Commons talk:Essential information

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

Top[edit]

First of all, many thanks to Eloquence for putting up this page. I think it's pretty good already, however, I have a few more questions. So, here goes:

  1. We should state more clearly that some licenses explicitely require some information; specifically, the GFDL requires the author to be named. Copying an image from a 'pedia and tagging it as GFDL is a copyright violation if the author is not named.
  2. I'm not sure that we need to go through a deletion request after waiting a month for no info. I belive a speedy deletion would be OK in most such cases.
  3. it may be good to put up a checlist somewhere that contains all the info that should go on a image description page. I started something like this a while back: User:Duesentrieb/Upload_howto - but that page is just a rough sketch yet.
  4. People (esp. admins) should be told about this policy page. Where to link it?

So, what do you think? -- Duesentrieb 22:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. With regard to 1), I agree, and have edited the page a bit to reflect your point. On 2), I disagree - community review is usually a good idea when there is a potentially significant margin of error. A formal Deletion Request discourages "lazy deletes", and may encourage a larger group to research the file's possible provenance. Not all admins are likely to act in a responsible fashion, and especially in cases where there is no response from the uploader, a speedy delete is likely to go unnoticed.
On 3), I think this information should go directly into MediaWiki:Uploadtext and its translations. I would aim for a more concise version than the sketch you linked to -- perhaps even with a copy & paste template. Regarding 4), the correct place would be Commons:Licensing which, unfortunately, is currently a big threadmode mess -- are you up for some refactoring?--Eloquence 00:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Translation(s)[edit]

Is it planned to translate this page to other languages? If yes, I'll try to do so for French. :)
Best regards,
-- AlNo (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to translate. Siebrand 15:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming[edit]

If attribution is required, is it really necessary for my full name to be published? -Mardus 00:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not required. A user name *is* required in that case. Siebrand 15:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Source[edit]

And what if the file is not completely created by myself, not moved from another Wikimedia project, not in the public domain and not from a website? What if it's a derivative work based upon an already existing file on commons? What should I do in this case? It's not easy to enter commons, really. --Mortalmoth (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's another: what if it's a file you got directly from the author? I got this photo, for example, off my friend's SD card, and then got email permission from him and went through the OTRS process. But what to put for "source"? I have another large batch of high quality photos directly from a friend who wishes to donate his work to the public domain anonymously (revealing his identity only to the OTRS team). So source=blank and author=anonymous + Public Domain... Hopefully the OTRS-pending/ticket template will keep admins from deleting them? --Peter Talk 04:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer both questions:

  1. "And what if the file is not completely created by myself, not moved from another Wikimedia project, not in the public domain and not from a website? What if it's a derivative work based upon an already existing file on commons? What should I do in this case?"
    • use the source which is mentioned of that particular file and add a link to the file (or the file itself by using <gallery> and </gallery>) behind "other_versions".
  2. "what if it's a file you got directly from the author?"
    • use {{own}} if the photo is created by the person who you didn't name onwiki, but did mention in the ticket.

With regards, Trijnsteltalk 15:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Selfcontradictory[edit]

Part of this text is reasonable, when it says that source is not essential for "art which is many centuries old". But then the next section says that "pages [not having complete information] should be marked as not having a license or source". This is taken by some taggers as justification to tag obviously free files that do not have a direct source url. Rewrite the instruction, please. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I should think that in such a case a description of why it is known to be old enough to be out of copyright would suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 04:22, January 30, 2013‎ (UTC)