Commons:Village pump - Wikimedia Commons

Shortcut: COM:VP

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive Third-party images published by the National Weather Service (26 August 2024) Commons:Requests for comment/Hosting of free fonts in Commons (18 July 2024) How do we organize categories by date (14 May 2024) Should PD-CQ Roll Call be used for recent images? (5 January 2024) Technical needs survey (17 December 2023) When does PDART apply to textile works? (15 November 2023) Does this image contain "love hearts"? (17 August 2023) Definition of country (19 June 2023) Overhaul of categories by period (5 December 2022) Version of Saudi flag to use (11 July 2022) Concern regarding revocability of KOGL licenses (22 December 2021) Should deleting content from your own talk page be forbidden? (11 November 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021) Change technical name of LRs to license-reviewer from image-reviewer(2 November 2023) Was the closure of the deletion discussion concerning the current lede image for Philippe Pétain proper under Commons policy? (22 September 2024) Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch

I have a wood carving Of der bucherwurm with c.spitzweg carved on the base. Any idea who would have made this. Looks very old. About 7' high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by abcbrain@aol.com (talk • contribs) 25:67, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is there any reason the default signature here on commons doesn't link to the user's talk page liked it does on en.wp? It's kind of annoying. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because you never asked! :) Should be good now; MediaWiki:Signature. giggy _(:O) 10:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cool, thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is a multilingual wiki. You cannot hardcode English talk. Please make this something language-neutral. --::Slomox:: >< 14:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

How about ✍ symbolizing write me? --::Slomox:: >< 14:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I kinda like that. Soxred93 (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

See #Multilingual_templates, we could make "talk" show up in every language based on the user's interface setting. Rocket000 (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

That character shows up as an empty rectangle in my browser... AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Changed it. And seems to work. --Slomox (Diskuschoon) 13:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, it does not work. Replaces the string with the preferred language of the saving user. --Slomox (Diskuschoon) 14:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

The software seems to expand all curly bracket stuff in signatures regardless of how you include it. --Slomox (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I changed the signature to the symbol ✍. But I inserted a CSS class, that makes it possible to include the line

 .signature-talk:after { content: " talk"; }

in your personal Special:Mypage/monobook.css, which will show "talk" appended to the signatures (or whatever string you like, just replace the word "talk" with what you want).

Perhaps it is even possible to include some string in the common CSS to automatically insert the relevant "talk" string for the user language. --Slomox (✍) 16:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I really like the idea, but ✍ is a poorly supported character. It shows up as an empty rectangle for some (as AnonMoos pointed out). Maybe there's other options out there. Rocket000 (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I would be ok with {{int:SignatureTalk}}. Sure, it won't be recognizable to most but I don't think it's really important what it says anyway (thinking of all those customized signatures). Rocket000 (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

But {{int:SignatureTalk}} won't work. It will be replaced with hardcoded talk for users with English set in the preferences and hardcoded Diskussion for users with German set in the preferences etc. Okay, if you know that the first link after the username links to the discussion page, it is not necessary to understand the link text, but if it doesn't matter what the link says, where is the problem with the writing hand (the empty rectangle)? Quite easy to remember: empty rectangle = talk page (and an empty rectangle is much shorter than the word talk, we would save screen space! yeah!).

And the empty rectangle had the advantage, that you could customize it by CSS. If you want the links to be meaningfully captioned, you can achieve that easily. With that solution you can even change the caption at any time and it will have an effect even on signatures set in the past (well, from this day on or from the day at which the CSS class will be implemented).

With some extra code in the common.css or common.js you could also localize the text shown after the empty rectangle for all users. (For the new users, who are not aware of the "first link after username is talk page" rule.)

Sadly there is no way to determine the language of the interface language set by the user with CSS (although this would be easy to implement). A CSS solution would be perfect. But the interface language is available to JS. A JS solution would be possible right now. --Slomox (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I meant I would be ok with hardcoded talk in various languages, however, "Talk" is probably ok even for those that don't speak English. It's a common enough word on wikis, like "[edit]" or "Image:". I don't really see it as a language barrier. Empty rectangles or ?s or squiggly messes (what it looks like in my edit window) aren't ideal either. People will be like wtf is that suppose to be. Something must be wrong. What about

Mirandés: switch

in for all langs (e.g. if uselang=x do x)? Or that be too hard on the servers? Rocket000 (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where do you want to place that

Mirandés: switch

? In MediaWiki:Signature? That won't work. That would mean, that the whole switch would be inserted every time you sign a post.

Instead of the write symbol, we could make the link empty (without rectangles, question marks, squiggly messes or whatever the browser shows for the write symbol) and fill it per CSS with the localised string. That's the same as my previous proposal, but without a default. Would work for most users, but not for the few users, that don't have CSS activated or otherwise cannot use that replacement method. --Slomox (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, nevermind. It was late. :) Rocket000 (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

If we add

function locSig() {
  var spans=document.getElementsByTagName("span");

  for (var i = 0; i < spans.length; i++) {
     if ( spans[i].className == 'signature-talk' ) spans[i].className = spans[i].className + ' ' + spans[i].className + '-' + wgUserLanguage;
  }
}
addOnloadHook(locSig);

to MediaWiki:common.js and

.signature-talk:after { content: " talk"; }
.signature-talk-nds:after { content: " Diskuschoon"; }
.signature-talk-de:after { content: " Diskussion"; }
.signature-talk-en:after { content: " talk"; }
.signature-talk-ca:after { content: " Discussió"; }
[... other languages]

to MediaWiki:common.css and change MediaWiki:Signature to

[[User:$1|$2]] {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|User talk:$1|([[User talk:$1#top|<span class="signature-talk"></span>]])|([[User talk:$1|<span class="signature-talk"></span>]])}}

that would show the localised string for all languages which are present in the code added to MediaWiki:common.css, "talk" for all other languages which have not defined a localised string or Javascript turned off and nothing for all people who have turned off CSS. (If we added ✍ in MediaWiki:Signature by default, those people with CSS turned off would at least see that symbol)

At the moment it is not possible to do this without Javascript. But if we could convince the developers to add a CSS class specifying the user's interface language in the HTML body tag, we could even avoid using CSS. We just need to change the CSS code to something like:

.interface-lang-nds .signature-talk:after { content: " Diskuschoon"; }
.interface-lang-de .signature-talk:after { content: " Diskussion"; }
.interface-lang-en .signature-talk:after { content: " talk"; }
.interface-lang-ca .signature-talk:after { content: " Discussió"; }
[... other languages]

What do you think about that solution? --Slomox (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It sounds promising. You convinced me that CSS is the only (practical) solution. I'm ok with doing it with the JS. Anything that involves "convincing the developers" is not something to wait around for. I wish others cared about this to give some input, but that's how it goes on Commons. I say let's go for it. Rocket000 (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The existing scope page has a number of serious problems, in particular:

• 1. It includes extraneous material (eg recommendations on file size) which should be elsewhere.
• 2. It is vague and unclear.
• 3. It provides little practical guidance in areas of particular concern (eg nudity) which results in arguments being continually re-run in deletion requests.
• 4. It does not acknowledge as policy unwritten rules whuch admins frequently use to close deletion requests, the most important of which is the principle that it is not up to Commons to decide on content disputes, and that if a file is in bona fide use on any Wiki project then it, by definition, cannot not fail the 'educational' test.

I have set out a proposal at Commons:Project scope/Proposal. Feedback is encouraged from as wide a range of editors as possible. Please comment at Commons talk:Project scope/Proposal. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

There has been some good feedback already, but it would be nice to have more. The wording has been revised, and the proposal now includes pages/galleries/categories. Please visit and provide more comments at Commons talk:Project scope/Proposal. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

More copyedits now done. Additional feedback appreciated. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing this up - I think we need to update this policy, and the current version is looking like it's just about ready for showtime.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why can't you update an image without having to type in redundant info anymore? Example in this screenshot: http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3813/unavngivetjq1.jpg

All that is already on the file page of the image I'm updating, so why should it be written again? FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Go to your preferences & you can set it so that the old upload form comes up as default.

It seems like every other post here in the VP is regarding the upload form... can we put a big red box at the top of the upload form page and/or the VP which says "if you want the old one, do this" ? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 10:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

You mean where it says "Use the old-style upload form layout."? I already did that weeks ago, it's not the problem. It hasn't asked me to give a source and license when merely updating images before today. FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

When I enter "A naval action during the siege of Tyre by Andre Castaigne (1898-1899).jpg" as the destination filename, I get a red message just below that input field saying "You will upload over an already existing file. The information you enter in this form will not appear on the description page. Maybe you should choose a different destination filename?", and the form in fact does not require any input. Try a forced reload (shift-reload on FF, ctrl-reload on IE): maybe your browser has cached an old version of the upload script. There were some problems initially with overwrite detection for filenames containing parentheses, but these have been corrected quite a while ago. If the problem persists, give me the details (browser, version, OS, precise input, ...) on my talk page. Lupo 12:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I did the same with another file, and the error didn't occur again, maybe that specific image caused a bug? It hasn't happened with any other images afterwards, so I guess there's no problem. FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Try it with that precise name, but don't specify a source file. (Only enter the destination filename in the form, nothing else. Make sure you don't have a typo in that long file name! :-) Happened to me on my first attempt...) If you see the message I mentioned, it'll work. If you don't see that message, click "Upload". If you get again an upload page that says at the very top that the file was empty, it worked. If both fail, we still may have a stray problem somewhere that I'd need to investigate. Lupo 14:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I already uploaded the image by just filling what it wanted me to fill, as you can see in the file history: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:A_naval_action_during_the_siege_of_Tyre_by_Andre_Castaigne_%281898-1899%29.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know you did. But couldn't you do the above anyway? It won't upload anything (since no source file is given), but it would check whether there is a problem after all or not. I'd like to be sure. Lupo 21:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I do not get the message saying "You will upload over an already existing file. The information you enter in this form will not appear on the description page. Maybe you should choose a different destination filename?" when I just put in the filename as the destination without picking a specific file, and when I click upload, I get the same text as could be seen in the screenshot I linked to. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm... and if you go to the upload form, then click shift-reload (or ctrl-reload if on IE), and then do the same again? Lupo 18:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Same thing happened... FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am confused about the "Plants of..." and "Flora of..." categories, e.g., Category:Plants of Greenland and Category:Flora of Greenland. For me, these categories are just different ways to say the same thing. Am I right? If yes, one of them is redundant and should be removed. It seems for me like the most dominant naming scheme used today on Commons are the "Plants of.." categories. Thus, I at some stage moved the media pointing to Category:Flora of Greenland to Category:Plants of Greenland and made a category redirect to plants from flora. This was reverted, and on enquiring the editor I was told by the editor that at least one other user preferred the "Flora of..." category notation, see the thread User talk:Multichill#Flora vs Plants. I am not convinced though, that we have community consensus on this issue, so I would like to ask here. Personally, I think we should go for "Plants of..." as this seems to be most used naming scheme. Any other opinions? -- Slaunger (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do we usually use common names or scientific ones? Personally I like "Plants of". Do we have "Fauna of" or "Animals of"? That would seem to be a precedent. (and what about slime molds! Aren't they both? :) ) I do agree one or the other, not both... ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

