source now. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

March 30

Are this images on public domain?

I want to ask your opinion before uploading them. This images are from a newspaper only published during year 1937, during Spanish Civil War, surely under spanish republic laws. They give great information about the development of war and many of them has images that can be used to make better articles on this topic. What do you think? -Theklan (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Spanish copyrights at the time were 80 pma (80 years after the death of the author). Presumably, even if images there had no author credit, the term was 80 years from publication. Spain's terms now are 70 pma, but that change did not shorten the term for earlier Spanish works. So, it would seem that the photos and text are still copyrighted in Spain until at least 2018 (and that only if no authors are mentioned), and will also be copyrighted in the U.S. until 2033. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure that the term was 80 years pma? It seems such a big term for that year! And I don't understant why they're copyrighted in US until 2033... 96 years? -Theklan (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Works published before 1978 have 95 years of copyright from publication; as is almost universal, it's rounded up to the end of the year.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, unfortunately (for us). It seems long, but Spain had the longest terms in Europe for decades. They had a term of 80 years pma from 1879 until 1987, when they lowered it to 60 pma (but only for people who died December 1987 or later), and then raised it back to 70 pma in 1996 to conform with the rest of the EU (which again did not shorten the old 80 pma terms). If the photographer did not die until say 1965, then the photos are copyrighted in Spain (and the EU actually) until 2046. As for the U.S., yes, their terms for stuff published in that era are 95 years from publication, so 1937 + 95 = 2032, and they become PD the following January 1 (Jan 1, 2033). You can see w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights for some info (here is the 1987 law, which towards the end in the "Transitional" section, states that the term for people who have died before that law change went into effect remained at the old lengths). The same info is at Commons:Licensing#Spain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

April 1

Translation of MediaWiki: namespace strings

So, Commons currently defines the licenses in use with MediaWiki:Licenses and a host of similar pages. This is a both a data structure, resembling the menu of license choices, and set of strings to be translated, AND set of templates & wikitext that represent each license (or pseudo-license).

This seems to have the difficulty that it is possible for different translations of MediaWiki:Licenses to get out of sync. Actually, if there is an update to MediaWiki:Licenses, how is that change currently supposed to propagate to the /fr, /de, etc versions?

Is there a way to involve TranslateWiki here?

One way to fix this (as I noted above on 3/30) is to move this entirely to LocalSettings configuration. This will standardize the licenses used, and the translations will always be in sync (or default to being correct but untranslated). However, this will require the WMF ops team to be involved if we want to change the set of offered licenses.

There might be other benefits to going to a LocalSettings-configured set of licenses, such as slowing down the explosion of different recognized licenses. Some argue that is actually a bad thing, but to many it seems like a good thing.

However, from the perspective of just what's technically possible, are there other options that I'm not seeing?

I've asked a similar question on the MediaWiki-i18n list.

-- NeilK (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

File name issue


I am somewhat entangled in dealing with a "strange" user: Toilet (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log. His uploads consist in a great percentage of uncencyclopaedical drawings that were and are currently addressed in several mass DR. A sizeable amount of his other contributions consist in photographic images that are acceptable on the first glance, but where the file name clearly is out of scope and may infringing on other policies too. Examples could be found here:

Frankly, I think that in these special cases where a file move could be justified with COM:FR reason 7, pejorative language in the file name, we shouldn't bother so much about any possible use outside Wikimedia's universe because it would be more an issue about our own "PR" (is there any bilingual person here who has a better paraphrase for "Außenwirkung" or "Außenwahrnehmung?") if those kind of wrong and derogatory names are allowed. I am eager to hear other opinions about this subject. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I recall that there was a mass deletion request for uploads of unencyclopedic files by this user a while back. If he or she is continuing to flood the Commons with unencyclopedic material, I think it may be necessary to report him or her at "Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems" as it may be necessary to permanently block his or her account. (According to Google Translate, Außenwahrnehmung can be translated as "public image".) — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a threat to our "public image" any more than the presence of nudity or other material some find offensive and can see without having to point directly to a specific page name. Full disclosure is that I had declined the speedies, but only seen and done so the last two where the rationale was "bad filename, file move residue" as compared to "Please delete this insulting file name even if the upload was a month ago ..." on the first. The latter would have been helpful, as the former appeared similar in rationale to others I declined by several other users, who seem to not be aware of InstantCommons, printed links, or outside links, all of which will not show up in usage or be corrected by CommonsDelinker. – Adrignola talk 12:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I concede that I first worded the rationale in a manner that was too short, but thanks to Adrignola's note on my talk page, I phrased the third speedy in a more detailed manner. - Yeah, I was pretty sure that "nudity" was to be evoked here in this thread. Personally, I do not think that images of nudes could be as harmful as those pejorative file names: this kind of images is, or should be, categorized in categories with expressive names and is furthermore a depiction of the most natural state of mankind. At least by making use of these category names, every person that says from oneself that he or she is offended by images of nude humans could avoid this kind of media. The guideline "Commons:Nudity" (and the related ones) should show that the community has acknowledged the theme of "offending"(sic!) nudity and should suffice to avoid any harm to the "public image" coming from this side. On the other hand, giving a forum for any (likely deviant) personal fetish, habit or disorder will surely help in discrediting Commons as a media depository of good quality - there are social networks for that purpose. I'm getting slightly off the track, so... Is there a better way to deal with this kind of file naming than moving and speedying the redirect? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Flinfo AWOL?

Has anyone else found the flinfo tool for uploading flickr images to have gone AWOL? The site wasn't responding for about 16 hours. The site has been available again for about 4 hours. But it tells me I don't have permission to run the script.

FWIW the F2Com button, that relies on greasemonkey, has been absent for months. Does anyone else encountered this?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Flinfo works for me. Lupo 06:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Museum photo process in Russian museums

If you can read Russian, please check this manual. Maybe it can be translated and adapted for other countries. I think we can collect the experience of making photos in museums.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


Does anyone know whether there has been some sort of recent change to Flickr2Commons? It's worked well for me for years, but just now I'm having a problem I've never seen before: it stuck a period before my proposed file name, tried to change all uppercase characters in to lowercase, and the upload failed (unsurprisingly, given the leading period). - Jmabel ! talk 04:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

 Comment: On my environment, Flickr2Commons itself is not so heavy, but the uploading/updating function on Wikimedia Commons and the updating function on Wikipedia are painfully heavy for several weeks (as mentioned before). It causes very high CPU load for waiting the response through network socket, and always it takes several minutes to an hour... I think it might be some poor setting on the load balancer/gateway of Wikimedia, and the overload of Database server, following the heavy access due to Fukushima I nuclear accidents. Also, I've seen the "leading period bug" before several years ago, but I forgot why it was caused... --Clusternote (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I've since had it work without the problem. - Jmabel ! talk 03:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Add cc rel on license tag

Should add cc rel on all copyright tags? --shizhao (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Last time I looked into this how was a bit of a problem. Multichill (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil tangents by Drork in copyright essay

I don't know if this is the proper place to bring this, but I can't find anywhere else. There is a user subpage from last September, called User:Drork/Fallacies in Pieter Kuiper's FoP in Israel, in which Drork says it is a "fact" that another Commons contributor "endorses a propaganda of an organization that vows to kidnap Israelis" because that contributor used some public thing from the West Bank as an example of copyright rules in Israel. Surely that sort of accusation is against Commons policy, right? It's certainly a violation of w:Wikipedia:Civility, which is referenced in Commons:Talk page guidelines#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?. Also, from this version of Drork's talk page, it appears Drork has been repeatedly blocked for his talent of twisting any topic into this sort of accusation. The same version of his talk page notes that he was "boycotting" us or something, though not very effectively, since this accusation was written 9 months later and he was later blocked yet again. He seemed to have perfected his boycott since November 2010 — he hasn't edited since. Should User:Drork/Fallacies in Pieter Kuiper's FoP in Israel be deleted because of its ad hominem attacks, or is someone supposed to go in there and clean out just the most outrageous parts, or what? (I'm familiar with English Wikipedia guidelines, but I can't find specific Commons guidelines on how to deal with this.) Am I even putting this message in the right forum? --Closeapple (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you can raise this point here. You can also bring this to the attention of administrators at "Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems". — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

April 3

UploadWizard license configuration

We have to decide on a configuration of licenses (and method of configuration) for UploadWizard. I described what I plan to do in bug 28317 after consulting with Eloquence, Kaldari and Guillom. At least, this is how I interpret what they've said. Any blatantly non-wikimedian policies described herein are probably my fault and have nothing to do with them. ;)

The basic plan is to offer minimal choices for own-work uploads -- it's limited to CC licenses. The GFDL is not an option nor is dual-licensing with the GFDL an option.

For "not my own work" uploads, the license choices are more extensive and similar to what is available today through Special:Upload. It is possible to pick more than one license. However, there are no license "traps". It is hoped that we will have educated the user enough with the tutorial. This may be a false hope, but we would like to try it anyway. We will be monitoring if files uploaded with UploadWizard have more copyright violations than Special:Upload. The licenses will be ordered by popularity and may be visually shortened by use of a "click for even more licenses" toggle.

We are also planning on moving the configuration of these licenses to LocalSettings.php. This is for two reasons:

  • Proper internationalization of license description texts, in harmony with the ways we translate everything else.
  • To slow down anyone who wants to add another license. We think this is potentially a good thing.

Your comments are welcome -- either here or on the bug linked to above.

NeilK (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

  • What about the feedback on Commons:Prototype_upload_wizard_feedback? I trust that you are still responding to feedback there too.
  • I hope that there is not undue haste to roll this out and use unsuspecting users to debug it ;-). Has it been tested on real newbee users to see how they find it, rather than the sort of people who read bug reports or perhaps follow village pump threads?
  • Under "This file is not my own work" I only see CC licenses, is this the way it is meant to be? What about material that is PD or has GFDL licensing ... are we forcing people to assign a license that may not be correct?
  • I see no explanation of the licenses to help users choose, am I missing something?
  • "To slow down anyone who wants to add another license" isn't exactly in the spirit of the wiki projects!!!!!
--Tony Wills (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Tony Wills: this has been long in coming for over a year. We have not tested the very latest iterations in a scientific way but there were usability studies done of previous iterations. "Undue haste" is the last phrase I would apply to this project. Although perhaps this licensing change seems sudden since I have basically gotten tired of waiting for someone to set the definitive plan here so I'm just "being bold". Also, note that I am proposing this scheme for licenses; it is not reflected in code yet. Finally you are right, there ought to be some more help for license picking. NeilK (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I see a lot of work has gone into this, and it looks good. It might really help new users upload files without getting confused by the whole issue of licensing (which is generally something new and uninteresting to new uploaders). It was the suggestion that this will be rolled out within a week or so, that I was worried about, but re-reading that, I see now that that message wasn't talking about this going live as the default upload option - so I'll breath easy again :-)
I was a bit confused about the mixture of present & future tenses in your message, "is" and "are" then "will be". I thought some bits were describing what was on the test wiki, and other bits were what you propose. Sorry, I was discussing the test wiki implementation not just your proposal. Perhaps impliment what you propose, then we know what we're discussing.
I see -- I apologize if that was confusing. Anyway I should also address your main objection, that this isn't the wiki way. You're right, and this is something I question myself, but I think this is the better option for now. I guess I am asserting this: 1) if the list of licenses is editable, it tends to grow without limit, and that is fatal to usability. Every person deems their own license to be important, no one can take responsibility for cutting it back. 2) there doesn't seem to be any way for users of the wiki to add properly internationalized messages, so we had the horrible language hacks with MediaWiki:Licenses and in some cases, not all the same licenses were on every subpage!
Now, another valid answer here is that there ought to be some way for users to add infinite licenses without impacting usability, and to somehow create an internationalized message system out of the MediaWiki: namespace. But I don't know how to do that, myself, and I'm not sure this project should block on those two hard problems. NeilK (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that both ideas are pretty bad. I see no point in moving from a dual-licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0+GFDL to single-licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 as a recommended default choice for own work. We have a lot of GFDL-1.2-only material and lack of GFDL in a standard license will hurt compatibility. I also see no reason in removing of ability to edit the list of avaliable licenses from Commons community. Every little edit to the list should be filed to bugzilla in this case. Trycatch (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    I guess there are two points: The GFDL is much more complicated than CC-BY-SA, and it is unsuitable for images (you need to provide the full GFDL licence which is about 8 pages of text when reusing a single image). The other point is that using a single licence makes it simpler for the user than using two. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Notifications to projects using at-risk images

For a while CommonsTicker, a bot that notified projects of in-use files that were nominated for deletion, has not been in operation. While (just) starting to go through backlogs of images lacking permission I've had someone ask me to notify all projects and articles using images before I delete them. But the backlogs in Category:Media missing permission and Category:Media without a source are significant enough as it is that going through them twice, first placing notifications, then coming back later and doing deletions, all the while tracking what has been notified for and what hasn't, would make the backlogs quite ridiculous. I can relate, having been frustrated seeing images deleted at Wikibooks, especially after deletion requests where I could have participated. I also seem to remember some comments and ill will at the English Wikipedia towards Commons admins to the effect that they supposedly didn't feel accountable to the projects. It would be nice if a replacement bot could be developed to do the same thing as CommonsTicker once did, plus notifications for no license/source/permission. That would likely do well to improve the relationships between other Wikimedia project participants and Commons. – Adrignola talk 01:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that notifications would help here and should be generated automatically by a bot. Provided the bot acts quickly, there should be no need to monitor separately when notifications were placed. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No thumbnail

I recently uploaded ( and received an error three times telling me to try again later, only to find out that the upload was actually successful the first time. Although the full resolution picture uploaded fine, the thumbnails are not being produced for the current version of it. I have tried to remedy this using a purge mentioned in the FAQ but cannot get the thumbnail to be rendered for use on Wikipedia. Does anyone know how I could fix this? Thanks. DrNegative (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There's some problem with the thumbnail servers at the moment. Wait a few hours (or days?) and hopefully the issue will disappear. — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Video files and subtitles

After finding File:FelixTheCat-1919-FelineFollies silent.ogv

Is it possible for the Wikimedia software to allow someone to turn subtitles on and off? And can other language subtitles be added? If so I can prepare a script in English, then add this to the translation request list for French, Spanish, Chinese, and/or Japanese.

