Difference between revisions of "Commons:Village pump"

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Friend's Image Issue)
Line 1,631: Line 1,631:
:::...'''if''' that local wikipedia allows fair use. -- [[User:Duesentrieb|Duesentrieb]]<sup>[[User talk:Duesentrieb|(?!)]]</sup> 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:::...'''if''' that local wikipedia allows fair use. -- [[User:Duesentrieb|Duesentrieb]]<sup>[[User talk:Duesentrieb|(?!)]]</sup> 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:: The simplest and best thing to do in such cases is: just ask them. Use [[Commons:Email templates]]. -- [[User:Duesentrieb|Duesentrieb]]<sup>[[User talk:Duesentrieb|(?!)]]</sup> 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:: The simplest and best thing to do in such cases is: just ask them. Use [[Commons:Email templates]]. -- [[User:Duesentrieb|Duesentrieb]]<sup>[[User talk:Duesentrieb|(?!)]]</sup> 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
= 19 July =
== A photo shot by my friend ==
Dear colleagues,
I would like to ask you whether or not it is proper to upload image with the following copyright status:
During a touristic trip, my friend made a photo (on my camera) that seems to be quite good for Wikipedia. To have an opportunity to upload the image later in Wikipedia, I have immediately recorded a video, in which he expresses his agreement me to publish or otherwise use this photo without any limitations, including publishing it under GFDL and Creative Commons. I have no quick contact with the friend, but I can easily contact him in emergency (for example, in case of any official requests).
An important note: both my friend and me are Russians, photo shot in Russia, and I'm going to upload the image via computer resided in Russia. According to the Russian copyright laws, it is technically impossible to transfer any physical person's copyrights in a work by a gratuitous agreement (any physical person licensing agreement (russ: “авторский договор”, “avtorskij dogovor”) is required to contain royalties clause).
May I upload such an image with link to the video?
If no, does it mean that no Russian third person's works are allowed to upload in Commons Wiki, no matter that the explicit consent from the person is granted?
Thank you!
[[User:Drbug|Drbug]] 09:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:14, 19 July 2006

Wikimedia Commons Village pump in other languages: Template:Lang-VP-l10n
The interlanguage links in the left margin of this page link to discussion pages about other-language Wikipedias themselves.
Village Pump
Shortcut: [[:COM:VP]]


This is the Wikimedia Commons Village Pump, which is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of the Wikimedia Commons. Other discussions are welcome here until pages are created to hold them. This page is intended to serve the same purpose for Commons as Wikipedia:Village pump.
Frequently asked questions (FAQ):

  1. Vandalism/Image protection - If you want to protect an image out of the Wikimedia Commons that gets vandalized please join the IRC-channel #wikimedia-commons at freenode.net and drop a note there.
  2. Copyright violations - If you think a certain media file is a copyright violation please do not list it here but instead at Commons:Deletion requests. If you are unsure about the legal status of a media file ask at Commons talk:Licensing for clarification.
  3. Copyright policy - If you want to ask here why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons and if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please simply accept this self imposed restriction like NPOV in Wikipedia.
  4. What are the Commons - If you have a question about the Commons and how it works, you can ask it at Commons:Help desk.
  5. Further frequently asked questions...

NOTE - Discussions are archived in Commons:Village pump archive. Archivings are performed regularly, but there are archiving instructions available.


26 May, 2006

Voyeur photos + censorship?

There are a number of photos (for example in Category:Bikini) that seem to be taken on a beach, probably without the subjects permission (when the subject is not making eye contact with the camera). As Jimbo Wales has stated we should be careful not to offend living persons, should we perhaps delete these photos where it is seems as if permission is not given? Maybe we should even go as far as to insist on some proof that the subject gives permission as there may be an example when the subject is an ex partner and the user uploads the image for malicious reasons (which would not apply just to voyeur photos but any kind of intimate picture). Arniep 00:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right, but how to ensure that the depicted person gave permission? This seems nearly impossible to me. --::Slomox:: >< 14:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Well if their face is shown they could hold up a little piece of paper saying "yes you can use my photo on Wikipedia" or whatever. If their face is not shown, maybe unless they write a message on their body or something we shouldn't use it!? But seriously I can imagine people being quite upset or angry to discover that an image of them in an intimate pose (or someone close to them) is being used on a globally known website without their permission so I think they may be placing Wikimedia at legal risk. Arniep 01:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds a bit funny, but basically this is a good idea. Not that it is a very practical solution, but as long there is no better way, making a second photo of that person holding up such a piece of paper is the best way to proof permission. --::Slomox:: >< 13:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
No, this is a bad idea. From a legal point of view, all pictures taken in the public areas, beaches being one of them, should not be censored. That is the reason why most of the photos made by paparazi cannot be prohibited. If you walk down the street, you risk yourself being photographed and the picture being published, live with it. If you don´t want that someone takes a picture of you in Bikini or even topless, well then don´t do it in a public area. Your reasons might be good, but the risk it getting out of control are way too great. Who will decide if it is a "acceptable" picture or not? If we begin to censor pictures because of dubious reasons, soon enough it will get out of control. If your ideas are implemented noone can give a picture to Wikicommons whithout giving another picture in which the subject show a paper saying: "I am okay with my picture in Wikicommons" ? Are you going to pay for the second photo? Flamarande 09:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
IANAL, and this sort of thing will be different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction anyway, but as I understand it, the general rule is that a picture of a person can't be published without their consent unless (1) It's in a public place and they're just "part of the crowd" (i.e. if it's a public place but clearly a picture of someone, you still have to have their permission), (2) The person cannot be identified from the picture (most people can't be identified from just the back of their head), (3) the person is in the "public eye" (i.e. a paparazzo can publish a picture of a celebrity without permission but not one of an ordinary non-celebrity person). Under exception (2), I think, the picture can be shown so long as the face isn't shown and the person couldn't be recognized. Angr 10:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well even though some people's faces aren't shown in some of these photos I am sure people who know them may recognise them (including the person themselves). Arniep 17:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

From a legal point of view, all pictures taken in the public areas, beaches being one of them, should not be censored. In France and other jurisdictions, publishing photos of people found in public places may constitute an offense against their private life with respect to the law. David.Monniaux 22:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I just want to be clear that I was not proposing censorship, I was just concerned on a human and legal level about allowing intimate photos of people to be published on such a high profile website without their permission. David, you say in France publishing these photos may constitute an offense- do you have further details on this i.e. specific cases and statutes? Do you know what other countries a similar law may be in existence? I think this is a very significant matter as the Wikimedia foundation could be sued if we are violating laws. Arniep 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
David, can you clarify your statement? I'm confused. If it may constitute an offense, shouldn't we censor them to avoid legal action? pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The Civil code, article 9, states that individuals have a right to have their private life respected. From the "right to private life", courts have worked out what the respect of private life means in practice — including the so-called "right to one's own image". What is permissible or not is decided on a case-by-case basis (though some things are clearly permitted and some others are clearly objectionable).
For instance: a photograph of a politician in his or her public function (such as when giving a speech) does not in itself infringe on his or her private life; however, using that photograph inside an advertisement may infringe on his or her right to his or her own image. However, a photograph of the same politician in his or her garden, or even buying stuff in a supermarket, probably infringes on his or her private life.
In practice, when professional photographers take pictures of recognizable individuals, they often ask them to sign an authorization.
Some groups (photographers, publishers) argue that the "right to image" creates unneeded legal complications and want the law to give more precise guidelines, with more leeways for photographers.
I may also add that French magazines publishing "paparazzi photos" tend to be continuously sued. This is a topic of joke because of the "judicial publications" that result — the magazine being forced to print the ruling in a prominent place.
I will probably research the matter further and keep you posted. Wikimédia France and myself are working on those legal issues, but it takes time.
So far, I don't recommend censorship. I recommend that we keep things reasonable. One important criterion, for instance, is whether people are recognizable.
Just thing about it this way: a person going to a nudie beach, protest, or other event, may accept the small risk of running into somebody he or she knows (especially since meeting that person at that place suggests that this other person considers such activity legitimate). That person might not, though, wish that just about everyone he or she knows, including his or her employer, should be able to find "incriminating" photographs on the Internet.
I have a practical example in mind. There was lately a cosplay convention in Paris. People who go there are all cosplay fans and think that activity normal. Now, I know some schoolteachers who attended the event. I don't think they would appreciate their students or their students' parents seeing the photos — since many people would consider cosplay immature, weird, stupid or abnormal.
Using common sense in good faith goes a loooong way, especially when law is applied on a case-by-case basis. David.Monniaux 08:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The laws in France don't matter unless the photo is uploaded from France. Only US law matters, and the law of the country from which a photo is uploaded. (And I'd imagine those who want to upload from France could find some kind of US intermediary to use, thus circumventing French law.) Seahen 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In Wikimedia Commons we have up to now the general rule that photos of non-famous persons are only allowed if they gave their consent (uploader needs to be credible it is suprisingly easy detecting liars) or if the photo was taken during an event that made the person famous or if the person displayed is part of a crowd and/or not clearly visible. Arnomane 10:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean consent for the photo to be taken or consent for a photo of them to be used on Wikimedia projects? If it is the latter then surely most of these beach photos should be deleted? Arniep 13:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
If the person displayed is not subject to one of the following points and there's no permission of the person displayed we need to delete the concerning image:
  • part of a crowd
  • displayed at a public event as an integral part of it
  • famous (note: there's also something like 5 minutes fame, if you for example saved someones life people are allowed to release images of you from the event without your permission)
  • a minor part of the image
So feel free to list such images that do not fall into one of these groups at Commons:Deletion requests and we would be happy of your cleanup work (do not list them as speedydelete as in these cases some individual comments are better at first). Arnomane 00:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

20 June

Image:IJssellinie encased tank.jpg

Could anyone suggest a category for this picture? It's a reconstruction of a bunker that is part of an inundation system in the east of the Netherlands (near Olst, between Zwolle and Deventer). I've provisionally put it under Fortress in the Netherlands, but that seems to miss the point. Best regards, MartinD 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Fortress in the Netherlands fits well enough; you can also add Category:Bunkers and Category:Overijssel. Eugene van der Pijll 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Have done so, thanks for your help, apologies for the delay! MartinD 14:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

22 June

Google is beginning to work on image pages.

For example, you can now do the following search:

戦艦 image 真珠湾 site:commons.wikimedia.org [1]

This returns a hit on an image page with these terms that have been transcluded via an Info page.

This does, by the way vindicate my position regarding Info Pages. As I stated last month,

"Note also that using this scheme, we can also search on pearl harbor 真珠湾 and bomber 爆撃機 and get a hit on this image...."

For more fun try:

Хрущёв На́сер image site:commons.wikimedia.org [2] {Nasser and Kruschev in russian)
وُلد عبدالناصر نيكيتا سيرغيفيش image site:commons.wikimedia.org [3] (search for "mussolini and hitler" in arabic)
...and so on and so forth.

The situation is no longer theoretical, and those who did not understand the implications perhaps will re-read what I had to say, and realize that Commons is a lot better with Transcluded Info pages.

Not only are our images searchable via full text search from multiple languages, but you can search on images with more than one feature. Article and category groupings is not conducive for that.

Embrace the reality: The armed camps arguing about categories versus articles are both wrong. The fundamental retrieval unit of Commons is an Image page- and these pages need information on them that corresponds to the demands of that reality. -Mak 08:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

See duesentriebs comment above. Apart that the best index can be genrated from good image descriptions conatining more than links. Arnomane 22:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Arnomane, do you remain opposed to Info pages? -Mak 23:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

27 june

Speedy deletion by date

Hello guys. Since I've been away, I scanned through the current Pump and didn't find a similar topic, but forgive me if another one exists at some obscure talk page somewhere.

Given that speedy deletions are often not so... well, speedy (i.e. uploader notification [recent developement], check usage, unlinking, dispute resolution, rants on talk pages, etc.), could we not consider changing things around a bit? Namely, it would be great if Speedies worked the same way as Category:Unknown does: sorting by date of template application.

Such scheme would prioritize deletions by date, which in itself would be much more navigable than the current category dump method. Admins would know right away which files to focus on deleting, and the choice would be much more logical than, say, deleting them by alphabetical order, as many have done previously. In addition, the official seven days' delay would give ample time for projects to unlink the offending images — escpecially now that the use CommonsTicker is spreading rapidly, I still steadfastly hold that it is not Commons Admins' responsibility to plow through all other projects to remove blantant copyvios. The seven days would also allow for some dialogue should disputes arise.

I recommend implementing this new scheme for (or rather, instead of) C:SD-AP (copyvios) only. C:SD-D (duplicates) are not that crucial and often problematic, while there are simply not enough C:SD-IN (incorrectly named) to warrant structure. The copyvio bunch, however, could use an overhaul, and the scheme of Category:Unknown has worked quite well.

I promise, I'm not obsessed with altering every single thing about speedies... I just want to make Commons a better place, even if I seem a bit overorganizational sometimes =) —UED77 04:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Angela suggested something to me yesterday so simple and yet so clever that I was completely wowed. I mentioned how people get pissed if we don't remove images from use, because it makes articles ugly, and she said why not just change the way deleted images are displayed? Instead of having a big ugly red link, make it something discreet (or maybe even nothing at all - invisible). Then we can delete without removing and the projects won't have so much to complain about. What do you think? I made it bugzilla:6469. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I somehow assumed that was technically infeasible >.>;; If that is indeed possible, changing the display from a red link to a small red "X" would be nice. I initially wondered about making them entirely invisible, but that could possibly make the pages a lot harder to maintain, having elements in the source that just take up space and not show up. —UED77 07:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I don't know if it's feasible. I guess we will find out soon on the bug request. Having them invisible is probably too counter-intuitive (if you made a spelling mistake you wouldn't know what had happened). pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
WONTFIX. :/ So forget that. pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
*Sigh* Okay... So what about trying out this new scheme instead to help both the admins and decrease the frequency of said rants? :) —UED77 19:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Against policy only has about 300 items now, which is fantastic and amazing. It should only take a little work to get it under 200 and then we really have to concentrate on keeping it under that (and ideally as near to 0 as possible of course). I think a date scheme will be too much extra work - changing all the templates, re-educating people AGAIN - for not enough gain. If the problem is images that have been tagged for ages, well, Bad Old Ones can help us there. (You can append an instruction to only show images that haven't been edited for X days.) So, that's my opinion. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have streamlined the current deletion categories a bit but tried to avoid any disruptive change. See [4] for details. Arnomane 09:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

29 June

OpenDocument Format

Hi! It has been asked multiple times at Commons talk:File types to enable OpenOffice.org 2.0 formats (=OASIS OpenDocument Format) for file upload. Any objections? Can you please enable it? Filename extensions are .odt (text), .ods (spreadsheet), .odp (presentation), and .odg (graphics), then there is .odc (chart), .odf (formula), .odb (database), .odi (image), and the according templates .ott, .ots, .otp, .otg, .otc, otf, .oti and finally .odm (text-master) (see http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.0/OpenDocument-v1.0-os.pdf appendix C, page 697f.) -- Nichtich 20:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I support OpenDocument greatly — just not on Commons. Briefly stated, OpenDocument files are merely zip/JAR files that can hold practically any type of content, which can potentially make them unsafe. Please see others' and my previous explanations in VP archive 25 and VP archive 27 (links go to relevant posts). —UED77 03:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess it is pretty easy to check the incoming file on it's compliance to OASIS-format given the OASIS XML Catalog Committee Specification. --Chrislb 12:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Arabic MediaWiki B

More MediaWiki. This time the B-words. This is not fair; I am losing page counts. I guess this is a bit wiki ;-)

Again as before, copy the text as it is (text is nowiked), and paste it into the links. Each link has its text underneath. --Tarawneh 02:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

(commented out to save space)

All done. --Raymond Disc. 06:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I wonder why you didn't update MessagesAr.php. Most of translations are seems not unique for Commons. Updating MessagesAr.php is better way to do such things. At least changes will propagate on all projects automatically. --EugeneZelenko 14:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Arabic again

I have just noticed this: When I switched to Arabic language in the Preferences link, I wasn't able to find the Arabic letters in the pop-up menu under the edit box. Well I couldn't find the pop-up menu it self. Can this be fixed?

And if so, then maybe a new language option can be added, actually it is kind of a template option. I can never memorize all the templates you have here; the delete templates, the copyright templates the policies templates , blah blah blah.... why not have them in the pop-up menu. This might make things easier, at least for me. The menu already includes [[Category:]] · [[:Image:]] · [[Media:]] · <gallery></gallery> · #REDIRECT[[]] --Tarawneh 02:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note on templates - you're more than welcome to make RDR templates with names in Arabic, like badname, duplicate, speedy, superseded, deletionrequest, etc. Template RDRs work without a problem. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It is a good idea, but the the problem stands, I will not be able to remember any of the templates ( well not any, most of ). Arabic or English, that is not my main concern --Tarawneh 04:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course, you'd have more access if you were a sysop, Taranwneh :) Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 14:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearer vote icons

In {{Vd}}, Symbol delete vote.svg is unclear. It might mean, "No, no more of this article/image, delete it," or "No, don't delete it." These vote templates need to be readable based on images alone; someone whose language is dissimilar enough to English might have no idea how to translate "delete." According to Category talk:Polling templates, that's why the images are necessary in the first place. I'd therefore recommend the following icon changes:

  • A wastebasket for {{Vd}} and {{Remove}} templates.
  • A wastebasket with an X or a no-sign superimposed for {{Keep}}.
  • A checkmark for {{Support}}. (The + is rather difficult to interpret, but a checkmark clearly means yes.)
  • Similarly, an X or no-sign for {{Oppose}}.