We use scientific latin names for the species and higher taxa. Both "Fauna of..." and "Animals of..." are used, but again, "Animals of..." seems to be the most prevailing type of category. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just like most others probably feel, I'm fine either way so long as we're consistent. I agree that "Animals" is the more prevalent as compared to "Fauna" (which doesn't even, technically, exist), so I'd say we use the similarly more prevalent "Plants" rather than "Flora". --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 20:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The second level political divisions in the category tree lack the consistency that "we should be". The "Natures of" categories are an example of an interesting category (kind of touristy in the way it collects things for the area it is for) and almost complete now as when this category did not exist, I made one. If it is consistency that you want, you should probably start somewhere else, not for the category tree that leads up to the Ecozones. -- carol (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Another observation is that we have a Category:Plants by country, but not a Category:Flora by country. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC) categoriesReply

Please move this to where it was started on June 28. I am sorry that interest in this is only sporatic and fleeting and when the discussion starts, enthusiasts are not around, but this is an old thing and the plants of and the flora of exist together, the people who populate the categories are two different groups. Flora of people have a firmer grasp of the reality of software and of a previous consensus that was made. Plants of people have a lot of maintenance that needs to be done to upgrade the existing galleries (in my opinion). Do stop kicking this dead subject.... -- carol (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are basically right in that the words plant and flora are roughly the same thing. Flora means the 'plants of a region', the more general word being 'biota' (which would include slime molds). This is a good question... I can see many 'flora of' and many 'plants of' categories, so it seems to be split pretty evenly. The word 'plant' is more commonly known, which is especially good for people who are not native speakers of English. I must have known what a plant was since I was very young, but it wasn't until I was 12 or so that I learned what 'flora' and 'fauna' meant. Based on this, I would recommend standardizing everything to 'plants of (region)'. Looking at what our big brother Wikipedia does is another idea. It seems to exclusively use 'flora of' and never 'plants of', so maybe we should follow suit? Consistency across projects is a good idea.

It would be good if we had an active biology project to discuss these things. Perhaps we should merge all of the biology related 'WikiProjects' here into one biology/tree of life project? Richard001 (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The management of the categories are not "roughly the same" though. The management of the Flora of categories feels that both galleries and categories can exist together and occasionally there are people who show up with the wikilink to where there was a consensus made that supports that software fact. The plants of category people do not agree with that consensus and software facts and they have their own tree that gets some of the maintenance it demands to verify that. -- carol (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be addressing the people who do the work rather than the names themselves. I'd like to see the names be consistent. One or the other, but not both. I only marginally care which one wins but laymen (and non english speakers) may well know Plants better than Flora. Once merged, if social issues remain with the groups doing the categorizing we can sort that out. But first let's sort the merge. ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is how they are communicated with though. Also, there is no war so there is no 'winning' possible. No reason for the merge either, the projects seem to have different goals, one ending in a big Plants category or a Perennials category -- very admirable goals! The Ecozones (and Flora of and Fauna of and Geography of) is an attempt to categorize the natural world in which all of these things exist natively in it but that are studied differently. If "merge" is a development environment that you are interested in and not necessarily an opinion based on attempting to use the information here to write articles for the encyclopedias and elsewhere; might I suggest that the merge needs to start a little lower within the category schemes. Flora of contains not just Plants of but also "Trees of" categories and "Forests of" and "Flowers of" categories -- which is one of the reasons I am suggesting that the goals for the "Plants of" categories are very very different and fall short of being useful for a category-tree based on the geographical locations of the world. -- carol (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was unaware of the ecozone thing carol had been working on. I do think her work makes good sense, and with the explanation that the flora of and plants of categories are really not redundant, but flora of is a higher level category, containing both plants of, and trees of (and perhaps forests of). That means both can exist. Still unsure about the practise of associatng species to any of these cats though, see thread below. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

But hey, a tree is really a plant, isn't it? If yes, the two cats are redundant, aren't they? Unless, of course Fungi, which are Eukaryote and not part of the plant kingdom are those considered as part of "Flora of..."? -- Slaunger (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is an avoidance of those questions built into this tree. The taxonomy navigation manages those problems. If anyone builds a Fungi of category it should additionally find a category for where the different species occur natively. -- carol (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

And as you are aluding to (whether it was your intentions or not), the "merge" needs to happen lower in the Ecozone category and also lower than the Flora of categories. -- carol (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you try to give a specific example of how you envision a category hierarchy can be implemented which merges the ecozones work into the existing category structure and what type of material should be in those categories in your mind? Right now, it is all a little too fuzzy for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please. Am I just stupid since I do not understand how the structure should look like according to your proposal? -- Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Restarting the original question

This thread seems to have gone haywire with no clear resolution. Let's try again: From the discussion above it seems to me that the "Flora of..." and "Plants of..." categories are indeed redundant. It also seems like most users favor to keep the "Plants of..." categories because it is easier understtod in a multilingual environment. However, some good and valuable work has also been done by carol concerning ezo-zones and regions, all based on categories named "Flora of...". This category structure should be merged into the existing category structure, but how? -- Slaunger (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

If they are to be kept separate, there should certainly be an explanation for this at the highest level categories so that the distinction is clear to viewers, including editors. I don't really think there is a great deal of difference between the two. Richard001 (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

User:Redvers/Say no to Commons. Kelly (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to think of us as pedantic jerks. Well, I'll speak for myself: I'll cop to being a jerk. I try not to let it show too much, though.

It seems like Redvers has misinterpreted cleanup tags on the images themselves as being directed at the uploader, because the statement that "These templates never begin 'thank you for uploading...' simply isn't true for the message templates that are directed at the uploader, such as {{Please link images}}, which he blanked from his talk page and which begins "Thank you for providing images to the Wikimedia Commons." Admittedly, we don't thank good uploaders enough, but if you're contributing to any Wikimedia project just for the praise, you'll probably disappointed.

I think it's pretty cool that we have so many people taking care of three million files that people have contributed, putting them into a structure and continually improving on the existing structure. The people who do that probably don't get thanked as often as they deserve either, but again, that's hardly unique to Commons.

Some say imitation is the highest form of flattery. I'd say it's other people improving on what you've begun. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

To set things straight, I've put him 5 examples of Commons-templates that say "Thank you" on his rant page.[1] --Túrelio (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

When one's right, one should not let facts interfere [2]. Rama (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just to point out one fact wrt. to your diff. :-) He moved the comment to the talk page, away from the user-subpage, where he was/is writing an essay. Haros (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and I am sure that he also corrected his essay, thanked Túrelio for the information and appologised for his unfair criticism. How courteous and sportive of him. Did he not? Rama (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Those who points out facts to someone and expects answers that acknowledges factual mistakes and/or thanks for the information and/or apologies are usually not rewarded. Not so in this case either, at least not yet. Haros (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

@Haros, don't take literally what Rama wrote. Take it as a retort to Redvers' allegation that Commons templates never say "thank you for uploading..." or "can I help you with"[3]. Of course I didn't expect anything from Redvers. --Túrelio (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

What I mean to say is that it is easy to prohemently bolster grandiose accusations on the first page, however unfair and disconected from the reality they can be, and relegate corrections to a discreete place. See [4] for a typical historical example. This is a despicable tactic. Rama (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

What I don't understand is what happened that pissed him off so much. He writes, "I've watched as my images were endless[ly] shunted from one category to another category to another category, each editor somehow getting it wrong, but then writing to me to complain that I wasn't perfect first time" but in fact, his talk page here at Commons has only been edited once, and that was more than a year after he had already basically given up on Commons. During the entire time he was active at Commons, from January to October 2006, he never received a single message on his talk page. No one ever wrote to him (unless it was by e-mail or at his Wikipedia talk page) to complain that he wasn't perfect first time. Or for any other reason, for that matter. Then, 13 months after his last Commons upload, he gets one message asking him to categorize an image (using a template that begins, "Thank you for providing images to the Wikimedia Commons"), and then, 6 months after that, he suddenly writes this essay accusing us of always sending him nasty template messages that don't even say "thank you". WTF??? —Angr 18:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Maybe his e-mail preferences were set to notify him when his watchlist images were edited, and he got mad about the e-mails when people edited the images to change the categories? Kelly (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

imo, there's some truth in this [this-way: unacceptable] editor's misbehaviour. --WeHaWoe (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

BTW: What "terrible_stuff" did thatone ever contribute? ;))bb -- WeHaWoe (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

"he never received a single message on his talk page." (Angr) - 1 message, actually. —Giggy 08:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I wrote, "During the entire time he was active at Commons, from January to October 2006, he never received a single message on his talk page." The one message he received came in November 2007. —Angr 12:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, I understand the thing about templating for not categorizing images. Personally, I never do that. What makes it the uploader's job anyway? They may know nothing about the image—just being the transferrer (with upload bots and everything). It's a wiki, people who love categorizing should be categorizing. It's like if they started an article on WP, you wouldn't template them for not categorizing it. Of course, the criticism makes no sense coming from where it does, but it's always good to be reminded not to overdue the template thing. I find custom messages work better anyway. Rocket000 (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree. It's worth templating people who don't seem to care (copyvio uploaders and the like), and even then it's often worth spending an extra minute or two writing out a message yourself. Templating solid contributors is rude. None of which is to say that Redvers doesn't look like a drama-monger, but whatever. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

After reading through this conversation, and with the utmost respect to all participants intended (save myself :) ), I am forced to opine that I'm not sure that it hews as closely to the spirit of COM:MELLOW as it could, nor does it, by being a bit defensive, dispel the notion of officiousness :) ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I can see that. It is frustrating, though, to have an administrator at the English Wikipedia publish such an essay, and then decline to specify any issues so that we can fix them. I don't know about other projects, but there are several users at en, some of them pretty prominent, who further a meme that images at Commons are deleted randomly or capriciously, or that policy is not stable. For instance, see [5]. I try to counter this when I can, but I can't determine the source of this attitude. My guess is that the people complaining are not necessarily knowledgeable about copyright, and copyright isn't particularly well-enforced at en Wikipedia - so a copyvio can survive for years at en Wikipedia whereas it gets detected and deleted more quickly here. But that's just a guess. Kelly (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