On YouTube people can upload subtitle files that accompany particular videos. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It is possible (though quite experimental yet). Please see Commons:Universal Subtitles. Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks for the link! WhisperToMe (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I have just added an initial English language transcript for that Felix the Cat video, but where are the "separate per language translation request categories" mentioned in Category:Videos needing subtitles? -84user (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I first made a newbie mistake with the timed text edit interface, but after I thought I had fixed the format, the subtitles do not update. I tried purge. Can someone figure out what's wrong, and hopefully do something to prevent this again? Maybe extend the timed text to allow single line entries? Produce warnings when the format is wrong? -84user (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC) It seems the problem is with the [1] link. At least on Opera 11.01 the closed captioning displayed is only the first entry from the Timed Text file. And some videos display no text for any language, such as File:Folgers.ogv when I click [2]. -84user (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Strange, subtitles work on the Folgers video on Firefox 3.6.15, but not on Opera, while I had Felix cat subtitles working once just now on Firefox, but now no subtitles. I suspect mediawiki has caching problems. The video once displayed in a 32 pixel size window while I was testing. I tried as a non-logged in user, a test account with no CSS and no gadgets, and my main 84user account. -84user (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Churches by attributes

Seriously, does anybody work with categorization of churches? I see a great tree of categories, mostly "churches by some feature", and I think to make a template. It will contain the variants of different attributes. Completed, it will contain several features of the church and will add the image to suitable categories. Imagine something like: "Church attributes: century: ___, architect style: ___, colour: ___, country: ___, city: ___, etcetera". Or maybe it is already done? It will be like a church buildings taxonomy :-).--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea; we prefer to include content categories directly so that they are more easily edited and found. Including it within a template for churches may not add a large amount of difficulty, but imagine if the practice spread. Powers (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, my reason is that I cannot imagine the whole scope of categories. I even do not know what attributes the church has, speaking of categories by that attributes. I think about some taxonomy, some typical attributes that I even don't know about. Let's check the Category:Churches. They are grouped by: architectural style, century, color, condition (what?), construction method (what?), country, establishment, location, material, patron saint, period (what?), religion, shape (what?), type (what?), year of completion. I cannot know all those classes, I would like to check them from some checklist -- a template with classified fields.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
What about to place {{subst:User:Saibo/Sandbox3}} on a church which you need to categorize, save, and then drill down the single "by" categories using hotcat? Well - for some minutes the file will be in the "by" categories... but maybe this would work well enough? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I added the subst and now I see there are many categories. You mean I will check all of them and select the ones I need and then re-edit the picture to set the correct ones? Too long, too hard to do. I thought about an easy way — a list of variants, so I could simply delete incorrect variants. There is much easier to fill ONE template (remove wrong positions) than to add MANY categories.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
HotCat is not a rocket science, but I still cannot catch, why there are duplicating categories -- by country, by location.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
(EC) Yes the template will add all "by" categories which you can specify or remove (depending on the image) afterwards in another edit. A prerequesite is: HotCat. Do you use it?
Re your new comment: I fixed it (removed Churches from "Churches_by_country" as it already is a subcat of "by location" which. Here is no need to put it also to top level). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Churches by location seems to be a full duplicate of "by country", as the location will be in some country. Seems to be useless category.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Not really since it also contains "by city" and "by continent". However, single categories shouldn't be discussed here in VP. Is the substed categorization template of some help to you? Then I will move it to template namespace. But, of course - if the "by" category names change it will need to be updated by someone. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It would be fun if there was some interface that would help selecting such categories .. --  Docu  at 18:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Could be a great feature in hotCat: Selecting a cat. And then hit to get all "by" categories added as if you had done this manually using hotCat. --Saibo (Δ) 19:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Location by city logically is a subcategory of location by country. Location by continent is a super-category of location by country.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I am no expert in those location cats, sorry. However, all the cats in "by location" are in fact categories "by location". If someone does not want to drill down starting with continents and rather directly wants to select the country?
Submit it for discussion, ask the creator of the category or just ask on the talk page there. It is a bit the wrong place here as we have specialized places for those discussions. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Buildings is once again needing diffusion. I've recategorized about a dozen; I'll do some more, but there are still 82, which is more than one person's work. - Jmabel ! talk 05:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Similarly Category:Architecture. - Jmabel ! talk 06:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like most of these were caused by NordiskaMuseetBot, so Swedish users (like myself) should be able to help out with some of these. I'll see what I can do. LX (talk, contribs) 16:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done for now. LX (talk, contribs) 12:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if such backlog campaigns make more good than harm. A casual helper does not know the subject and all that he/she makes is pushing the problem deeper. Once it was in a highly visible category, now it's four levels down into some obscure place that few people ever saw. And 87 unsorted pics is not a "backlog" that needs special care. Category:Copenhagen, for example, has 684 pics in the root (yesterday it was <600 - ??), Category:London 426 and Category:Buildings in London 663. NVO (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd say pushing the "problem" deeper is part of how the category system works – and probably how it has to work. In one sense, higher-level categories are more visible, but individual items in those categories are not. Content in lower-level categories has a greater chance of being found both by those looking for it and by topic experts who know how to categorise it further. Having more than 600 files in Category:Buildings in London means that this category is not usable as it is, but I'd rather have them there than in Category:Buildings, because someone familiar with London's geography is more likely to start working in Category:Buildings in London than in Category:Buildings. (I've personally worked a lot on diffusing Category:Stockholm, since I was born and raised there, and I know which map services have the best views to help me pinpoint locations there.) LX (talk, contribs) 09:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The best course, imo, is to recruit "adopt-a-topic" volunteers (like what you do with Stockholm), here or in wikipedias - but the human pool is too narrow. NVO (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

File usage on other wikis – WikiSkripta

Would it be possible to display also file usage on wikis outside the Wikimedia Foundation projects in the "File usage on other wikis" section? Both technically and what regards the likelihood to give consent for something like that. I am asking, because WikiSkripta began using Commons as the file source, nevertheless their administrators are quite afraid of deleting or inappropriate substitution of a file embedded there, even bona fide, without any possibility to get to know that a concrete file is used outside the WM Foundation projects too, so that the user could make a suitable edits there as well. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you can get delinker to operate there as well?
"inappropriate substitution" shouldn't happen here in the first place (see Avoid overwriting existing files). --  Docu  at 10:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
We will have a look at it. But what about the displaying? Is it realistic? --Petrus Adamus (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Bayer and aspirin

What's the copyright status on Bayer products, including, aspirin, their name brands and advertisements? I've found a few files that match just this description, so I'm not completely sure as to whether or not they should be allowed on Wikimedia Commons: File:Aspirin1.jpg and File:Aspirin Serbia.jpg. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 11:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Which parts of the photographs concern you? I don't think there's much in "File:Aspirin1.jpg" that's copyrightable – the bottle is an ordinary one and the label on it consists primarily of text. Similarly, the box is mostly text, and although there is a photograph or drawing of two tablets on it, I think they are quite simple in shape. On the other hand, "File:Aspirin Serbia.jpg" might be a problem because of the topmost box showing a drawing of tablets with effervescence around it – that seems rather complex. Perhaps that portion of the drawing can be blurred out. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you could argue that these are "utilitarian objects", and hence any image of them is okay as long as it depicts the object as a whole, and not just a closeup of the label (based on the Ets-Hokin case.) Regards, -- Orionisttalk 17:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
"What's the status"? Same as any other trademarked man-made, mass-produced stuff. No special treatment required. Text is text, drawings are drawings. NVO (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Not only thumbnails, but all SVGs.

Eh, it's not only thumbnails not loading, all the PNG renderings of the SVGs aren't loading for me. --SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

PNG renderings of the SVG's are thumbnails so these are also affected by the thumbnail problems. Multichill (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Partnership with the château de Versailles

As you know, Wikimedia France and the Château de Versailles have signed a partnership. A new step is on the tracks, with special visits to take photos. Please join us !

Jour help is welcome to translate the main page of the project or the different templates, like {{Image provided by Château de Versailles}} or {{Wikimedia takes the Château de Versailles}}.

Thanks ! Trizek here or on fr:wp 10:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


I´ve got a problem which I don´t know how to handle: User:Ralf Roletschek links the website] in all the descriptions of his uploads (example: File:2010-10-03-quadriga-by-RalfR-123.jpg). Is such behavior considered as spam? And as a second point, most of his pictures are named <filename>-by-RalfR. Is that allowed, or should it be fixed by moving all the files? --FalconL ?! 13:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it Ok. The linked web page's impressum has details on the author and the license so it serves as a useful check, I think. As to moving files, I would not bother unless the names are grossly misleading or somehow illegal. -84user (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I consider these links as spam. He could link the website one time on is user page, but that´s enough. And yes: The files needn´t be moved. But could we forbid him to continue uploading files with such names? --FalconL ?! 13:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Then you have a seriously twisted definition of spam. The links are not shoved in your face without any context or reason. They are part of the image attribution, which the image author is entitled to. In fact using a derogatory term like spam is mean spirited of you. --Dschwen (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Fine by me. All the free licenses allow you to specify the manner of credit (i.e. textual portion), and if he wants the website mention as part of the credit, that is perfectly fine, and appropriate to put on every image page. As for the file name... I don't see how that is a problem either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
About the website: Yes, the link might be ok. I tought the site was commercial, but now I discovered it´s only private. And for the file names: It isn´t a severe problem, but I think the only important thing is that these names give a good description of the image. Why should there be the name of the author? --FalconL ?! 14:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

We had this on VillagePump before and it was considered as okay (search if you like). Personally I am not a fan of it but we get lots of useful images so I would not support a ban of any sort. Amada44  talk to me 14:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I never thought to request a block - The user made several very good contributions. Thanks for discussion. --FalconL ?! 14:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
sorry, wasn't clear enough: I was referring to this comment: we forbid him to continue uploading files with such names. Amada44  talk to me 15:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, maybe this sentence was misunderstandable - I´m not a native English speaker and I didn´t know how to make it sound a bit friendlier. --FalconL ?! 16:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with 84user above. The requirement is that the work have a free license and that the attribution requirements not be so onerous to negate that license. In this instance, the attribution requirements seem reasonable to me. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse please, I have "en-0", I can't write here english so that you understand me. My Comment in German you find at User_talk:Ralf_Roletschek#Werbung. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we have discussed enough; Ich denke, das dürfte ausdiskutiert sein.. --FalconL ?! 17:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

New buttons

We have these new buttons on the image page. Wondering how we would go about improving the "use this file on a wiki" output? Rather than it substituting the file name as the caption can we set it so that it uses the description? This would say me a few operations.--James Heilman, MD (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The danger with this is that some descriptions are non-existant, while others are extremely long. It is almost always better to tailor the caption to fit the context of its use in the target article. Huntster (t @ c) 11:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Feedback may be provided on MediaWiki talk:Stockphoto.js − not sure how closely this page is followed though. Jean-Fred (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
So instead we just use the file name? Yes the caption may often have to be changed but that is still better than always having to be changed.--James Heilman, MD (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

April 4

Islamic coin to determinate ?

Bonjour, je viens de trouver cette pièce File:Dihram ancien B.jpg - File:Dihram ancien A.jpg et ne trouve pas de correspondance dans des pièces similaires dans Commons. Il me semble que l'intitulé de la face B est égypte ? Je ne trouve pas la date. Qui pourrait m'aider, car sur Google c'est le bazard. Merci - Siren-Com (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I hope there is here more readers than in french bistro - So, if some people can help me to find what is that coin, country and date ? thank you. - Siren-Com (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a coin of the Ottoman Empire during the rule of sultan Mahmud II, and struck in Tunis in 1233 AH, which, according to online date converters, coincides with 1817-1818 AD. It's no surprise you couldn't find similar coins on Commons, most of Ottoman coins I've seen were struck in Constantinople, and this is the first time I see one struck in Tunis. Regards, -- Orionisttalk 18:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you ! effectively, we can see other similar coins there Category:Tunisian_rial_coins - If possible can somepeople rename the two files Piastre Mamud II tunis 1233. Congratulation for your quick answer. - Siren-Com (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC) - PS : if you look at this picture File:Rial Tunisien - Selim III - 1215 AH - 1800 AD.jpg, there is only a small difference on the letters (left of the 3rd line).
You're welcome! The difference between this coin and the Selim III coin is the name of the sultan: Mahmud in the first and Selim in the second, the rest of the text is the title of the sultan. There's another difference on the other side, which is the year they were struck. By the way, according to the Tunisian_rial article, it seems that "rial" is the correct name, although it was known as "piastre" by Europeans, I'd suggest if the majority of files on Commons refer to it as rial, to use it instead in the file name. Regards, -- Orionisttalk 23:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank's, I have made the changes and asking for renaming - Siren-Com (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I made some minor tweaks to the rename request, I hope you don't mind :-) Regards, -- Orionisttalk 11:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

File is never renewed. Why?

Hi, I have uploaded a couple of new versions of Hamanako-ohashi.jpg and the file history shows that 2nd and 3rd versions were properly uploaded, but for some reasons the latest one is not actively reflected (= it is of the original one). The same thing happenedn at the first upload, and it can never be renewed. Why is this, and is there any solutions?--トトト (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Try Ctrl + Shift + R, should do a nice hard refresh :) Rehman 03:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
No chance. I think it has nothing to do with the cache of my hard disk.--トトト (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there a chance that the current Commons thumbnail problems are causing this? Try clicking on the picture in your browser so that it shows you the biggest image, and see if that is the right one. --Closeapple (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It is to do with the thumbnail issue. Bidgee (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, weird, because I can see the changes in the thumbnails (including the double uploads, etc, per upload comments)... Rehman 04:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I have uploaded it with another file name, because I don't have time to be entangled with the system troubles. is what I wanted, while is the never-renewed troubled file. While the thumbnails shown above are both fine, the renewed version of the latter will never be active by clicking it. Thank you all, for kind replies.--トトト (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems that it is not working properly anymore. Or is it only me? I always see English instead of my usual French. If I use uselang=de, I can see German, but if I use uselang=fr it's English again! --Eusebius (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and the same goes for {{Autotranslate}}, since the problem can be traced back to {{int:lang}}, which displays "en" to me, though I have my prefs set to "fr". And if I change my prefs to "de" or "es", {{int:lang}} does display "de" or "es".
Stuff fetched from TranslateWiki (interface, {{Information}}, CC templates & al) are not impacted.
Jean-Fred (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I see the same problem click on any languages above and {{int:lang}} gives its language code (right now it is "en"), except for French which returns "en".--Jarekt (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I purged MediaWiki:Lang/fr. Seems to be gone now ? TheDJ (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It looks ok, thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Help Build a Wiki/Free Culture Hackspace in Brooklyn!

Edit This Box!

The submission for the contest is due Saturday, and what we need now is some awesome illustrations of what the 'Wiki Container' might look like when active. Artists and illustrators of Wikimedia Commons, check it out at Wiki Container, and be as creative and far-out as you like!--Pharos (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Source of files incongruous with commons names

Please discuss renaming of 22 glyph files whose source lables them "early Aramaic" but which are currently named here "Paleo-Hebrew". Dan Pelleg (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is at File talk:Paleo-hebrew - alef.png. Anyone at all? Trying to get some attention here Dan Pelleg (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Categorization question

There is a skatepark as part of the Ballard Commons, a park in Seattle. I took some photos there. As it happens, those are the only photos we have of the park, but the skatepark is only part of that park.

Others have removed skatepark-related categories from individual photos and added them to Category:Ballard Commons (Seattle). This seems to me to be the wrong way to go about this. If someone adds more photos of the Commons that aren't of the skatepark, they will be inadvertently classified under skateparks. Normally we don't classify a park under things that happen to be in that park, right? For example, we don't classify New York's Central Park under zoos, museums, lakes, etc. Or am I the one who is missing something here? - Jmabel ! talk 21:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Eventually someone comes along and adds Category:photographs to Category:Ballard Commons (Seattle). ;)
More seriously, I think it happens frequently and often it outlines the topic to some extent. It's likely that the person who removed them doesn't know about "Ballard Commons". Wikipedia neither BTW. --  Docu  at 21:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I would put them in a subcat like Category:Skatepark of Ballard Commons (Seattle). - Olybrius (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll do that. I just wish people wouldn't have mucked with the (perfectly OK) original categories I gave these if they didn't have any idea what they were doing. - Jmabel ! talk 02:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

April 5

Mass deletion ?

After that DR, don't you think we have to delete most of the files included in the Category:Video displays ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, you're right. sугсго 21:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Quite right. Here's a simple test: try to pixelize or otherwise blur the displayed "primary work" beyond recognition (example). Does it make any sense? Is it still usable without "primary work"? No? delete. NVO (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Category tree template usage

It seems Template:Category tree is now redundant on dozens of pages, see here. Anyone volunteering? :-) --:bdk: 01:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thumbnail problem

Can somebody please fix thumbnails on these two images:

I uploaded new versions of both, but I still see the old versions instead. Reverting back to old version and back to new one again (which sometimes fix this) does not work this time. PANONIAN (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I see the changes... Try Ctrl + Shift + R to hard refresh. Rehman 07:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
PANONIAN -- It's probably a manifestation of the general problems discussed in several places above on this page... AnonMoos (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, maps are looking fine now. I tried some options (reloading page, clearing cache, using Ctrl + Shift, etc) and something of those did fixed it, but I am not sure what exactly. Anyway, thank you for help. PANONIAN (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

PD-self licence

I have one more question. I am usually uploading images that I created under "PD-self" license. However, the site recently does not offer "PD-self" license in license list during image upload. Instead of it, it offer some "self|Cc-zero" license. So, during my last uploads, I was forced to choose "self|Cc-zero" license from the list and then to change it manually to "PD-self". I just wonder is there some problem with "PD-self" license when it is not offered during upload? PANONIAN (talk)

It is not offered because it is discouraged, mainly because it's an incomplete, amateur waiver of rights that is supplanted for most purposes by CC0. You're free to use it in the manner you just did. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion policy not followed by admins

I have found that the policy on page is not followed by some admin, or they are not familiar with it. This is a problem, as it creates much unneccessary work.