This will help our interlanguage-friendliness a lot.

Seahen 03:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you can find an appropriate icon in a pretty colour, go ahead and change it.
TBH if you don't understand English (or occasionally German, Spanish) you would have trouble following anything on COM:DEL. But for COM:FPC, Symbol support vote.svg Support and Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, you can do that without reading the discussion. I thought green and red also made their meanings pretty clear? pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the wastebasket, and I reverted it. I created the delete because it was in line with the other voting template icons, but since we never really "vote" here on those types of things, it was more for a color coordination. Since there has not been an issue of being able to underderstanding things, there's no reason to change it, unless it's to promote one's own work.
In other words, if it's not broken, don't fix it. It's only unclear because you say it's unclear. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Multiwiki bot support

Hello all. As some of you know and most of you don't, I used to have an orphan bot that given an image, checked all the wikis that linked to it using checkusage, and went along delinking them. The problem was that I didn't have support from all the wikis, nor was it reasonable to expect that, since there are so many wikis. I summarized the issue a while ago here. However, the life of an admin in that area has still become no easier. I currently run the same bot only on the Spanish Wikipedia (it checks images marked as unknown, copyvio, etc., and removes them on es:), and it works pretty well, being able to remove some 90% of the to-be-deleted images linked from Commons on es:. I am interested in looking for trustworthy contacts, if you will, who have or are willing to request bot status to run the script on their computer and on their wiki. You don't need to know any programming--I will set that up for you. You do need to be willing to install Python and the pywikipedia framework on your computer, but I can also help with that. What does the community think about this? Is there anyone available? Thanks--Orgullomoore 05:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I will try it with ar wiki, I am already runnung a bot there --Tarawneh 06:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how easy it will be to deal with Arabic characters...I have no experience with that, but I will definitely do some tests and get back to you.--Orgullomoore 19:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

IP blocking

Please note that IP range from to is used by Saudi Arabia as Main Traffic Proxy for all Saudi users, there is no other way in or out for any user within Saudi Arabia. Blocking one IP blocks thousands of users. So just take it easy with these IPs :) --Tarawneh 06:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, it seems that things are reversed; Commons site was blocked in Saudi Arabia some time ago. It looks that Commons has one too many male organ photo. Commons is being considered as possible free porn material source rather than free photos source. I recall voting sometime ago about a proposal regarding such cases. Personally I believe that commons needs more body parts photos; the other body parts.--Tarawneh 16:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It is impossible to limit ourselves to the tastes of the most restrictive regimes on the planet. If we would do that, we would seriously compromise our mission. Saudi Arabia is one example, another one is China. We should stay our course until we become so important that it will be prohibitively expensive for those regimes to block us, or that it will be impossible because of new technological developments. I personally do not like most of the male organ photos, too. But I like even less to be restricted by undemocratic regimes which mistreat their own citizens. Longbow4u 19:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not wasting my time here just to have fun. I am really trying to build connections between commons and the Arabic community, and your attitude is not really helping. The most restrictive regimes on the planet !!!!!!, man you have no idea what you are talking about. A few years ago, I really believed that Saudi is the worst place on earth, but three years of actually being there made me realize that image given to us by the media is not real.
I am not calling for censorship. This would be meaningless. Yet things are not black and white as you might think. Saudi Arabia is not blocking commons for any political agendas; They are blocking us because Saudi people browsing our website gave a negative feed back about commons contents. People there believe that this is a religious commitment. Saudi Arabia does not represent it self alone when it comes to religion, soon lots of other Islamic countries will follow its lead in this.
The block was a shock to us in Arabic wiki, since we have been calling to switch to commons for our image usage. I am really doing all I can to make things here more user-friendly to Arab contributors. This block is one destructive disaster to all of my efforts here and my colleges effort back in Arabic wiki.
Lots of sites rank their contents. That should be possible here. And this should help a lot. It is not censorship, it is simply a matter categorizing images. This would even make things easier for lots of other people, even for search engines. Implementing image ranking would make it possible for us to continue our efforts in Arabic wiki. Personally that will make me feel better when I know that my five years old child will not see anything that might be make him confused (he is really hocked to commons and wikipedia).
Some may think that I am being pragmatic, but if people can't accept us (commons) for some reason we must evolve, to comprehend such people, without losing our main tracks. --Tarawneh 01:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Teh world wide web consortium <URL:http://www.w3.org/> has a Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS). I don't how it works, and I don't know if any browser supports it (they might if Commons started using it), but it might be a good way to add meta data about images. The problem is, however, that any way to filter content from small children can also be used for filtering content from adults. -Samulili 08:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, Tarawneh, how many naked pictures are too many? 100? 10? 1? I think censoring any Wikimedia project will not be accepted by any set of contributors. Look at Chinese Wikipedia - they can barely even use it because it's blocked, but no one has ever seriously suggested that they self-censor to get unblocked. It's against the founding principles. The sum of all human knowledge includes both anatomy and frank discussions of the Chinese government and their actions. I think it is sad that some users can't contribute because of government blocks but we can only hope they will become more enlightened because I don't think Wikimedia will budge on this... --pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well as I for example am in the OTRS. I ocassionally get emails from people that fear that their small kids could get a moral damage because of article/image $foobar. We will never have the situation that "conservative" people of every nation will be satisfied. They will write emails to everyone existing in order to alert about their moral concerns. So as long as there is a possibility mailing moral concerns to an official Saudi authority that acts according to them people will use it and people will mail them anything about $foobar in Commons. Arnomane 01:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

pfctdayelise, No one is talking about censoring Commons. A ranking system should solve these problems. People, Saudis or whoever will be able to block contents as desired, based on its rank. We can't impose standards on others the same way that makes us refuse any thing forced on commons. By ranking things, anyone can customize his profile or proxy to filter the contents. This is not censorship, this is categorizing --Tarawneh 01:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Terrorists and NPOV

It is interesting to note that there is no {{npov}}. - Amgine 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I requested a category move to Category:People alleged to be terrorists. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
You may wish to consider that terrorism is a POV term, period. It is used to pejoratively describe actions. For example, by all commonly held definitions of terrorism the US revolutionary war hero George Washington would be an alleged terrorist, and any images related to him could reasonably be added to that category. - Amgine 16:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Pfctdayelise's proposal is a reasonable response. Punting controversies is not. This is precisely kind of subject people turn to online references for, and we cannot allow ourselves the luxury of backing away from difficult topics.

Some feel an act is not terrorism if the goal is justified. However, Wikipedia article on terrorism defines it as a strategy and technique. Goals, causes and POV is distinct from it.
"Terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, or threat of violence to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, to bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological, and personal demands. The targets of terrorist attacks typically are not the individuals who are killed, injured, or taken hostage, but rather the societies to which these individuals belong. Terrorism is a type of unconventional warfare designed to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation or acquiescence, as opposed to subversion or direct military action. The broader influence of terrorism in the modern world is often attributed to the dramatic focus of mass media in amplifying feelings of intense fear and anger."
I think everyone is in full agreement that the term terrorism is being used for propaganda purposes by all the world's governments, and the meaning has been stretched and purposely distorted, but the definition stated above is pretty crisp. Sure, you can play around with various rebellions in the world's history, and certainly, the threat of violence and acts of war have a similar effect of this definition of terrorism. But look at the key differences.
  • Armed conflict- Was direct military action being undertaken by Washington, Spartacus, Viet Cong? You bet.
  • Hate Crimes- Terrorist? Not if it is just a supremecist lashing out. If it lacks the complex political or psychological intent of a terrorist.
Probably the best neutral definition of terrorism I've ever heard was this: any violent action which breaches the Geneva convention (which is mainly the deliberate targeting of civilians or prisoners-of-war). As for a solution to this problem, why not dump the word "terrorist" and replace it with "people involved in controversial military action" or somesuch phrase which would factually indicate their status in certain people's eyes without endorsing that status. It's also important to remember that while some conflicts can be rooted in an arguably just war (for example the fight against Hitler) those same conflicts can contain acts of terrorism by both sides (the Nazi bombing of London and the Allied bombing of Dresden were both in breach of the Geneva convention as they were mostly aimed at killing civilians).
Alleged Terrorists? Ok- fine- let righties try and stick Che Guevara in there, and lefties stick Bush in. Hopefully saner folks will be around to revert those changes that only have to do with political sloganeering and not with using the term according to its definition. -Mak 18:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
w:Definition of terrorism - NPOV does not mean we have to put "alleged" if there is some minority somewhere that disagrees. The page I have linked to gives several definition of terrorism and people who fit those definitions should be in that category. After all, we don't move Category:Smokers pipes to Category:Alleged smokers pipes just because someone wrote Ceci n'est pas une pipe. -Samulili 19:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but it tends to diffuse pointless edit wars on extremely contentious issues. If your hero is there on the terrorist list, the urge to revert is strong. If it merely says "alleged", then most reasonable folks will let that slide... I strongly agree that "Alleged" is not a term to be relied on for matters of any controversy. It should be used rarely, I believe this qualifies and an exceptional case where alleged can be used. -Mak 20:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we don't need such a category at all. Make categories Category:Al-Qaida or Category:RAF (no, not Royal Air Force for bombing Dresden ;-) Rote Armee Fraktion) and so on and that should be enough. Category:Terrorists ever will be a mere pool of POV. --::Slomox:: >< 13:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

30 June

Quality images

At Commons:Quality Images and linked pages is developed a new system of promoting quality on Commons and helping users create better images. It should be complementary to Commons:Featured pictures. As many people are probably familiar with FP, I think ideas of Quality pictures can be best explained in comparison

  • Featured pictures are supposed to be somehow extraordinary, outstanding, eye-catching...
    • Quality images don't need to. It would be enough to pass some defined set of quality criteria
  • Featured pictures nominations are partialy judged like a contest - if there are there other FP of the same topic, how the candidates competes with other images on Commons, how difficult of hard is the subject in general. Opinions usually differ.
    • Quality images would be judged more like quality check in stock agencies is done - just review if image meets some critera of technical&craft merits. Its easier to create more-or-less unopiniated/objective guideline on whats too much noise or bad focus (QI), than to agree what's impresive or particulary valuable (FP).
  • FP is decided by voting of many people over several weeks, votes are often close.
    • QI should be decided by much easier process, for example just one reviewer (any user) should be enoough, and if undisputed, the decision should be pretty fast.
  • FP ~ much about art
    • QI ~ should be less esotheric (craft?)
  • Even in ideal world, only the best images would be FP
    • In ideal commons, every photograph uploaded by commons user would be QI.

--Wikimol 19:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, you could require that any FPC candidate has first passed through QI, to stop those "doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell" nominations that occur. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I like this idea, since not all quality pictures are featured pictures. Photo portraits of individuals, for example, are not worthy of featured picture status. However, many are of a high-resolution, are crisp, and do a very nice job of portraying the individual. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I also like this idea; it's similiar to an idea that Greg Maxwell and I have been talking about for some time. A lot of the pictures on Commons (and on the projects) are of extremely poor documentary quality, and I've long felt that the FP process does not provide enough of an incentive toward encouraging documentary quality. I think it's also important that the QI process be geared toward providing feedback for photographers to improve their work -- which is why I believe it should ONLY be open to self-contributed content -- and that the juries reviewing submissions needs to do more than just vote up or down, but provide reasons for their judgements that will help the submitter and others improve their work. Kelly Martin 19:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that that restriction would be a very good idea, yes.
James F. (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Ad the commons nominations / self nominations I've replied at Commons talk:Quality images candidates.
Ad helpfulness - I think When declining a nomination please leave a message that encourages the photographer and helps them to improve future pictures. Note specific criteria in which image fails. would do it. And one responsible reviewer would be better in this respect than a jury. --Wikimol 21:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see as well my strong wish at Commons talk:Community Portal why merging/overtaking "featured pictures" is very much required in order to make any laudable and badly needed quality assurance like this a success. Arnomane 01:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Unwanted licenses and their automatical tagging

As a recent admin, when trying to do my bit of work for Commons, I've encountered a lot of license templates which redirect immediately to some other template which indicates that they're against policy or just have been replaced with a deletion marker as the content of the template. For example Template:PD-PhilippinesGov redirects to Template:Noncommercial, or Template:Notify which puts an image up for deletion immediately. While I see the sense of doing this it's also quite confusing. Can't we just either retain the template and include the other template (Noncommercial or Deletebecause) in it or just completely delete the unwanted templates? NielsF 01:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's good that we have this kind of templates. People are genuinely confused as to what Commons allow, hence they use invalid licenses on images. I think it's good for them and it's good for us that these images are "automatically" marked for deletion. -Samulili 12:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The way we're doing it is a bit confusing though. Although it does save on updating when we reorganise our deletion categories... pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

1 July

Questionable copyright tradition

Image:Babe Ruth statue.jpg has been tagged as a copyright violation. There has never been a successful case claiming copyright violation of a 3d object in a photograph. Furthermore, this particular object is publicly displayed.

At the same time, Image:Microsoft Sign on German campus.jpg is boldly claimed to be Public Domain, despite being a clear trademark violation of a 3d object which could not possibly survive under the panorama defense. There have been court cases which show this defense does not apply when the use is to indicate the company or product depicted (which amounts to a trademark violation.) Even if it were not a trademark violation it would still equally be a copyright protected 3D object. - Amgine 16:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

At least the Microsoft image is perfectly legal. Read about German "Freedom of Panorama" in Commons:Licensing. Arnomane 21:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
And it is far away from anything, which could be copyrightable. Violations of trademarks are not our concern, but that of the re-user. Commons only has to care about copyright. --::Slomox:: >< 13:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a software licence for images?

I've wanted to use several icon images on my website, but they all come under the GPL licence. As far as I can tell GPL requires the licence terms to be included with the image as well as a credit to the original artist, but this is fairly impractical with images and totally impractical with icons. The problem seems to stem from GPL's origins as a software licence, yet it's being applied to material which simply isn't used or distributed in the same way that software is.

Most of those icons are created and distributed as icons sets for the linux desctop. This requires them to be released under the GPL. The creators of the icons probably simply did not think about dual licensing them so they could be used elsewhere - try to ask the people who made the icons to dual license under a CC license.
The GPL is not really suitable for anything but programs - it's unclear if it's even legally possible to apply them to icons. The GFDL is a little better, but is really suitable only for books. For image, CC licenses are much better. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 19:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I've actually seen GPL used on LOTS of images, not just icons, and many of the others use GNU instead (which is apparently meant for documents, not images). Shouldn't there be some kind of mechanism to stop people submitting images to Wikimedia Commons with totally unsuitable licences? Otherwise there's no way we can use some of these images legally because we can't apply the terms of their licences to them.
Also, if the icons were only really meant for distribution with Linux, why the heck are they in here at all? Who put them in here?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 20:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
(L)GPL is a suitable license. No reason to stop anybody. For example I uploaded icons here. Arnomane 21:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
GPL and LGPL are not suitable licences. They're software licences, not image licences. The GPL and LGPL terms requires that there should be "an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty" on every single copy of the licensed file. How can anyone comply with those terms with an image, especially an image as small as an icon?
The GFDL requires the same. These terms are in fact not very handy for using images, but they are compatible with commons policy. I would argue that for online use, there are two workable ways to comply with the "full license text and attribution" requirement: either the image itself links to a "description page" with that info, or you have a line on every page linking to the appropriate license info. This is the way this is handeled on all Wikimedia projects.
So, while GPL (and even GFDL) are not good licenses for images, they are still valid and compliant with Commons policy. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 22:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
First of all, there is no workaround for icons, they cannot link to a description page because their entire purpose is to link to a functional page, and you can't really have lines for every single icon if you use very many of them. Second... why do it this way? Why not simply have a CC licence as was suggested above? What possible advantage is there in using a software or document licence for an image? Surely no court would ever uphold a software or document licence for something that clearly isn't software or a document? These licences aren't there for commons policy, they're there to give legal protection for the copyright owners, and I very much doubt they do give legal protection if they're blatantly misused like this. Imagine if you were offered a job in a call centre, but when you examine your contract it's a recording agreement with a record company... would you feel happy with that as protection of your employment rights?
Even worse than this though, I've just noticed that the FDL licence is even used for sound recordings on Wikimedia Commons. Would you like to explain the workaround for that if someone uses it in a broadcast? Should each play of the recording be preceeded by someone reading out the terms of the licence?
It seems to me that very few people who assign licences to donated material on here have any awareness or interest in what the licence actually means.
So what CC license are you proposing we use? It can't be anything -BY (because you'd need to give the author then), and -SA wouldn't be useful either (because you'd need to include the license then). -NC is not allowed here, so basically we would be left with public domain as the only option. - Andre Engels 00:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Should each play of the recording be preceeded by someone reading out the terms of the licence? It is possible  :). I actually listened to it the other day, and it explicitly mentions images. So I don't think a court will reject it. I think the articles are licensed GFDL because they are "derived works" from the text articles, which are of course GFDL. And if you want to approach the groups that release icons under GPL license and ask them to release them under a CC license, you're welcome to do so. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right: it's completely insane to apply software licenses to icons. But still, people do. And since their license is compatible with our policy, we can have those images here. If the creator of the icons is a user here, just ask him to use a more reasonable license - for meany of the GFDL licensed images, this may work. The GPL licensed images are usually third party work: they where created for the linux desktop, but because they are under a free license, other people can and do copy them to commons.