He just explained this on Lar's talkpage. There are a number of issues. First, why does it matter if commons has enough of a certain media? I never understood your point on this, guys. It doesn't save space, since the SQL table still exists. What makes people on en mad as hell is when their media gets transferred here only to be speedy deleted because commons has enough. That practice must cease if you want to improve your relations with en contributors. So, please what is the actual harm that is caused by having too many images, other then not liking it personally or finding it disorderly? Media is a very finicky thing, everyone has different tastes. What is beautiful to some is ugly to others. I feel that the community and sister projects are better served when there are more choices, not fewer. So what is the point. Second, he objects to Commons editors coming to fix philosophical differences that exist between Commons and en. That isn't how it works, en is not Commons and has different goals. As some have already found out, marching over there and stopping so-called fair-use abuse only makes matters worse. There are roughly 1,500 Administrators and at least 10x as many active editors. This is a battle you are not going to win, you are vastly outnumbered by the cultural enthusiasts. So why not just worry about Commons and not bring the unneeded freedom pedantry to en? --Dragon695 (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I've never seen images deleted with "we have enough of them" justification, with the exception of penis pictures. Are there any other examples? Kelly (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Maybe one example is "almost duplicates", images which are a little different in color, are cropped different, or has other small differences (and sometimes big differences). An example is the map in en:Weddell Sea which was replaced by a larger resolution file with a different cropping, and then deleted. There are many other cases were such files have been speedy deleted. The deletion reason "duplicate, although NOT exact duplicate" almost says that there should be only one version of each image. /Ö 19:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I guess we all know how sometimes people start revert warring between versions of an image. It's usually a map, diagram, flag, emblem or some other image related to nationalities and ethicities. As we are more than happy to host different versions of the same subject and we don't insist that every image is neutral as long as the image is educational (in the broad sense of the word), I thought this template might be useful: {{Image fork}}. Wikipedia disapproves of POV forks, we don't have to.

Using that as an example, there need not be any problems if insted of Image:Christianity percentage by country.png we'd have Image:Christianity percentage by country according to CIA factbook.png and Image:Christianity percentage by country according to CIA factbook and Eurobarometer.png.

Do you think we should start using the template? It's not enough on its own, of cource, and other measures, like this and this may be required. Samulili (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes revert warring between versions of an image is due to multiple people uploading image with catchy name, for example 3 separate images were uploded as Image:Enigma.jpg. So the template language should be generic enough to cover such cases as well. --Jarekt (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Whoa, that's pretty Wikipedia-ish. But we do have {{Disputed chem}}, {{Disputed diagram}}, {{Disputed taxonomy}}, {{Doubt}}, and of course my favorite {{Fact disputed}}. Rocket000 (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is a an image that is being used as labeled and the accuracy of that label has been called into question. see Image talk:ConfucianismSymbol.PNG I placed requests for the Challenger and and the author to come here and discuss it, but in the mean time I wanted to add a warning template to the image, something like "The factual accuracy of this is disputed.", but I was not able to locate anything suitable at Commons:Templates though there are some close ones at W:Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Is there a standard procedure or template in this case? Jeepday (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

There it is {{Doubt}} . --Túrelio (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I posted a message at Commons talk:Templates asking if it should be posted so it would be easier to find. Jeepday (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

See the post above. Rocket000 (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I want to upload [7] to Commons but I can't figure out how to download to my hard drive so that I can upload it here. It doesn't seem to have a "Save" icon, and the context menu I get by right-clicking on it doesn't have a "Save" option. I tried right-clicking on the link at [8] and selecting "Save link as...", but that just saves load_djvu_applet.cgi rather than the DjVu file itself. What do I do? —Angr 13:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't bother. If you look at page 2, it says use is restricted to non-commercial uses, or any fair use. We don't allow "non-commercial only" or fair-use here. Powers (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The book is in the public domain as it is by a UK author who has been dead for more than 70 years. We can safely ignore their copyfraud claims restricting re-use to non-commercial only. —Angr 14:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but someone had to digitize it. Isn't that transformative? Powers (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

No. No creative content was added (except for their creative interpretation of copyright law). —Angr 14:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Powers, take a gander at w:Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Try this. --rimshot^talk 15:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

We'll want to edit the document to remove that claim, and perhaps politely let archive.org know that they are in violation of the law. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I tried Rimshot's link, but got "The file is corrupt or has an incorrect extension. Please check the file and upload again" when I tried to upload the same file here. Maybe there's something wrong with the file, since Any2DjVu didn't like the PDF when I tried to convert it to a DjVu. —Angr 16:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Re Bridgeman v. Corel, the book was published in Britain, where Bridgeman v. Corel doesn't hold. But since it's a scan of a book, not a photograph of a painting, it's moot anyway. The copyrightable content here is what the words say, not how they're arranged on the page. No artistic lighting of the pages of this book is going to change the content. —Angr 16:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The scan was performed, as far as I can tell, in the US by US parties who are distributing the work to people in the US. The UK is irrelevant here, since no one would claim the original work is copyrighted. --Gmaxwell (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Similarly to the previous question, I am interested in how to make a djvu page into a Commons image. For instance page 717 from James Sowerby's "Coloured figures of English fungi or mushrooms.djvu" (at right) which was uploaded by Hesperian. I couldn't work out how to make a link to the picture without showing it. Here the original work, the scanning, and the djvu format are all free, aren't they? But there would be a lot of advantages in making it into an ordinary .jpg image page or similar. Is it possible to convert a page of a djvu book into a .jpg file? Strobilomyces (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have almost the exact same question s:Page:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.djvu/9 (along with others) is showing a message "This page consists of an image that needs to be cropped or cleaned up, and uploaded to commons." I have it displayed at s:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc and would like to clean up it and the rest to include in the story as well as a gallery. So can you point me to the how to directions please? Jeepday (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Mediawiki server is automatically converting the image to JPEG on the fly. Do you have a need for a permanent copy of the JPEG to be uploaded? --InfantGorilla (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, in order to use the pages as images so they can be cropped, labeled and other wise used as image i.e. in Gallery

<gallery>
Image:Wiki.png
Image:Wiki.png|Captioned
Image:Wiki.png
Image:Wiki.png|[[Help:Contents/Links|Links]] can be put in captions.
Image:Wiki.png
Image:Wiki.png|Full [[MediaWiki]]<br />[[syntax]] may now be used…
</gallery>

They have to be converted to normal images. Jeepday (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does right-clicking on the Mediawiki preview image (jpeg) and saving it to a file give you a copy with high enough resolution to crop and upload? Sorry I don't know the djvu format, just how it looks on the screen. --InfantGorilla (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, We can probably do that, save it to the users computer, edit and crop as required, then upload it back to commons with a link to the source and DjVu page. Does that sound like a solution that will work with the requriements for licensing and such over here? Jeepday (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are a series of distinct issues here. Firstly, any page of a dvju can be displayed simply by providing a |page= parameter to the image syntax, as demonstrated above; so there is not need to upload these pages as separate images unless they are to be cropped or otherwise enhanced. Secondly, it appears to be impossible to link to a page of a djvu file. Putting a colon in front in the usual way results in page=717|this :-(. There needs to be a bug request submitted for this. (DONE) Thirdly, pulling jpeg images out of a djvu file can be done but it is non-trivial. Briefly, it requires downloading the entire djvu file, using a djvu processing library such as djvulibre to extract the page of interest, decoding it into an image, and then possibly converting it into the desired image format. I have offered to do it in this case, if Strobilomyces is not interested in taking it on him/her self. Hesperian 01:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

For me, the most difficult thing about Wikipedia images is defending them against attack by those who either won't or can't explain in words I can understand. For the purposes of this inquiry, let's assume that I'm uncommonly slow-to-understand or that I fail somehow to grasp the obvious when it should be as clear as the nose on my face.

In that circumstance, there must be a way to insist that someone making a complaint make themselves understood to me so that I can either remedy my inadvertent error or, at least, I can figure out how to avert similar problems in the future. I need a template perhaps -- something which allows me to insist that my good faith effort in locating an image, in uploading it, and in trying my best to provide appropriate support is met by some burden of explanation and persuasion.

I registered in advance for permission to download images created by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). My application was approved. I did upload six images to Wikicommons, and I promptly posted them at en:34th G8 summit. If I need to do something different than what I have done, or if I need to document that effort differently, fine -- but the question becomes one of finding out ... and, based my tentative experiences thus far, that may well turn out to be a Sisyphean task.

See July 8th -- Commons:Deletion requests/G8 images

Perhaps the thing to do is to post an open-ended question here? I'm having trouble simply putting my sense of confusion and dismay in the form of a question? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Problem is the images are copyrighted on the site in which the photo are from. I've found nothing to say that the images are Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 1.0. Bidgee (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The copyright note "Copyright© : Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan" is even on each single photo's page (when you click on a photo).