The page clearly says (somewhat abbreviated by me)

The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Examples

  • Private image collections
  • Self-created artwork without obvious educational use.
  • Advertising or self-promotion.
  • Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism
  • Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.

Wikipedia says on page

- Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files

- Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles.

- File storage areas. Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted.

Note - these are policies agreed by consensus. I upload a large number of pictures, and I have many in storage waiting for upload. Sometime I make mistakes, and upload bad versions, wrong filenames, or get upload errors. In the specific case I will discuss I uploaded pictures with wrong colors, that I improved the next day. That was the point when administrative hell broke out - I asked for the old versions to be deleted, at Village Pump.

Instead of deleting, User:Huntster (not admin) tried to discuss the issue away. After several days of discussion, nothing had happened, nothing gained, no close. I concluded that Village Pump was not the proper place for deletion request, and filed the same request under 'Administratos Noticeboard'.

The first reply by User:Wsiegmund was relevant and correct. The situation was however complicated by User:Jameslwoodward who Opposed deletion. "because it is a waste of Administrator's time, which is our scarcest resource". I volunteered to do the admin work, to save time. If there is not enough Admin time, then the solution is to (1) get more Admins, or (2) simplify the processes. The solution is not to talk the problems away. Look at the policy. James took a swipe at me (apologized for) for offering to do the deletion, which _could_ have been done at a Wiki-meeting in Stockholm, under inspection of the swedish admins (Article in swedish about meeting with Moka from WMF, so I could learn.

As a second point User:Jameslwoodward also wants to keep both JPG versions for "color editing". Wow, why not do color adjustment in the 14-bit NEF, rather than the 8-bit JPG. It will probably be better that way. I will happily lend the NEF files to anybody who knows how to edit NEF, and will explain how and what was done, so I can learn as well. Commons has been dead silent on questions regarding color and calibration, so I must assume that nobody knows.

Next comes User:Ww2censor (what a violently ferocius name! - keeps newbies on the floor!) and claims it is "Forum Shopping". In the guides it says something about "closed", and Mr. Censor, the case was not closed. I was just tired of discussing.

Nothing happens, I was not in the mood to spend more effort on the problems. The next thing was that all (good and bad) pictures where gone, exactly on the day when Håkan Juholt (in one of the pictures) was elected leader of the Social Democrat party in Sweden. That was the only picture Commons had of him then. Now I have added more pictures. The Social Democrats are the number 2 party in size in Sweden (or maybe no 1). I took the picture inside the Parliament in Stockholm, talking to Mr. Juholt.

Conclusion 1: If Admin are scarce, better get more Admins. The best way is to let me admin my own stuff. Then I also get an idea of how difficult it is to do things.

Conclusion 2: there is NO guideline that says deletion request should be "talked away", instead of done. Just find the way to get on with deletions. In this case the speedier the better.

Conclusion 3: An experienced (as I guess) admin User:Jameslwoodward states "we do not delete whole files when the uploader is dissatisfied"..."we cannot afford to set a precedent" it is quite opposed to the policy "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality". Those duplicates was of inferior quality.

Conclusion 4: What is the goal of the work for Wikimedia Commons? To gather zillions of files, in thousands of minutely different versions? What use did User:Jameslwoodward propose for the bad version of the JPG? If Commons need zillions of files, should I upload like 512 color variations and 256 contrast variations of each? Is that really the target?

Conclusion 5: What do you want me to say when I meet and talk to the politicians, when we talk about Wikipedia? Should I point out the good things, the usefulness? Or should I tell the politicians what I really think? And I do meet people in the ministries, and I do talk to them.

Thanks for reading. I hope this will lead to some changes. --Janwikifoto (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is, is completely irrelevant. Moreover, the deletion policy is completely irrelevant; we do not delete old versions of existing images. For most practical purposes, they don't exist and thus are a waste of admin time deleting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
And as for Conclusion 5, I don't think we can help how you choose to explain Commons to others. I will say you've chosen to hold dogmatically to your position instead of acknowledging that other people are intelligent and are interpreting policy different ways, and that the matter is ultimately of not great importance.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Some suggestions: Read COM:TALK. Do not name users directly, provide links to prove the facts, shorten your text. Then, there are probably more users reading this post and answer. You may use the nominate for deletion button in your tool-bar or add {{Duplicate}} to your file descriptions. I think this can speed up the fulfilling of your requests. Also, you have the possibility to overwrite images on upload, if they are closely similar. Just provide the same target name. --RE RILLKE Questions? 21:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
To summaraise what Rillke said, tl;dr. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
He did overwrite the images on upload; he wanted the older versions deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Janwikifoto, you've been on this crusade for weeks. Nobody cares about old versions of images, and nobody bothers to delete them unless they're copyright violations. It's informative to have a history of how an image was updated over time. Even if we took it down, anyone who's downloaded it meanwhile could legally continue to distribute it under the originally specified free license. If you didn't want the old version of the image published, you shouldn't have released it under a free license in the first place. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • @Janwikifoto I agree with all the above replies. There is no advantage to the project in deleting old versions, only the current version is generally available and used, but the original versions of images are retained just as the history of all articles on any wiki is maintained. There is quite enough necessary admin work without generating unnecessary administrative requests for our hardworking unpaid/volunteer admins to do. Your offer to help with administrative work is appreciated, but there is a lot to learn, and it is not appropriate to execute/close deletion requests etc that you yourself have initiated anyway. --Tony Wills (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like to respond to each point raised, as I feel Jan has a fundamental lack of understanding of how things work here.
  1. We do not simply assign random folks to the status of administrator. Those who are admins have been nominated and discussed by the community, and thus have the community's trust with the tools that come with the job. You aren't going to simply be granted admin status without going through the process at Commons:Administrators.
  2. There is also no guideline that says a deletion request must be done, rather than discussed. I tried time and again to explain why your request was unrealistic and unlikely to be done, but you chose to ignore this.
  3. This conclusion definitely shows that you aren't understanding. The old version of an image is not a separate file, and cannot be used in an article unless it is uploaded under a new filename, and there's simply no reason that would be done when it is of inferior quality. As others above have stated, those old versions are almost always kept to maintain the history of an individual file.
  4. The goal of Commons is to gather a wide variety of files covering as many topics as possible. Of course a large number of colour variations are not needed (unless there is a specific use for them), but this is obviously not the situation here, as these old versions are not separate files. These old versions remain for basically the same reason that old versions of an article remain on Wikipedia: to show the history of that particular file. The "inferior quality" argument is irrelevant since the better version is what's currently available for use on other wiki sites.
  5. This final conclusion is of extraordinary bad faith. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but you're threatening to badmouth Commons to various politicians ("what I really think") because we won't delete what are basically non-usable, old versions of images? If complaining to someone who has no relation to nor influence on the project over such a minor issue is your thing, then no one is going to stop you.
Huntster (t @ c) 08:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

April 6


Category:Durham: Some one has been using a siebot to rename this category to Durham, England? And then most of the tree- has anyone got the time to roll back this mess- or at least to explain why the bot was being misused.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently we have multiple Durhams so it was turned into a disambiguation category.
Can you explain what you consider a mess and where the bot would have been abused? I can't seem to find it. Multichill (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Primary subject- Durham, 3rd most important university city in UK- foundation before 995 AD. the rest are derivative. See en:WP for their approach. Why, did I call this abuse Category:Durham School, England is a nonsense to disambig- it should go first to the city, then the county Category:Durham School, County Durham. Thanks for the response I have done my bit by pointing it out- but haven the energy to run with this any further. --ClemRutter (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

<gallery> problem


I'm struggling with the gallery on my user page. I display there a frog image shot by me from with an edited version has been featured, so I wanted to add a description where " featured version" links to said edited picture. It doesn't work, albeit using a second file link in a file description outside a gallery works as proven by the tree image on top of my page. Isn't this use of a second image link in a gallery description an expected use that should work? I could bypass the issue by writing 2 links with the following code: [[File:Cscr-featured.svg|15px]] [[:File:Rana esculenta on Nymphaea edit.JPG|featured version]], but I would prefer including the star in the file link itself. Is there any way of achieving this? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

@Leyo: thanks, that was the way that I already found out, with the drawback that the star graphic is not included in the file link to the frog. I hoped that there is a way to go to the frog image notwithstanding if you're clicking on the star or the textual link... Grand-Duc (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Not related to the technical question here, but you have to be careful that you satisfy the license of the image you're trying to change the link of (the star in this case). The license of the star requires attribution, so if you change the link, you should make sure you fulfill the license requirements some other way. Although I have to admit, I'm not convinced this star is eligible for copyright in the first place. –Tryphon 13:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Uh oh... I'm somewhat astonished, could we talk about this in a new section? Grand-Duc (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • If you can't use the FP star in this way, you can surely use a plain star which is so trivial as to be un-copyrightable.
1 (FP star credits: File:Cscr-featured.svg ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Relicense of Wikimedia logos

Per discussion Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/03#Lets_start_with_checking_the_copyright_status_of_the_wikimedia_logos I conclude that at least some of the Wikimedia logos can be relicensed to a free license.

I have send a mail to about the discussion but have not seen a reply yet.

Summary of discussion:

Argument: Copyright holder of the original file can allow the Foundation have the full copyright to that particular derivative work.

  • My response: Yes but in that case I think we should have a OTRS or a statement from author on a Wiki-project confirming that.

Conclusion: Relicense to {{PD-textlogo}} / {{PD-ineligible}} and perhaps {{Trademark}}.

Conclusion: Not clear. Some say yes and some say no.

  • My response: Lets discuss it some more to get a clear concensus. We have ruled more complex files to be PD-ineligible so I think this is still interessting to discuss.

Argument: 1) The GFDL may be a mistake. 2) Copyright holder of the original file can allow the Foundation have the full copyright to that particular derivative work.

  • My response: 1) Yes. Lets see if Nohat gives a reply. 2) yes but in that case I think we should have a OTRS or a statement from author on a Wiki-project confirming that. Lets see if Nohat gives a reply.

Status: 2 x ineligible and no other comments.

  • My argument: I would like to hear more arguments before I conclude but I tend to agree that it is ineligible.

So at the moment 2 logos can be relicensed: Wiktionary logo + Wikiquote logo. If I hear no convincing arguments very soon I will change the license of those two logos. --MGA73 (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want definitive answers, have the Foundation attempt to register all of these for copyright, and see how many are accepted. Not sure you are going to get anything really conclusive outside of that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Usability of the Featured picture star

Tryphon made a comment that surprised me. How could be an attribution requirement be infringed when a media that requires this attribution is used to build a link to another resource? I do not take possession of the work, it still remains here, within the Commons internet site. Additionally, the link to the resource is available through the properties of the graphic as displayed by customary browsers. If a link link the one I intended could infringe the copyright of the star and if this work is eligible for protection, then the template:FP star must be changed too, as the star there links to COM:FP. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Attribution must be provided, and in Wikipedia it is on the file description page, one-click away. It is broken when overriding the link ; that is why on the French-language Wikipedia such images are mentioned in fr:Wikipédia:Crédits graphiques (linked in the footer of every page). There was a proposal some time ago to have the same thing for Commons, but it did not go anywhere. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the easiest in this particular case would be first of all to asses whether the star is eligible for copyright or not, and if it's deemed to be, create a replacement that its author would agree to release in the public domain (in which case there's no requirement for attribution or mentioning the license). LGPL is one of the worst possible licenses for an image anyway. –Tryphon 16:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
For the usage that sparked this question, the star is displayed at a size where no detail is really visible, why not just use a plain (uncopyrightable) star, see my solution to original question above. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Trouble uploading

Hello, I am having trouble uploading images. What's the problem? Whenever I press upload, it takes forever. Editorofthewiki (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

How big are your images? How fast is your connection? How long is "forever"? --Carnildo (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Trouble with thumbnail caching

About 24 hours ago I uploaded File:Benjamin West - The Golden Age - Google Art Project.jpg, removing the non-free frame. The thumbnail displayed on the file description page has not updated, even when I use CTRL+F5, purge the page, or visit it from another browser without logging in. The full size image and the other thumbnails seem fine. How can I force this thumbnail to refresh? Thanks. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried deleting it entirely then restoring it to no avail. I got the new version to appear if I dropped my maximum image width for file description pages in my preferences, but saw the frame again if I restored it to what it was. I did try to view the preview thumbnail directly, then did a bypass of my cache and got the frameless version. Went back to the file description page and reloaded just to test and it stayed removed. I'm not sure if that's exactly what did it; if you have others we can experiment and see if the results can be replicated. – Adrignola talk 03:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Viewing the cached version directly and then doing CTRL+F5 is usually the first trick I use but it wasn't helping in this case. I'm not sure if something else you did helped. I guess if it happens again we can diagnose it further. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

April 7

Parrs Wood House

Can anyone help me locate a picture of Parrs Wood House, Didsbury, Manchester, England on here? I know it's here as I saw it the other day but now can't find. It's a white stucco regency villa and I need it for an article. With many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I dunno about Commons, but there's an image on EN for the house. See Tabercil (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I've transferred it to the Commons as "File:Parrs Wood House, Didsbury, Manchester, England.jpg". — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please create a SVG - Announcing a new template

In the past there were no concerns on creating such a template. Now, I created {{subst:Please use SVG}} and you can feel free using it. I know, there is probably a better name and especially the French version needs correction. You are invited to translate to your native language. Thanks. -- RE RILLKE Questions? 16:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

April 9

2 Zelda logos, are they free?

I've uploaded two (beta) wordmarks of video games from The Legend of Zelda, which, in comparison, are rather basic: file:Wordmark Zelda Phantom Hourglass.svg and file:Wordmark Zelda Spirit Tracks.svg. I'm still vary of the subtitles, since one has what looks like an hourglass in it, and the other one bears something like dust lines.