Why is it compatible with your policy though? By letting people do this, you're risking their legal protection and generally eroding the whole idea behind licences. It's like offering skydivers parachutes without having any idea if they'll open.

Commons hosts free content - if some of it is not free enough for what you want to do, don't use it or get permission or a different license from the creator. Simple as that. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 00:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of being "free enough", it's a question of having a licence that makes any sense or has any legal status. Imagine if you went to Ikea and most of the beds only came with instructions for assembling chairs, that wouldn't make any sense either, in fact it would indicate something had gone badly wrong at Ikea. Of course you could go back to the shop and ask for the right instructions, and they might give them to you, but if you have to keep doing that time after time eventually you'll stop going to Ikea.

There are different ways to comply with the GPL on an image:

  1. License the entire work in which the image is used under the GPL, and attach the license to the work. Many GPL icons come from free software packages which are themselves licensed under the GPL.
  2. Show an image description page, as we do on Wikimedia. This does rule out use as a functional icon, though we often still use icons to illustrate pages, userboxes, etc.
  3. Have a central "image credit" page that is linked from every page, and shows the license for each image used on a page. This was discussed on one of the mailing lists recently, and is likely the solution we will choose to enable use of images as icons without getting into licensing trouble.

All in all, we need not be too worried about the details of cross-free-content license compliance, though we should certainly encourage the use of generic licenses over work-specific ones. The main difference of the GPL to other licenses is that it requires the availability of the preferred modifiable version (source code for software), which may imply a need to upload SVGs for icons when available. Some archives, such as openclipart.org, have opted to go with the public domain; if we see that a particular site or artist cranks out a large amount of material, we should contact them about their choice of licensing and its implications, to make sure that they are fully aware of the potential incompatibilities that may result from a poor choice.--Eloquence 13:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You say all this, but can you point me to the parts of the licences which actually require me to add a link, or an attachment, or a description page, or an image credit page? I'm informed by someone more expert than me in GPL that you only have to include copyrights already in the file. Well, as the image files and audio files contain no copyrights, I don't see any requirement in GPL to insert a copyright message where none exists in the first place. GPL of course assumes that the file in question is a software package and not a GIF but that's not my problem, it's the problem of the person who submitted it to the commons. GFDL similarly talks about leaving cover pages in place, but again there are no cover pages in the GIF so according to the terms of the licence I don't need to leave anything in place. Of course as humans we could take a guess that the person INTENDED that we add a credit below the image or sound file, but there is no actual requirement in the licences to do so, and the requirements are the only things that count in a court of law.
Putting aside the useability for a moment, isn't there a reason to be worried about the legality of these licences? Their only reason for existence is to defend the images or sound clips in court, yet the GPL doesn't even contain the words "image" or "picture" or "photo" or "icon" or "sound" or "audio" or "music" or "speech". How well do you think such a licence would do in court? How can someone get into trouble for misusing the work when most of the licence is physically impossible to conform to (for example including the source code of a bitmap or audio file) and is clearly being misused itself? You're talking as if the text of the licence doesn't really matter that much, but if the text of the licence doesn't matter, if most of it is impossible to actually carry out in real life, if we are required to do things not even mentioned in the licence, why does it have to be included with every copy of the file? You might as well have a requirement to include a copy of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" with every copy of the file, because that makes about as much sense and contains about as much relevant information.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:35, 5 July 2006 (talk • contribs) (UTC)
Please make up your mind before you post. I was cleaning up vandalism, and it's a pain if you change your edits every minute. Thanks. —UED77 16:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that, but it would help if you used a proper message board for discussions. Why do you even use wikis on here when you have no articles, just files?

User creating images with inappropriate undescriptive names

Please see Special:Contributions/Daloonik. I'm doing what I can from English Wikipedia (where I'm an admin), but his uploads here are out of my hands. -- SCZenz 20:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice I will block him permanently if he proceeds doing so. Arnomane 20:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

1,215 Categories shall be changed

Followup to the previous thread on this subject- I just wanted to make sure folks understand the scope of the proposal. The Commons:By location category scheme affects somewhere in the vicinity of 1,215 Category names. Full list here.

Changes scheduled to commence after 14 July and I will run them during off peak periods.

Names are indicated in the list, although I have not yet generated the string for string changes. These will be published later. I am still harvesting eligible cats and expect 20% growth.

Some questions and notes

  • For armed forces, some are known by somewhat generic names. Not sure on these. The plan is for Italian, Indian etc. Navy categories to be converted to Navy of [foo country] with the exception of Navies commonly known with by a proper name which might have an adjective form. EG Royal Navy, United States Navy (USN)
  • Curiousity- The Faroe Islands is surprizingly well represented- never heard of them

-Mak 20:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


As I know that this will cause quite some trouble with Wikinews I post my reasons directly here: I have emptied and protected the template as we could introduce the very same for Wikipedia, Wikisource etc. as well. Wikinews has no special position in Wikimedia universe. We do a lot of hard work with unlinking but simply don't have the time to do so everytime. If people of Wikinews feel uncomfortable with the current situation where about 70% of all uses in all projects get unlinked by Commons people they just should ask for a CommonsTicker. That way everyone does his part of the job. Wikimedia Commons the one half and the local project the other half. And of course working together via that tool it would even be better: For example replacing images by alternatives or being alerted in local projects previous to a deletion. Arnomane 21:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point either. However, some admins are still deleting PNGs that are in use because of the SVG superiority thinking. I think that is causing frustration, especially with flags that are widely used. User:Pfctdayelise (one day I'll learn to spell that name instead of copy and pasting it ;-) has kindly restored some of these images. If people feel that adding extra tags will make it less likely that the images will be deleted, I can understand.
In the case of the admin who deleted these images, I just sent him a strong warning. I think we need to consider this -- no immediate deletion of images in use except as copyvio -- strong policy here on Commons, and enforce it against admins who violate it. The only situation when it's OK to step the check-usage step are clear copyvios. But not redundant or low quality images.
For the record, Wikinews has a CommonsTicker, and Pfct and myself are listed there as undeletion contacts.--Eloquence 11:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I saw the en.wn CommonsTicker after my post ;-) I should investigate more before posting... I share the frustration of people about removing used duplicates/"superior" images but I think the most effective approach solving it is the CommonsTicker that also shows overwrites (they happen sadly very often). For example Commons has a strong policy not to overwrite images of others but 70% simply don't care because the simply don't want to communicate, they're just interested in their "local" project. As it is impossible watching all images from inside Commons (something that is sadly often imposed on us) CommonsTicker increases the number of watching people by a large number. Adding that template in contrast will at least some people in en.wn think that "Its all in Commons responsibility and duty if $Foobar-person in Commons did something wrong. All commons admins are guilty." And such kind of frustration that leads to stagnation doesn't help anybody of us. Regarding the flag issue. I often said to people that flag experts please join Commons in order to improve the situation but for example Quistnix does show the above quoted opinion towards Commons. :-( Arnomane 11:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was really disappointed when I noticed that. Commons admins should be aware that CommonsTickers are potentially exposing your actions very clearly to the audiences you hurt. Much more than admin actions in a local project. So when you screw up, it's much more likely that the affected parties are going to come and complain about you. As they well should.
Primarily we do serve the other projects (not that we are their slaves, but a co-operative relationship). Having a "clean" database free of duplicates or only images with 100% perfect names should NOT be a primary concern. So I really suggest (to the people who do this) stop wasting your time with actions like unlinking PNGs, nominating PNGs for deletion etc, it's not where our focus should be. After a discussion on template talk:deleted duplicate I think we should delete and forget this stupid "cross overwriting" method which not only creates extra work but also exists to "force" projects to use versions preferred by some users (or, perhaps just one!) here.
In the past I tried to find out why some Wikinews editors were so antagonistic to Commons, I couldn't understand it...suddenly, and sadly, I see why.
With actions and attitudes like these I am wasting my time defending Commons, because I'm wrong. Really that is disheartening. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
No need to "play the blame game" -- Commons is a wonderful archive of media, but we do need to develop (and enforce!) policies to avoid constant friction with the projects actually using the content. :-) I seem to recall that this was actually done after the first SVG/PNG debacle, does anyone have a link handy?--Eloquence 12:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding overwriting, I just added some extra text to MediaWiki:Ignorewarning. Is there a policy related to this already?--Eloquence 12:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

@Pfctdayelise: Yes I see this like you. This crossed overwrite should be dropped entirely (especially since now it is possible to undelete images). I never used it because I regarded it hostile if I don't make a relink of a duplicate I noticed by myself but did throw cross on other projects pages.

@Eloquence: Well I personally am a little bit frustrated. I (re-)wrote a lot of policy pages and tutorials but people asking here clearly answered questions again and again (ok better they ask then they don't ask...). So direct messages that pup up at the right place in the work flux are IMHO much more important than a special policy page somewhere (on the other hand a policy page like Commons:Licensing or Commons:Project scope has everything together in one place and can't be entirely placed into the interface...) The overwriting issue: There is somewhere a policy and I repeated myself with that in many places AFAIK but I have no link at hand atm. So your direct warning in MediaWiki:Ignorewarning is now the direct policy. ;-) Arnomane 08:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have rewritten the Commons:Deletion guidelines and dropped the crossing thing as it was very often used as a force against other projects and did thus cause many bad blood also doesn't make sense with current image undeletion possibility.

However there is an issue en.wiknews needs to solve as well:

  • A general page protection of ready news articles is never a good idea. If I need to remove/replace an image out of various reasons I just want to do it myself in order to avoid to much friction (such as a copyvio or because I just stumbled across an exact duplicate, I don't search for duplicates but if I find one I resolve it).
  • However it is perfectly understandable that a ready news article shouldn't change its content. Thatfor there is need for a better approach making these articles "stable".
  • One way would be a very likely future feature of MediaWiki for tagging certain versions as "recommended" version that gets shown to the reader at first by default. As long as there's no such thing something like an internal WikinewsTicker that collects changes to all ready Wikinews articles (can be tracked via a template or category) on a dedidacted page so that people can quickly revert any change that did change the content and not the mere meta information afterwards.

That way Wikinews would be flexible and stable at the same time. Arnomane 08:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if we get a stable version feature, we'll likely use it in place of protection on Wikinews. Since work on that is now undergoing, it might be sensible to just wait for the first public beta.--Eloquence 23:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes of course we have time (and we have to do much more important work) but I think Wikinews should also realise that locking pages in Wikinews on a regular basis means locking Wikimedia Commons and this is not good if you want to maintain stuff. For example I have talked several times to Amgine and would like that Amgine tries to understand at least that sensibility towards Commons and its specific problems is needed as well. Arnomane 01:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

2 July

All admins should be on commons-l

See Commons talk:Administrators#All admins should be on commons-l and please respond there. Thanks,--Eloquence 11:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


I was not too surprised to find an anon creating this and giving credit presumably to himself, but I was surprised to find it had some 25 links to it already! My guess is people are copying images from en.wp which has w:Template:GFDL-presumed. I think we should not accept transwiki images without a clear license, and thus such images should be deleted until the license is confirmed. Any objections?

I will ask Magnus to "disallow" GFDL-presumed on CommonsHelper too. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We should recreate this (and other related templates from en wiki) and redirect them to fair use, copyvio or similar templates. So user uploading images with these tags gets some kind of alert this licensing is not enough here at the Commons. --Denniss 21:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
No objections - and I deleted the images already. -Samulili 19:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

3 July

Job queue truncated

The job queue length was up to 435K, and rising steadily. This is unacceptably high, so I truncated the table. This means that those link table refresh operations will not be performed. You can monitor the current status by looking at Special:Statistics.

Jobs are now run on a single common thread pool. When the job queue on one project is held at a high level, every Wikimedia project suffers, due to delayed link table updates. Please protect Template:Edit and other high use templates such as those listed at the top of Special:Mostlinked. -- Tim Starling 17:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Has anyone looked at this yet? pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there a way to find the most transcluded templates? Because #3 is template:PD-self and then the next 10 spots are filled by PD-self translations. They are not ever transcluded (to my knowledge) so the job queue thing shouldn't affect them. They are just linked to on every page that PD-self is transcluded. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Adolf Hitler Bigger.jpg

I have restored this image, the original source have given their permission to allow this on ANY Wikimedia project. Please don't delete it!! --TeleportingHitler 19:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Only on Wikimedia Projects? That's not enough. -- Timo Müller Diskussion 21:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Plus do you have any proof of your claim? Is there an email sent to permissions(at)wikimedia.org? NielsF 22:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The copyright is now added to the photos. See Image:Adolf Hitler Bigger.jpg. Oh, and the permissions were just for Wikipedia. --TeleportingHitler 08:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted the image. It was deleted before, permission is only given for Wikipedia and even if there were full permission, I don't believe the original copyright holder has given it. PD-UK at least seems not very likely as a fitting licence tag. --::Slomox:: >< 12:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The original copyright holder has given permission now. --TeleportingHitler 17:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Where is this permission ? Please stop reuploading this image (or vandalizing user pages). Show us this permission or the file will be deleted again. Vandalizing user pages may result in a user block so be warned! --Denniss 19:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him for one week because he did again upload that file and as he did vandalize JeremyA's user page. Arnomane 08:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone move this category?

Typo in the name of Category:Payload failing, it should read Category:Payload fairing. Please could an admin move it. --GW Simulations 19:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I will instruct User:Orgullobot to do so. NielsF 19:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. I've copied the category info to Payload fairing, deleted the typo-cat. NielsF 19:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks: --GW Simulations 17:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Similar problem

Category:Astronomy Scetches should actually be Category:Astronomy sketches ... AnonMoos 13:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

4 July

Admin alert- Racist Image names again being uploaded- recommend ban.

Arnomane has warned User talk:Daloonik not to post images with racist names, but has done so again today. (List)

Recommend immediate ban and deletion of the images. -Mak 00:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Kjetil_r 02:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I have created Template:Blocked User in order to increase usability and transparency so that people do not stumble across people that are blocked and aren't aware of it. I think it makes sense using in generally. See User:Daloonik for details how I did apply it. Arnomane 08:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No fair use template

I regularly come across editors moving images from en.wikipedia that are 'fair use' images. This is especially true to editors of projects such as es.wikipedia that redirect uploaders here. Because of this I think that it would be useful to have a multi-language template to place on user talk pages explaining why the commons doen't accept these images. I have started a template at {{No fair use}} using the language from Commons:licensing, could others look at/improve this template, and once it is OK make some translations. Thanks, JeremyA 02:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well Template:Fair use (and various redirects) is a speedy deletion request. People add that template at upload and do not look at the image page (you see that because such images have only one single page version), so they even won't notice some other template. Everyone that did read a little bit is aware that Fair use is not allowed. Arnomane 07:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
There is already an explanation on Commons:Licensing. If you wish to make a more detailed explanation, maybe you could create a policy site Commons:Fair use instead. --Fb78 07:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I was intending this as a nice way to ensure that a new user has read the information on fair use from Commons:Licensing--I have seen a number of obviously well-meaning users who get confused as to why en.wikipedia can have a picture but they can't upload it here for use on a different wikimedia project. Commons:Licensing is a large document, so placing a brief summary of the parts that are relevant to fair use on a new users talk page seems like a good idea to me. The reason for using a template is to get translations to ensure that everyone understands. JeremyA 18:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it for going on someones user talk page? Lcarsdata Talk | E-mail | My Contribs 06:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think {{Fair use}} should have "subst:No fair use" not "subst:copyvionote" and change {{No fair use}} to take argument, so you could put {{Fair use}} to fair use images, and copy/paste fair use warning to user talk page. --Tomia 14:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing help needed

I have several pictures to upload. Which would be the appropriate categories for a city of Jain Temples, an Indian religion? Thanks in advance --Wotan 05:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and is there such a thing as too many categories for a picture? --Wotan 05:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

We have Category:Jainism and Category:Temples in India - that should cover it, right? If you have many images like this, you could also create Category:Jain temples as a subcategory of the two (although - there may be such temples outside india). We have Category:Jain temples... for category suggestions, you can use CommonSense. Oh, and more than four categories per image generally do not make sense. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 08:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Why did I not find the Category Tree (or am I just too stupid for using it?) --Wotan 12:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

PD-USGov-NASA license tag

Many images featured on the Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) web site are copyrighted. As the site is hosted by NASA (has a nasa.gov URL), images from this site are frequently uploaded here using the {{PD-USGov-NASA}} license tag, even if images are copyrighted non-NASA pictures. Maybe, we should add a warning to this tag that APOD images are not necessarily free, similar to the warning for SOHO-images that is already included in this tag. Maybe like this. Any comments? --Vesta 09:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes that would be a good idea, maybe something like "... and some images from APOD may also be." Lcarsdata Talk | E-mail | My Contribs 06:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

5 July

Photos of recent public sculptures

It pains me to bring it up, but as JeremyA observed last month in thread "Keeping of a photo not usable commercially", the photographs of publically displayed modern sculptures (life of artist +70 years) might be subject to copyright restrictions. Today, I ran across a Christian Science Monitor article on the subject [5] which seems to confirm this, according to American University School of law professor of intellectual Law Christine Farley.