@Ooperhoofd, therefore I'm wondering why you wrote "The copyright holder of this file -- the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs -- allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted." Did you get a indivual permission from the J-MOFA? (That might not be impossible, but we need the evidence.) --Túrelio (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dear Ooperhoofd, You begin with: "For me, the most difficult thing about Wikipedia images is defending them against attack by those who either won't or can't explain in words I can understand." Well this is where your confusion begins I guess. You are currently at Wikimedia Commons, a repository of images, audio and video that can be used by anyone in the world without significant restrictions. All material in Commons can also be used directly from any Wikipedia version, but Commons is not part of Wikipedia. Your images carry a clear copyright statement by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and we have no evidence that this entity has licensed their material in a way that provides us with the usage freedoms that we require here. If such evidence exists, we need either a link to this statement of the copyright holder, or an email by them that states this needs to be sent to the OTRS. If these are not present, then the images must and will be deleted, because they do not satisfy our core requirements for contributing. Please see also Licensing. TheDJ (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Annie_Sprinkle_Neo_Sacred_Prostitute.jpg

I see this as a significant issue. I communicated with the owner of this image; It is virtually her trademark, and it was never given into the public domain at all. And of course the document that says it was is not available for public viewing. Could somebody please fix this error??? --BenBurch (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image is tagged for speedy deletion so I'll say I will be gone within the next 48 hours if the OTRS proves to be incorrect. Bidgee (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looks like no. I suspect this will become a court matter. --BenBurch (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

  No legal threats please. Use the procedure at COM:OTRS to verify your claims. Otherwise there's no way to prove you aren't a random Internet nut. -N 02:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please. We got solid OTRS confirmation. If the copyright holder has an issue with it, she can contact us. Rocket000 (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Extensive details at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Annie Sprinkle Neo Sacred Prostitute.jpg. See y'all there. --AnonEMouse (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't bother. It's closed. Let's do something productive. :) Rocket000 (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The image file is missing but it wasn't deleted. Is it recoverable? -N 11:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

That is a weird situation. I was having this problem once while I was uploading. I also think that I have had the reverse happen, where I uploaded the image and it displayed but said that the page did not exist. -- carol (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's there now (or at least something is). The image was a deleted version, but there was no deletion log... no idea what the issue might be. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Still needs a source though (original upload log from pt.wp to start). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Was actually a de.wiki image, (which explains the german file name). Source fixed and license changed to PD per original. /Lokal_Profil 13:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'd like to now how to search only PD photos. I'm looking for some landscape in PD licence. Do you know where to go for that? Ajor933 (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

All images, that have a PD-licence are sorted in this category, but since there are nearly 200 different licence-types, that will not help much. You probably will be faster by going through the landscapes and checking the licence of the ones you like. Or you specify a not so general filter, because currently your definition probably includes several hundredthousands of pictures. -- Cecil (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

You can use CatScan. It shows pages that are sorted in both categories specified by you. For example "landscapes" and "Public domain". Direct link for that is [9]. It stops after it has found 1000 pages. If you want more, you have to specify more specific searches. --Slomox (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot, this catScan seems to be exactly what I'm looking for... Ajor933 (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was looking through the Creative Commons search database when I found this image of Eminem, from Flickr. It appears to be under the CC Attribution 2.0 Generic licence. Since this would be for me the first time that I use Commons tags, I have two questions:

• Can this image be legally uploaded on here?
• If yes, who would I have to give attribution to? Is a link to the Flickr user that uploaded this enough?

Thanks in advance. Udonknome (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

(I would like like to avoid {{Flickrvio}} here, that's why I'm asking.) Udonknome (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm just getting Google search results, so I don't know, but don't trust that search, it's wrong a lot. If you find an image, you must find where it says the license. That will give you a valid source, the author, and all that info. Rocket000 (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Uploads from flickr are not guarrenteed but using the {{Flickr}} and getting the license from the page that it points to will assist people (and bots) which look for license problems. I uploaded an image from flickr and the license changed inbetween the upload and a (at least) third review of the license status and the image was simply deleted from here -- no big deal in the "big picture". If that is the only license that you can find for that image and unless there are strong doubts about if the photographer and the uploader are the same and if you have no problem with the image being managed according to the original license (the link to the flickr page should help with that), just upload it....

Flickr users and the flickr gui does not understand always that the cc license is not supposed to change, but even I have changed the license of one of my images (within only a few hours/days though) there -- so whatever! -- carol (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, this is the actual image link. The license is there too. Udonknome (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yep, that license is allowed. As to whether or not the Flickr user really took those photos is different story. It doesn't look promising, but I couldn't find any evidence he stole them from some other site. Rocket000 (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind. It was just there on the Flickr page itself[10]. >< Yeah, don't upload anything from this guy. Rocket000 (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

You should add the Flickr user to Commons:Questionable_Flickr_images#Flickr_users so that if someone else isn't so careful in the future we'll eventually catch it. --Gmaxwell (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Added. Thanks, I thought about that but forgot to actually add it. Rocket000 (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are those picture eligible for copyright if yes is it copyvio ?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zil (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10. Jul. 2008 (UTC)

Since a few days a new feature was enabled in MediaWiki which allows sorting of the sidebar elements (navigation, toolbox, search). I think it is a good improvement to show the search field as first element. I have edited MediaWiki:Sidebar now. Hopefully you like it. Raymond ^Disc. 19:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cool. I'm not sure about changing the default, though. Almost everyone who comes to Commons is familiar with MediaWiki wikis and are accustomed to the (poor, IMO) location of the search bar. Anyway, let's leave it this way for awhile, at least to see what people say. What we really need is some checkboxes under the search input to check if we want to search for images, galleries and categories, and/or everything else. Rocket000 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not to be cranky but I don't like the new setup, the other one was just fine and better if you ask me. --Kanonkas_(talk) 19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

NOooooooo, the virus is spreading......   Multichill (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC) (I dont like it at the nl wikipedia and i dont like it here)Reply

I'm guessing most Commons regulars are going to oppose the new location (based on discussions over at en.wp). Personally, all I want is a toolbox link to Special:Search. I almost always need the options. Before I go looking for one, does any one have a simple script to remove/add links? Rocket000 (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I really hate this new way!! StewieGriffin! (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I ♥ it, it's great! Most people probably come here to search for images, so search is the first thing that should be offered to them. It's probably going to be this way in MediaWiki by default anyway.[11] --Para (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Socond Para. The move is great. Hiding the search box further down was a bad design decision to begin with. Ah, well, with all major changes there is always some vocal disagreement. And I frankly don't understand how the term hate can come up regarding such a topic... --Dschwen (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It does look strange to me, but most people in the world look for the search box first...and they're the largest part of our readership. Also, this makes sure that search is first on portable devices with much smaller screen size... Bastique ^demandez 00:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agree that it's the most logical location but I would say the largest of our readership (more like viewership) consists of wiki editors from other projects and that's not where they look first. Meh, the more I look at it, the more I like it. Let's keep it. Rocket000 (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I really like it at the top. A clear, logical position: 1) logo 2) search bar 3) then all the text links :-) --Überraschungsbilder (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't like it, but as the rest of the internet has the search box on the top, for most people search at top is the most logical location. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I notice that User:Hornman who provided a set of good pictures showing examples of old cars [12], after a year added watermarks to all his images and since then is reverting the attempts to correct the images (see Image:Ford capri mk2 1977.jpg). Can user insist on keeping watermark (advertising a website) on his images on commons? I am not sure what is the proper procedure here. --Jarekt (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think {{Watermark}} is pretty clear about that. --Dschwen (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't add {{watermark}} if there's already a version without it. The tag is used in hopes that someone will remove the watermark. No point in asking cleanup if the job's already done. :) If it looks like he's ready to upload-war let an admin know. Rocket000 (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Uhm, yeah. I wasn't suggesting to actually add the template, just to read it :-) --Dschwen (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not you. :P (Some of the images were tagged.) Rocket000 (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The saga continues, after all images with watermarks were reverted to non-watermarked versions then the user overwrote all his images with thumbnails of the original images. --Jarekt (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that. I also notice his recent message on his userpage: Les images mises en ligne par Hornman ne doivent plus être modifiées (which is something like "The images put online by Hornman should not be modified any more"). What's worse, though, is his talk page.. It doesn't seem like anyone tried talking to him. (I'm not even fr-0.5 or I would.) Rocket000 (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, my pages apparently says fr-1, so I gave it a shot ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm working on a proposal at en.wiki that would put an image of the Olympic logo on the Main Page for the duration of the Beijing Olympics, but am utterly confounded by the licensing of Image:Olympic rings.svg. It is listed as {{PD-old}} as its creator died 71 years ago AND has a {{Copyrighted IOC}} tag, linking to the IOC's statement, "All rights to any and all Olympic properties, as well as all rights to the use thereof, belong exclusively to the IOC, including but not limited to the use for any profit-making, commercial or advertising purposes." Is Image:Olympic rings.svg a free image? - BanyanTree 09:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's likely that the country of origin of the flag is France. Pierre de Coubertin died in 1937, so the design of the flag became Public Domain in most jurisdictions on 1 January 2008, including France and the USA. Since the design is Public Domain both in the country of origin and in the USA, you shouldn't have a problem using it. It isn't unusual for people or corporations to claim copyright over Public Domain images, but you can ignore those claims. Pruneau^talk 10:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That's what I would have thought, but the weird thing about this situation is that there is an Commons template basically stating that the image isn't free, which was valid up to a few months ago in the case of this image, and it's not a deletion tag. I'm so puzzled by this that I've started a deletion discussion over the IOC tag. - BanyanTree 11:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I want to start using the Picture of the Day on nnwiki. That is, I want to show the same file that has been elected on commons also on nnwiki. I want no administration costs, the change of pictures has to be done without any actions on nnwiki. One way of doing this is to create a dummy file for the Picture of the Day (f.ex. [[POTD.png]]. And a boot that copy the picture from {{Potd}} to [[POTD.png]] every night. Is this possible? If so, I can refer static to [[POTD.png]] on nnwiki. -- Hogne (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image redirects? I dunno how they work with parser function; I assume they don't -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

You might want to copy the system from nl wikipedia. Check out nl:Sjabloon:POTD and nl:Sjabloon:POTD onderschrift. It's probably even possible to use a bot to do this automaticly. Multichill (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

What I want is not a redirect but a rapid changing file that is a copy of the picture of the day-file at any time. Every day at 00:00 (UTC) the new picture is copied to [[POTD.png]]. The solution from nlwiki will reqier much more administration and will not be suitable for smaller wikis. Hogne (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Unless there are different caching problems, I think a daily updated image redirect is a better solution than uploading a new copied file every day. I think it is easier for a bot to change the target of the redirect than uploading a new file each day. Redirects will also avoid problems with POTD with different file types, since a redirect can lead to a file of a different type. You also avoid potential problems with a copied file getting deleted because of being a duplicate. I put an example redirect on Image:POTD, so you can see how it works. /Ö 21:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately there are caching problems. The image shown here was not updated when I changed the target for the redirect. So I have to do action=purge or edit this page to see the correct file. Are such caching problems avoided when uploading new versions of a file? /Ö 22:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could anybody make a bot for maintaining Image:POTD? It's a fine start for our wiki. I tried to make Image:POTD1 work, but it didn't. (#REDIRECT [[Image:{{Potd/{{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY2}}}}]]) Any suggestions? Hogne (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Duesentrieb has a script that does this kind of thing. Information at meta:User:Duesentrieb/POTD. Note that you will need to use the complete URL and <img src="http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/potd/potd.php/commons/200x150"/> syntax, rather than [[Image:foo.jpg]]. Pruneau^talk 15:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know of software to convert video from .WMV format to Ogg/Theora? Kelly (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Have you tried VLC media player? VLC supports WMF v9 and supports encoding to Ogg/Theora. --Dragon695 (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Huh - I gave it a try, but unfortunately the program errors out and closes on my Windows PC when I try to convert a WMV file to OGG/Theora. FYI, I'm trying to convert this short video. There is a lot of other video on that site that is potentially useful, but it's all in WMV format. Kelly (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