  1. So are these logos copyrightable?
  2. If yes, what if I removed the subtitles?

--AH 22:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Tough call. They might be {{PD-text}} or {{PD-text-logo}} but I'm a little bit uncertain, due to the fact that it's not a standard font. They'd probably be kept in a deletion discussion. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, the law is clear: "Typeface as typeface" and "familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring" are not copyrightable. That would include all types of fonts, typefaces, handwriting, and calligraphy, no matter how ornate or unconventional. If it's just textual material, it's not copyrightable, and would need additional graphic elements to become so. The hourglass-shaped letters can be discussed more, but they are still a part of the lettering and I'd argue that they fall well within "mere variations". Regards, -- Orionisttalk 03:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Totally not copyrightable. No agency in the U.S. would accept a copyright claim on these images. I can almost guarantee it. Powers (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Is that so with Japan as well?--AH 11:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Someone brought up on Licensing talk the font's 3D effect.--AH 11:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2

Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters or PNG file with more than 12.5 million pixels

What to do about something like this? FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Scale it down and re-upload, or convert to JPEG. –Tryphon 00:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, but why should we be encouraged to downgrade picture quality? FunkMonk (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I know, it's a pity, but I don't think this limitation is going away any time soon. BTW, I wonder if TIFF is also limited to 12.5 megapixels; if not, that would be a way around it without sacrificing quality. –Tryphon 01:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
So what is the upper limit? 12.4? FunkMonk (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably exactly this number as it is an artificial limit (AFAIK). I always upload a big version first and then a second version just below 12.5 Mpx. 12.4 should be okay. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, seems like I'll have to do that then... FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Scaled to just below the limit (12 455 940 Px) now. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I mean, if the full resolution is already uploaded, you don't need again upload a “full limit version”. The formula could be usefull for future requests: new image width. --Perhelion (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually there is some work by Bryan towards fixing this (bugzilla:28135). Bawolff (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Camera categories

What, if anything, is the usefulness of categories like Category:Taken with Nikon D5000? I noticed someone recently adding this to a few of my photos (out of the literally thousands of my photos to which it could, in theory, apply). Should I be adding this to all my uploads because it is of use to someone? Or is this just someone's hobbyhorse? - Jmabel ! talk 20:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have mixed fillings about those categories as well. I think they are quite useful for very good images from exotic cameras and it is good to have some example images for most cameras out there. But almost 10k images taken with Nikon D90 is an overkill. --Jarekt (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a lot in the archive already. (e.g. here) I personally think, if the image is "representative" for the type of camera (full resolution, not blurry (except all images of this camera are blurred), …), a camera category is helpful. --RE RILLKE Questions? 08:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Quite helpful to those wishing to buy a camera :-) But per Rillke, yes it should only be the best of them. Rehman 09:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, you missunderstood. I said "representative" rather than "the best". E.g. it would be nice if there is an indoor foto in full resolution in such a category, even if it contains a lot of noise, if this is "typically" for this model. --RE RILLKE Questions? 10:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
As the information is generally included in exif, there should be an easier way to make this searchable. As there isn't, I think it's currently the best solution. --  Docu  at 11:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This is not what Rillke and Rehman mean at all. A category could be useful if ther is some editorial policy behind it, i.e. a smart selection. The EXIF data is not the same. Then we might as well write a bot to create a category for every field in the EXIF data and assign it to the images. --Dschwen (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Rillke, Rehman: "indoor fotos in full resolution" are usually processed to suppress noise, aren't they? Processing will wash out subtle quality differences - I don't think that a random assortment of photos is a good test of the camera. It cannot and should not replace controlled studio tests (which are already available elsewhere). NVO (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't remember talking about random assortment and test. And it is not my intention to transform commons into a Consumer Information Center. I would never buy an expensive device without controlled tests. It is just helpful if you want to compare your images to others to see what is possible / the standard, want to determine whether Exif has been (possibly) faked while viewing an image, asking the uploader for a better version, … . And by the way, not all noisy photos are processed. And I agree with Docu, there should be an option to search for Exif-Data rather than putting them in categories by a bot. (Think of the category sizes of popular scanners and cameras.) --RE RILLKE Questions? 17:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Has anybody checked Commons:Categories#Categorization tips? The inclusion of a cat about the camera is stated there as being important. I could see some usefulness in having those camera cats for market research or other statistical research. Additionally, I believe that categories about cameras and lenses aren't harming the category system, so there is no profit in deleting them... I even created the Category:Taken with Leicaflex SL2 albeit I'm pretty sure that there will be hardly another contributor that uses it... The same is true for some of the Leica lenses cats I've made. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

@Rillke: AFAIK, currently it's mainly done by hand. Bot could be an option, I suggested another one at Bugzilla:21795
In the meantime, there is mw:User:Bawolff/GSoC2010/Status, maybe this could be implemented now. --  Docu  at 11:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
BTW, just to clarify, my gsoc project focus ended up being extracting more data from images (XMP, IPTC, etc). In the end it didn't end up actually doing anything different with the data once its extracted. Bawolff (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
If it's in a table, we could still extract more easily the data and populate corresponding categories? --  Docu  at 21:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

arrow missing from collapsible templates

I just noticed that the triangle/down-arrow is missing from all collapsible templates like category:Creator templates of category:Institution templates. See for example:

Jacopo Torriti    wikidata:Q659961
Alternative names
Giacomo Torriti; Iacobus Torriti; Jacopo Turrita; Jacopo Toriti; Giacomo Turrita
Description painter and mosaic artist
Date of birth/death 13th century
date QS:P,+1250-00-00T00:00:00Z/7
 Edit this at Wikidata
13th century
date QS:P,+1250-00-00T00:00:00Z/7
 Edit this at Wikidata
Location of birth Geographical region of Italy
Work period between circa 1270 and circa 1300
date QS:P,+1500-00-00T00:00:00Z/6,P1319,+1270-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P1326,+1300-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P1480,Q5727902
Authority file
creator QS:P170,Q659961

Originally you had to click on the down-arrow in the right top corner of the template to uncollapse it. Now it seems like you can just click on the bar itself. I just checked and there seem to be no changes to the templates themselves or MediaWiki:Common.js. Does anybody know how to fix this problem or where the change is/was discussed?. Without the arrow it is less intuitive that something will happen when you click the bar. Display of collapsible templates still work properly when displaying commons collapsible templates at wikipedias. For example in en:File:Veronica.jpg creator template you have to click on [show] to uncollapse the template but on File:Veronica.jpg you have to click in the bar. --Jarekt (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see the triangle. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I can't. What browser, what wiki theme/skin are you using? --Tony Wills (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Vector on Mozilla Firefox 4.0. (I just updated my browser.) — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't see it using monobook on Firefox 3.something. I also noticed missing arrows on QI talk page messages. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't see any of these arrows, on Wikipedia as well (using Vector on Firefox 3.6). —innotata 14:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I am using Firefox 4 and vector skin and I still do not see them. I also do not see them in IE 6.0. In wikipedias they do not use arrows but [show]/[hide] in whatever language.--Jarekt (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Now this is bizarre. I've just come back after a few hours away from the computer, and after reloading the page the triangle has now disappeared. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think something changed in the software and last time you were seeing cashed version of the template. It takes a while for cashed versions to clear.--Jarekt (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The arrow is back for me. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Further Information: MediaWiki:CollapsibleTemplates.css

Not Found
The requested URL /w/extensions/UsabilityInitiative/images/vector/collapsibleNav/arrow-right.png was not found on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Have a look at Therefore replace the images in the CSS file with: 

--RE RILLKE Questions? 10:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the images in the CSS file but can not see any difference. Hopefully it is a matter of cashed versions. --Jarekt (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
After clearing my browser's cache, the images appeared. Thanks. --RE RILLKE Questions? 10:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
It works for me now too. Thanks for figuring it out. --Jarekt (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of Women

While looking for pictures of diapers or baby needs for a homeless documentary re: volunteers... I found pictures of women in bondage. Since I don't know if these are real bondage photos or fakes.... I wish to complain. How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 20:00 (UTC+2:00)

You could do it here, but I think that a complain is quite ludicrous. A lot of volunteers check that the media stock does not contain any illicit material, for possibly offending material, almost all complaints are turned down, cf. Commons:Project scope or processed on a more intelligible base when they are deemed justified. Without any links to such material provided and a nonsense wording ("re:volunteers") placed in the middle of your sentence, I want to suggest that you think again about your phrasing of a complain. Thank you. Grand-Duc (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you mention the name of the file and the nature of the complaint? --Jarekt (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps they meant that some "diapers" category is mixing toddler photos with some ... not so toddlers. If that is the case, the more adult content should probably be in a subcategory and more clearly labeled. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I did some searching through that category and found no examples of bondage. All adult examples are already in a subcategory, and (as it so happens) are not sexually explicit. The OP may have been looking in another related category. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
If you look for "diapers" in the search you come across bondage pictures on the fourth and following pages: File:Dani gagged and chained in a dungeon (3210).jpg and some others from the same series. These images were taken and uploaded by a trusted Wikimedian (User:Raymond). Therefore these images seem to be perfectly acceptable. --Slomox (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
She's not even really wearing a "diaper" in any ordinary sense of the word; maybe it would be better to replace with "briefs" or something more accurate... AnonMoos (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
PVC diaper seems to be an established term for this type of underwear. I don't think that "briefs" would be more accurate. --Slomox (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Brussels categorys

Brussels can be the Brussels agglomeration. This agglomeration is the city itself and the other communes (Schaerbeek, Anderlecht, Etterbeek, etc). For most tourist and outsiders this is one city and everything gets dumped under the "Brussels" category with its subcategories of all kinds. When the more precise location is known the local subcategorys can be used. When I place a picture in the city itself I can only use "Brussels" wich is confusing. I propose to use a new local category "Brussels (city)". Another posibility is to rename "Brussels" to "Brussels (agglomeration)" and reuse Brussels as a local category. The problem is that this wil have to be policed, as a lot of pictures wil automaticaly be dumped under "Brussels".

There are a lot of cities with a city and a agglomeration. How is this solved? Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"Urban area" would be more widely understood among ordinary people than "agglomeration"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Some parts are not urban. The city has annexed some outlying communes and as a result it has quite a gerrymandered schape. Category:Haren (Belgium) for example belongs to the city as does Laeken.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
en uses "Brussels" for the broader area (which notes the official name is "Brussels-Capital Region") and "City of Brussels" for the city proper (which is not ideal). fr has three articles "fr:Région de Bruxelles-Capitale", "fr:Bruxelles" and "fr:Bruxelles-ville" - which confuses me as I thought there were two concepts here not three.
The question is is "Brussels" (or its equivalent in other languages) typically used to describe the city itself or the urban area? If you asked a Belgian what the population of Brussels was would you get an answer of ~1 million (the broader area) or ~100 000 (the city itself)? en, fr and de wikis say that the capital of Belgium has a pop of 1 million suggesting the common meaning is the broader area. That suggests clarifying the categories for the city itself.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Documented in Category talk:Belgium. No need to change: splitting Brussels is even more difficult than splitting Belgium . See En:Brussels#Municipalities for a context. Item 4 is Brussels city that crosses most of the region and is responsible too for some wider infrastructures, royalty and governments. --Foroa (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Yep, its definitely a major problem!
Splitting off what en calls the City of Brussels ought to be attempted: it has the equivalent status to Category:Anderlecht and Category:Koekelberg and is distinct from the region as a whole, but I'm unsure what the best name is. That is analogous to the Category:City of London and Category:London (which is handled in {{Boroughs of London}}--Nilfanion (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion is to create a local category "Brussels (city area)" The basis is the municipality File:BrusselLocatie.png but excluding the non-Urban areas of Laeken and Haren wich have their own categories. Their is a question if we have to exclude the long strip to the "Bois de la Cambre" park. Subcategorization should be stricly limited. Transport and other city-wide subjects should always under the Brussels headcategories. For example no need to create "Etterbeek metro" for File:Brussel metro outside.jpg. Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You will need a detailed city map because 1000 Brussels is only 4 to 6 square km (+- 50000 people) and borders are changed from time to time for political and/or post reasons. You might as well define it as the Pentagon (small ring) which at least has clear and straight borders. --Foroa (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I have started filling the category:Brussels (city area). It is surprising how some places dont belong to the city. For example Brussel Midi station is in Anderlecht. Eventualy al places should be under this category or another municipality of Brussels. Other are at borders and should be in both. Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help by filling the category. I have now placed al metro and semi-metro station in the correct municipality. Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I now trawl through the many tram pictures (example Category:Brussels tram line 92) to add to the local categories. Any help wil be appreciated. Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for translation assistance

Hey all. I'm working on a massive overhaul of a tool called SVG translate, which is accessed through {{Translation possible}}. It used to be slightly less useful and at a different URL. In particular, in the past you couldn't supply it with a language code via the "userlang" parameter and have it translate the interface for you, which is obviously a big win if you struggle to understand instructions given in English.

I could really use some assistance then, propagating the changes to Template:Translation possible/en through to other language variants. I am happy to answer any questions.

Thanks, Jarry1250 (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Custom licenses again

I've raised this issue before but I noticed something in that didn't get much attention before:
8. Miscellaneous
e. This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You.
Again, "There are no representations... not specified here." If a license includes more, it is not a CC-BY-SA license as defined by Creative Commons (and Wikimedia). Modifications are specifically excluded. Why are license modifications tolerated on Wikimedia projects when they are very clearly NOT tolerated by CC-BY-SA?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Please provide an example. E.g. if it is obviously PD-old, relicensing does not infringe the terms above. -- RE RILLKE Questions? 23:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm talking about deprecating licenses like this one down to what the standard upload tools use, which provide a blank for attribution as per CC-BY-SA and that's it. More examples here. There are cases where a user has uploaded almost 2000 files that were unequivocally not permitted on Commons through the use of user custom licenses. Although that particular case was dealt with, others persist because there is no systematic way of maintaining Commons standards for licensing while these user-created license tags exist.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there is little control of custom license templates. In my mind they fall into 2 categories:
  1. A wrapper around or specialization of existing template with additional source/attribution info
  2. unique license template (like Template:Stratosphere for example)
Both of those are hard to manage since so few people watch them people can be modifying the license after it is used without anybody noticing. (Once image is released under some license, the license should not be made more restrictive). Also customized templates of the second type are often not translated to other languages, and it is uncertain if anybody checked if they are following Commons rules. I think we should require that all media use one of standard templates. Customization can be allowed but only as a wrapper of existing template and the wrapper should only deal with source and attribution and should not add more restrictions . -- Jarekt (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It should ne noted that most (all?) of our templates allow attribution line customisation. Jean-Fred (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Eh. It is fine to request additional steps; they just can't be a requirement. That one you link to is borderline... they say "please" but it may be best to indicate better that it is not a requirement. Notification of use can certainly be requested as a courtesy but definitely not required. A couple of the others do misinterpret how much of the "manner" they are allowed to specify for the credit (i.e. they can dictate the text, but not the placement), but from what I've seen it hasn't been too egregious. The non-commercial one sure, but that is obvious. Many of the custom templates simply request additional items as a courtesy, but as long as they are not actual requirements (i.e. license conditions), they are fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Who or what is monitoring these licenses (and newly created licenses) to ensure that "they are fine" and remain fine? How are these licenses being supported re things like translation?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Users. Same as any copyright violations or other licensing issues; there is no magic bullet. If there is a specific license which is an issue, bring it up. On re-reading that one... the line "Please send me a specimen copy or the URL of the website where the image is used" is the only possibly problematic one. That probably needs to be made more clear that it is only a request, not a license term. But, to me, not a reason to forbid personal license templates. After all, users can create their own licenses, so long as they meet all the "free" requirements. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
In at least one case HUNDREDS of non-free images were uploaded over an extended period of time without anyone blinking an eye until someone called attention to a NC restriction when one of the images was nominated for Quality image. That's the system? re "that one you link to", in fact I linked to several dubious "licenses"; - as matter of logic I don't think the broad conclusion that there's neither a problem nor a potential problem follows from a sample size of just some of the few images I've happened to encounter incidentally amongst the 10 million or so here on the Commons. Even re the one license you've continued to discuss here, if you look at an example in practice the uploader is so particular about how to be attributed a mini-layout of the photo with attribution is indicated. There's no "pretty please" here either but rather a threat to seek compensation according to a particular schedule if this particular layout is not followed. Conspicuously absent is the "reasonable to the medium" clause in a genuine CC-BY-CA license that applies to attribution. There's also a "condition" demanding "a weblink to the original image" (again without a clause that exists in the actual license, namely, "to the extent reasonably practicable") despite the fact the CC-BY-SA license exempts users from having to make such a link when the "URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work." I fail to see just WHY debates over legalese are necessary when CC-BY-SA license clearly says that it cannot be added to or amended. I would dispute that users can "create their own licenses." Users can create their own attribution requirements and non-binding requests, which is not the same thing.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Pretty sure CC-BY-SA allows you to require a link of the author's choice, if possible in the context it's used. I would take the mini-layout as an example, and there is nothing inappropriate about that at all. The URI he is requesting is very relevant to the licensing, so that's not an issue either. CC-BY[-SA] *requires* such attribution; lack of attribution is a copyright violation and obviously copyright owners can take legal action in those situations if they so choose. He is repeating the facts of the law. He is, to me, entirely within the license with all that stuff. Often people take images off of Wikipedia without bothering to make the credit -- which is a copyright violation -- and this user is doing a much better job than the default templates of reminding re-users that failure to attribute is a full-on copyright violation. As for others... I'm sure we have thousands upon ten thousands of undetected copyright violations uploaded. They are fixed as they are noticed; bad licenses are really no different. If you see a problematic license, please discuss with the user, on Commons_talk:Licensing, or nominate things for deletion as non-freely licensed. We don't have an automatic review process for every single upload, and licenses like this are no different -- such images are either copyright violations to host, or in the case of non-commercial, not as bad as copyvios actually but still against policy. Bad personal licenses has hardly been a chronic problem in my experience. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see where you found "if possible in the context" in this particular custom license. re "He is repeating the facts of the law," with all due respect, that is simply not true. You can't take a sentence, remove a clause, and then threaten to sue on the basis of the new sentence as if it wasn't changed. If this custom license is "much better" than why didn't Creative Commons write it up differently? This idea that users should improve upon the standard licences by coming up with custom licenses fails to appreciate the importance of consensus. If there is a problem with the standard CC-BY-SA license I would think the standard license template should be changed since such changes are far easier to monitor and involve a consensus approach instead of a unilateral one.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
It's also not there in the generic templates. Those do not get into all details of the legalese, obviously, just the basic points of attribution. It's possible we should change the generic templates some, but they are never going to include all relevant details. Provided that custom templates do not step outside what is allowed by CC-BY-SA -- i.e. if they add notification or other requirements, or if they try to dictate placement of the attribution, then I have no problem with custom templates emphasizing portions of the CC-BY-SA license which are particularly important to that author. Yes, monitoring is difficult, but not as hard as monitoring for copyright violations -- we just have to do the best we can. Someone will find it eventually. Restricting people to "approved" templates is, to me, interfering with author's basic rights -- they should be able to specify their own license to their satisfaction. If they claim to be a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license then yes, they can't add any additional requirements. But any amount of extra detail within the allowed bounds is OK. That one comes close to the edge in one or two places, but does not cross it in my opinion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The generic templates fully match what's on the Creative Commons website, as the "summary" in the WikiCommons CC-BY-SA contains the same 4 bullet points as Creative Commons' summary. "Emphasizing portions" is ultimately misrepresentation when the object is to make the license appear more restrictive than it is. If one can't tell the whole truth telling half of it has to be an honest summary, not a manipulated one. re what "step[s] outside what is allowed," read the license terms again: "extra detail" is only allowed for attribution and is NOT allowed for permissions and licensing. ALL of the "detail" is in the legal code, without any "extra". If there is "extra", fidelity to the license means the extra appears somewhere else than under "license" terms. Note that in many of these cases, the custom license creators do not refer readers to the legal code if they have questions but are told to ask the license creator. This is fundamentally contrary to the idea that uploaders to the Commons choose licenses that are created by COMMONly recognized bodies. Something without a COMMON license is not COMMONly available. If what you say represents Wikimedia policy, then why did the community not just lay down general principles for re-use that individuals then get specific about on their own instead what has actually happened, which is that getting specific was done commonly by referring the community to specific licenses that are detailed by Creative Commons? Given that your argument is that the exact and complete specifics of CC-BY-SA don't matter so long as the general principles of CC-BY-SA are respected (you seem to be fine with paraphrasing, selective emphasis, etc), how is CC-BY-SA relevant at all when the same argument says that ultimately all that matters is just the general principles of being "Commons" material as opposed to any particular license like CC-BY-SA? You've gutted specific, detailed licenses like CC-BY-SA when you suggest full fidelity to the details doesn't matter. Uploaders who feel that the full legal code or a Creative Commons' approved summary would "interfere with their basic rights" can always upload somewhere else (or argue for a collective, collaborative change to the code or summary) instead of manipulating the presentation of the code or its summary.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The "summary" also simply emphasizes portions. It says the "manner" of credit may be specified by the copyright owner, but you have to delve into the legal code to find out what that really means. That part gets misinterpreted often. There is no way to succinctly describe every detail of the legal code in the summary... just the way it is. A policy which bars owners from pointing out other details of the actual legal code more up-front... seems silly to me. I never said the specifics of CC-BY-SA don't matter... they absolutely do; they are paramount. You can't claim CC-BY-SA if you require items beyond what is allowed by the legal code. But that also means you can edge right up to the line allowed by the license, so long as it's not crossed. Not always the best idea, but I'm never going to say that copyright owners can't do that. The attribution is part and parcel to the permission and license, and if they want to be very specific about it, that is fine, and allowed by the license. You don't like the tone of the license, I can see, but there is nothing in there which goes beyond what the legal code says, to me. Are you saying the tone violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the license and therefore should be barred? Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
It wouldn't seem "silly" if you, or more likely the Wikimedia Foundation, were sued for misrepresentation of a third party's (Creative Commons') declaration. To quote from the Wikipedia article for Misrepresentation, "A representor may make a statement which prima facie is technically true; however this may tell only half the story. If a statement of fact is made but the representor fails to include information which would significantly alter the interpretation of this fact, then a misrepresentation may have occurred." The "conditions" of these custom licenses are not being presented as attribution requirements (as allowed by the license AND AS ALLOWED BY STANDARD, COMMONLY DEVELOPED LICENSE TEMPLATES) but as additions to or revisions to licensing and/or permissions, and as such they violate the letter of the code which says the code cannot be added to. One can claim that the spirit of the code is still being adhered to by characterizing the material as a "summary", but if one is going to advance that argument (pointing out that the "letter"s will obviously not match in such a case) then the "letter"s chosen by the custom license creators have to adhere to the spirit of the code to avoid a violation of the code in BOTH letter and spirit. Just what constitutes adherence to the code is something that must be determined commonly because this is a Commons.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The standard templates also have no legal weight. Only the legal code does. Failure to attribute in the manner specified means users are using the works without permission; i.e. are committing a copyright violation. I guess I just interpret this differently than you do. Custom templates can always be made more clear; that should quite possibly be done -- I don't like misleading ones either. But forbidding them altogether is not a solution; fixing them is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