We have a lot of these photos so maybe the Wiki Foundation Lawyer can look at it and issue an opinion. It would really be a shame to lose the Calders, Moore's and Brancusi's. Also curious if the rules for public art are different in the EU (hopefully similar to the general copyright exemption for architecture).

-Mak 01:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of this stuff will have to be deleted, according to Commons:Derivative works. Especially the ones that were taken inside museums or on private grounds. Laws on public art differ from country to country in the EU (see the policy article linked above). --Fb78 08:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we need a more targeted approach. The Christian Science Monitor article mentioned says that these laws are disputed, too. Also, some of those photos of sculptures above were taken in Germany by Germans example, and are subject to w:de:Panoramafreiheit, that means they are legal for Germany. The more targeted approach would be the following: if we have a sculpture in the public whose copyright has not yet expired, but the photographer who took the photo has licensed the photo under a free licence, and we know when the sculptor died and can confirm when this derivative work (photo) will enter into the public domain
-> then we hide this photo until the date of it entering into the public domain.
Only admins or some few admins for that matter could view the file itself, while the file name and the image description page would be public to all.
  1. So everyone could see when a particular object will enter into the public domain.
  2. We could establish over time a fairly comprehensive copyright archive. Something which is not available in this form anywhere in the world, and which would be pretty valuable.
  3. We would show our respect to current copyright law.
  4. When there is again a copyright reform, people who defend the public domain will have a very impressive archive to point to and show the possible harm of copyright extensions. See w:Eldred vs. Ashcroft.
  5. If we do not do this, we do not respect the art of the photographers.
  6. Our Admins will have time and time again to establish the copyright status of these sculptures, without recourse to prior decisions in these matters.
  7. There is the possibility of a review of our decisions in case of error or a (favorable) change in copyright law or a later licence by the rightsholder for our material.
  8. Such a software change would be only a minimal effort for the developers.

Longbow4u 18:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sound like a great idea to me- retention of a copy for such non commerical purposes seems defensible, but I have no expertise in IP law. One tangential weird side benefit is as a perc to get people to volunteer for the drudgery of adminship too.
Anyway, it's a long long time to wait for a lot of these- Claudel- 2013, and 2046 for Calder. I think the Wikis are going to have to fall back on fair use otherwise any modern art article is going to be pretty pointless without images. My reading of Commons:Derivative works has been that even museum sketches of copyrighted work are not permitted (see comic book figures: drawings). What I am not so clear on is how "Impressionistic" the sketch would have to be in order to get out from under the derivative label. So if even impressionistic sketches are forbidden, I suppose you could do illustrative things- eg. Make a Calder like mobile animated gif, and release it PD- stating "Done in the style of Calder's mobiles". You are really have problems for the more subtle stuff though. What do you do for Claudel. No sculpture is going to communicate the essense of her work except for someone else in her class in the same style- You might as well show a Rodin with some figure in a gesture of pathos. So if sketches aren't allow, we have no great work arounds except for "in the style of" unique works imitating the style of the more high impact folks- Calder, Duchamp, Giacommetti, Oldenburg.
Detail point on Longbow's list. I think we have to acknowlege weakness of the economic argument portion of #4 point above. For this to have any relevance for future court decisions, in order to counterbalance the harm that the entrenched industries will squeal about, you would have demonstrate a large enough number of successful enterprises whose business model is dependent on recent creations having a shorter copyright. Yet in cases where there have been such enterprises, it hasn't turned out well. The rulings regarding the practice of sampling riffs common in hip hop or rap music have not gone in favor of such lucrative economic activities. (See here for an interesting detailed view of that if you are into music). Culture is the loser, but I think I am likely preaching to the choir. Anyhow, acknowleging the weakness does not mean submitting to the conclusions- eg the mind numbily horrifying notion that that entrenched industries effectively have rights in perpetuity to copyright restrictions. It does mean that we have to be realistic and deal with the weakness one way or another. -Mak 20:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have a few of my own photographs of public art uploaded here (A Picasso, a Calder, and a Chagall) I have tried to research to find a definitive answer, at least for those art works that are in the US. Although I am not a lawyer (nor a US-citizen) it seems clear that photos of non-PD public art in the US should not be sold commercially without a licence from the copyright holder. However, from what I have read there seems to be some doubt as to whether such copyrights would be upheld in court, and I can't find any legal precedent. I have been planning to move my own photos to the English wikipedia and declare tham as 'fair use', but I have been waiting to see if others get removed from here first. --JeremyA 00:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No precedents? You know about the case against the Beanie Baby catalog, right? Beanie babies are copyrighted as sculptures just as are art sculptures, and the artist has the exclusive right to sell photographs of their work. If you want to provide an image that could be substituted for such a photograph sold by the artist, then you can't even claim fair use. So the wikis will have to partly obscure/ make a low res copy of most modern art images, otherwise even a fair use defence will not work. (At least to my legally untrained mind)
Since this covers all of Modern art for all of the wikis, really it would be nice to get the Wiki foundation lawyer to issue some guidance on how degraded the fair use representations should be for Modern art. Secondly, it would be nice to know if applications of Longbow's proposal are ok- that Commons can legally retain non public copies of such images. It would be nice if Admins had access- could go into commons and find them, then could degrade them for fair use inclusion in their wikis. -Mak 22:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I was referring specifically to sculptures that are permanently sited in a public place. I realise that US copyright law does not treat these any differently from any other sculpture, however the law in some other countries does. The precedent that I was thinking about was whether the copyright of a public artwork had ever been tested in court. I'm not sure that obscuring is necessary for fair use (we don't do that with logos for instance), but certianly I would lower the resolution such that, in my opinion, it would not be possible to sell prints of the photographs. We would also have to be careful which articles the photos were placed in—a low resolution version of Image:Picasso Chicago 060409-2.jpg might be fair use in an article about Daley Plaza, but probably not in a more general article about Chicago. JeremyA 23:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm sad to see these go, but as they can now be easily undeleted I am going to start deleting some of these images. I am starting with my own photos of public artworks in Chicago; as an example of how they might be reuploaded to individual projects as fair use, I have done this with my photo of Calder's Flamingo that is used at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kluczynski_Federal_Building. --JeremyA 17:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Jeremy, could you drop a note on village pump when the flamingo Calder Fair Use review is over so that we all can learn how if there is anything new regarding public permanent displays or modern art fair use rules? Thanks -Mak 22:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep pictures of works permanently situated in a public place. Wikimedia Foundation should declare that policy --Historiograf 22:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem with SVG image pages

Recently the image pages of SVG images contain the original SVG image, instead of a rendered version. However, some browsers (IE and others) don't understand a SRC=xyzzy.SVG attribute on an IMG tag and SVG images need to be loaded using EMBED: "<embed src=xyzzy.svg width=www height=hhh type=image/svg-xml>" Shinobu 09:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Err? SVG image pages contain a rendered PNG for me - and they should as long as embedded SVG is not widely supported. With which image did you see the problem, and when exactly? I suspect this was a glith that was fixed soon. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 09:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Just this morning - but it seems to be allright now... I checked various SVGs, uploaded by me and others, and they were all the same: they referenced the path to the SVG instead of the rendered PNG, like they do now, or did before. I suppose you're right - this was just a glitch. Shinobu 16:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea - it happened to me later on, and I alerted TimStarling to it who fixed it -- Duesentrieb(?!) 07:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Images of photo models

Some people have transfered images of photo models from flickr to the Commons. Should we perhaps include a warning for the re-use? There have been cases in Germany where photos of prominent people have been used for advertisements without their consent, and the people advertising had to pay damages. That may not be applicable for Commons itself, because we are not using this photos for advertisements but for information purposes. But this might apply for third parties. What is your opinion? A warning would be something like: The author has put this photo under a free licence. It might be separately required to get a licence from the person pictured for re-use in a professional context such as advertisements. Longbow4u 19:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like the legal situation is similar in Germany to what it is in the US. In the US a persons likeness is protected to a limited extent and can not be used for promotion without agreement or compensation. This is not just an issue for Flikr pictures... any image focused on a person is potentially not completely free without a model release. I have in the past suggested that we develop a standard model release and encourage people to use it, but I haven't gotten around to doing it myself yet. :( Here is a good read if you'd like to worry, and here is the advice of a commercial stock agency [6]. In my mind a stock agency is the non-free content, and for profit equal to commons. --Gmaxwell 06:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Well you need to separate things. It has something to do with personality rights. A nonfamous person also an unknown model needs to agree on a publication famous persons not. But you still can't do everything with an image of a nonfamous person or a picture relased with a agreement of a person. If you harm the persons integrity (and that's what in these advertising cases was claimed) you can be sued. So we don't need such a warning template but need to make clear that we don't allow people images from flickr just because they were tagged CC-BY there. Arnomane 08:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
"You" can be sued, "You" the republisher (or re-user), or "you" meaning us? If it's a republisher then isn't that just their problem? pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
"You" = the person that harmed another person. In case of a release of a picture of a nonfamous person "you" is the publisher in case a permission exists or if it is a famous person "you" is the person that made a harmful reuse of the (legal) picture (so nothing we need to care about in the second case). Arnomane 10:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
This would, in general, not threaten *us*, but it does cause some material to be non-free for some uses which should be permitted under our free licenses. Arnomane, Why do you think this problem only applies to images from Flickr? --Gmaxwell 15:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The images would only be nonfree if you did release a picture of a nonfamous person without agreement. I don't think that's a Flickr only problem. Though web pages that have lots of "party stuff" are in general the primary source for such images. Arnomane 16:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does Wikimedia Commons use wikis at all?

Wikis such as Mediawiki are designed to let many users edit the same articles together. Wikimedia Commons has no articles, just files, and the descriptions shouldn't really be edited by anyone except the person uploading them or a system admin. The same goes for posts in discussion threads. Can someone explain why Wikimedia Commons uses wiki software at all? I don't see any advantage over CMS software, but plenty of disadvantages (vandalism, very poor discussion interface etc).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisse101 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
You are right: MediaWiki is (ironically) not verry good for (multi)media things. It's getting better, though. In my mind, the main reasons for using MediaWiki for commons are:
  • People already know how to use it. Most users here come from a Wikipedia, and having to learn a different interface would be annoying.
  • On the server side, it would mean a lot of work to install and maintain another complex piece of software - not to speak of making it scale to serving a thousand requests per second.
  • I have not yet seen any CMS system that would be felxible enough to do what Commons does. Think of image tagging/auditing, voting (with comments and dicussion), creating/changing templates, etc. A lot of custom could would have to be written (and maintained) for any CMS to be usable - to me, it makes more sense to adopt MediaWiki to be better suited for the purpose.
  • The vandalism argument is the same as for wikipedia... allowing anyone to edit allows for vandalism, but it also means many valid contributions be passing anons. And: Image descriptions should in fact be editable: changes in categorization for example, or adding descriptions in another language, fixing typos, etc.
There are some efforts to address the issues you have mentioned. For example m:LiquidThreads -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the first poster. It is sometimes very useful to update image description pages, add more information, standardize the information, add more language support. I could not imagine how that would be possible with other software, content management software etc. And as Duesentrieb says, it is a huge advantage that the Commons users are already used to the interface from their homewikis. Any other system would have much more difficulties. If we do this for some years, we can become a standard. See how difficult it is today for most users to change from Windows to Linux. It will be equally difficult to change from MediaWiki to any other software. I would like certain customizations to the MediaWiki software, though, for special needs in Commons, but not a change to the overall layout. Longbow4u 12:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Besides, the troll posts occasionally happening on this page could have been easily stopped with a temporary semi-protection if they would have gone too far. The disadvantage would have been that other IP-users could not have posted, too. So this is a cost-benefit problem. So we either have to bear sockpuppets, or revert them all the time. Longbow4u 12:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Longbow4u. Many files lack proper description, because it often happens that the one who takes the picture and/or uploads it on Commons is not the one who knows exactly what the picture represents. Perfect example: artwork. You upload a picture with the following description: "a Greek statue in the British Museum". Someone else may add what the statue represents, another one the date range and yet another one may finally specify the acccession number, materials, dimensions, etc. Why would any of these people need sysop rights? Jastrow 13:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Why does the Commons use a wiki? Because Wikimedia created MediaWiki. :P We are quite well aware that a wiki is not perfectly suited for a media DB... but that's what we've got now, so it's a bit late to change. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course it is not perfect. But see the alternatives. My university has digitized about 3 million book pages and placed them in a "Content management system". http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/de/index.html. I think this interface is very murky, it is really hard to find specific files, authors, specific words etc., you do not have version control, cannot contact other collaborators, and probably this cost the university a ton of money to develop with proprietary software. Besides Commons is already multilingual to some degree. On the other hand, MediaWiki is maintained by dozens of developers who work for Wikipedia, who are actively fixing bugs. And the best is other people / institutions can always and instantaneously deploy this software for free. I wonder when other professional institutions (like universities) start using MediaWiki. Longbow4u 13:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to watch Special:Recentchanges for a while. There's a huge amount of colalborative metadata editing going on, from categories to quality control tags to descriptions -- and descriptions absolutely have to be editable. With FlickrLickr, we review photos from Flickr and upload them to the Commons, and the descriptions on Flickr are frequently completely useless (so are the tags). Even overwriting images in a wiki-like fashion can often be useful when there are obvious errors that need to be fixed. As for the discussion interface being "poor" -- while wikis have disadvantages over traditional forums, they also have advantages when it comes to maintaining structure, removing useless content, etc. They tend to be bad for newbies, but wiki veterans generally have no problem using them.
By the way, any system that allows user registration without strong authentication is vulnerable to spamming and trolling. Wikis actually generally have the best toolset to deal with these kinds of problems (range blocks, spam blacklists, open proxy detection, anonymous talk pages, semi-protection, etc.).--Eloquence 16:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

.jpg Photoshop file "cannot be displayed"

Uploaded a .jpg file and got the following error message

The image “http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/CO_Mineral_Belt.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

A version was created with Adobe Illustrator 10 and saved as an .eps file. That file was read and saved as .jpg using Adobe Photoshop 7 on a Mac. Then uploaded the .jpg file. Then received above error message

Read .jpg file again with Adobe Photoshop 7 -- file displays on Mac without a problem

Then, tested by repeating process. Saved it as CO_Mineral_Beltv1.jpg again using Photoshop 7. Uploaded the new version. Same error message is displayed for the .jpg file

So now, two files uploaded that cannot be displayed by Wikimedia

What might cause display errors for a .jpg file created by Photoshop and displayed without problems on computer?

Is there an easy way for authors to delete "bad" files that they created?--Omphacite 17:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I have saved Image:CO Mineral Belt.jpg with GIMP as .jpg (Quality 90%) and now the image is shown. The filesize is ~ 6% of the original. Don't know why... And maybe it will be better to save as .png for this kind of graphics.
If you want to delete a file, please mark it with {{speedydelete}} with a reason and an admin will delete it. CO_Mineral_Beltv1.jpg is deleted now. --Raymond Disc. 17:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I know this is not the question, but if you have an eps made with illustrator, I suppose it is a vector image. Why don't you export is as a svg (I don't know if it is possible with illustrator), or convert it afterwards (with pstoedit for example?). Anyways, if you want (or can't do otherwise) stick to a bitmap format, png is more suited to this kind of image. CyrilB 18:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if an admin wants to take a look

Not 100% sure if this is the right place, but there doesn't seem to be any AIV at the commons. I noticed some odd artistic uploads and quickly found this page on Andrew Campbell. The page, along with the uploads of its creator, Artforum might be worth scanning by an admin to see if it fits inside the commons remit. I don't know exactly what the rules and regs are on this type of artistic work, but I can't see 1. How all the images uploaded are directly encyclopedic (person has no en.wikipedia article) - and 2. how the images can be licensed under CC - "leading artists" tend not to licence all their works under CC. SFC9394 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look a the articles Andrew Campbell and the duplicate Andrew B. Campbell it looks more like advertising/linkspam/increase google ranking for this artist. All artistic content is copyrighted by this Mr Campbell and even if he released these images under this license himself most content is not usable because he uses lots of copyrighted logos and other stuff in his work. It looks the stuff was uploaded here beause it was deleted in en wiki, see here. I also see nothing really important in his works, looks mostly like something done with Photoshop.--Denniss 23:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hm, probably all his material should be nominated for deletion on the grounds of being not suitable material. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
One sentence grabbed me from the Andrew B. Campbell article: "Andrew Campbell is the antithesis of the celebrity seeking and publicity driven shallowness prevalent in our egocentric age." 'nuff said. To the shambles. —UED77 02:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Structured wiki

I do not know if this is place to talk about this. if no ,please redirect me.