You could try Avidemux, which is also a pretty decent video editing suite in addition to being able to transcode. It takes a little getting used to, though. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also you could try searching on Google, MSN, Yahoo ect and type .WMV to .OGG converter. I did find a program which was good and also how I turned a video into an audio file (Image:Thunder.ogg) but can't remember what the software was called but I know it was freeware. Bidgee (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

For a tutorial on how to convert video using Avidemux, see this. Just substitute formats in the guide, it is essentially the same process. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately it doesn't look like Avidemux supports Theora format. :( Kelly (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Tryed any of these programs w:Theora#Encoding (other then VLC)? Bidgee (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I can't get SUPER to work for me, either. I'm afraid this is just too complex for me, I'll have to leave the video encoding to others until someone invents an interface for computer-illiterate morons like me. Kelly (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, can you upload that wmv temporarily somewhere so I can download it? I'm going to give you directions on using the command line ffmpeg to do what you want. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Reply

Let's take this to your en talk page, we can work from there. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Turns out the pre-compiled versions of ffmpeg for windows can't encode theora, but I did find a solution on wikibooks called ffmpeg2theora. I just tested it and it works fine. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just used it but commons will not let me upload .ogv :( Bidgee (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok converted it in VLC to a .ogg file Image:Tropical Low George.ogg. Not sure if it works though. Bidgee (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm having major category sorting issues. I've been trying to fix the sorting in Category:Canon digital SLR cameras. Is there a special way to get it to sort numeric keywords in the right manner (1->9->10->99->100->999)? Or do I have to prepend 0's to the keywords? I think I am screwing things up :-(. Look under 4 to see what I'm trying to fix. --Dragon695 (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I changed the 30 and 40D model - better now ? (clumsy). --Foroa (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes! Thank you! --Dragon695 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I want to link to a Wikipedia page from my Wikimedia User page. Can I do that? If so, how? Morri7 (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. --Túrelio (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, I want to find photos of the Water Spider and specifically the Japanese Water Spider that are in the public domain. Morri7 (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image:Araña_de_auga_GDFL.jpg is GDFL. Finavon (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do we have already a fitting category for media/images that show citation of Wikipedia (articles) as a source, such as this one? --Túrelio (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Though it's from the German Wikipedia, this would be highly relevant for the en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media page, which contains many categories of mentions outside press use. Is a new category for "Wikipedia as a source in signs" needed? :) --Para (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I put it on en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a source‎. --Túrelio (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

A number of pictures on Commons come from the Web Gallery of Art and bear the mention "the Web Gallery of Art has agreed to the use of images on WP" or something to that effect. As anyone ever heard about this? Am I correct in thinking this is a "Wikipedia only" clause, and that we cannot keep that content here (except for PD-Art pictures of course)? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

What do you think of such a cat? Its creator seems to do many non-neutral stuff (see Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Vulgar image on Wikimedia Commons for instance) so I wonder if that is OK. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have some doubts about that picture I uploaded (a long time ago):

• Is there a problem of derivative work with the advertising or does FOP apply?
• Is there a problem of copyvio with the building? It's not older than 70 years for sure but I don't really know Bulgarian law for that.

Anyone may launch a DR if it's necessary. Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bulgarias FOP-law is rather strict and only allows non-commercial or informational use for reproduction by photographic , cinematographic or similar manner and they also put architecture under copyright [13]. On the other side at least the building looks like a 'Plattenbau' (prefabricated slab-construction building?) and definitely does not have any threshold of originality. So the problem is more the poster and if it counts as central motive. -- Cecil (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Will be good idea to blank advertisement. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well this might be a better idea to delete the picture completely because it was mainly interesting to show the contrast between the communist architectural heritage and the modern advertising. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Wikipedia (and Commons too) is not a place for advertisement.--Ahonc (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't try the stuff they advertize. Never. Hits like a triple dose of homemade. BTW, the caption is grossly incorrect. Mastica moonshine was commonplace in Bulgaria throughout the soviet bloc period - and far more common then than it is today. Papa Zhivkov was wise enough to play it down. NVO (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's not incorrect since there might not be any big advertising like that one during the communist period and surely not with a girl in bikini! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Key word is 'mass'. There was mass production/consumption with no/minimal advertizing. Now there's mass advertizing and minuscule sales. Girls don't help. NVO (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, we're about 15,000 uploads away from 3 million items on Commons - anyone want to guess approximately when we'll hit that target? And is there any kind of news release or publicity planned? Kelly (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

How do you find out about how many uploads there is? Also I think it could be a day or two away (Don't forget copyvio images when deleted brings the number down a little but maybe not by much). Bidgee (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The number is on the top of the Main Page. Kelly (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

aarr so it is! I quess you can tell I don't visit the main page often. :P Thanks for that. :) Bidgee (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we should arrange special recognition for the uploader of the 3 millionth file - though given the odds, it will probably either Magnus' or Bryan's bot. :) Kelly (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Past 3 million media files on Commons now! :) I was wrong about a day or two days! :P Bidgee (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

So what picture made no. 3.000.000? :) --Hebster (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just did a little count on Special:NewImages. Currently at 3.000.471, i counted 471 pictures back and ended at Image:Market Place and Church of St. Mary, Cracow.gif. It must be something in that vicinity. --Hebster (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Problem is copyvio images before (if not deleted already) the 3 millionth media file so that could change. Bidgee (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Taking into account both the upload and deletion log, I get the 3 millionth media file to be Image:Haishan-Station.JPG by Mailer diablo. (I started at 3,000,520 and went through the Log, counting -1 for every upload, excluding new versions, and +1 for every deletion, until I hit 3,000,000.) Pruneau^talk 14:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

(reset Indent) If you really want to find the 3 millionth uploaded file, you'll have to go back weeks (I'd guess). Really Special:Statistics is saying we've got 3mil files in total now, but that is after all the deleted files. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 22:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason that only gallery pages, and not categories, come up the search field autosuggest function? There are many subject areas where we have category pages in lieu of gallery pages. Kelly (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Categories do come up, just type Category:... in the searchfield. --Dschwen (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I know that...however, if I want to search for "Bob Johnson", it would be nice if Category:Bob Johnson came up as an autosuggest in the search field if I typed in the name. Kelly (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, and it would also be nice, if the suggest list would expand vertically. I'll take a look at that code. --Dschwen (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The vertical expansion is a good idea - thanks! Kelly (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hy there, from time to time I try to sort images into the correct categories. As I trying to sort an image of Gaius Julius Caesar I noticed a little funny box inside of Category:Roman Emperors that said that all its categories should use the Latin names instead of the English ones (I deleted it, perhaps I did wrong). However at 'Commons:Categories' and at 'Commons:Naming categories' it very clearly says that English names should always be used (unless it a scientific name for a species (I don't believe this is the case (?). So have I missed something somewhere, or have I stumbled upon a (honest) mistake? I wish to make clear that I believe that the sister-commons (in this particular case the Latin one) are suppossed to translate this stuff into other languages already.

In the case of a honest mistake can someone tell a bot to fix this? (If needs be I will fix it, but it is going to take quite some time). Thanks Flamarande 17:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

On the advice of en admin Wikidemo, I am inviting comments from Commons users who are also en users at discussions on the en Wikipedia here and here. Also, there is an applicable proposed template deletion here. Kelly (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

There was a lull in edits which removed my location categories after the previous discussion on this topic. Now I seem to be butting heads with User:BotBln on a number of my images. To summarise, I add "Plants of..." categories to all of my images, and the location I provide is the location where the photo was taken (to meet the where guideline). However, the aforementioned user (who, for what it's worth, is not listed as a TOL participant) has the preference that "Plants of..." categories should refer to where the plant is native to.

Personally, I believe that both viewpoints have their value. My method can give a quick view of yards, gardens, and park foliage of a particular city or region, regardless of whether a plant is native (and I'd be curious what "native" is, exactly -- what about plants that have been in place for thousands of years, but were millenia ago transplanted by human activity?). The latter can give a view of plants as captured in their "ancestral" habitat, perhaps giving a clearer view of what conditions caused the flora to evolve into what it has become.

Therefore, to try and alleviate the back-and-forth between what are, in my opinion, two valid viewpoints: what if we were to break plants by location categories into something like Plants native to xxx and Plants located in xxx; or perhaps the latter may still be able to remain Plants in xxx. Thoughts? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Along time ago, I watched a television show about "crops" and I thought it would be very boring (especially to my 21 year old brain, which anyone can argue that on average exists at that age but is rarely used by the species). Instead it was very interesting. The cultivation of single species of plants has historically been devastating. One example is the Irish potato famine because they grew basically the same potato. When that virus came, they were not growing anything else.... In the United States, the same situation exists with corn.

When I am trying to put species into their native location, it is with this in mind.

Between November 2007 and now; I learned that there are some categories in which if a subcategory is made in them, that subcategory will get desembled and the contents turned into galleries. I have also learned that in spite of what people write anywhere on this wiki, some people are allowed to follow an individuals edits and undo them or make issues of how they were done.

Of the three bot writers I have encountered here (not writing bots for contests), one took me off from the trusted user list (without telling me) because (I think) I got one date in one image name change wrong. The other two, I had an article removed from English wikipedia which assisted to explain how software can be written to undo itself and it seems to be a case where the mental ability of the bot writers was "this way or that way but nothing in between". An interesting idea which I do not think can ever be implemented for anything successful.

My idea with the Flora of categories is that photographers will know where they took their photograph and put them there. People writing articles or sorting the images by species will (perhaps) have access to native information about the species and the species categories can be subcategorized easily to their native location. And that the Plants of categories can still be managed the way that the people who manage them manage them.

In the images that appear in categories thoughout this wiki, there are several subcategories that can be found in the "Nature of" categories for location which are "Gardens of" and "Trees of" and "Forests of".

Native is an interesting question, btw. It seems to me, from what I have read that if a seed falls from an animals coat or is moved via digestive system from one location to another, a plant that grows from that is considered to be native. If a human transfers it via either of those methods, it is not native. The interesting thing, perhaps, is how some species of flowers and animals populations are not a problem where they were but are a problem where they became relocated. Jacobaea vulgaris (used to be Senecio jacobaea) is an example of this. I read about barn swallows in United States; they were imported by someone who thought it would be cool to introduce all of the birds mentioned in Shakespearean plays into the "New World" and they can be a problem here.