 Question What about a mix of different licenses like e. g. file:Ruthenium a half bar.jpg, where we have CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 (incompatible with commons), "license art libre" and GNU 1.2? --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Alchemist-Hp is the author; therefore he has the possibility to publish his work under a license he want. If one license matches the accepted ones on commons, it's sufficient. With the NC license he eases the use for e.g. schools. -- RE RILLKE Questions? 11:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
See (one of the several previous discussions on this topic): Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010/12#GFDL-1.2_only. --Saibo (Δ) 17:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
@Jean-Frédéric: IMHO, the custom license tags mentioned above do that better than the standard templates. --  Docu  at 16:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
If the ability to customize attribution is, in fact, the only issue why aren't there instead suggestions to change the standard templates to "do it better"? The reality is that custom licenses are frequently used to add language that puts a "chill" on re-use (e.g. threats to take "legal action", repeating - or, more commonly, dubiously re-phrasing - the elements of a CC-BY-SA license that restrict re-use while declining to call attention to the elements that allow re-use or the simple fact all additional verbiage has no legal force) as opposed to customizing one's attribution beyond what one can with a standard license. I've seen confused readers write uploaders on their Talk pages asking for clarification and be told "no commercial use". This misinformation would not be spreading if the confusion wasn't being created in the first place. These things are not called "attribution requirements," they are called "custom" (ie private) LICENSES. This stuff is not appearing under the "Attribution" line of the basic template (as here), it's rather appearing under "Permissions."--Brian Dell (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Most frequent customization are providing author, source and/or attribution. Standard templates can't "do it better" since they are general. See for example Template:Photo-by-Wojciechowscy. Many templates in Category:Custom GFDL license tags or Category:Custom CC license tags look like Template:YuriyIlyin and have only source, license and OTRS. Most GFDL licenses are still being reviewed if they are eligible for relicensing (anybody still working on that?). Template:PolishPresidentCopyright is another specialization of GFDL for all images from some official Polish Government website which uses GDFL for all its images. Some custom licenses only mention license name without actually displaying it. I think to those the actual license template should be added, like here. --Jarekt (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem isn't licenses created for third party material but licenses created by uploaders for their own material. There isn't a conflict of interest with respect to developing the former licenses like there is for the latter.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

April 10

Fair use re-upload bot ready for trial

User:Commons fair use upload bot, which re-uploads deleted images to local projects as fair use candidates, is ready for a trial. It currently only re-uploads to En, and will only re-upload files that were tagged with {{Fair use delete}} by a Commons administrator. It leaves a notice on the talk page of any articles using the file, and marks the original Commons image for speedy deletion. It will be run manually for now so that I can look for any problems. If you're an admin, feel free to start tagging some candidate images for re-upload and I'll run it on them tomorrow. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

An general hint: But please do not make life too easy with fair use and support free content at Commons. This should be the last resort before deletion. :-) --Saibo (Δ) 13:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry that is the intention. :-) If nobody's going to use it right away though I may having to go trawling through deletion logs to find files to restore to use this on. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't mean that is the intention. Since the "danger" is there I just wanted to remind (whoever). :) I had come across such wrong fair use cases several times on enwp. Most times simple textlogos claimed to be copyrighted and under fair use. → exchanged by nowCommons then. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

April 11

The above photo is a picture of me, it was re uploaded by another editor with the caption real dog. I would like to have this deleted ASAP. Can an admin please help us out with this. User:Adam.J.W.C. 09:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Being an "attack image" is one grounds for speedy deletion... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done deleted --Jarekt (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that, much appreciated Adam.J.W.C. 07:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Wax sculptures a la Madame Tussauds

Do we have any consensus or precedence cases/decisions about the legitimacy of Madame-Tussauds-like wax sculptures of contemporary people on Commons? Or are the usual copyright terms of 3D sculptures (eventually plus country-specific FOP exemptions) applicable? After being asked in such a case today I stumbled over Category:Madame Tussauds and found quite a number of images of wax sculptures of contemporary celibrities in the subcategories. --Túrelio (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've (successfully) nominated butter sculptures and ice sculptures for deletion before. I don't imagine wax sculptures are an exception, provided they are recently created and not released under a free license. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
There have been a bunch of deletion requests for wax figures. The consensus is to follow general FOP rules: if the statue is in the UK (London's Madame Tussauds) and is permanently on display, it is OK, otherwise it should be deleted. Most such photos end up deleted. See for example Commons:Deletion requests/Wax figures, Commons:Deletion requests/Wax figures at Tussauds, Commons:Deletion requests/Wax figures in the United States and more here. --Pruneautalk 07:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
If they were in countries with FOP, you should not have nominated ice or butter sculptures (they are basically "permanent" by their nature). Wax statues are more like normal sculpture though. The UK does have FOP for permanent displays inside museums. Doesn't matter if they are contemporary celebrities or not; if non-permanent it would matter when the wax sculpture was made (most likely under copyright still). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
These were in the US, in my case. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Might be worth to put this expertise as a separate item into COM:CB. --Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Unavailable file

This question was asked on Commons:Bistro#Fichier sans image. Apparently, the file File:Qu'est-ce qu'une fleur ?.jpg has been unavailable for the last few days. Below is the error message generated when trying to look at the file. Any idea about the cause of this problem? -- Asclepias (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The requested URL could not be retrieved
While trying to retrieve the URL:
The following error was encountered:
Access Denied.
Access control configuration prevents your request from being allowed at this time. Please contact your service provider if you feel this is incorrect.
Your cache administrator is nobody. 
Generated Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:01:58 GMT by (squid/2.7.STABLE7)
The problem ist using ? as part of the file name. Another example File:Wer ist denn da?.JPG. --4028mdk09 (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

copyright law of South Africa FOP

Anybody familiar with current copyright law of South Africa might help out here. --Túrelio (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the KGB offices

Some time ago a picture of the KGB offices in Moscow taken by Don S. Montgomery (available here: was removed from Wikimedia Commons because there is no FOP in Russia (and there was no FOP in the Soviet Union).

Here is my question: If I cropped the picture so that it would show only the parking lot could it be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under PD-USGov-Military? After all the FOP problem arose only because the picture featured the KGB building and the statue in front of it but a picture of the parking lot does not require the presence of FOP.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The one in the picture for which I provided a link. :)
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, what parking lot? The picture contains a road with that what you're referring to? Any idea how such an image would be used (out of curiosity)? Huntster (t @ c) 02:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Short answer, yes (the road with cars contains no copyrightable material). Long answer, I'm sure we have much better photographs of Russian roads with cars on them, and this image would not contribute significantly. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so I confused the road for a parking lot but that is beyond the point (it does look like one on the picture). Dcoetzee, you say that uploading this picture "would not contribute significantly" but it would contribute something, right? If you tried to filter every bit of media on Wikimedia Commons so that only the most significant would remain you would end up removing more than half the content on Wikimedia Commons.
Reagrds. - SuperTank17 (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
...and as a conclusion you want to upload low quality material? Is this really your intention? --High Contrast (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Why low quality? It seems that we don't have a lot of photographs of Lubyanka Square from 1980s (actually, we don't have a single). Trycatch (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
As a strongly cropped version this image is unsuitable to illustrate an "Lubyanka Square"-article. In addition, you understood me completly wrong. --High Contrast (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
So you don't think that the cropped picture will be "low quality material"? Nice if so. Trycatch (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Regardless whether you think it will "low quality" or not I want to upload it anyway. I would like to see your opinion on what is the highest point in the picture where I have to crop it in order to avoid the problem of the lack of FOP (I want save as much of it as possible).
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
@Trycatch: ??? --High Contrast (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
As i already stated I am willing to upload the cropped version but I need to know where I have to crop it.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Local place names of London

Categories for Discussion doesn't seem to get read by anyone who shares any accurate knowledge of this capital so I am hoping to get wider readership here and a hopefully a faster response. As the Category:Districts of London cat name just serves to confuse, I want to get it change to Category:Local place names of London. The Category:Districts of London was presumable created by someone unaware that London abandoned the district system over 40 years ago and the Capital has been rezoned. The new boundaries have also been gerrymandered around a few times since. So today, the term 'district (with a capital D) can no longer serve as geographic fix for images since they don't have a concrete existence. What is more, any of these areas will overlap with many other historical areas. Thus, an up-loader wont know which name to pick ( there are over 600 place names to choose from). To fix this, I started off Category:London town postal districts which can be read off any street name plate. The images downloaded to WC have used this new category extensively as a more practical way providing an unequivocal location. As a bonus, it is a lot easier and quicker to discover with less chance of making a mistake.

Before anybody asks: the boundaries of these postal code areas and the names that are associated with them are seldom coterminous with the old original District (with a capital D) systems. This is another reason why this cat confuses and possibly the reason why so many images wait to be diffused from the parent cats. Besides, many of these name are being gradually phased out by both the Royal Mail and Central Government. So doing this now will help future proof WC. Where they are reasonably coterminous however, I suggest moving the contents over to Category:London town postal districts via a redirect so as not to have duplicate cats.

For the time being, I think, what is finally left of the contents of Category:Districts of London will still useful to up-loaders of historical images and for some of the images already there. It also contains names of an estate, market and other areas that have a conceptual existence; so those that are unique might as well stay but the cat ought to be depreciated for general use. Any comments from anyone who knows the modern capital and would any of you that understand the geography like to help to diffuse the crowed parent cats?--P.g.champion (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that my only knowledge of London districts is attempting to get a borough outline map for Google Earth. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Borough boundaries are shown on in mauve if that is any good to you. OK as a parent category on WC but Boroughs are too large to serve as a child for individual images as they would quickly get swamped. However, Google, Streetmap, Teslaton's GeoLocation tool at and the Geograph poject images on their original source, all provided the correct postal designation. Another problem with a cat with non-definable place names, is that some images have obviously been put into their current (but incorrect) category as if a boundary somehow exists halfway between the letters of of adjoining place names that are over-printed on some maps. As the typography is chosen by the publisher, different editions will have over-printing in different positions. It is daft to have a cat system that can lead people astray in so many ways. Therefore, I'll change the name of Category:Districts of London and demote it in favour of postal designations which is something that most people understand and use today. --P.g.champion (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

April 8

Delinker and redirected files

CommonsDelinker is used to replace files in 2 major instances: Renamed files and duplicate files. In both cases, file redirects should be left behind. There are so many renamed file that the delinking process is causing problems from time to time, and the "requirement to replace" is onerous for both processes.

The question is why do we do bother with this at all? What actual benefit does it give to Commons or the local projects? File redirects are cheap, and it doesn't (in general) harm the other projects to link to the redirect instead of the file. It may even be beneficial as it can then link to something in the local language as opposed to the filename on Commons, which may be unintelligible to the editors of that wiki.

I suggest we should stop doing this, and only delink in those exceptional cases where a redirect should not be created anyway (misleading nor derogatory names for example).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a reasonable suggestion, but I can think of several issues:
  • File usage of the renamed file does not show usage of the redirect.
  • If the file is deleted, will Delinker remove red links for the redirects from articles? (redirects are deleted along with related files, right?)
  • Redirects are more prone to deletion or re-writing that may go undetected.
What about assigning these redirected files to their own bot, as was suggested, and maybe running it only when CommonsDelinker backlog is cleared? Would that be feasible? Regards, -- Orionisttalk 16:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I manually delete 30 to 60 files per week from Special:BrokenRedirects. But I'm not going to do that for the rest of my life. The delinker should remove them everywhere but no idea if that really works. --Foroa (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Library of Congress 3D photos

Hi, all. I thought this group more than almost anyone else would be interested in a project I'm doing. I am taking stereographic photos from the Library of Congress's website and converting them into 3D anaglyph (red/cyan) images. I am donating ALL of the high-rez versions of the images I create to the Library for the public domain.