I have some idea to design a new wiki system on top of media wiki. I mean by structured is to be able get some wiki content from the database.may be something like a trigger whenever a object change in the database it render the new wiki. or this can be done on the fly. Waiting for your comments.

The idea you described is extremely unclear, and is probably better suited to meta: somewhere, although where exactly it's hard to tell. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Temporary protection

I have protected the Village pump (intended to be temporary) to get a little rash of sockpuppets under control. Genuine enquiries can go to Commons:Help desk or my talk page (User talk:pfctdayelise) and if appropriate they will be moved to the Village pump when protection is lifted. Sorry that this is necessary, pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Make that semi-protection. Unless your account was very recently created (last week or so), you should be able to edit this page if your account is logged in. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted free use or PD-self

I have uploaded a number of my own photographs and tagged them {{PD-self}}. I notice that {{Copyrighted free use}} says "If this is your own work, please consider using {{PD-self}} instead if you are in the United States" (emphasis added). Since I'm not in the United States, should I be using {{Copyrighted free use}} instead? Is {{PD-self}} valid only for people in the U.S.? Angr 20:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This might be a relic from when pd-self didn't include the 'in case this is not possible' bit. It's better to use PD-self. --Gmaxwell 20:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the "if you are in the Unites States" bit. It was there is because of countries whose copyright law recognizes inalienable moral rights. In these countries, putting your work in the public domain is legally impossible. However, PD-self includes a "safety clause" (essentially a brief version of "copyrighted free use"), so I see no reason not to use it. It's easier to understand for third parties what the intentions of the author are.
My personal (philosophical) belief is that we need to build a community of individuals around the notion of a true public domain, where we move away completely from licenses and contracts as means to regulate the dissemination of information. (I've registered the domain name gopd.org a while ago for that purpose -- if someone is interested in such a project, leave a note on my talk page.) Those who share this philosophy might want to choose a tag like PD-self for philosophical reasons over one with a big, green copyright logo on it.--Eloquence 20:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible abuse of admin privileges

I am shocked with the decision that was reached regarding my deletion request of image Template:Deletion_requests#Image:Rs_lokacija.PNG. After only a single vote and 1 minute after that the discussion was closed and the image was kept. The user who voted to keep the image did not even present a proof for his/her arguement and I am very suspicious that his arguement is valid. I am not the only one who finds this disturbing see [7] . Could someone respond and clarify this rather serious issue. Thank you--Dado 05:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, what? The map shows the correct bounds and location of the region, no? How does it suggest that it's an independent state? So you think we should delete the Image:LocationGibraltar.png too? After all, the description doesn't even mention that it's actually part of Great Britain. If you feel that the locator map is not good to represent to location of that region, make another one and use that. I see no reason for deletion.
Compare the deletion request about Image:Der Aufbau der Republik Deutschösterreich.png - that map has a lot more implications, but was kept anyway, because it represents historical facts (a state that was defined to exits but in reality never did exist in this form).
Your request for deletion is simply baseles, and in a clear case like this, it's completely ok to close the discussion early. To suggest abouse of admin priveleges is completely over the top (especially since no "admin priveleges" where used at all). -- Duesentrieb(?!) 08:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

President Bush editing Wikimedia Commons!

Cool stuff, seems like the Whitehouse is very intested in open knowledge... Otherwise I cannot explain how come Category:AIDS being a subcategory of Category:Homosexuality. -- 14:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, dealing with AIDS is an important aspect of gay culture, no? It is, of course, also an important aspect of health care and education in general, especially in third world countries but also in the "first"; and it's a mojor problem for herion addicts. Now, why should AIDS not be associated with homosexuality? -- Duesentrieb(?!) 15:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Because it is not exclusive. Hetrasexuals can get it too. --GW Simulations 16:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure - add it to more categories -- Duesentrieb(?!) 18:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed this wrong cat, every single human in the world regardless of sexual practice may get this disease (although several groups want us to believe it is directly related to homosexuality). Another thing : Why HIV and AIDS cats ? --Denniss 17:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Formally speaking, many people such as Denniss believe that categories represent only IS_A relations. Others, such as Duesentrieb and myself feel that the strict hierarchies that this imposes cannot express the rich set of semantic relationships in human knowledge. One such relation is "Is_Part_of" relations. People who interpreted the Aids-Homosexuality relation as an IS_A relationship interpreted it as meaning "anyone that has aids IS homosexual", a statement that nearly all people contributing to the wikis knows is incorrect. People who were not offended by it understood it to mean that Aids IS_Part_Of the set of subjects of relevance to the Subject Homosexuality. And it is, as was Duesentrieb's point that it could and should be added to all subjects like African issues, intravenous drug injection or sexual promiscuity.
It is a curiousity that there is no clear common understanding about what the category tree represents. Nonetheless, the opposing positions may be evaluated at a practical level rather than a theoretical level.
  • Position IS_A: makes it more difficult for people suffering from aids to find information about other issues of interest to the homosexual community.
  • Position IS_PART_OF: makes it easier to find more information on subjects related to Aids, such as the heavy impact it has on Africa, it's relationship to recreational inject able drug use etc.
If we treat the category tree strictly as a set of mutually exclusive sets, we are going to come up fast on the realization that the world does not obey such a tidy way of understanding the world. And we will perpetuate ignorance about important issues such as Aids because we refuse to encode the relationships that are non hierarchical.

-Mak 22:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I am one of those people who have always considered categories to represent semantic relationships, as opposed a strict hierarchy. I agree with you, Mak, I don't see how such a view would hurt. But perhaps, we should state this explicitly in a master category scheme — much of the categorization intructions are poorly documented, so I am considering to publicize it more. Hopefully, people will even read such schemes — but I might be a little too hopeful. —UED77 16:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
And another related thought: perhaps... the name "category web" should be promoted instead of "category tree". Consider the advantages... as long as it doesn't get excessive. —UED77 17:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The silence regarding the fundamental nature of the primary reference structure of Commons is not unexpected.

AIDS is now a subcat of African Politics because with 234 African deaths this hour due to AIDS, it IS_PART_OF the set of African political social issues. Of course other cats may treat the AIDS cat like a leper, and in so doing be part of the deadly cycle of perpetuating ignorance. -Mak 16:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

AIDS is now a subcat of Recreational drug use since it is part of the issues that intraveneous drug users ought to be aware of. Betcha can't guess what I'll make it a subcat of next.... -Mak 20:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I get around the problem of intersecting sets by adding "See also" lks, just like WP. This is less organisationally satisfying, but means the user who is looking for African AIDS pics doesn't arrive at Cat:AIDS and wonder why most of the pics aren't about Africa. It is clear these are related sets, not nested sets.
There is a language issue, of course, but a) I don't have any difficulty understanding structures like this on pages where I don't understand the language, and b) if we're really bothered perhaps we could do a language template thing which displays in the user's preferred lang. JackyR 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
That's an interesting thought. You mean it might be useful to be able to transclude link information that would relate a topic to other related topics? Maybe someone has proposed that Commons allow such a mechanism to be included on pages. Hmmmm. After thinking about it a little bit, I believe I agree with you. Many of these relationships are best expressed in links.

Still, it seems to me that there should be some common agreement on general fundamentals about the nature of the category tree- such as whether it is or is not to be regarded as a "tree" (a strict hierarchy), or something else. -Mak 22:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey- all those that think Aids is not an African Political problem, please join Denniss in reverting that subcat, as well as the one for recreational drugs. -Mak 23:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the above discussion demonstrates very clearly that Commons will be more useful as a web, not a tree. Tree structures are nice logically, but don't reflect the real world very well. We don't attempt to build WP like that, and at Commons we use categories the way WP uses articles (to some extent). So both vertical categorising and horizontal linking have their uses. JackyR 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
PS You can see one I prepared earlier at Category:Stoves. I'm not sure about the layout, but the cross-linking works well in this topic. JackyR 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
PPS Don't know that I'm into transcluded info: what's wrong with ordinary lks. No, I meant that the "See also" appears in the language of the user's choice (isn't that what folk have been working on for other bits of text?). JackyR 09:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Folks are interested in it, but no show so far. Transclusion is good because that way you can do the navigation not just from category or article pages, but directly from each image page. You can do stuff like for navigation- take me to the next image in this category, take me to the next decade, or back a decade--- or what is discussed here- take me to an associated category that is not closely enough associated to stick in the Category web. Why should the nodes in your graph be the categories or the articles? They should instead be the basic retrieval unit of Commons: The Image: page. Each transcluded info page adds an additional set of edges from that image node to the graph. The aggregate of those edges make the node unique. -Mak 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Potd in other projects

I'd like to use the Picture of the day in other projects. I understand that it's a Commons Template, and it can't be included in another wiki in the normal way. But I found this in meta:

Transclusion across projects, hence changing contents from a central place, is only possible:

  • for content in the form of an image on Commons, to any page,
  • for editable content on an image page on Commons, including content transcluded from other pages on Commons, to the corresponding local image pages, if there is no local image with the same name (meta:Template#Use_of_templates_across_projects)

Then, it's possible to "hack" a little, and create a redirect or substituted potd page in the Image namespace, and that will be available in another Wiki? – Glanthor  18:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, interesting idea, but I don't think it works. See image:potd and [8]. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Hum well Template:Potd and especially Template:Potd2 are very complicated because of translation stuff. :-( Basically it works with nested sub templates. The image and the image caption are taken from a list of sub templates named after date and that get embedded with the the DATE variable. That's the basic scheme. Everything else is translation that complicates matters. Arnomane 01:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any sandbox image?

Is there any image that can be used for tests? --Nethac DIU 23:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Something like this? Image:Example.jpg--Eloquence 00:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but I didn't mean that exactly. I don't know if I can in that image, but I wanted a image to upload over.

You can upload over any image once your account is older than 4 days. If you upload over something by accident you can revert back to a previous version. So you could do that on the example image, if you wanted to, although I can't imagine why you would. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Invisible category

Maybe it's this flu my 4 year old gave me, but this seems like a database bug:

Category:Liberian politicians declares itself a subcat of Category:Politicians by nationality but when you go there, you don't see Liberian politicians listed. Tried editing Liberian politicians to ping it, but still its a no show in the parent cat. Odd. -Mak 05:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Politicians by country is a RDR. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Quality Images

Commons Quality images has commenced reviewing please nominate images at Commons:Quality images candidates or come and review whats been nominated, remember that this is for original works/photographs created by Commons Editors. Gnangarra 07:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

GNU license

If I want to convert a image into SVG, must I ask for permission to the original author for using the same name? --Nethac DIU 10:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No - the license does not require that; it does require that you link to the original and name the original author(s).
It's considered impolite to overwrite an image before consulting the original uploader, but since a different file extension creates a different file name, you will not be overwriting anything. Do not mark the original image for deletion or as duplicate/obsolete though - just put {{Vector version available}} on the original image's description page. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Which Freeware SVG program should I get?

Moved from Wikipedia's VP at the suggestion of another editor

I'd like to convert some images with the {{Convert to SVG}} tag to SVG, though I don't know which freeware SVG program I should get. Does anyone have any good recommendations for a program of this sort?--ɪkiɾɔɪd | talk 14:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

InkScape is pretty popular (and it's free(speach) software, not only free(beer)ware).
Note that it's not really possible to "convert" a bitmap to a vector image - that's like extracting text from a bitmap: you can try automatically (using a "tracer"), but the results are usually so bad (and huge) that you are much better off redrawing by hand.
Often it is useful to ask the original creator for the "source files", or directly for an SVG version. Programs used to create diagrams generally use a vector-representation internally, and many even support SVG export. If not, there may be some program that can read the "propriatary" diagram file and convert it to SVG. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 14:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

How to replace an upload?

I uploaded the .JPG version of a pic, but intended to upload the .png version. How do I replace an image? --Concrete Cowboy 23:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

and just to make it entertaining, it is a picture of a sculpture! (debate above). --Concrete Cowboy 23:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Just upload the correct file, and add "{{bad name|Image:newfile.png}}" to the description of the old file :)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by UED77 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[for some reason, I forgot to sign earlier :) ] —UED77 16:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikimania Awards!

Hi, everyone. We need your help nominating great images and video for the Wikimania Awards (Wikimania is held next month in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA) -- the people who've donated their talent (and there are a lot of them here) deserve recognition.

Anything posted to commons during the past year is elegible. The winner gets a w:Nokia 770 Internet Tablet (and fame. Lots of fame.). Tlogmer 02:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

10 July, 2006

Image unprotection request

The commons image Human Feces [9] is protected. I was the original uploader onto the english wikipedia. Someone moved it over here a few weeks ago and didn't include the changes I later made to the description page there. The image has since been deleted from the english wikipedia. I would like to restore the description and remove the vandalism currently therein ("ew") but in order to do that I need to have the image page unprotected. Cheers, Cacetudo 14:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ehm the image isn't protected. NielsF 16:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Help wanted from an admin

My talk page is continuously being vandalized by a vandal-type "Willy on Wheels" : by User:William On Owls and User:Arofol Sockpuppet 1 . Quick intervention requested. JoJan 14:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Pool Piping Rudd Twyther has now joined the vandalism outburst. JoJan 14:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking the vandals to User:Andre Engels JoJan 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop deleting "redundant" images in "inferior" formats!

The Wikimedia Foundation isn't running out of server space, is it? One would think so, based upon the rampant desire to purge perfectly good, freely licensed image files from the system.

The prevailing attitude seems to be "SVG is always better is PNG, which is always better than GIF. We must delete all but the best version of everything!"

In reality, this simply isn't true. SVG is a more advanced and versatile format than PNG (which is a more advanced and versatile format than GIF), but there are plenty of applications for which the "lesser" formats (especially PNG) are superior.

Most notably, a documented MediaWiki bug causes all SVGs to be needlessly rendered as 24-bit (instead of 8-bit) PNGs. This means that they're displayed without transparency for approximately 85% of users (because of an IE bug). For images containing 256 or fewer colors and no alpha-transparency, this problem can easily be remedied by uploading an 8-bit PNG version of the image (which can be converted directly from a MediaWiki rendering of the SVG in any size). Not only will the image display properly for most users, but it also can be significantly smaller (due to the optimized compression). SVGs containing more than 256 colors and/or alpha-transparency can be converted to optimized 24-bit PNGs with better compression and a fall-back background color for IE users (to match the background color of the destination page). This is especially useful for small icons used primarily in specific templates. It's extremely handy to have these stored at the Commons, as the various projects often copy each other's templates (background coloring and all).

Unfortunately, these useful images are automatically deemed "redundant" and "inferior." Never mind the fact that they're smaller and look better for 85% of users. "SVG is a better format than PNG, so the PNGs have to go!" Sometimes, the SVGs aren't even accurate conversions of the raster files that they're supposed to replace, but few editors seem to care. "They're SVGs, and SVGs are better than PNGs, so the PNGs have to go!" Sometimes, a set of matching raster icons is in use by a project, and someone creates an inaccurate SVG version of only one. "Well, that has to be used! The fact that it doesn't match the other icons is irrelevant, because SVG is a better format than PNG, so the PNG has to go!" When the IE issue is noted, a typical response is "well, people shouldn't be using such a crappy browser." I agree (and I use Firefox), but I lack the desire to punish 85% of our users.

It's becoming difficult to rely upon the Commons as a universal free media repository. I'd really hate to give up the benefits of sharing the images in this manner, but it's reached the point at which the projects are going to have to store important images locally. That's a shame, as it makes expansion much more difficult for everyone.

I'll also mention the irrational hatred of GIF (the most compatible image format on the Internet). In some cases, it's possible to create a GIF file that's nearly the same size as its PNG counterpart (or even smaller). Older graphical browsers still in use by a small minority of people are incapable of displaying PNGs, but GIFs are fine. It isn't realistic to expect that these users will always be accommodated (as it isn't always possible to create GIFs of high enough quality and small enough sizes), but there's absolutely no logical reason for us to go out of our way to make images incompatible for them (when no one else benefits). The decision to use GIFs in limited circumstances should be up to the individual projects, but the attitude here seems to be that non-animated GIFs should be shot on sight (even when they're smaller than the optimized PNG equivalents). This sentiment seems to stem from the belief GIF is an "unfree" format with dangerous ramifications. In fact, the Unisys LZW patents have expired, and no significant licensing issue exists. On 11 August 2006 (one month from today), GIF will become a 100% free format worldwide. Nonetheless, I'm sure that many people will continue to claim that all GIFs are "evil" and must be "burned."