Right now, I have allowed the definition of "native" is defined by the science -- I was trying to make the categories look nice for the articles I was writing about the species. There is a restriction there to use cited information. Okay, not a restriction, but a suggestion which I opted to follow.

When I suggested that the people and Bots were interested in maintaining the plants of categories be allowed to continue that which they have ferociously maintained, I really meant it.

I should be interested to see if there are any bot writers that do not become so affected so quickly. "In the mood" to write software and what kind of software that gets written -- the summary of user actions should surpass any 'votes' for privileges. If the children have found bad hacks that their parents (or the people who came before them) left, I don't know what to say. -- carol (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

How about:

Category:Plants indigenous to Europe (see en:Indigenous (ecology))

Category:Plants introduced to Europe (see en:Introduced species )

as subcategories of Category:Plants of Europe?? The parent category would contain photographs taken in Europe, when commons users don't know if it is native or not??

Why not stick to continents (not countries) for this sub-division? There is lots of confusion and debate about endemic and non-native species to a particular country, and it is also useful to find images taken in a particular country when editing an article on that country, as sub-populations of a species found in different countries may have local characteristics not obvious to the editor, but quite troublesome for factual accuracy.

Why not restrict Category:Plants of Switzerland to photographs actually taken in Switzerland, and species not native to any other country?

--InfantGorilla (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The "restriction" I have encountered with "Plants of" Categories are those put into place and enforced by the TOL group. The restriction of the "Flora of" categories might mean that occasionally, an interested person might have to manually move some things out of them. I think I already saw a moose in Category:Neotropic, for example and the way to get that to change is to re-categorize it, not bitch complain about it. I have found category tidying to be kind of fun, usually. When I have the time and am in the mood for that kind of thing.

You can talk all you want about what you would like for "Plants of" categories, there are people who are very active in making many of them what their vision of things are. I have no problem with that and came up with a solution which should not interfer with them. -- carol (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree. For some reason, there are now pictures taken in Germany in Category:Plants of Finland. How does that make sense? If someone is looking for information on a) in which countries a species grow or b) which species grow in a country, why don't they go and look it up in a Wikipedia article instead of browsing through Commons categories. Samulili (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The information about where the different species is native to is almost always presented as a politically defined region. Actually, the two web sites that try to present this information do it according to country. Herbariums make little dots on a political map for where specimens were collected from. I think that photographers who know where the photograph of the plant was taken will most of the time put the image into the proper category. Like all categories and galleries these will need some maintenance also. While you complain about some images being located in that category wrongly, let me tell you there are several categories that have images out of place. I spent an hour or so with Category:Washington because it had become maybe one third full of images from Category:Washington, D.C. and after manually going through them, I really do not care for the grammar correctness of this. Does anyone not recognize Category:Washington DC? -- carol (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

If the plants which are shown on the pics are Cultivars it is not of any interest where the pic is taken (exept that it shows better on pic information that it is your own pic). the Cultivars most time are planted in several continents and many countries. a category like Category:Plants of Switzerland or Category:Plants in Salzburg with very common Cultivars seen in nearly all countries of world dont make any sense at all. put it in a category like Category:Cultivars or Category:Ornamental Plants, because all pics Thisisbossi put in categories like Category:Plants of Switzerland are Ornanametal Plants and Cultivars, and not native plants of that countries (if you think that it has to be in more than one Category). it only makes sense add in a geographical category native plants (Endemism) of that countries or continents. --BotBln (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

As best I see it, Plants native to xxx and Plants located in xxx would satisfy both viewpoints. Is there any compelling reason not to move forward with such? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 06:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

No "located" - who has located the plants there? - some persons. the category is with out any sense. Category:Cultivars or Category:Ornamental Plants is what makes sense. like “i have seen a dog in paris” and foto in “category:dog of paris” would stupid too - it is located in a category in Category:Domesticated animals. --BotBln (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ornamental plants in xxx or Decorative plants in xxx? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 11:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I removed a seecat template from Category:Viola and started to populate it. A few simple reasons that I did this. 1)there were no images in Category:Viola, 2)Not much activity since the redirect was made on 8 September 2007. 3)Category:Viola (plant) breaks the taxonomy naviagation template and templates made that use this template.

I suspect that the redirection was added to reflect the articles which are at English wikipedia. I have no evidence of this, it just seems to be the only actual reason to do this (when considering the number of images of the instrument compared to the number of images of the plant and if you are not in the mood to count the number of images, just the number of species). If there is a different reason, I would be glad to know it.

With a kind suggestion that a lot of decisions get made when the images total in the hundreds that perhaps the same decisions fail when the number of images begins to total in the millions; perhaps reflecting everything that one of the wiki's does is not such a good reason -- especially since this wiki seems to be managing other things like interwiki links to articles that use not only different names, but also different linguistic scripts.

Also, are there any software writers available? In what I can see, there seems to be a blurring between writing machine text and bullying people into doing the activity. I have been doing many things that a software could do; much of what I am doing would also need phishing (getting information from other web sites) -- I have seen some big problems that get created from doing that within the subject I have been working with. Both from human phishing (me pasting) and from evidence of software phishing.

In my history with modern computers, I have been more successful in describing what a good software would be than I have been at (perhaps) having my actions emulated -- without communication between me and the writers. This is a fact.

Management systems can be voted on and implemented but this does not insure the success of the system. Personally, by the time I have enough experience with something to make an opinion on it, I don't care about the opinions of anyone else unless they have similar experience. I apologize to all of those people who have opinions yet no experience and who still express those opinions anyways. Please make a list of anyone who would like a personal apology for that, my intention is not to offend you.

Any place lately where there is a discussion of "Flora of" vs "Plants of" categories -- there is a limitation of descriptive words, no more abusing these words by relating them to anything other than the little usually green things that mostly started life in the ground/soil. The plants of people seem to have software that aids in making galleries or are so used to bullying people into uploading their way or such a determination for what their goals are. I have a lot of respect for all of those things with the exception of the bullying part. Good reliable tools (software and not abused people) and keeping goals in mind is a great thing -- I have few of those myself. I am not certain what the goals are, I have seen opinions aplenty for how things should be accomplished, but not for reasons. With the exception of the abuse of some words.

I think that sectioning the world into a few larger chunks and then each of those into similar in area and environment sized chunks and ending into the political divisions (which exist in reality for simple reasons like data collection points and such) makes sense to me. The kind of "sense" that cannot be voted away and the kind of sense in which user ease should possibly show the sense of.

The environmental facts; rainfall, dried up river beds, canyons and rocks, deserts, permafrost -- these things change much more slowly than the political divisions; as shown by Russia, all things Czech and others. Even in a well defined political grid like United States has, school districts change (get larger or smaller depending on many many weird social things). I tried to build a category tree that keeps all of that at the "home" category.

This dissertation started as Viola (plant) vs Viola. There are more categories like that I have seen which just don't make sense. Category:Victoria is one of those. Might I add this editorial about the problem of having commons reflect English wikipedia which was authored by someone not me: http://xkcd.com/446/

Thank you for your time. -- carol (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The description page of the following pictures says: "SVG file, nominally 0 × 0 pixels". The thumbnails aren't visible. Klick on http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Dolce_-_il_pranzo_%C3%A8_servito.svg you can see it. Who can repair it? Thanks --Heiko (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Image:Dolce - il pranzo è servito.svg Image:Frutta - il pranzo è servito.svg Image:Formaggio - il pranzo è servito.svg Image:Pasta.svg Image:Pollo.svgReply

That image has the same problem as the SVG discussed on Commons:Graphics_village_pump/May_2008#SVG_error.3F -- it's in the UTF16 character encoding format, while Mediawiki only understands UTF8. It's fairly easy to fix for someone who has the "iconv" program (but to use that program, I would have to reboot into Linux...). AnonMoos (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, where is the policy to forbid image uploads like this? Yes, I made a deletion flush request of it... Thanks anyway for the link of the chart if it exists. Star Trek Man (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've uploaded a pile of images from Geograph.org.uk (would be nice if there were a bot to do this like the Flickr one ...), but I only found today that there is {{Location}} data for the images I've been omitting. It seems like it would be easy enough for a fairly stupid bot to collect the missing info and add it.

Take Image:Packhorse Bridge, Romanby.jpg for an example. The {{Geograph}} license tag has two parameters, $1 is the photo id, $2 is the copyright holder. For every image, there is a page http://www.geograph.org.uk/reuse.php?id=$1 - in this case http://www.geograph.org.uk/reuse.php?id=358262 - and on that there is a line ^{{location|stuff}}. I must have uploaded coming on for 2000 of these without the {{Location}} template. As am I usually about as smart as the average bear, there are likely an awful lot more in the same state. I didn't find anything like Commons:Bot requests, so this seemed the obvious place to ask.