There's always a catch, right?  :-)

Well, not really, but I'm using the images in a app I just released.<sentence edited - see below>

I'm not out to make a fortune, but if the app is well-received, I will be able to convert more and more images to the viewer-friendly anaglyph format for the public domain. Here's one example (sorry, I can't figure out the gallery function): on Little Round Top, Gettysburg (17MB)

I'd be interested in reactions.

--Matt Raymond (former communications director for the Library of Congress) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattraymond (talk • contribs) 2011-04-12T21:39:30 (UTC)

Gallery function only works for images that are on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 00:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Matt, I have removed the link to the buy-me page in your comment and removed advertising-style text - that is not really needed here. To be honest, I do not see the specific relevance for Commons at all - but I see an advertisement for a commercial product. Or do you plan to upload the 3d images directly to Commons? By the way: your example link does not work. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing he was referring to one of the images here: Interesting stuff, and I wish Matt success in his endeavours. Look forward to seeing more of these conversions. Huntster (t @ c) 20:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, when I started to subcategorize this cat, it had over 3.000 files in there. Are those megacats welcome? I ask because my work was reverted and deleted before I had the opportunity to answer. What I find quite unfair, but maybe I was wrong, so I 'd like to hear your opinions. Thanks.

And why could a sysop use his rights in a topic he is involved? Catfisheye (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read the rationale and consensus in Category talk:Churches in Belgium and Category talk:Belgium first. --Foroa (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Category talk:Belgium is a statement written by you, no consensus, one reason more, you should not have used your sysop rights. And the other one shows a discussion no consensus. I repeat there are about 3.000 files in that cat. regards Catfisheye (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
@Foroa, there are years worth of discussion in there. Can you be more specific? Or give a conclusion of some kind? Wknight94 talk 18:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
If I understand correctly it's ok to create subcategories for the municipalities etc.. Don't create intermediate layers of categorization and you should be fine. A bot can do the actual categorization btw. Multichill (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so e.g., File:AaigemKerk2.JPG should be put into a new Category:Churches in Aaigem category, instead of Category:Churches in East Flanders? Yes, a bot would definitely be better than the days worth of work required to do that. Wknight94 talk 19:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) As documented in Category talk:Belgium, Belgium has basically always be categorised as a two level system: country and populated places (Category:Cities and villages in Belgium). Almost any category in Belgium can be reached without any knowledge of its region or province (like any postal address).

There are several needs and ways to search for churches:

  1. If you know the village, the quickest way is to go to the village and see if the church is in the village. No matter what additional structures we add, it is going to be redundant but not quicker.
  2. If you know only the municipality, you can either go via the municipality (as above in any place in Belgium), or via Category:Churches in Belgium by location.
  3. If you know only the name of the church, the quickest way is via Category:Churches in Belgium by name
  4. If you want to do a visual search, the current Category:Churches in Belgium is the most useful but equally the contested one. There are several options:
options for visual search
##We can subdivide this category per province, but anyway, in the end, we will have more than thousand images per province, so we just displace the problem without real gain.
    1. We can subdivide the category per municipality (basically as in Category:Churches in Belgium by location, but then we use most of the visual search capability.
    2. We forget about visual search. Most images in Category:Churches in Belgium are overcategorised anyway, so in the end, the category will not contain images anymore.
    3. We can make sure that the image sort in Category:Churches in Belgium is properly done, I would suggest per village. The latter would require using sort keys for all images (current sort relying on image file name don't mix well with piped sort keys, but this could be corrected rather quickly, especially when using AutoWikiBrowser (I guess).
    4. People that want absolutely see their images in their municipalities can add them in the related Category:Churches in Belgium by location
    5. We create Pages for visual search, choosing one representative image per church. See e.g. the pages on the dutch wikipedia: nl:Lijst_van_parochies_van_het_bisdom_Hasselt

Anyway, at the very minimum, each church picture is categorised in its town. For each church, we try to get a postcard type picture of it in "churches in Belgium" so people can do a visual search without crawling through hundreds of categories. As collections of pictures grow, cats are made for the specific church names (Category:Churches in Belgium by name) and/or and specific town and/or municipalities in Category:Churches in Belgium by location. So basically, nothing need to be done: the goal of all types of search is reached. --Foroa (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We have finally a satisfying solution since more than a year, so no need to change it without prior discussion. --Foroa (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And as one can see here and here, people are continuously building on this categorisation. --Foroa (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As a frequent user on Commons I find Category:Churches in the United States by state, Category:Churches in Italy by region, Category:Churches in Germany by state very helpful; just to mention a few, there you can subcat the municipalities easily and sort by style etc. Which you can't do with the system Foroa wants to maintain for Belgium. I created specific city categories as well, but if there is only one file to put into, I do not see, why this should be done at the moment. I started with subcategorizing per province then I would have the containing files subcategorized by municipality. But having my work first deleted than discussed, because Foroa has written last year a statement, that pleases him, with no analogies to the mentioned countries is not a civilised way to handle things especially for a sysop, but has the taste of "this is my sandbox", sorry. Catfisheye (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

19th century paintings

This category has become very large. This is no problem but it should be sorted by painter. The further subdivision by more precise period is in many cases not posible, because it is not known when it is painted. Most people are only interested in the works of a specific painter. Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I made the Category:Johann Heinrich Bürkel a subcategory of Category:19th century paintings. This is a way forward. (There are only two images that are not paintings) This can be done for other painters if:

  • They only produced works in the 19th century
  • Did not do other works such as sculptures (and there are images of them in the commons)

Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You already gave an counter-argument: 19th century paintings is a very narrow definition, spliting it up by some meaningless or not helpful criterium (painter) AND accepting that with this split up the categorization mistake will increase is a bad idea. If you want to diffuse the category you should simply use the existing categories: By decade and by year and make sure that it ends up in the IMO most usefull split up Category:19th-century portraits by museum, thats something usefull. A diffusion with increased mistake by sorting artists to the category is not helpful. The category is so big and complexe that the only use is intersection and for a category intesection it doesnt matter if the category is big or splitted up, it only matters that it contains the correct files, not some unrelated, mistakenly sorted files. --Martin H. (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The idea of making categories like Category:Johann Heinrich Bürkel subcategories of Category:19th century paintings has two problems: 1. many artists span two centuries; 2. it includes images of the artist, which may have been produced many centuries afterwards (e.g. this is the case with many paintings of English monarchs). Dcoetzee (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"I want a policy and not just heresay"

User:Fetchcomms and User:Adrignola have both tried to tag File:427 take 2.JPG and File:401-Younge.JPG with {{No permission since}} (no OTRS ticket), and User:Floydian has twice removed the tags on the basis that the photographer gave the uploader permission to upload them to Commons. Floydian objects to "deleting images when a trusted user with no history of copyright issues has indicated that they've personally been given permission to upload them under a certain licence, whether or not we have that documented for our eyes." He has indicated that he will keep reverting the tag unless he is provided with an explicit policy that says that "images without an OTRS ticket can be deleted without discussion".

In order to avoid a continuing edit war, it strikes me that the easiest course would be to forget about {{No permission since}} and simply nominate these two images for deletion, on the basis that there is insufficient evidence that they are freely licensed. But I thought I would get input first. The debate is at User talk:Fetchcomms#Please provide a policy. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If a speedy deletion request or a relatively speedy deletion request gets contested (like reverting), it's good practice to open a regular deletion request so it can be discussed. Just reverting it generally is problematic. A deletion request would be a good place to discus this. Multichill (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. As I said above, that's my instinct too. Unless someone can point me to somthing, I'm not sure there is a policy such as the one Floydian demands (at least a policy that isn't still a proposal), other than the basic fact that we need concrete evidence that media are uploaded in accordance with COM:L.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, btw, BE NICE. Instead of just slapping a template on it you could have just asked the user to arrange permission. The user is active so a response is likely. You can always nominate it if that didn't work out.
And I don't consider this asking ;-) Multichill (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused. I didn't slap anything on anything. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I assume Multichill was referring to Fetchcomms. And yes, I've tried to group mass-no-permission messages rather than flooding someone's talk page like that. Wknight94 talk 19:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts on the situation and relevant policy statements, as well as the list of applicable files to this thread can be found at Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Mathew Campbell and Adam Colvin. – Adrignola talk 20:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't mind a heads up on a discussion involving me... But hey, I guess that isn't a policy here either. - Floydian (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
As you can see, my note directed people to comment on the discussion on Fetchcomms' talk page. Nobody intended to exclude you from anything. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

FLAC uploading is disabled

I've recently tried to upload a FLAC file (with the .flac extension) but Special:Upload says that it only permits "png, gif, jpg, jpeg, xcf, mid, ogg, ogv, svg, djvu, tiff, tif, oga." I thought that, according to the Commons:Project_scope/Allowable_file_types page, FLACs were allowed? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

FLAC streams can be embedded in an OGG container with a ".ogg" file extension; this is usually called "Ogg FLAC" or "Ogg/FLAC". Turn on the "Ogg-FLAC" option in the FLAC frontend to encode these. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

How to achive fair voting on QI or FPC?

I participated for a long time on commons and also on QI and FPC. But the longer im staying here, the more i get the feeling that Commons is not bound to it's basic rules like COM:PS. Votes are strongly biased against erotic or pornographic content. Mostly the only reason to oppose. We always claim that we need good material about this topics, and not badly executed shots from dicks and so on. But how do we make such editors/submitters comfortable to submit their content? Currently they are facing many problems, starting at deletion requests with "porn" as the only reason. --Niabot (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Project scope is about what Commons can host, QI and FP are is identifying good images on Commons - they shouldn't relate. If the image is outside scope, it shouldn't be on Commons. Ifs within scope it may be considered for VI, QI, FP etc.
However, votes on FP (and to a lesser extent QI) always will contain an element of "I like it/I don't like it" as its an inherently subjective process. You cannot expect individuals to support images they personally dislike or to oppose ones that they love. If you feel a category of images is disadvantaged at FPC, it may be because the people who participate at FPC dislike the subject. Pictures that "glorify warfare" can also struggle. You can't make people change their views, and Commons (as a whole) cannot override FPC over specifics, as then the whole FPC system falls apart. The best thing you can do is to encourage a more inclusive group of people to participate at FPC, so any one individual's prejudices carry less weight.
Also consider your own work carefully. Even if they are all technically good, that doesn't mean that they are all FP-worthy, and you cannot expect all your work to be featured. Pick out the ones that stand out, and have more going for them than just encyclopedic value: I'd assume they all have that because otherwise you wouldn't have made it in the first place. Most uploaded images from the Hubble Space Telescope uploaded are valuable, and look good, but most would not pass FPC. Only the really stunning ones pass - the ones with the "wow" factor.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
In other words FPC and QI only have private function and are not a reference for images at any means. Harder said: Completely useless, suggestive and not representative. Why do we represent the images in this case on the main page? Does this not actually works strictly against the definition (see introduction) of FPC itself? --Niabot (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
FPC is a process that seeks to identify the best works on Commons. Participation there, like in Commons as a whole, is voluntary. There are active contributors to Commons who choose to have nothing to with FPC, there's others who do nothing else. FP has to be subjective as there is no objective way of saying whether an image has a good composition, its art not science.
If you feel that FP is not identifying classes of images, and the Commons community as a whole agrees with you, you won't get any change if the sub-set of the community that participates at FPC stays the same. You can't hold a vote to get people to change their views, that's censorship too :) The best thing to do is to get more people involved and reduce any systemic bias in the FPC community.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
OK. Then i will consider to remove my already accepted images from FPC. Don't like the idea behind this failed approach. --Niabot (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
For what its worth, I think that FPC has a group of individuals who look on it as their personal project which is not appropriate. The constant discussion of rules at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates indicates an unhealthy state of that project to me. FPC should be progressing as Commons develops, but many of the changes there are regressive and not conducive to a positive community spirit.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
And if they don't like someone then they vote on the user and not on the images. Socket puppetry wouldn't be a far call after i had to read this comment today. Of course from a user that had never participated on FPC before and "obviously never heard" about anime or manga. --Niabot (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem with generating thumbnail

Today, I have noticed that one of my pictures thumbnail is missing. I have uploaded it about two weeks ago and everything was fine back then. Now whenever I try to regenerate thumbnails with it fails with an error:

Error creating thumbnail: convert: unable to open image 
@ error/blob.c/OpenBlob/2498.

Could somebody help me with this issue? Jakubhal (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like an internal server error. If it doesn't resolve by itself, reupload it.--DieBuche (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I have something similar with File:Willesden Junction railway station MMB 01.jpg, File:Willesden Junction railway station MMB 02.jpg and File:Willesden Junction railway station MMB 09.jpg. I have tried reuploading - it made the thumbnail for the old version show up, but current one is still awol. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Reuploaded, but has not helped. It looks similar as with Mattbuck's pictures. Jakubhal (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I have reuploaded the file with different name and requested for deletion of the old one. For me the problem is solved, but I wonder if it was not a sign of some serious problem with Commons software. Jakubhal (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"1,0 kilometers"

I notice that we have categories with names like Category:1,0 kilometers bridges, Category:1,1 kilometers bridges, etc. I'm unaware of anywhere in the English-speaking world where it would be normal usage to use a comma this way as a decimal marker, so I suspect these should be changed, but to what exactly? If I were to make categories like this, my inclination would be Category:Bridges between 1.0 and 1.1 kilometers in length, Category:Bridges between 1.1 and 1.2 kilometers in length, etc. Other thoughts? - Jmabel ! talk 07:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

fixed, see Category:0.2 kilometers bridges etc. --anro (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
And why use the plural form for 1.0 kilometer? (I don't know what the rule is for other decimal numbers between 0.1 and 1.9, but 1.0 is definitely singular.) –Tryphon 08:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Given that you have categories for 5.0, 5.1, 5.4, 5.7 and 5.9, but not 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6 or 5.8, I'd be inclined to just make it Category:Bridges of length between 5.0 and 5.9 kilometers. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Some of those bridges below 4 km may have several bridges in each 100 meters though. --Closeapple (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Still, what's the use of it? Who would be interested to see an image of a 4.3km bridge but not interested to see a 4.4km bridge? --ELEKHHT 03:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Very much agree, actually just started a discussion here, before I noticed this thread. --ELEKHHT 03:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I see the same problem that Tryphon sees: Category:0.2 kilometers bridges is grammatically incorrect. The distance is actually an adjective when it is in that position, and therefore has no plural form in English. (This is true no matter what number is used there: 0.0, 0.2, 1, 1.2, 2, 2.0, or anything else.) To be strict, the proper punctuation would be Category:0.2-kilometer bridges, but Category:0.2 kilometer bridges might be OK too. If it would help non-native speakers, maybe Category:0.2 km bridges (Why no hyphen? Nobody knows, but it's standard) or Category:0.2km bridges. Is there a Commons guideline about measurements in category names? --Closeapple (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Doubt if there's a guideline on this (but I haven't looked). I agree that there ought to be a hyphen as the measurement is used adjectivally. I would prefer "Category:Bridges between 1.0 and 1.1 kilometers long" (rather like the subcategories of "Category:Skyscrapers by height"). — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
BTW, why must there be a dot and not a comma as decimal marker? At least per COM:FR, there is no reason to favour English over other languages, and in the states of continental Europe, the comma is definitively the widely used decimal separator, dunno if there is some kind of official international standardisation. I have a solution also to counter the mixing of the different writings, we could simply use a length value in meters, e.g. "Bridges between 1000 and 2000 meters in length". Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
A dot is used in order to avoid mixing languages in a category name. The word "bridges" is indisputably English, so using the non-English "," as the decimal separator would be incorrect. --Carnildo (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Please consider using the standard spellings "kilometre" and "kilometres". See w:en:Metre#Spelling. -84user (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Or, how about we don't start English spelling flamewars and let them use whichever spelling they want? As that article points out, the largest natively English speaking country in the world has standardized on meter, and the use of the spelling metre gives multiple spellings to the same spoken word.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Nearly at 10 million

At time of writing (10:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)) we have 9,968,917 files (we have 104,824,353 as you read this), and we should reach 10 million within the week. I've put the bare bones of a press release at Commons:Press releases/10M, but it needs work from others if it is to be remotely adequate.