Can something please be done about this? Can we establish a policy against deleting images simply because of their availability in other formats?

If an image is:

  • freely licensed
  • of decent visual quality
  • linked to any available SVG versions from its description

...what's the harm in keeping it?

Lifeisunfair 13:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The deletion policy was changed months ago to express exactly that (and since some days now, Commons:Deletion guidelines is finelly up to date). If an admin has recently deleted a bitmap only because an SVG is availabl, please complain to him/her, and/or mention a specific, recent case here. It's always a good idea to keep the original around, in whatever format it is in.
That being said: SVG is preferred for diagrams, and PNG is preferred over GIF for everything but animations. Browsers that are so old that they don't display PNGs will prbably have a very hard time showing this site at all, with all the complex CSS and all that. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 19:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that policy prohibits the deletion of images on this basis, or does this apply strictly to speedy deletions? Presently, numerous icons are listed for deletion purely because they've been "superseded" by versions in other formats. —Lifeisunfair 20:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The fact that a vector version is available is by itself not a reason for deletion. If the vector drawing is derivative work of the png, we should keep the original, just as we keep old versions of the same file.
Useles images can be deleted - if the SVG is clearlysuperiour, and no one wants to use the picel version, then deleting it would be ok, imho.
None the less, I should probably start spending a bit of time on the deletion page... -- Duesentrieb(?!) 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The following raster images are listed for deletion purely because vector versions (which are not accurate reproductions) are available:
The following GIF images are listed for deletion purely because PNG conversions are available:
The user who listed these images for deletion pre-emptively orphaned them at the various projects (which I reverted at the English Wikipedia), despite my repeated protests.
Lifeisunfair 21:47/21:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

@Lifeisunfair: Honestly we have lots of crap GIF/PNG graphics that were replaced by far better SVGs and people still rant (if I replace a 1KB PNG flag virtually any SVG is better and we have lots of such crap graphics). The other case were obvious failures where people were right about complaining. Anyways please have a look at our Commons:Deletion guidelines. They're very clear about deletion procedures of poor quality files. So we have that what you demand. ;-) Arnomane 02:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That Lifeisunfair, as the creator of the images, beliefs that his images are the best images, is the normal behavior of an artist. But the rest of the world is happy with png or svg. If you take a look at the history of en:Template:Merge you can see, that many people tryed to change the gif to png or svg, but David reverted it all the time. So, maybe everybody is wrong except David, but I doubt on that. --jed 15:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the creator and uploader of the original images. (Of course, you didn't bother to inform me of these deletion listings, as required by policy.)
I didn't say that my images are "the best" for all applications. I do, however, know for a fact that your proposed setup (which you unilaterally decided to impose on all of the projects) creates numerous problems and absolutely no benefits.
You're attempting to force the projects to replace two of the three main merger icons with SVG images that are NOT accurate recreations, one of which contains a major unintentional visual flaw, and neither of which matches the other SVG or the remaining unconverted raster icon. And again, due to a documented MediaWiki bug, the SVGs render improperly for 85% of users. MediaWiki displays them as 24-bit PNGs, which are vastly inferior for this purpose to the 8-bit PNGs and GIFs that you seek to delete.
I explained all of this to you, but you ignored me and continued to pre-emptively orphan the "redundant" images and list them for deletion.
And yes, some people have made similar mistakes at the English Wikipedia. I'm the one who watches all of these templates and reverts any unwise edits, but that doesn't mean that my actions are unsupported in the community. Most of individuals making these changes were unaware of the issues cited above, and they reversed course upon reading my explanations at en:Template talk:Merge. You're ignoring these discussions (in which other users have supported my stance, and no one has ever managed to counter my arguments or cite one actual advantage of using SVGs for this purpose).

For those who haven't seen the deletion discussions, here are the images that have been widely used for the past year:
Merge assortment 1.png
Each is under 1KB in size, they're 100% compatible with all graphical browsers, and they match each other perfectly.
If Jed's proposed deletions are carried out, here's what we'll be left with:
Merge assortment 2.png
There's no significant file size reduction. (In fact, the first two render as PNG-24 files that actually are slightly larger than their PNG-8 counterparts!) More importantly, the first two are displayed improperly for most users (because of the infamous IE transparency bug), and not one of the three images matches another.
Here's what they look like in IE6 (the browser used by approximately 85% of website visitors):
Merge assortment 2 ie.png

Why, Jed, do you want to make the templates look worse for everyone? Oh yeah, I know why. It's because "SVG is always better is PNG, which is always better than GIF, and we must delete all but the best version of everything!" —Lifeisunfair 16:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm the one who watches all of these templates and reverts any unwise edits Who says what is a whise and what is a unwise edit? --jed 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
No one person decides. Again, this has been discussed a great deal at en:Template talk:Merge. —Lifeisunfair 16:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok folks, let's not confuse reasons to use SVG with reasons to delete gifs. I see absolutely no reason to delete anything. And while I don't believe 85% oft wiki visitors use MSIE (for the overall web, this is probably correct, wikipedia's clientel is a bit different), and indexed 8 bit png reportedly works in MSIE too, i see no reason not to use the gifs either.

I suggest to let people work out for themselves what should be used where. SVG is the preferred format for diagrams, but that does not mean that it's the best choice in any case. Icons are a bit different anyway. Even if the SVG is better, we should keep the bitmap it was derived from for documentation. Disk space is not an issue in this order of magnitude (we are talking about kilobytes here, after all).

So, can you guys please take your discussion where it belongs? -- Duesentrieb(?!) 16:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed there at great length, but Jed evidently doesn't care. —Lifeisunfair 16:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Obsolete" images should indeed no longer be deleted except where they're orphaned and there's clearly no opposition. Now, let's not feel too much sympathy for all the poor IE users who see some additional white background because of a bug in their browser, given that there's a perfectly good open source alternative that doesn't exhibit that problem.--Eloquence 00:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Obsolete" images should indeed no longer be deleted except where they're orphaned and there's clearly no opposition.
Thank you for confirming this, Erik. As the deletion of the images listed above is contested, am I correct in assuming that an administrator should close the deletion discussions with a result of "kept"?
Thank you, Erik! One additional icon from the set (Image:Split-arrows.gif) remains listed. (It was nominated the previous day.) —Lifeisunfair 03:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Now, let's not feel too much sympathy for all the poor IE users who see some additional white background because of a bug in their browser, given that there's a perfectly good open source alternative that doesn't exhibit that problem.
1. The issue in question relates as much to the aforementioned MediaWiki bug as it does to the IE bug.
2. Not everyone is able to switch to a different browser (even if they want to). For example, many people access the Internet through computers at schools and public libraries (which often refuse to permit the installation of third-party software). When I'm at college, I have no choice but to use IE.
3. This isn't merely a matter of aesthetics. I've personally worked with visually-impaired people for whom these icons serve as a means of differentiating between Wikipedia articles and meta-content. The lack of transparency makes the images more difficult for them to recognize. —Lifeisunfair 01:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding 2), I've never had a problem doing things I'm not supposed to do. ;-) Installing Firefox into the "My documents" folder (don't know what it's called in English) usually seems to work fine even if you don't have admin privileges. Portable Firefox is another alternative, or if you're desperate, just take a Knoppix or Ubuntu DVD with you. ;-) --Eloquence
Thanks again! I'll give those ideas a try. :-) —Lifeisunfair 03:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding IE. Yes everyone knows IE is lame but I agree with User:Lifeisunfair that "too bad, use Firefox" is a totally unacceptable response to IE problems. There are tons of people in workplaces and schools, public libraries etc that don't have install priveleges and even if they did, would not necessarily know how or even desire to install FF or any other decent browser. It's a really unhelpful attitude that doesn't solve anything at all for the people who are affected by it.....you know, the people we're trying to work with? As for the actual discussion - ACK Duesentrieb --pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree, but when it comes to minor issues of "white background vs. transparent background" ... From an accessibiltiy point of view, the fact that we only allow Ogg Vorbis sound and Ogg Theora video has a much larger impact on ordinary Windows users.--Eloquence 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that there is no plugin which solves IE6's brokenness with PNGs, but windows mediaplayer will play Ogg files with a simple codec download, which is the same thing that is required for a lot of video resources out on the internet.--Gmaxwell 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The issue is not that some of our images are less compatible with IE than with other browsers (which is unavoidable). It's that users are going out of their way to replace existing images that display properly for most users with versions that only provide disadvantages.
I can understand sacrificing maximum compatibility in exchange for a tangible benefit. For example, it makes sense to replace a poor-quality PNG-8 with a PNG-24/SVG that uses more than 256 colors and/or alpha-transparency to achieve a better appearance; the tradeoff is logical because overall image quality is more important than background transparency.
Conversely, it makes absolutely no sense to switch from an 8-bit PNG/GIF to an SVG containing no additional visual information at the intended size. This merely results in larger files with far less compatibility, while providing zero advantages for anyone. —Lifeisunfair 18:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

World Cup photos

Let's be sensible here people, and realise that low-resolution professional-quality World Cup images on Flickr are copyvios. Let's not propogate them OK? In particular delete anything on sight from user beatrice contardi because she cannot be trusted. thankyou... --pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Commons media used in the press

Do we have a page to record this? :) Maybe we should!

The first image in Slate's "A Brief History of the Bikini" slideshow is Image:Casale Bikini.jpg, which they credit to us. Pretty cool, eh?

<wipes sweat off brow> thank god it's not a copyvio... --pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Pretty cool indeed, but the image is under a CC-BY-SA-2.5 license, so they violated the license by not naming the author :-S. Although that license may be invalid (should it be PD-ART?). NielsF 16:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Hm, good point. Image:Armerina.jpg is very similar, but PD-art. I don't know. Is a mosiac 2D or 3D? --pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess you could argue both ways... See Commons_talk:Licensing##Mosaics:_2-_or_3-dimensional.3F as well, nobody seems to know for sure (otherwise they would've said so I guess). The third dimension of a mosaic is only because of the material used (little stones), so I would say it's 2D (a painting actually has three dimensions as well, however it's always perceived as 2D). NielsF 16:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree. The third dimension of a mosaic is not significant enough that you can get a substantially different perspective on it by altering your camera angle. Angr 18:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
In this case the photographer must have chosen how much of the subject to capture. Jkelly 04:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Text folding JS for commons?

EN wiki has the css and monobook.js stuff working for doing text folding, EG: en:Talk:Hudson's_Bay_Company#WikiProject:__Retailing click on "show" lower right just under the light brown cell.

Looks like we have some of the css but the not everything is working since I can't get the div code to work on commons pages. Will this be on commons anytime soon? Is anyone planning on doing this for selective folding according to language preference declared by the browser?

-Mak 20:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem in Commons:Media_help

The internet address we link to in the Windows section ( http://www.illiminable.com/ogg/ ) where people shall download the Ogg Codec has apparently expired and the codec is not available. So perhaps we should look for alternatives to link to. Has some one an idea? Longbow4u 20:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Now it works:
News: Sorry if this was down for a few hours. I thought it was 
auto-renewing but they had an old expiry date on my credit card. The domain 
expired. Thankfully Ralph Giles from xiph.org bought the domain back on my 
behalf. Thanks Ralph :) Sorry about the inconvenience to anyone. For today 
I am Zentaro, Lord of the Idiots!
Platonides 14:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Radical proposal

Since sorting images seems to be a categorical affair, and that articles here do not require much in the way of articles or descriptions, is it possible to make article pages function as if they were a category? It would save some typing, reduce use of static linkage (ie. articles) in favor of dynamic likage (ie. categories). -Stevertigo 21:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you can talk in other words, please? In simple English? Thank's! FML IconSP.jpg hi 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I have suggested that a long time ago; It's not easy to implement and posts some challanges for redesigning the user interface. It would be doable, and I think it would be really cool for commons. But someone has to invest quite a bit of time and code into it. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 21:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Cool! Glad to know its not a new idea. Ill look into the particulars. -Stevertigo

Not to make more noise than signal, but it says: "Assuming the code for this is based on the current category system resources used per page view are perhaps 1,000 times as much as for a normal page. Maybe more." I had thought Categories were cached as HTML pages, which only need rewriting when a tag is added. Aside from the basic personalized info and CSS, what needs rewriting? -Stevertigo 21:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Category pages are not cached currently (or at least, they weren't until recently). That is one part of it. The far more complicated part is the transition - if a category and a page with the same name exist, the category head would have to be merged with teh article text. Also, since categories often have plural names, we would need a way to "link" pages to a category with a different name, if we don't want to re-categorize every other image on Commons.
I have been wondering if it would make more sense to create a <autogallery> tag that looks like <gallery> but shows all pictures from a given category. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess that would be an effective way to use redundancy to solve a problem. But the other solution would actually force people to think about categorizing, which IMHO is far more important. That solution unifies the site's modus operandi behind categorization, whereas this one... well, Ill try to be helpful and see if theres a bug filed. -Stevertigo 13:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC) PS: the plural names problem speaks more toward the idea of revamping the redirect system as it currently exists. A radical proposal in its own right is just groundwork for this one... :\ -Stevertigo 13:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
If you decide to spend any amount of time on this please give some thought to multilingual labels. For the current system, RDRs work well for galleries but not for categories. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

2,087 adjective Placename categories to be renamed.

  • Changing from adjective form placenames to noun form will affect 2,087 categories.
  • Final list of categories affected, and the new names may be found here.
  • Reminder- these Changes will begin on 14 July and will not use origulla bot or whatever the name is for the thing that many folks use. The new cat will be created, the only cat redirected to the new cat, and the images in the cat will be subcatted to the new catname. No clue how many images are affected but it is probably a ton and a half.

This final list is the result of discussions on the scheme talk page. Any problems with this list please contact me or leave notes here before 14 July.

-Mak 04:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly see no point renaming short category names like "Andorran politics" to longer ones like "Politics of Andorra". Arnomane 08:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Question if I come here and search for Australian Botantists will Botantists of Australia be found. Gnangarra 08:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Definitely the existing categories should be converted to redirects. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Arnomane- Perhaps you should contribute to the scheme's talk page then, and specify why Luxemborgish politicians or Kazakhstani (sic) heads of state should be changed, but not others. It's never too late- maybe you have hit on something no one else has. Really, your answer is expressed in the rationale for the scheme had you read it. When folks search, they use noun forms not adjectival forms. For example, in google, most people will not find hits on an image classified as Andorran, but will as Andorra. I have said this many times to you. You must think more carefully about Google how other internet searchers interact with Commons. -Mak 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Gnangarra- if pfctdayelise's response was not clear, the answer is yes. If you search here for australian botanists, you will be redirected. I will place a note about this in the warning pages.-Mak 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

12 July

Images from 2MASS

Hello all,

can anyone tell me if the images of 2MASS can be used here. Here is a link to their release explanation: http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/allsky/

Thanks. --Wing 07:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes you can upload 2MASS images. See http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/gallery/index.html. Quote: The images in this gallery are released into the public domain.. Arnomane 08:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Tag {{PD-LOC}}

We have this tag, {{PD-LOC}}: Template:PD-LOC Contrary to what we are saying with this tag, the Library of Congress clearly states that

“it [...] does not grant or deny permission to publish or otherwise distribute material in its collections. Permission and possible fees may be required from the copyright owner independently of the Library. It is the researcher's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in the Library's collections.”
See here for details

I don't see a point in this tag. It leads people to believe material of the Library of Congress is automatically suited for the Commons, particularly when it says “No known restrictions on publication” on the Library's site. E. g, this 1964 Image of Martin Luther King, tagged with {{PD-LOC}}, is taken from this page of the Library, where it says nothing more than that the copyright status is unknown.