Is there a bot can fix these up? If there isn't, does someone fancy writing one. And before you ask, no, I don't. Angusmclellan (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, just to clarify, you uploads do contain the {{Geograph}} template, but are lacking {{Location dec}} (or {{Location}})? --Dschwen (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they have {{Geograph}}, but they are missing {{Location dec}} (missed the dec bit out). Angusmclellan (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The bot is running. Looks like there are about 5000 images to fix (other people seem to have forgotten the Location template as well). Please check Special:Contributions/DschwenBot and tell me if it looks alright. --Dschwen (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC), P.S.: it's a pitty that those images all seem to be so small... --Dschwen (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much! It seems to be working perfectly. So, instead of adding all those tags, I'll get back to copying over the last few hundred Geograph images left on enWP. Geograph resize all images so that the longest dimension is ~640 px, which is indeed a bit of a shame, but still it is very useful indeed. It's just rather annoying that Geograph's coverage of Ireland is very poor compared to that of Britain. I could easily use a lot of Irish pictures! Anyway, thank you again for fixing this, and so quickly too. All the best, Angusmclellan (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would it be appropriate to add a parameter to {{Geograph}} for location data, or would people object to this as mixing descriptive and license data. It doesn't seem like a problem to me, because all geograph images are apparently cc-by-sa. Superm401 - Talk 22:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It might be better to point uploaders in the direction of the reuse pages on geograph as those have fairly complete - apart from {{En}} in the description and the categories of the image - cut and pasteable descriptions as well as the location data. I have to say I uploaded endless images before I ever actually read the reuse page. Could have saved myself a lot of typing! Angusmclellan (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, please don't mix those two. It makes reuse of the coordinate data more difficult. We worked hard to get the number of coordinate templates down to the bare minimum. --Dschwen (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, looks like the bot is done for now. The images show up in the Commons:WikiMiniAtlas. I updated the WMA so it now displays thumbs of images below 1MP only half as wide on the map. The UK is probably one of the most densly covered areas now. --Dschwen (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Help needed for some special cases

The bot fixed a little over 5800 image pages. These few remain to be fixed by some avid geograph.org.uk using commoners:

• Image:Inverkip.jpg
• Image:Eday_EMEC_site.jpg
• Image:Inverkeithing5.jpg
• Image:InverkipTunnel.jpg
• Image:Alexandria4.jpg
• Image:St_Thomas'_Church,_Mellor.jpg
• Image:St_Mary_church_Barrington.jpg
• Image:Anderston5.jpg
• Image:Craigievar_Castle.jpg
• Image:Ferrybridge_power_station.jpg
• Image:Bletchingley_Tunnel_40.jpg
• Image:PURE_Unst.jpg
• Image:Lunga_and_the_Grey_Dog.jpg
• Image:Barrington_Ct.jpg
• Image:Annan3.jpg
• Image:Caerlaverock_SNH.jpg

Just remove the ones that are fixed from this list. Thanks guys! --Dschwen (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

User:Para did the detective work. This means for now all geograph images are up to speed. --Dschwen (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are pictures of merchandise displays allowed on Commons? By this I mean displays like a row of food at a supermarket, or a collection of clothes in a clothes store, or a display of books in a bookstore, or a collection of shoes in a shoe shop, or a collection of hardware in a hardware store, or a display of electronics goods in an electronics goods shop, or a display of DVDs in a DVD shop, or a collection of merchandise in a specialist merchandise store (in this case, a store selling Tintin merchandise)? Any advice would be appreciated, as would advice on whether I can upload a picture I am unsure about, and leave the license tag off until I have had a chance to show it to people and ask their advice. Then I could ask for it to be deleted, or add the correct tag. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just my opinion, but I think Commons:De minimis would apply. If a picture shows a whole bunch of products by a whole bunch of copyright holders, then each copyright is just a tiny portion of the overall photo. But IANAL and all that. Kelly (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That would apply if the copyrighted parts are a small part of the picture, and if they are different copyright holders. I'm less certain when the copyright holder is the same for all the objects (in my example, all the merchandise is Tintin-related, which is unsurprising because it was a Tintin shop), or where the entire shot consists of copyrighted stuff (eg. a display of tins on a supermarket shelf or a display of books on a book shelf). Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I ran across this when uploading two images of The Kenney, a non-profit continuing care retirement community in the Gatewood neighborhood of West Seattle. Category:Retirement is dangling out there with no parent; I couldn't find anywhere to stick it because we seem to have no categories related to old age, continuing care facilities etc. Is this a massive oversight due to how few older participants we have? Or am I just failing to look in the right places? - Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, actually we do have Category:Nursing homes and Category:Retirement homes. --Túrelio (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

And I see now we have Category:Geriatrics. But that's a very medicalized term. Any idea where Category:Retirement belongs in the hierarchy? - Jmabel ! talk 22:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Category:Old people? Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Category:Work, Category:Rest, Category:Personal life... Man vyi (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. I was thinking of things like formal retirement ceremonies... - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cannon 450d

Hi, I am not sure if this is the right place to ask but I am thinking about buying a cannon 450d, the latest version so I can take better pictures for this website. Is this a good camera and are there any featured pics taken by the EOS 450D. If this is not the rite place to ask, then where can I ask. Cheers Adam.J.W.C. (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Despite the headline I assume you mean a Canon ;-) Though I've no personal experience with that model, I know that Toronto Filker Debbie Ohi is still enthusiastic about her Canon EOS 400D (also known as Digital Rebel XTi), see her Blatherings website or her Flickr site. --Túrelio (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Having just scouted that particular market segment, I finally settled for the Nikon D60 instead, but they're both very capable cameras, and in the end, it's mostly down to personal preferences and priorities. Canon's dust removal technology supposedly tests slightly better. Nikon is able to boost the sensitivity slightly higher. The 450D has slightly faster continuous drive and live view, but a greater crop factor and at a slightly higher price. In the end, I made my choice by comparing photographic tests. Have a look at DP Review and see what they about the 450D and the D60. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Go for it, but be warned that a decent lens will cost far more than a starter kit. That's how the mill works: first a 'cheap' kit, then a decent lens, another one, then a mid-line body like 40D... // PS. Sounds obvious but first borrow a Canon DSLR (450, 400 etc. any starter body) for a whole day to test if it's really comfortable for YOUR hand and eyes. Small bodies and small viewfinders aren't for everyone. Just another reason why people upgrade to expensive bodies. NVO (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looking at Category:Users by country, one would get the impression that there were a total of five people here who are from the US, and only two from the UK. Please, add yourself to an appropriate country category. This is especially useful if you want to ask people to take photos at a specific location in a certain region. (The title is from this). Richard001 (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hehe ;-). I have arrived. Lycaon (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nice. I'm adding interwikis to relate them to the (often much larger) categories at the Wikipedias. The category will be renamed Category:Users by location. Richard001 (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ik would indeed seem that Europe is a terra incognita... OK, I'll add a category or two. Good idea! Regards, MartinD (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, here's my idea, we draft a new policy:

Images containing content copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation should only be used in images specifically illustrating Wikimedia business or sites, and not software or situations which are specifically about something the image is included in.

or something around those lines. That way, we can still keep Wikimedia images on here and still encourage Free content. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

(Why do you say it is a mess? There are hundreds of images in Category:Copyright by Wikimedia. Oh - I see - hundreds of non-free images endorsed by Commons.) Perhaps we do need the restriction you suggest in a policy page. See Commons talk:Project scope/Proposal if you haven't already. --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. This must be a FAQ. I looked for the answer in Commons:FAQ and Commons:Licensing. I uploaded hundreds of Flickr images with free Creative Commons licenses that are among those accepted by the commons, CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. (These image licenses were to the best of my knowledge all verified by Flickrbot or an administrator or a trusted user. Thanks very much.) At least three and maybe more of these photographers have since turned semi-pro and changed all their files to a license that the Commons cannot accept. Are all these files in jeopardy now? What about works based on them? I ask because Image:Prince by jimieye-crop.jpg was just deleted but the file it comes from Image:Prince by jimieye.jpg is kept. Image:Minneapolis Skyline cropped.jpg was deleted but Image:Lake Calhoun-skyline-Minneapolis-2006-10-01.jpg is kept. I know you all work hard here and are volunteering your time. Thank you so much. But discrepancies and what seem to be rules applied in varying ways are discouraging me from future uploads. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

As long as the images have been verified prior to the license change, they should generally not be deleted. Derivatives of images that have been irrevocably released under a free license should also not be affected by the author stops distributing the original work under a free license. You can use {{Flickr-change-of-license}} pre-emptively for these cases, and for images that have already been deleted, you can explain the situation to the deleting administrator or request undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

LX, thank you. The answer is reassuring in that it means the considerable months of work sorting through Flickr and making uploads here was not in vain. I do not expect to argue this point case by case becuase that would be a full time job. Could this question and its answer please be added to Commons:FAQ so that admins know and are in agreement that these kinds of deletion requests are errors? (P.S. I added a request at the FAQ page.) I would suggest that works based on works with good licenses are free and clear too? Or are all works with "other version" going to be deleted because there is no Flickrbot/admin/trusted user stamp on them? Again thank you for your help! In case it helps, here is the story from Creative Commons. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Resolved, thank you. I'm not 100% sure but think the remaining red link is from an original that predates Flickrbot. I will check back in a week or so and make an addition to the FAQ. Proposed text is on Commons_talk:FAQ#FAQ_addition:_when_a_Creative_Commons_license_changes. Thanks again. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

As an aside, have we ever had anyone change Flickr licenses and then ask for deletions? What happened if so? rootology (T) 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, depends upon how quickly someone changes it and the reason. If it was an error and changed in reasonable time frame then most likely the images will be deleted by a sympathetic administrator without too much fuss. But if the image has been used for a long while on some Projects then the situation is more complex even if it was done in error. From my perspective I think that we should honor all reasonable requests even if we don't have to do it. The goodwill that it generates by working with photographers outweighs the benefit gained from one or a few images. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree completely, especially with the conditions you mentioned. I was just curious if that scenario had ever actually come up. rootology (T) 03:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Even in this small sample, yes it did come up. A photographer replied on Flickr that they'd had second thoughts about personality rights. Admins kindly made all three or so deletions for them. Glad to know that's the rule of thumb. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The following out-of-copyright work was just posted into Project Gutenberg:

Shepp, Daniel B.; Shepp, James W. (1891) Shepp's Photographs of the World, Philadelphia: Globe Bible Publishing Co

Some of the images are a bit damaged, but many can be useful for wikipedia. (For example, Image:Golden gate circa 1891.png, showing the strait before the bridge was built.)—RJHall (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Great pictures! And, except for their grain, most other artifacts can be rectified - Badseed ^talk 04:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where should I make requests for templates, in cases where I'm not confident enough to make them myself? en.wikipedia has template requests, but here there is no such page or any requests page besides media. Should we create a 'miscellaneous requests' page (templates will be too specific and be very inactive, no?) for such requests (it would include all non-media requests, such as galleries and categories too)? Or should I just post them here or somewhere else? I have a couple of requests I can think of, although I could probably attempt them myself first. Richard001 (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

You'd probably have better luck just posting here. Rocket000 (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are we still tagging {{WideCommonsWallpaper}} and {{Wallpaper}} on featured pictures? Or we stopped doing it? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, from the lack of response, it seems like we stopped tagging those FPs which fall under the wallpaper requirements. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello everybody,

I have done a large work on the Selected picture @ Portal:Denmark programme (SP) on EnWiki. Amongst that is, marking the selected pictures with a template on their talk-pages, which has also been moved to Commons (Template:PoDaSP) and used on some pictures discussion-pages. Now i have run into a dilemma of sorts:

1. There doesn't seem to be any similar templates on Commons and it doesn't seem like this is common practice on Commons. I can't find a place that states that this isn't recommended, tolerated, accepted, allowed etc. Is this behaviour on Commons accepted?
2. If yes to the first then: After having placed the template on 20-something pictures i thought: Should this really have been done on the image-pages instead of the talk-pages, so that i could make i fine category for pictures that have been SP on P:DK at EnWiki?