We should also try to identify file 10M, which should be doable at present upload rates.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Some quick'n'dirty math based on the file count I saw just now @ 1:06 PM EST tells me the key files will be uploaded probably about 10:30 AM EST tomorrow. Tabercil (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Please use 24h UTC - using arbitrary time zones in an international project is not helpful. EST (in DST) seems to be UTC -4. So it equals to 2011-04-12 14:30 (UTC). ;-)
A new calculation based on the data of now (inaccurate since the upload ratio varies by time):
9,977,800 - 9,968,917 = 8 883 files in 24:12-10:42 = 13.5 hours
→ 658 files/hour. 22200 files left to 10 Million → 33.7 hours from 2011-04-12 00:12 (UTC) → 2011-04-13 09:42 (UTC) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No one really seems to be working on that press release. I tried a bit, but most of the rather telegraphic notes there mean nothing to me. - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not that surprised to be honest (sigh). What's most needed really is short summaries of the worthwhile things that have happened on Commons in the past year. For example, the successful cooperation with GLAMs deserve a section, major usability improvements and the like. A summary of FP, QI and VI would provide opportunity to a good sample of our best images.
I'll put some work into it later today.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the net increase speed has slowed down... file count was 9985758 at 18:30 UTC. 16841 files in 55.8 hours or 301.81/hr. At that pace the last 14242 files will take just over 47 hours, putting the time around 17:40 UTC on 4/15. Tabercil (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Still slowing down... 9,989,406 as of 17:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC). That's just 3648 files since my last update, or 162 per hour. The pace for the 10594 to come means about 65 hours, or around 4/17 10:24 UTC. I'll keep updating - that way we can work out when the photos were uploaded. Additionally, I have a number of photos which I'm in the process of working up that were taken at this year's Toronto Auto Show - one example is Image:Nissan Ellure right side at Toronto Auto Show 2011.jpg. That should come in about a couple of hundred shots, and if the peanut gallery agrees I'll see if I can time their upload so it's near the 10 million mark. That way we have pictures of known quality & provenance which we can use as a fall-back. Tabercil (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The upload rate has dropped as a result of the time of week - I strongly suspect more people are uploading at the weekend than on a Wednesday. It will likely start to pick up tomorrow, if we haven't hit 10M by midnight Saturday I'd be shocked. We can also expect to go from 9,999,500 to 10,000,000 rapidly - because of people doing what you mention to try and get the image! :)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The best thing about reaching that threshold is that it will be over, and maybe will allow us to pay a bit of attention to quality as well. --ELEKHHT 21:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Picked up again - 9,995,061 at 12:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC) which bears out Nilfanion's observation. That puts the 10 million upload just over 16 hours from now, or around 04/16/11 04:49 AM UTC. Tabercil (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
pl "version" is ready Commons:Press releases/10M/pl. Przykuta[edit] 16:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: At 4/15/2011 19:04 UTC count stood at 9,997,255. New ETA for file # 10 million is 4/16/2011 3:44 UTC Tabercil (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Count's a rolling fast now - 9,999,710 at 22:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC). New ETA is within the hour... with luck, next update I do will be post-10 million mark so it'll just be a question of counting from X to figure out what chunk of images we have to choose from... Tabercil (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
And ding! At 23:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC) count stood at 10,000,055 images. Tabercil (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
To make it easy to track, Martin added the count to Special:NewFiles. --  Docu  at 22:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, last time I tried it with counting the files in the log and find out what file it was, this time Ill try it with a screenshot. I hope its a good photo, otherwise I will quickly delete my screenshots ;) --Martin H. (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Now past 10M - I make it File:POL Lipno (jezioro w województwie pomorskim) 02.jpg, and have 2 verifying screenshots. Congrats to User:Leinad :)--Nilfanion (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Also my count, File:POL Lipno (jezioro w województwie pomorskim) 02.jpg is #10,000,000. Im sorry for Tryphon who found a great video File:Close-up on launching filament (SDO-AIA, 304 Å).ogv but was a second too late. --Martin H. (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
That's alright, I was not even aiming for it anyway :) Still, I blame it on my internet provider and my painfully slow connection ;) –Tryphon 23:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I blame my router for missing out on the 10 millionth file! ;) My wireless network went missing, rebooting the router fixed it. :| Bidgee (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I counted File:POL Lipno (jezioro w województwie pomorskim) 02.jpg as the 10M file too. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 23:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
myself and User:Tom Morris made it File:Close-up on launching filament (SDO-AIA, 304 Å).ogv. We are going to need those screenshots.Geni (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok these two are at 10M+21 and 10M+8. I apologise that I made a mess of the +8 one, but you can see that eighth most recent file (ie number 10,000,001) is Tryphon's video. There were no deletions from 00:11 to 00:15 and the critical upload was at 00:12, so both those point to it being Leinad's photo.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
My screens are 1 (strike the first six images) and 2 (strike the first 35 images). --Martin H. (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thats pretty conclusive in favor of File:POL Lipno (jezioro w województwie pomorskim) 02.jpgGeni (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

April 12

Is this kind of category name ok??? --Eusebius (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

These kinds of categories have to be with {{hiddencat}} to not appear for "normals" visitors, isn't ? ----MGuf (d) 20:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with PereslavlFoto, normals visitors who are not logged in should be able to see "by camera" categories. They are as relevant to them as to anybody else. I also agree with Foroa, such categories are not topical, what to me means that having an image categorized by camera is not enough to claim that it is categorized. I would propose not to add sub-categories to "by camera" categories, and if they get to large they should be trimmed down to include only the best examples for each camera. (I think we just discussed it somewhere). --Jarekt (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Dunno, people who are interested in architectural photography will want to see distortion (or lack thereof) etc., so it may be helpful to group them to make it easier to compare similar types of photos. I would *not* put them as subcategories of "Buildings" etc. though; strictly a subcat of the camera category seems OK. Although, I guess the particular lens used may have more to do with such things than the camera itself... eh. If someone wants to create that type of category, it doesn't seem too harmful to me. The naming convention there is a bid odd though, and I could see a desire to use the camera thing as more of a tag, and hope for some better cross-category type of search, where you could see images in both the camera category and somewhere underneath "Buildings" or something like that. Not sure we have a search tool to do that job though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
If you structur it, you can directly mirror the whole category structure of category:Topics into Category:Taken with Canon EOS 350D, Foroa already adumbrated this argument. Also the argument of PereslavlFoto is wrong, Wikimedia Commons is not a shopping channel and the scope of this project is not to give people advices on what camera to buy. You can search by camera on other projects like flickr.... you can do exactly the same here also without this category split up: You can search for houses taken with that camera or you can use the incategory search or you can make category intersections. This categorization is a waste of time, its useless and its not inside our scope. Above at #Camera_categories we talked, if we should not get rid of all this categories, my argumentation here is a support for the basic camera category because without Category:Taken with Canon EOS 350D my suggestions will not work. But I again emphasize thew word search, you cant cover all possible searches or all needs with categories, simply use the search function. --Martin H. (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
You are right, we cannot mirror the whole cat tree into this camera category. That is why camera categories are more general.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I know better about my time and its waste. — And I agree with you, these camera categories can be removed at all, but ONLY IF we shall have a possibility to search for images with selected camera name.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I has "incategory" function in mw:Extension:InputBox and the template {{Search box}} using this extension? This will make many things easy. --Martin H. (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Or an option allowing to predefine some search terms. --Martin H. (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a similar question at Help desk#searchbox template - how to search in categories? some time ago. --  Docu  at 06:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

April 15

Any idea why the black box appears?--Sisyphos23 (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a programming error of some sort. You can ask for help at "Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop". — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Fixed (see file's history). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Saibo (Δ) 01:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Sisyphos23 (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

April 16

Copyright on a picture of a two-dimensional work which is PD

Hi. I was trying to enhance the quality of File:Princess of Mars.jpg, so I looked a bit online and found on Flickr this superb picture of that cover. Now, the Flickr's user did put a copyright on the page, but does this have any effect? I thought I remebered that a picture or a scan of a 2-dimensional work does not reach the originality treshhold that allows the creation of a new copyright. Commons:Licensing#Checklist is not very clear, as it refers to "Own scans of material where copyright has expired in both your jurisdiction and the United States" (and it is not my own scan). So am I right and may I use this picture from Flickr, or is there a problem? (Note: I asked the same question of the Village Pump i french). Asavaa (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A relevant page is Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. It's my opinion that the image from Flickr could be tagged with {{PD-scan}}. – Adrignola talk 13:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Exactly what I was looking for. From that page I also found Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag that may be even more relevant, as it seems they are photographs. I will use {{PD-Art}} I think. Thanks again. Asavaa (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A related question, should I just upload a new picture in File:Princess of Mars.jpg, or should I create a new file? I mean, this is not just a enhanced version of the file, it is a brand new image...but of exactly the same I am unsure. Asavaa (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

On the Flickr page, the cover art is credited to Frank E. Schoonover, who died in 1972. Isn't this drawing copyrighted? --Myrabella (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Only if the work wasn't published. The book was published in 1917, so it's in the public domain. See – Adrignola talk 14:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, sorry I did not clarify that immediately. Published in the US prior to 1923, hence the {{PD-US}} used on File:Princess of Mars.jpg. Asavaa (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
OK thanks. File description and categorization completed with mention of the illustrator, though. --Myrabella (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
In this case, due to the difference in contrast between the two, I could see the original being useful to some downstream users. I'd suggest uploading it as a new file. Powers (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
My first thought as well, so OK, and thanks. Asavaa (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to increase project interconnectivity

I've recently had a few issues crop up around the deletion of image on commons. I am not a regular here, and my contributions generally consist of uploading photos, and responding to discussions regarding those photos. The photos I upload are used exclusively (by me at least) on the English Wikipedia. When an image used in an article on that site is nominated for deletion, editors are completely unaware until a bot comes by and removes the image, should the discussion pan out that way. Since one of the major function of commons is supposed to be to work alongside the other wikimedia projects, I propose that we add a method of alerting users on projects where the photo is used that said photo is up for deletion. A bot which posts to the talk page of articles/entries/books/etc. which display the image would, in my mind, be the ideal solution. - Floydian (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

April 14


I have a scan of painting that is more than 70 years old, but the author died less than 70 years ago (1980). Can I use PD-Art, or some other template? --Janezdrilc (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely, but what is the nationality of the painter? A few countries have a shorter copyright term than 70 p.m.a. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Or if it was first published in the U.S., it could be PD for various reasons depending on the exact date of publication. –Tryphon 12:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a slovenian author. 70 year last the copyrights. --Janezdrilc (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so. Any idea if the painting was first published in the US, as Tryphon points out? — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Dating a postcard

I have scanned an interesting postcard (File:Monte Carlo haven.jpg), but as usual there is no date mentioned. The presence of big sailing yachts and no cars puts the picture probably around 1900. Has anyone more information on the boats? (probably of very rich people) Or a more precise date? Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not being very rich myself, or even merely rich, I can't give you much help, I regret to say. But looking at the style of the yachts and the absence of cars, I agree with you that "around 1900" would be as precise as (at this moment) possible. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
In any case before 1905 according to [3]. If you can get hold of the catalog mentioned there you might be able to put a more precise date on it. Alternatively, you could try to identify the large steam yacht in the center, then figure out who owned it, then figure out when that yacht was at Monte Carlo. (Is that an American flag at the stern?) BTW, it seems quite likely to me that one of the two Neurdein brothers was the photographer. If so, the postcard is even PD-old. Lupo 14:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Transfering files from English Wiki to Commons


I would like to ask if I could transfer this file from to Commons, published under {{self|cc-by-3.0}} license, to use it in other wikis. I know that Commons employs more restrictive policies on copyright issues than the English Wikipedia does; so how to know if I could or not? Thanks in advance, --MaxPower (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to tag that as a potentially unfree file - it's a cover or something, and no evidence user is creator. Heck, the user's name is that of the group's founder, who died in 1992. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
[Edit conflict.] This looks like a copyrighted magazine cover. The uploader Bobmizer claims to be the copyright holder, but I think we'll need him to send confirmation of this and of the licensing of the image under CC-BY-3.0 to OTRS. (I note that the uploader's username suggests that he is Bob Mizer, but clearly he cannot be the Bob Mizer as the latter died in 1992. This makes me suspicious as to whether the uploader had the right to license the image to Wikipedia.) — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, the picture is a small version of this box cover (not mag). Anyway, I'll try to send a message to AMG to check this. --MaxPower (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

April 18

1818 engraving which has a logo attached

I would like to use this image to illustrate the article St Mary's Church, Bathwick. The engraving was made in 1817 so I think it is safe to assume either {{PD-Art}} or {{PD-Old}} would apply, however the Bath in Time web site has added their logo (bottom right) to the image. Is it appropriate to crop the image to just show the church & remove the logo? If so what text should be included to explain that the image has been cropped to remove the logo?Rodw (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

  • rather than crop I'd suggest using a clone tool to remove the logo, when you upload on the upload form you place a link to the site as source giving as much detail as possible. Gnangarra 10:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) We usually remove such watermarks, it's not only appropriate but also recommended. So you can freely crop it, or just clone out the watermark if you want to keep the frame. If you need help with that, you can make a request at the Graphics Lab. Regards, -- Orionisttalk 10:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Tag images with visible watermarks with "{{watermark}}" which will request us to remove it eventually. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice - unfortunately I have no idea what a clone tool is. I'm not fussed about the frame I just want a picture of the church as this is the only image I can find of this building.Rodw (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
File:Bathwick Old Churchyard (1818).jpg: I managed to get this image from a scan of the book which the engraving first appeared in. I took it from the Internet Archive, so copyright is not an issue. I'll see if it's possible to get a higher resolution version. A clone tool is a tool available in some image editing programs (eg Photoshop, GIMP) which can be used to retouch images. The image I uploaded has 'University of California' punched into it, which should be cloned out (but I don't have time to do that now). NotFromUtrecht (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks & I see you've added it to the article as well which is great.Rodw (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem –- feel free to replace my work if you can find a better version. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

File name needs fixing

"Wakefield Tower Chapel - Tower of London.jpg" is wrongly labelled. It is the White Tower Chapel.

This error caused somebody to create a whole category called "Wakefield Tower Chapel, and stupidly place into it several other files which are clearly labelled "White Tower Chapel". In fact, all though its filename is wrong the description of this file is correct. That one error has somehow outweighed the combination of two correct file names plus three correct descriptions, all of which ought to have alerted the person who created the category and moved stuff into it that something was wrong!

Would someone please tell me how an old experienced Wikipedia editor of architecture articles gets to be a person who can create appropriate categories, move files and rename erroneous file names? I get terribly frustrated when architectural categories are created that use wrong ternimology, which makes thing harder to find rather than easier. Amandajm (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You can propose a move of a category with Template:Move and after two weeks with no objections, an administrator will have a bot change the categories on all the contained images at once. You might have to pester an admin at that point, as there's a significant backlog for processing those requests because they are sometimes controversial and require additional analysis before final approval, regardless of whether there are no objections. You can start creating categories yourself and change the categories on images to file them correctly, right away, though, without waiting. Then you'd either use Template:Bad name for a category name that is unlikely to be used or Template:Category redirect for one that people might accidentally use. – Adrignola talk 12:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
You can tag a file for renaming with {{Rename}}. For information on how to request for filemover privileges so you can carry out the renaming yourself, see "Commons:Requests for rights#Filemover (add request)". As regards renaming of categories, this can only be done by administrators. To add to what Adrignola has mentioned, uncontroversial requests (i.e., clear errors – provide evidence such as a link to a website) can be listed at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands". — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Why does Wikimedia Commons require completely free licences?