I think the tag should no longer be used. --Wikipeder 11:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the template as it stands is incorrect and could be misused. It should not be deleted, but made more self-restricting. For many photos, the LOC does explicitly state the photo's copyright has expired. That is certification from an official USGov agency, so it's gold.
The PD LOC tag should be modified to require the LOC# or Marc record# which states the copyright is expired or that there are no known license restrictions. If the number is omitted, the template should raise a category warning on missing license info. -Mak 21:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
No known restrictions on publication will not do. This is something very different to a certified public domain status. It does not mean public domain, it doesn't even mean copyright status cannot be established, it simply means we have to find out the copyright status by ourselves.
The LOC is quite clear in this: Researchers have to determine copyright themselves (see above).
Just look a the image of King quoted above: The LOC has tagged it with No known restrictions on publication. That could only mean public domain, if the photographer had not just licenced it to the LOC but donated it to the public domain. If that were true though, the LOC would say so.
--Wikipeder 00:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
LOC does, where possible, explicitly state if the copyright is expired. It is not uncommon, and they state as much in their guides. Eg.[10] I have struck the case you mention from my note above. The rest of my statement stands. I don't see what objection you have to this more restrictive LOC tag. I propose that the current PD-LOC tag be removed from the list at Commons:Copyright_tags and from the upload pick list, and that a warning text be added that an approved tag should be used instead. The new restrictive LOC tag would state the source is LOC and that LOC record for that image confirms that the copyright has expired. Template requires the page where LOC makes the copyright expiration statement for the image or the collection for which the image is a member.
How does that sound? -Mak 03:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Good. That will make things a lot clearer. --Wikipeder 03:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hold your horses, guys. When the LoC says "no known restrictions on publication", that means that they evaluated the copyright situation of the item and think it is in the public domain in the U.S. For the Image of Martin Luther King from this page of the Library, please see this explanation from the LoC why this image is {{PD-US}}: the copyright holder, U.S. News and World Report, donated these image into the public domain. (Since that image was done by Marion S. Trikosko as a work for hire, USNWR is the copyright holder.) The LoC is very diligent about labelling its images; when they did not evaluate the copyright status of an item, they say "status unknown". The tag needs to be changed to make clear that only images for which the LoC says explicitly "no known limitations on publication" are {{PD-US}}. Lupo 09:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Or maybe {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} is more precise. The copyrights have not expired, but the rights have been "dedicated to the public". I don't know what that means exactly, but I would guess the LoC acts as the custodian of these rights, and since they say that there were no known restrictions on publication, CopyrightedFreeUse looks like a plausible interpretation that would even apply world-wide. Copyright expired, however, may apply only in the U.S. (I very strongly doubt that the LoC evaluates whether a copyright had expired all over the world.) Lupo 09:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • In other cases, the phrase "no known restrictions on publication" means that the investigations of the LoC have not unveiled any copyright holder. See their own explanation. I think that's good enough for us to consider such works at least {{PD-US}} if in doubt, and maybe even {{PD-old}} in some cases. Image:Jerusalem Jaffator um 1900.jpg, for instance, was published 1905 and thus is at least {{PD-US}}!. Lupo 09:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for these details, Lupo.
The trouble is that "No known restrictions on publication" is not equivalent to a single type of licence. Such an image may be PD-US, it may be PD-old (particularly anonymous works according to the Berne Convention), it may be Copyrighted Free Use, it may be Fair Use or even something else.
After some consideration I suggest the existing appropriate tags be used accordingly, not a tag that seeks legitimacy by mere reference to the LOC. Images where the LOC say it were not established which of these images are merely Fair Use – such as the ones donated by USNWR – should not be accepted to the Commons. {{PD-LOC}} should open a warning to this effect and not assign any licence.
--Wikipeder 12:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I reworded the template a little bit, should be better now but may need some further modification. Suggestions ?--Denniss 01:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been uploading images from the LOC to Wiki*edia for a while now. Almost every high-resolution photograph that is provided by the LOC (meaning the .tif file is made available) has been evaluated quite thoroughly or is from a collection where the copyright status is well-known. Most images from the LOC website database are simply thumbnails, and you have to actually order the image from them or view it in their collections at wherever they are storing it. More often than not, these high-res images are also in the public domain or have had their rights released. --tomf688 (talk - email) 16:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Anatomy in black

Hi, I started working on some article about anatomy on the Lingala Wikipedia (language spoken in the Congos) and I feel uncomfortable having only pictures of body part of White people. It just seems weird to know that the public is mostly Black and that all the pictures are of White people. That made me think of the problem in a more general way, there's a large quantity of pictures with White people and very few with non White, or whatever you call it. ---moyogo 14:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Even the diagrams representing the human body, clearly depict White people. To be fair we should have diagrams representing other ethnicities or even better, have them neutral (if that's possible). ---moyogo 14:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree very much that we need anatomy pictures for a much wider range of people, but unfortunately we are limited by what people volunteer or donate. The contents reflect our demographics so far, I guess.
Diagrams, though, we can definitely do something about. I don't know how we could make a neutral-colouring one but having re-coloured versions is a great idea. Are there any in particular you'd like? The first step would be to request the creator to remake another version, if they are not willing/available maybe another graphics whiz will step in to volunteer. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

13 July

Color profile used by Commons?

Screenshot from Photoshop of image before and after beeing uploaded

There's an annoying color shift to images I've uploaded to Commons. Can't see the reason for this as I've optimized them for web usage in the same way as I would for any other web application (and then without any shift). Haven't found any info concerning this. Have I missed something? --Oktober 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Commons (or rather, MediaWiki) does not change the files you upload. They are just as they where on your disk. Note however that in articles and also on the image page, you'll see a scaled version of you image (click on them image on the scription page to go to your full version, like here [11]). It is possible that when scaling the image, ImageMagick changes the colors a bit somehow. If even the unscaled, full version looks different than you expect, then it's an issue with your browser. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The colors should not be changed by imagemagick (although we add fun jpeg artifacts, and bluring from downsampling).. it's possible that your image has an ICC profile attached and it's getting lost causing a difference in your ICC aware application. In any case, images uploaded to commons should be sRGB... don't expect the clients to obey ICC profiles, because most don't. --Gmaxwell 20:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd bet a donut on Gmaxwell's theory. If you haven't a clue what he said try the following- load up the offending image and do save as. See if the a box labelled "ICC" at the bottom is checked. If it does, try the following to fix:
  1. Menu "Image->Mode->Convert to Profile".
  2. Dialog- "Destination space", pick "sRGB IEC1966-2.1
  3. Now, when you go to save the JPG image, the ICC checkbox will now be unchecked.
Why all the mumbo jumbo? Because if you care about color accuracy, you don't want to be limitted by different devices that cannot handle all the colors in your image. More info, see Color management. There are better color profiles than the one used by nearly all images on the web (sRGB), and some jpgs do use them (it is pretty rare for internet images though). So if it's your image and you can't tell the difference between them, convert your image to the sRGB profile as gmaxwell recommended.
If you have default photoshop settings, you will be made aware when you load an image with a non sRGB profile. However, if you work in a publishing or photography shop, your photoshop may have been configured to simply use the profile embedded in the metadata of the file. You can set it back to ask you- take a look at the help for your version of photoshop to see how to do that. Search on profile in help. -Mak 23:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's working fine now using the method I always have for web images. I must have done something a little differently with the church photo, and instantly suspected MediaWiki's image rendering to be the cause ... Still - thanks for your input! Footnote: The way I work with web images in Photoshop is this: 1) I do all adjustments in the color space used by the original file, normally AdobeRGB. 2) When happy I flatten the image and copy-paste it into a new file which uses my calibrated screen color space. This as to neutralize any ICC while the colors stay perfectly intact (with "Keep embedded profile" chosen in Color Preferences). 3) Resizing and sharpening, if not a MediaWiki image. 4) Finally using "Save for web" with ICC's off. I find this the only way to be in control of the colors in screen images. So far it's been working perfectly with the browsers I've tried (IE, Firefox, Safari) on both Mac and PC's, as well as on web applications like Flickr.

Before and after, part 2:
Image:kalmar_kyrka.jpg Old version
Image:kalmar_kyrka_v2.jpg New version

--Oktober 10:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Massive upload

Hi, I have a lot of pictures uploadable on commons. I have downloaded commonist, now I'm not sure if I should upload them with my user or let them do to SunBot (i would ask for permission on meta). Suggestions? --Helios89 22:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot meaning how many? Dozens, hundreds? Dozens you can probably do under your user account without a problem. BTW you don't need to go to meta to request a bot flag, see Commons:Bots. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I used commonist for hundreds of images (see Category:Army parade of Italy). is that wrong? --Jollyroger 08:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
That category doesn't exist. I guess if no one's complained to you yet it's probably OK. :P Just as long as your bot is tagging & categorising images - that's the most important thing - and you are prepared to clean up after it if it screws up. Also hundreds over a long period is OK, but hundreds in an hour, maybe not as OK. Don't worry... there are no 'bot police' here. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
right, i used the new name, since the renaming had to be done on 14 july. It should be Italian army parade or so...--Jollyroger 19:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There are about 800 images, there is anyone that could flag User:SunBot ? When I finish this work it will operate like an usual bot, find/replace, etc... --Helios89 08:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please upload about 20 with the bot first (so we can see how it will operate), then follow the instructions on Commons:Bot to obtain a bot flag. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Helios89 13:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm... Why should a cloud be in a category:landscape and not a subcategory of Category:Clouds? Are they 800 images of clouds? There seems to be a high degree of similarity between the pictures. Is it necessary to upload so many similar images? (It may well be - I don't know.) Can you give the images more descriptive names? pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Err no I have no more photos of clouds. Most of them are of flowers in my garden, other of my trip to Florence and other are of Bormio a little town in mountain. I will check to avoid uploading of pictures too similar...Err I don't know many name of flowers but I will try...--Helios89 15:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Votes violation and possible bad use of sock puppets

See the history of Commons:Featured pictures candidates/Image:Soichi 20Noguchi em 20alta.jpg. The User:João Felipe C.S modificated one vote ([12]) , but after he come back ([13]). After, the User:Isabel Larroyd modifies two votes and erases two coments ([14]). The same user includes a vote of a person that no voted ([15]), the User:Celia M. can be a sock puppet, as well as User:Isabel Larroyd. After, Isabel includes more three votes ([16]), change one more ([17]) and arranges some fake votes ([18]). The user still make some editions, but the vandalism still there. I think that something must be made with the user. Thanks for attention and sorry my bad English. -- Fernando S. Aldado 23:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

One more possible sock puppet: User:Voter 789. -- Fernando S. Aldado 00:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Possibly also Fernando Torres. You'ld get paranoid here ;-) -- Lycaon 06:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Warn them, if they do it again, block them for a week or so. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Finito questo!I asked to User:João Felipe C.S if he had created the following accounts:

He confirmed in my talk page. Who knows Portuguese can confer. -- Fernando S. Aldado 18:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

14 July

Can't see image

I recently uploaded Image:Opera Bucharest 25 A.jpg. When I view that page, I don't see the image. If I click through, the high resolution version comes through fine. Does anyone understand what's going on here? Is this liable to be jsut a temporary glitch? - en:Jmabel | talk 06:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Having the same problem at the moment, probably it's just a temporary glitch. --Oktober 09:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I confirmed the issue a few minutes ago, but now it's working. Reportedly, there was some problem with thumbnailing. Should be fixed now. It may be necessary to purge the image cache for images that appear to be broken. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 09:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I upload a new picture to replace old one(Image:Largo da Sé.JPG), but the new picture can't be shown properly. Someone can fix the problem? --9old9 08:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Great news! WMF does content deal with LoC, US Holocaust Memorial Museum

Danny reports that WMF is making some agreements with the Library of Congress and United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (plus maybe more in the pipeline) about collaborating with them to include their archives content on Commons and Wikisource (primarily).

About the USHMM, Danny says:

[They have] given us permission to use any and all of the material created and licensed by that 
Museum... This includes images, video, video  transcripts, audio, and text, including the new Holocaust
encyclopedia  that they are building on line (in seven languages), and which they plan to  be the most 
comprehensive encyclopedia of its kind in the world.... [They were] especially excited by the prospect 
of our  people participating in the translation effort. I would like to point out that  this is an 
outstanding repository of material, not just about World War II and  the Holocaust, but about other 
modern instances of genocide, including Armenia,  Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur. They have no problem 
whatsover with our  translating their proprietary formats into free software formats such as .ogg  

About the LOC:

They also  have enormous archives which they are willing to share, but I am noting  here that some 
of their materials still fall under copyright so greater caution  must be exercised. Over the next few 
weeks, we will better identify what is  there for the taking. 

Pretty amazing stuff huh?! Also very exciting times ahead for Wikisource.

--pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

-Yeah, it would be especially helpful if they put in enough clues that would assist in determining copyright.

  • I have guessed that nearly all the liberation ones of the western camps are US Army, but have only transfered images in the past that were clearly indicated. There are a huge number that are not clearly indicated, and some must have been made by soviet army- probably nkvd. Small notations on collections of those would make release a lot easier. Loose conjecture is not very satisfactory for determining license, and I personally am very reluctant to spend a huge amount of time enhancing, classifying and transfering all pertinent metadata on an image only to see it deleted due to license questions.
  • Mugshots are official German government photos but the rights are murky. There are huge numbers of them and put the human face on the atrocities- IMHO, every single one should be on commons, but the german law on such official photos from this period suggests they are not PD. If they have a lawyer that can issue an opinion about whether those particular photos are free for copying, that would keep folks busy for a quite a while.
  • Soapbox comment: If such official german Nazi photos really aren't PD, then it is time for the German governmental body to strip copyright from the lot of them.

-Mak 16:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This are really great news. If we could formalize such a cooperation we would gain much more leverage in any future negotiations. I hope these libraries can put some of their resources and influence to our rights clearance efforts. Longbow4u 16:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed great news. Let's wait and see how it turns out in the end. Especially the USHMM will need to clarify the copyrights on a lot of images (as Mak already said). Maybe we'll get as a side effect finally the long overdue official word on {{PD-Soviet}} and on German photographs in U.S. archives (why are they considered PD in the U.S.?). Lupo 18:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey now, Thats not what Danny said... It is premature to claim that there are any actual deals actively being worked on with LoC. :) They were very positive, however.. --Gmaxwell 20:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is really great. I've uploaded at least a couple of hundred images from the LOC, but that's not even a fraction of their collection that is freely useable. Some sort of system between the LOC and Wikimedia Commons would be awesome. --tomf688 (talk - email) 17:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Decision Tree Image

First of all there's a .svg-version of the image - and that's the one I've been using.

For the use on Danish Wikipedia I've downloaded the image and made som changes to it. I've made the colors clearer, resized some boxes and moved some text. Furthermore there's no longer a red arrow pointing out in the blue (link).

Although I'm modest I do think my version is a lot better than the current version showed on License selection, and a bit better than the .svg-version.

In a try to limit the number of "illegal" (copyvio, no license, unknown source, unknown license, etc.) images on Danish Wikipedia the image has now been implemented on the upload page.

So what this typic really is about is advertising for my new image - and a suggestion to change the used version. Perhaps other Wikipedia projects could place the image on their upload pages too? What do the users of Wikimedia Commons believe?

Thank you in advance. --|EPO| 19:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to see if it makes any difference to da.wp. Is there any kind of newimages watchdog group that could comment on this?
I am hesitant to overload Special:Upload, since the more text is there, the more it will be ignored, and I don't actually find it that useful... the decision tree is good for people who genuinely want to find out the copyright status of their image. But sadly most bad uploaders, I think, do not care. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
We don't officially got an "new images watchdog" - but I am the administrator who uses most time on clearifaction of images. So if any change I'll gladly report back.
And yeah.. Many people probably don't care, but I'd say it's worth trying. --|EPO| 10:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Christoffer Wilhelm Eckersberg 002.jpg
C W Eckersberg 1841 - Kvinde foran et spejl.jpg

Hello I am a browser here rather than a contributer but I would like to do my least bit to help by locating duplicate files. I tagged the left image as a dupe of the right but nothing has happened to it. Did I do something, is it just caught in the backlog, must I delink it first from all the wikis, are near dupes fine???? The thing is I am not trying to shirk a duty but I am not artistic and I would not like to impose my choice of image on others. The image I proposed for deletion was much larger then the alternative but I'm sure the colours must be wrong. The main reason I am asking this is I have found other, not quite duplicated artwork images, and I wanted to know if it was worth bringing them to attention or if they are regarded as no big deal. MeltBanana 22:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Some other examples found Image:Abelard and Heloise.jpeg and Image:Abelard.heloise.jpg, Image:VelazquezVenues.jpg and Image:Diego Velázquez 064.jpg, also Image:Dante Gabriel Rossetti 001.jpg, Image:Beata Beatrice.jpg and Image:Beata Beatrix.jpg but these last three may be different attempts at the same subject. MeltBanana 23:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right the red shifted one is awful, but the one you prefer is worse. Your preference is out of focus, and lower res. Load up the red shifted one in Photoshop and look at the hair line in the mirror. Next do an Image->Color balance with -31, 0, -41. Ok, now the flesh tones are more natural than yours. I recommend you withdraw your duplicate notice. -Mak 02:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason duplicates are not immediately deleted is because there is a large deletion backlog and duplicates are the lowest priority. Also, I would ask that you please don't tag art images as duplicate. Please do link to other versions, so that people are aware they exist, but trying to decide which image is the best and most faithful rendering of a piece of art is a fruitless exercise IMO. Best to let the end users decide which they feel is the most faithful. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

15 July

Need for admin assistance

Charhally (talk · contribs) was blocked recently for repeatedly uploading unsourced images. After the expiration of the block, he uploaded more unsourced images, and removed the no source tag on the previously uploaded ones without providing any source info on most, and applied a GPL (?) license tag. Those for which he has provided author info do not make clear why there is permission to use the images here. I've retagged some but not all of the 50+ images; I think a block is in order as well. Apologies if there is a more appropriate place to have posted this; I'm more familiar with Wikipedia. Cheers, Postdlf 14:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I blocked this user for week. --EugeneZelenko 14:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
See also Commons:Deletion requests#All contributions of User:Charhally. --EugeneZelenko 15:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

New vandalism bot

Hi, just a note to say I've placed a new bot (a pgkbot clone) in #vandalism-commons which shows new uploads and flags possible vandalism to Commons. Cheers, Tangotango 14:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Whew, so it's an anti-vandalism bot. That headline scared me for a second. ;-) --Eloquence 11:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Add language for login/create account page

Could a sysop add "Bahasa Indonesia|id" on MediaWiki:Loginlanguagelinks? Thx. -- IvanLanin 16:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thx! :) -- IvanLanin 14:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

16 July

Help with converting video to open format

Could anyone direct me to an opensource free GUI based tool which will help me convert .MOV files to Ogg Theora format. I have many small video cliplets of creatures in the Indian desert. AshLin 12:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

See Help:Converting_video -- Duesentrieb(?!) 13:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Any idea what this should be this user has on his userpage and on the talk page ? Looks like an attempt to increase Google hits or something similar. Should this stay there or may it be deleted? --Denniss 16:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

17 July

Orphaning images

Sure, I acknowledge that admins are expected to unlink/orphan images before deleting them. However, taking a look at Category:Against policy with Bad Old Ones is enough to dishearten even the most devoted of admins. Take this beauty for example, Image:Puglia-Bandiera.png:

Usage on wikimedia projects:
commons.wikimedia : Article (1)
de.wikipedia : Article (10), Template (1), Portal (1)
fr.wikipedia : Liste_de_dirigeants_ (1)
nl.wikipedia : Article (2)
it.wikipedia : Article (269), User (2), Template (3)
sv.wikipedia : Article (1)
ja.wikipedia : Article (38), Template (1)
pt.wikipedia : Article (258), Template (1)
ru.wikipedia : Article (7), Template (1)
zh.wikipedia : Article (2)
fi.wikipedia : Article (20), Template (1)
no.wikipedia : Article (6), User (1), Template (1)
eo.wikipedia : Article (284), Template (2)
he.wikipedia : Article (1)
ro.wikipedia : User (1)
sr.wikipedia : Article (5), Template (2)
cs.wikipedia : Article (1)
ca.wikipedia : Article (6), Template (1)
bg.wikipedia : Article (2)
lt.wikipedia : Article (1)
et.wikipedia : Article (1)
eu.wikipedia : Article (1)
scn.wikipedia : Article (1)
nap.wikipedia : Article (1)
cy.wikipedia : Article (1)
it.wikisource : Category (1)

There are heaps of other images, including other Italian flags, that are similarly widely used and are likewise copyvios.

Commons should be a repository for freely licensed media, and hence also a source of supplemental materials to enrich other Wikimedia projects. When users upload files to the Commons, they should do their best to provide accurate information — or at least believable, since we often have no way of telling the difference. Likewise, as with many other stock photography and image hosting sites, users should be aware that their files could be deleted at the discretion of the Commons administration if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the source or validity of the license.

But in accordance with the intended role of Commons as a media repository instead of a Wikimedia slave database for multimedia files, projects using files from Commons should also accept that these files could be deleted at any moment. Thankfully, CommonsTicker is available for any interested project to notify them of deletions. However, it should be the responsibility of the projects themselves to actually unlink the deleted images.

In the meantime... I've begun to investigate the possibility of writing an OrphanBot for our client projects, but my Internet access will be sporadic for the next month, and my programming capabilities are... yet untested on such a scale, to say the least.

Until then, perhaps the most efficient technique of decreasing copyvios without drastic changes in policy is to rely on Orgullobot to tag files with seemingly insuffient info and for admins to browse Category:Unknown often. However, some users have gotten creative and figured out that the GFDL and common CC licenses are free, and upload copyvios under these licenses, necessitating the patrol of Special:Newimages as well. While these take a fair amount of time and effort, I can accept them as part of the daily workings of Commons. Unlinking images from 20+ other projects, however, should not be our responsibility.

Sorry if this reads more like a blog entry than a serious proposal... Though it's quite far from a serious proposal. Nonetheless, I would like to solicit your responses on this matter. —UED77 04:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't waste your time writing an OrphanBot. We have one - User:Orgullobot. But the projects got snarky when it was used (since it edits anonymously and without necessarily meeting their local Bot laws).
Hm. Perhaps we should do this: decide that local projects that have CommonsTickers have delinking responsibility. Post on the Village pump of every project that doesn't already have one, that they have three options: 1. Get a CommonsTicker and assume responsibility for delinking. 2. Allow orphanBots to work on their project without registration or meeting local requirements (however they must post their commons user name in their edit summaries). or 3. Accept redlinks caused by still-linked images being deleted. (This doesn't apply to en.wp while the database is broken.) Hm I don't know... maybe this is too harsh.
That image was tagged as a copyvio long before we had CommonsTickers. So I just did a fake untag and retag, hopefully now the CommonsTickers will pick it up. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that something has to change. Examples like the one above are very disheartening to admins wanting to delete copyvios; depending on how temperamental your Internet connection or Wikimedia's servers are being, it could take as much as two hours just to orphan one image like Image:Puglia-Bandiera.png. It seems to me that between the conflicting principles of (1) getting rid of copyvios as quickly as possible and (2) not leaving red links, (1) should take absolute precedence for a Commons admin. Angr 10:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Commons admins are not required to unlink images that are in violation of copyright or commons policy before deleting them (although it's nice to do it). Unlinking is only requiredfor "non-critical" deletions (duplicates, etc) and should generally be done by the person filing the request. Keeping track of which project has to be dealt with in what way is bound to fail - but perhaps we could have an opt-in list for an OrphanBot.

For patrolling uploads, I recommend using my Gallery tool - it shows tagging on usage of the image on teh first glance, making it much simpler to detect "unlikely" tagging. Note that in the link i gave, the tool is configured to show images uploaded until six hours ago, so people have some time to update the image descriptions after uploading. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if Duesentrieb, or anyone else who shares this belief, would like to take on the wrath of dozens of projects and delete these, the most heavily-linked speedy delete candidates, me & UED77 would be much obliged:
I have to admit, I don't like being the bad guy. So if someone else here doesn't mind... please help us out. pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Can't we have someone explain politely but firmly to the local projects that a bot is absolutely necessary? We cannot expect Commons admins to delink thousands of instances of one image just to delete it. Jkelly 16:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetically speaking, say there were a bot run by a simple commoner that did the following:

  1. Posted a warning message on each offending wiki article's talk page 2 weeks prior.
  2. Copies the image to a new name on commons
  3. Deletes the reference from the wiki article, with embedded comment that:
    1. profusely apologizes for the action,
    2. gives the location of the temporarily stored new name image on commons,
    3. suggesting that they either copy the image back into their wiki if local law allows, or investigates whether a fair use copy may be used.
    4. Warning that the temporarily stored image will be deleted in 14 days.
  4. puts the image in a category of copyvios with no Wiki links and so may be speedy deleted by any admin with no obstacles. (political cover- "hey, when I deleted, there was no link from your wiki. Further, I see you were warned two weeks in advance, further, I see that you had an opportunity to copy a fair use copy back to your wiki in a 2 week window....")
  5. image is speedy deleted so a reversion of the wiki article does not bring the image back into the article.
  6. Temp copy of image (EG:"Image:[BotName] TempCopy034" is reused or speedy deleted in 14 days.

That would not be too much trouble for a bot, and if other wiki folks don't like it, the ire would be vented on the simple commoner who has no relationships or interest in future relationships that might be a constraint for others. How does that sound? -Mak 20:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty complex. Since images can be undeleted now, I think it would be easier to simply delete the problem files and if any project requests a copy to upload locally, any admin can easily email it to them, or temporarily undelete. But anyway, it kinda misses the problem, which is: local projects don't like anonymous bots running on their project without their knowledge or permission.
Like Jkelly, I too would just like to say "too bad, we need a bot. deal". But we also need the constant co-operation of the local projects. This is a pretty ultimatum-kind of approach which doesn't generally tend to win friends. I was thinking it might be more acceptable after we get universal login, then the bot wouldn't be anonymous, but that appears to have been a mirage. :/ --pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, I will say, in months of using my translations (I originally used a longer version explaining about uploading locally if they accepted fair use), I have never had a single person from any project approach me for a copy to upload locally. They mostly seem to just accept that the image can't be used. And mostly they can't: most uses are not fair use and I get the feeling unsourced images is a bigger problem than fair use conflict. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Mak's proposal is much to complicated - too much overhead, too many things that can go wrong, and it takes too much time and effort. Images that are copyvios or are not compatible with commons policy, or are missing crucial license or source info, should be deleted without firther ado after giving the uploader one week time to fix things (this does not apply to duplicates, "superceeded" images, etc). I have a bit of an itchy finger for some of the above, but I want to make sure I have the support of the Commons community for my course of action. I say, we delete such images (unlinking being nice but not required in such cases). Generally, it's the repsonsibility of the local project to educate their user to think about licensing before using images. They have the following options:

  • get a CommonsTicker page and use it
  • opt-in for an "orphanizer" bot (we would have to establish a bot and opt-in mechanism)
  • live with the red links
  • come here and ask for a copy to upload locally, if they believe the image is compatible with their local policy.

Any thoughts? -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, looking at the list again: several (especially coats of arms) seem to be borderline cases to me, perhaps they should be discussed some more. What I proposed above should be used in clear cases. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what I said? :P I agree, then. For the images I listed, if they're borderline I guess we should list them instead on COM:DEL. Quite a few are about European laws that I rather don't like to delve into. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever we do, please let's make certain it's communicated properly to all projects and to users on Commons. At the moment, red links are once again appearing as certain admins delete files without warning — even on Commons itself. Common users need to be told, repeatedly, what they can do to help. -- Ranveig 15:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

However it is performed, it is a subtractive operation, so how best to do it must observe the human dynamics of the situation. You guys are best suited to guage the fit between process and those dynamics, but in my opinion, making red text is not the way to win friends and influence people. Attempting to get people to be proactive and getting involved in a process people would rather avoid (like death and taxes) is a difficult sell. My way deals with a more passive behavior pattern, and is certainly not as trivial as a single button click to make red text, but really fear of the unknown makes it seem like I am talking about something more complex that what it really would be (more like a fire and forget script). Other proposals are not without their costs as well, such as the price of massive communication overhead in educating perpetually new volunteers to process, soothing irritated and/or confused individuals, etc etc. Your choice. It's impossible to prove in advance but I think you folks are drifting into the wrong set of choices due to your model of how people behave. -Mak 16:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Vatican coa.png

Just a note: Image:Vatican coa.png can and should be replaced by Image:Emblem of the Papacy.svg before being deleted. I've just put in a bot request at en-wiki to do this for the local version there because it's being used in well over a hundred pages there. If other people could help me go through its usage on other projects and replace it, we can finally delete this copyvio. Thanks! Angr 17:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Before we go nuts doing that, are we certain Image:Emblem of the Papacy.svg is not a copyvio?? Both appear to be from OpenClipArt, neither has a direct URL, one is tagged copyvio and one is not. Can we resolve that first, please? pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:Emblem of the Papacy.svg is cropped from Image:Flag of the Vatican City.svg (current version), whose original is [19], so yeah, clearly not a copyvio. I did the same with Image:Vatican coa.svg, which Sanbec marked as duplicate. I don't care if that image is deleted, but if there's a difference between the coa of Vatican city and the emblem of the Papacy (which I asked Sanbec on his talk page) maybe some care should be used when replacing the image. NielsF 01:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


To have later a change to separate non-illustrated text-pages like Image:Brownsequard-recherches-pages16-17.jpg, please use Template:Text. This could be useful to create for instances a beautiful screensaver or something else. In the german discussion there was also a plan about a Template:Drawning. What do you think, would it be useful to differing images(photos) from drawnings? I think no. Kolossos 16:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This might be useful for bots or a "smart" media search engine... but I see no benefit to human users. What is this actually intended for? -- Duesentrieb(?!) 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Is anybody able to explain to me why this picture should be kept here, bearing in mind that there are other websites for this sort of explicit erotica? MartinD 08:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

While "explicite erotica" do have a place on commons (not en mass, however), this image seems to be a plain copyright violation. I have tagged it for deletion and asked the uploader to clarify. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! MartinD 12:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Replacing images

Someone has replaced Image:Front_Norwegian_Railway_Museum_2006.jpg, Image:Skedsmo kirke.jpg and Image:Stange kirke.jpg with his own work, rather than upload a new work under his own lisence. Could someone please take a check on user and revert these changes? Thanks. beagle84 10:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the images. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone going to Wikimania?

From the Signpost: Copyright basis and Wikipedia: A workshop

In this workshop, Jean-Baptiste Soufron, the chief legal officer for the Foundation, will provide an introduction to copyright rules for publishing on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, and address questions such as how to properly use copyright to input data into wikipedia, and how to properly re-use the content of wikipedia. The workshop will take the form of a 45 minutes presentation of copyright basis, followed by a discussion with participants asking questions related to their experiences and work. It is hoped that the content of these discussions will take the form of a wiki webpage with someone dedicated to input the content of the session on the wiki. The objective of the workshop is to provide a simple copyright manual, and a good introduction to copyright, for new and old Wikipedians.

Someone please go and ask lots of questions?????????? :) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Contacting Soufron via e-mail is another way to get some input on specific questions. Remember, though, that he's a volunteer like most of us, and may have only limited time available to answer enquiries. I can't go to Wikimania, unfortunately, but how about collecting questions right now and here? Lupo 06:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

18 July

New Free Use License

The image copyright tags page requests that a new free license be posted on the Village pump before posting it on the list there. I recently made a new free template specifically for the New Jersey Department of Transportation, at {{NJDOT}}. Please let me know if it's OK to put it on the general Commons:Copyright tags#Other free tags list. Thanks! lensovet 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects within 7 days, I'll just put it up. lensovet 04:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't (yet). Selective quoting is a powerful way of (self-)deception. They also say "However, the Department of Transportation makes no warranty that materials contained herein are free of Copyright or Trademark claims or other restrictions or limitations on free use or display. Making a copy of such material may be subject to the copyright of trademark laws." That should at least be mentioned in the template, and I'm not sure the template is useful at all. Consider the images here, where they state "Photo taken by Mike Rosenthal, NJTransit". Now what does that mean? Is NJTransit a branch of the NJDOT? (It seems so, but I'm not sure.) Does Mike Rosenthal hold a copyright on that image? (Maybe, but maybe it falls under their license statement as a "work of an employee of the NJDOT created in the course of his duties and published on the NJDOT website"?) What does "view, copy or distribute" in their license statement mean? How about derivative works (modifications), or commercial uses? Ultimately, I think you should contact the NJDOT and ask for some clarifications. Lupo 06:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please help with "free-domain" question

I want to publish a map, but I am not sure, if it is in free-domain. Here is the story:

  1. The base of the map has been published on the Net (on the site of the .gov Internet-domain) by the New York City agency . It is clear that images, created by US Federal Government are in the public domain. What about City Government?
  2. If not, I still have a chance. I fixed an error on that map and did some minor adjustments. May I say, that I am the creator and put it under free domain license.
  3. If not, are there any other ways to include the image into Wiki articles? The image is needed by several of Wiki projects.

Thank you --HenryS 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. I doubt that the map is PD because only work by the US Federal Government is PD, most states and cities do not release their work into the public domain. So if it does not say it's PD on the specific web page you cannot use it.
  2. No, since the original is copyrighted, derived work cannot be under a free license.
  3. Maybe you find a free source in Category:Maps_by_source that has a map for your need. --Matt314 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
If all else fails, you can upload it on the local Wikipedia under fair use. lensovet 21:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
...if that local wikipedia allows fair use. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The simplest and best thing to do in such cases is: just ask them. Use Commons:Email templates. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

19 July

A photo shot by my friend

Dear colleagues,

I would like to ask you whether or not it is proper to upload image with the following copyright status:

During a touristic trip, my friend made a photo (on my camera) that seems to be quite good for Wikipedia. To have an opportunity to upload the image later in Wikipedia, I have immediately recorded a video, in which he expresses his agreement me to publish or otherwise use this photo without any limitations, including publishing it under GFDL and Creative Commons. I have no quick contact with the friend, but I can easily contact him in emergency (for example, in case of any official requests).

An important note: both my friend and me are Russians, photo shot in Russia, and I'm going to upload the image via computer resided in Russia. According to the Russian copyright laws, it is technically impossible to transfer any physical person's copyrights in a work by a gratuitous agreement (any physical person licensing agreement (russ: “авторский договор”, “avtorskij dogovor”) is required to contain royalties clause).

May I upload such an image with link to the video?

If no, does it mean that no Russian third person's works are allowed to upload in Commons Wiki, no matter that the explicit consent from the person is granted?

Thank you!

Drbug 09:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)