Wikimedia Commons is intended as a media repository of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is non-commercial. So why isn't the NC Creative Commons license allowed? Surely Wikimedia Commons isn't aiming to be the free alternative of Getty Images. SpeakFree (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License – Adrignola talk 19:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok it's just frustrating that you can get ppl to agree to a CC-NC licence but they balk at releasing their work under CC-BY-SA because they have the idea that big companies can then rip off their work for nothing. SpeakFree (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Licensing/Justifications. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
To play devil's advocate for the moment: the claim on that page that large, established companies will still find it easier just to take their own pictures doesn't hold much water. I've had everyone from Ha'aretz to National Geographic use pictures I free-licensed on Commons. (To their credit, National Geographic gave me a nominal payment.) Also, Commons' failure to provide much clarity as to how to reuse images legally means that most reusers don't even abide by the license terms we offer. They just hear "Commons is free" and feel justified in re-using photos without clear statement of license and attribution, often with no attribution at all. And I'm not just talking "some guy with a blog", I'm talking newspapers, magazines, etc. I choose to put my images out there anyway, but I have no trouble seeing why someone would refuse to, under the circumstances. - Jmabel ! talk 00:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't write the comic and don't consider it very persuasive. The page content was what I intended. I personally think Commons is unusually precise and clear regarding terms of reuse for images compared to all other websites, and that it is the reusers who are almost entirely at fault for failing to adhere to those terms. This is primarily because people focused on their primary task have little interest in matters of license compliance. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Allowing non-commercial licenses wouldn't solve the problem of re-users not following the license terms. Powers (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Linked essays don't answer the question. They're mostly "see how it's nice" but being nice is not a compelling reason. NVO (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I personally find the reasons explained there highly compelling. I'm here to help people. One way to help people is by enabling commercial interest to provide services to people that otherwise may be unavailable. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A "completely free" license would be a CC0 or public domain license and these licenses are not, in fact, required. Indeed, commercial reusers have paid persons who uploaded under a CC-BY-SA, which is not just allowed on the Commons but is the default license, to provide them with a version that is less restricted.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is completely OK. The point is that you must be able to use the images commercially, not that you should be able to do so in any way you'd like. --LPfi (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Search not updating

It seems that data for Special:Search isn't updated daily anymore. Do we need to file a bug ? --  Docu  at 06:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

See Bugzilla:28605 --  Docu  at 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

interwikis automatically created by a template

I personally don't like it if interwiki are created automatically by a template using parameters. My bot can handle interwikis included from a subpage but automatically created interwiki cannot be corrected even manually. I read some documentation but i haven't found any rules about this. So are these templates wanted here? Here is an except of my bot log:

Interwiki are creating using Template:BooksYear in this case. Is it ok, if i remove the interwiki code from this and maybe other templates? Merlissimo (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

We often have similar problems with auto-categorizing templates, and the solution is to first replace the auto-categories with manually added categories and than replace the auto-categorization. Same approach should be used to replace template added interwiki links with manual interwikis and than change the template. Hopefully some of those steps can be done by bots. --Jarekt (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

April 19


The file on is a useful video of narrow gauge railway. How can this be added to Commons?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean to upload video or screenshot? anyway, first thing you need is permission to use it, then perhaps you can download the video and convert it to use in Commons.   ■ MMXX  talk  15:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
So there must be a conversion. OK, let's imagine the author has his AVi file, what to do then?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you have permission by the copyright holder? You will need to download the file (there is a number of free YouTube video download software online) in a format other the .flv (flash video) and use Miro Video Converter (free) to convert it into a .ogv file. I've used Miro (Commons/Wikimedia did plug it last year) with a few videos such as this one. Bidgee (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I just created this cat, but later realised that "mount vert" is the heraldically correct term. In line with common practice here on commons, the mentioned move should be done. Is it possible to do this in an automatic and simple way? Thanks in advance. -Ssolbergj (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

List it for renaming at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands". — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Get rid of OTRS

In my eyes, a small minority of people control the overly bureaucratic process of commons and the whole copyright fondangle. I want to see what the general opinion is amongst all users, and not this minority of clerks/administrators. This is a proposal to strip the OTRS off of commons, and replace it with a good faith system that doesn't pester photographers kind enough to donate their collections. Good faith is the foundation of wikimedia, and this system is inherently "guilty until proven innocent". OTRS is a burden on photographers and uploaders alike, it does nothing except appease freakazoids worried that we're going to be sued (a request to take down the photo would precede any sort of litigation). Vandals can upload blantant infringements and name themselves as the authors: System defeated. (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

  •  Support as frustrated proposer. - Floydian (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose: for every copyright holder who feels annoyed by an OTRS request, there is just as likely another copyright holder who would be annoyed that his or her permission was not sought. The system may not be perfect but it goes some way towards ensuring that content here is properly licensed. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like even a piece of anecdotal evidence on that. I've pestered about half a dozen photographers to jump through hoops of fire (often to be told that "YOU CAN USE MY PHOTOS FOR WHATEVER BLOODY REASON YOU WANT!!!" is not valid and the photo will still be deleted). Total red-tape (and just an excuse for me to immediately reupload to enwiki where it won't be shat on). - Floydian (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, for one, our cordial relationship with Erling Mandelmann (OTRS ticket no. 2010090210007829). — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose a vote to revoluionize a institution of Commons without any preceding discussion. Let's shoot now, think about it maybe later, hm? And: I am not at all convinced by your arguments. AGF is also needed with OTRS - but I really think it helps since it is another step to take fro copyvioers. Maybe such a person will even need to fake her e-mail address. --Saibo (Δ) 18:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can understand frustrations at too much process, but I hope you're not really serious about this. Copyright is a complicated subject, and when dealing with other people's works, there needs to be a *very* clear understanding about what exactly is being licensed and to what extent. Informality tends to lead toward misinterpreted permissions etc. which often then directly leads to copyright infringement, and possibly lawsuits, all of which are far, far worse than this process. The process can probably be improved, but it serves a critical purpose. The most annoying tends to be repeated communications with authors asking for more and more detail, so understanding how to ask for correct permission in the first place is important. COM:OTRS has some examples -- the author needs to specify the *scope* (an image or list of images) and a *license*. It does get more complicated for more open-ended permissions like the one you are dealing with, and we should probably have more examples to deal with a contributor here acting as the person who does the work for another author who is OK with uploading them but doesn't want to do the actual uploading work. They are not easy situations though, as the author *must* license the work or else they are either copyright violations, not licensed freely enough for Commons policy, or both. If an author wants to give blanket OK to anything of theirs uploaded by a specific Commons user, under whatever license is used for the upload, that may be OK. But every single work must have a free license, with some way to link the permission back to the author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
At the very least some discussion should go into brainstorming ways of improving the system. - Floydian (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Let's stop this nonsense now. This is a clear case of en:WP:POINT. Floydian, take a deep breath and read Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle again. Multichill (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The point is that this system is archaic and burdened towards the generous. As is, OTRS needs to be made more clear so that it only takes one email to get the point across clearly and kindly so that we as uploaders don't have to pester the authors/photographers we've requested to be so kind as to release their photos under creative commons with email after email to clarify whatever it is that the copyright validators want to see. - Floydian (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
"Commons:Email templates" provides some sample e-mails that will suffice for OTRS purposes. A sample template that I sometimes use is appended below. The crux is to ensure that the copyright holder is fully aware that an image is to be licensed under a free licence, which means that it may be modified or used for commercial purposes. What we want to avoid is unclear statements such as "I consent" or "Yes, you can use the image on Wikipedia". — Cheers, JackLee talk 20:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Sample e-mail template
Dear Sirs/Mesdames,

I am one of the many volunteer editors of Wikipedia, and understand that you represent [Name]. I would very much like to use a photograph of him in the Wikipedia article "[Name of article]", which I have been updating recently. In order to do so legally, I need to obtain a photograph that has been licensed by its copyright owner for use on Wikipedia and its sister projects under a free licence such as the GNU Free Documentation License. Other acceptable free licences are the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) and Attribution-Sharealike (CC-BY-SA) licences. (Click on the links for more information about those licences.) Do note that by agreeing to license the image, the copyright owner is agreeing to the conditions set out at the end of this e-mail.

I would therefore be grateful if you are able to provide me with a suitable photograph, and if you can confirm that you (as the copyright owner yourself or on behalf of the copyright owner) are agreeable to licensing the image to Wikipedia on the terms stated in this e-mail. While high-quality images are of course preferred, a smaller low-resolution image is also welcome.

If you are unable to provide a photograph, I would also be grateful if you could refer me to some person or organization that might be able to.

I look forward to hearing from you.


* * *

  • I hereby assert on behalf of [name of copyright owner], which I am authorized by [name of copyright owner] to do, that [name of copyright owner] is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work.
  • The copyright owner agrees to publish that work under the GNU Free Documentation Licence and the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC-BY-3.0) licence [please amend if necessary, otherwise both licences will apply].
  • The copyright owner acknowledges that it grants anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs.
  • The copyright owner is aware that it always retains copyright of its work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to the copyright owner.
  • The copyright owner is aware that the free licence only concerns copyright, and reserves the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
  • The copyright owner acknowledges that it cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the image may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
This comes off very cold and lawyer like, not very personable. The big long disclaimer at the end is sure to drive people away. I prefer simply "Would you be willing to relicence your photo under Creative Commons, share-alike/attribution. This means that your photo can be used and manipulated in any way, provided you are credited as the original author, and provided they share the result under the same free licence." - Floydian (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I would say that's generally fine, though I would make it clearer that the photograph can be used for commercial purposes as well. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose and  Support - Floydian is misapplying the good faith principle, and is ignoring the need for verifiability (another key Wikimedia principle). As an active and respected editor at Wikipedia, Floydian knows that en:WP:AGF does not trump en:WP:V; one cannot justify content in an article on the basis that someone told the contributor it was true. One needs to provide a reliable source. Similarly, on the Commons the public domain/free license status of an image needs to be verifiable. OTRS is one tool to achieve that end. Dumping OTRS and adopting a "good faith" policy undermines the main objective of the project, which is to be a repository of free media (not media which users use at their own risk). However, I agree with Floydian that the OTRS instructions are user-unfriendly. A few times I have had to "guide" new users through the process, and it can be overwhelming to someone who has not given a lot of thought to the copyright status of media. Users want to contribute media to the project, and surely there is a way to simplify these instructions (or even have a separate interface to which creators can be directed). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I appreciate being able to officially document the release of rights in an image. Otherwise, there's a good chance that 20 years from now, someone will accuse the images of being copyright violations and no one will be able to present evidence to the contrary. I'm not aware of OTRS being required in any circumstances (as is implied by the proposal). It's just a nice option to use if you want to. If you don't like it, don't use it. Kaldari (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Floydian's concern is with uploaders using OTRS to document the status of their own images, but rather with the need for evidence, other than the word of the uploader, that a third party has consented to the use of their image(s) under a specific license. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I would disagree slightly with Kaldari. We do sometimes insist on OTRS verification on pain of the file being deleted. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
We insist when there is reasonable doubt that the user created it themselves - for instance, a leaflet or something with a watermark. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
What about when the uploader admits on thh image description that it is somebody else and that they have given consent to its release? - Floydian (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
As I explained above, it's not verifiable. It's also prone to abuse. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

April 17

Requesting undeletion

Hey, I`m not very familiar to process on commons. Is there any posibility to formaly request undeletion? I`m asking because firstly some my pictures got deleted because of freedom of panorama, but the copyright term of the monument in question will soon be over. Secondly I believe that this deletion was wrong - not only the copyright law dosen`t concern rubles, but the law has been applied retroactively (the article in question is result of amendment made in 2004), even thought this is not into accordance with legal principle established by article 3 of Latvian civil law [4] ~~Xil (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You want COM:UDEL. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks ~~Xil (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

April 20

Classifying fun

I try to use the correct categories for this File:Tienen suikermuseum collectie treinmotieven.jpg. It is an unusual combination of subjects. Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What you've done looks fine to me, though I would suggest "Category:Locomotives in art" since these are illustrations of trains, not real trains. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Another one: File:Woolwich take away.jpg. I dont see any "take away" shops category. I am thinking about Caribbean culture, but maybe this is to far fetched. Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Category:Take-out restaurants" is definitely right. — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

File move policy RFC: metro system images

I'm a member of Wikiproject Trains on the English Wikipedia, and I'm beginning to upload my images of the MBTA (Boston) subway and commuter rail systems, so I've started cleaning up the MBTA images on Commons. I'm mostly adding information and putting them into categories, but I've requested a few renames for misspellings and such.

Currently, my biggest problem is images like File:Boston - metro 01.JPG - images labeled with the system name and a generic number. They're not eligible for rename under the rename guidelines, but they're very annoying. The majority of station images are named by station, rather than by network, and this is a huge help especially on networks like the MBTA where there are thirty-odd surface tram stops, all almost identical and difficult to identify without a helpful file name.

What I'm proposing, then, (and I hope this is the right place) is for a guideline in analogy with #2 (meaningless names to meaningful names) and #4 (unidentified bio-names to scientific names): that unidentified station images be renamed to include the station name.

It would not be a huge burden on file movers - there are more images of the MBTA than all but a few other transit systems, and I estimate no more than a dozen more MBTA images that would be eligible for rename.

Thoughts? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal sounds fine to me. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I love these foreign tourists who upload lovely pictures of a strange city without having any idea what they photographed. My own favorites are the ones whose names start with "Manhattan NYC 2009 PD". An improved policy is a good thing, but we fussbudgets can do it quicker if we bypass the middlemen and apply to be a filemover ourselves. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I know precisely what you mean... but after re-categorizing a thousand or two of such pics I just don't care. Usually, these cases fit into two buckets: a) Category:Eiffel Tower. Very well. Once it's there, who really cares? There are 307 pics in root category already. Renaming will just move it up or down. b) Something obscure that only well-informed locals will recognize, and that has no definite, concise name (other than a street address or grid code - which says absolutely nothing to 99.99% of users). So why should I consider renaming, at all (other than a quest for perfection)? NVO (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you did the correct thing: write a sensible description and improve categorization when needed. This is largely sufficient to identify the image correctly.
There isn't really any added value to remove the name of the city from the file name and naming it "File:Symphony station entrance.JPG".
Otherwise we will just have another user that thinks it should include the name of the city, photographer and date. All these can easily be found in the file description. --  Docu  at 11:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to answer your objections. My main purpose here is to make it easier to use files on other Wikimedia projects, mainly the English Wikipedia since that's the only one (I think) with articles on every MBTA station. Most stations only have a handful of images - there's only about 12 with enough images for a separate category. (NVO, this falls firmly into your case a argument). So if I'm on Commons looking for a picture of Symphony Station, then "Boston - Metro 01" gets buried in 37 other images in the Green Line category (and is hard to find in a search) while "Symphony station entrance" is right there. It's not quite like the Eiffel Tower, where every image is of the same subject.

As for trying to include too much information in the filename: MBTA images are categorized by line, and other systems have either a system category or line categories and station categories, or some combination thereof. So the only pertinent information here is the station name, plus the normal differentiators (whether it's the platform/tunnel/sign/etc). I don't think there'd be a problem with the name of city (already done with categories for most images and station categories) or photographer/date (not a problem elsewhere, though date is obviously okay for old photographs). Only the information needed to find the image - the station name - will need to be in the title. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Search works with file descriptions too. --  Docu  at 05:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright issue after file move EN-WP -> Commons


I got two messages on my talk page some days ago about two photographs that I moved from EN to Commons and were seen as lacking a source. As far as I remember, File:Steamship Morro Castle on fire.jpg and File:Steamship Morro Castle Burned out hulk.jpg were freely licensed, otherwise I wouldn't have made this move, of course. It would be nice if an EN-admin could check this "at home" as I do not have any additional information about these files. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As User:Nyttend mentioned in an edit summary on both images, these images are essentially grandfathered in due to their age. If the issue of copyright is pressed, they can be transferred back to without any difficulty. All essential information was transferred here with the images, though the primary issue was that the original uploader did not provide a license when he uploaded the images, and an admin (User:JesseW) added the GFDL license later. I tried to clarify things on both image descriptions, and I don't really see an issue (I believe that the uploader is the copyright holder), but I'll transfer back if desired. Huntster (t @ c) 06:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

April 21