--Hebster (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't know if that helps, but the template {{Published}} for Commons images that have been used by the media, is also placed on the talkpage of the respective image. --Túrelio (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well - it did help a little. I'm not any wiser though. I have browsed a little through Category:Marker templates and some templates i.e. WikiProject Birds and Projet Blasons are placed on the image-pages. They aren't as "flashy" as Template:PoDaSP though. For now i think i'll down-flash PoDaSP some and place it on the image-pages. --Hebster (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I know pictures published in Australia more than 50 years ago are in the public domain, but what about film? Take this video from 1933 for example, of an extinct Thylacine, which could be very useful here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwmhmAfcRt8 FunkMonk (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

According to w:List of countries' copyright length, cinematograph films become PD 70 years after publication and television broadcasts become PD 50 years after making. Given the date, I'm guessing that this is a cinematograph film, in which case the film became PD in Australia in 2004. This is after the URAA date, so the film is probably not PD in the USA. Pruneau^talk 12:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, Commons goes by country of first publication, right? So it could theoretically be uploaded here? FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Uploads of non-U.S. works are allowed only if the work is covered by a free license valid in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work, or if it is in the public domain in both countries." (Commons:Licensing#Interaction of United States copyright law and foreign copyright law) —LX (talk, contribs) 15:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Woah... So basically everything uploaded to Commons which is PD, but has been created in countries where copyright expires in less time than in the US, should be deleted, or am I wrong? FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's not a question of the length of the term, but what the copyright status was on Jan 1 1996 (or the respective URAA date). There is and will be a significant chunk though, of works which expired afterwards which are now locked in, USA-wise. --Padraic 15:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, so that video should had been created 70 years before 1996 to be uploaded here then? And when does it become PD in the US? FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think for that case, 95 years after publication. See here. --Padraic 16:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

My Kaspersky virusprotection says that http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/Szachownica.svg/160px-Szachownica.svg.png contains virus Virus.DOS.PS-MPC.Dick.1242 and blocked access.. Theo (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Szachownica.svg this one? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Szachownica.svg.png doesn't exist. rootology (T) 18:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

That file is generated by the wikimedia server and could not have been uploaded manually. 99.999% sure this is a false positive. --Dschwen (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Which implies that Kaspersky is wrong in this case? I get the viruswarning every time I click the link I posted above.. The links submitted by Rootology do not result in a warning... Theo (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Kapersky is wrong. And of course you get the warning every time, computers are deterministic. Rootology misunderstood your question. His links have (as far as my reasoning goes) nothing to do with your question. --Dschwen (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Need video ogg help

Would someone very knowledgeable in these mind emailing me via my account? I've been fighting with this one for weeks on and off, trying to figure out whats wrong with it, and why it won't upload--it's my first one. rootology (T) 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

OGG is just a container format. Make sure you used the vorbis and theora codecs to do the actual video encoding. Plus your file size cannot exceed 20Mb. If you still need help, reply and I'll email you. --Dschwen (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'll try reencoding it again just to make sure I didn't do anything silly and let you know. :) rootology (T) 06:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Commons Helper moved Image:Wikipedia vandalism.PNG for me, but it has a couple of problems: the English description is not showing up (is it just the length?), and there is a messed up bit of template/code below the heading 'license information' that reads:

{{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}}

I think it did this with a couple of other images I uploaded a while back, but I forgot to ask about it then. Can anyone see what is wrong? It seems to be calling {{Tl}}, but without any parameter. Why is it doing this? Richard001 (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The {{En}} template seems to have a problem with URLs which include a question mark (in this case, the diff URL). I don't know how to fix it, though. Pruneau^talk 09:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

You may use {{tlx|en|1=whatever}} when there are those certain characters.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 11:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I believe it's the equals sign, not the question mark, that's the problem. --Carnildo (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The {{Duplicate}} template does not work as good as the badname template when using with categories:

• it does not display properly the category name
• it does not put the referrred category in the duplicate category

An example can be found in Category:Schloss Morsborich where I tried all sorts of category syntaxes. I tried to change the template, but I have not sufficient experience nor time. --Foroa (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be a relation with cats using the "category redirect" template as can be seen here. --Foroa (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

That template's wasn't really made for that. (Besides, things like "This image is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of:... There should be only one exact copy of an image" don't make sense for non-images.) I suggest maybe using {{speedy|reason}} if {{Badname}} isn't appropriate. Rocket000 (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

And now {{Category redirect}} says the right thing. Rocket000 (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know, but many people seem to use that for categories and those usages stay there as they are not detected nor grouped in a cat. Could the template not be improved upon so that in the long run, it is no longer used, and if it is used, it gets deleted anyway.

I noticed that {{Seecat}} is used very frequently in stead of {{Category redirect}}. Is there any place that contains an overview of those templates and a documentation of their parameters as the interfaces are sometimes slightly different. (Especially confusing with the move cat and the syntax for the commons delinker) --Foroa (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

{{Seecat}} redirects to {{Category redirect}} so it doesn't matter which one is used. They are the same thing. Both have the syntax {{template_name|new_category}} (actually, it has a few redirects). I made {{Duplicate}} categorize everything for now. Rocket000 (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Back to {{Bad name}} and categories. As Rocket000 pointed out this template at present is a bad fit for categories, but I agree with Foroa that it should be modified so it can work with them. Or if there is a better template for this purpose ({{speedy|reason}} ?) than the instructions on the {{Bad name}} page should be modified.--Jarekt (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm.. I would modify {{duplicate}} to work for non-images but the template would pretty much need to be completely different depending on the namespace. It's possible to do, but a separate template would probably be better. I'll see how it goes now that the instructions on {{Category redirect}} have been changed. Rocket000 (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Last few days I have a problem with using AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) to modify pages on Commons. It loads the page in full (as far as I can say), than something "times-out" and then keeps on reloading the page for forever. It seems like AWB thinks that it is not done loading the page and some connection times-out. I am a new user to AWB and it worked fine for a while until yesterday. Is this AWB problem or Commons problem? Any ideas on how to overcome it? --Jarekt (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's an AWB problem or an issue with your connection. Restarting the job usually solves it. --O (谈 • висчвын) 19:37, 17 July 2008 (GMT)

I just thought I'd quickly notify everyone that Commons hit the 3 million file mark a few hours ago!! Keep up the good work. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 17:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is a discussion about this (including trying to find out which file was the 3 millionth) at Commons:Village pump#Approaching 3 million. Pruneau^talk 18:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

We'll probably have a billion one day. Richard001 (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

In a few years time. Bidgee (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just talked to a friend of mine who is not a Wikipedia editor, they just use the site for reference. The person tried to send some photos to photosubmission ATwikimedia.org, but the message was rejected by the Wikimedia mail server due to file size (the person thought the e-mail was about 6-7 MB in size with the attachments). What is the limit for e-mails sent to Wikimedia? Should it be disabled for photo submissions? Kelly (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kelly,

I'm not sure of the answer, but I emailed your question to the communications committee mailing list, to see if someone there knows. They know about the photo submission queue. cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 17:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure about the copyright status of this image: [14]. I can see that it's not Commons compatible, but my question here is whether it could even be uploaded if the photographer released their rights: it contains a projection of the subject (Morgan, the one sitting on the left), which itself is bound to be copyrighted. Would this make it impossible to license under Creative Commons at all, or is copyright law on that sort of thing less rigid for photographs that include projected protographs? Richard001 (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Commons:De minimis... AnonMoos (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just created Template:French Foreign Ministry to standardize the messages used on several Commons images when I noticed that Template:FrenchMinistryOfForeignAffairs was previously deleted after a deletion request. I would delete the template I just created but it appears that the wording that caused the old template such trouble ("toute utilisation commerciale de nos photographies est strictement interdite") has since been removed from the Ministry statement. What do people think? Do I need to start a new deletion discussion to see if this change makes these images acceptable? - BanyanTree 03:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Images of this type have been deleted before if the license does not expressly allow modification. You could ask the ministry to find out whether they do allow that. If they do, welcome to a whole bunch of new images. One thing, though: my French is a bit rusty, but doesn't Les photographies ... sont libres de droit à l’étranger mean that the images are free for the foreigner? What about French people? --rimshot^talk 06:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I sometimes get the impression that the people responsible for image licensing for government agencies have never actually seen an image license before. I re-read the deletion discussion and found that the "non-commercial" wording was not in the actual license but was the response of the Ministry after a user emailed them for clarification. The wording on the website has not changed. <sigh> Redirecting the new template to Template:Copyvio...

On a purely academic level at this point, the wording sont libres de droit "free of rights", would certainly appear to mean "free use". The addendum à l’étranger "in foreign countries" would appear to be added because some image rights are irrevocable in France, or it may be something entirely different. The et in et peuvent être reproduites avec la mention obligatoire is a bit ambiguous and several images on Commons read this as meaning "free use outside of France AND reproducible anywhere with attribution", though it could also be read as a caveat to the first thought, "free use outside of France, with the additional restriction that attribution be given". Like I said, it's amazing that someone got paid to write such things. - BanyanTree 06:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid these images cannot be used on Commons. In this FAQ, we can read "Les photos sont libres de droit pour un usage non commercial à l'étranger" (The photos are free for a non commercial use out of France). This licence is not compatible with Commons policy. Sémhur 06:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for finding a webpage with the relevant information. - BanyanTree 07:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

This relates to Charles Darwin's book Insectivorous Plants (see Category:Insectivorous Plants, the name of which I am also unsure about and think a '(book)' at the end might be clearer). My last project was to upload the figures from The Expression of the Emotions, and this is the next book he wrote, so I thought I would upload scans from that next. I uploaded the first one, however there is a German category which I at first missed called Category:Insectenfressende Pflanzen (Darwin). This contains full page scans of the whole book in German. I had in mind only uploading the figures, but these were also uploaded, and are (now) in a subcategory Category:Insektenfressende Pflanzen (Darwin) (k instead of c; this naming seems kind of workaround-ish and should be altered, and its placement as a subcategory might also be rethought). They have captions in German, but are still the same pictures, so I don't see much point uploading another set. Perhaps I could make higher quality versions but I'm more concerned with just getting images up than making them perfect. So what should I do? All the other Darwin books are named in English, so/and I suspect English readers will have trouble finding this one. The captions should also probably be cropped out as I did with the English ones in Emotions, to be replaced with text in the description (which can be translated into different languages). I don't really know what to do about the naming though. The category for the scanned pages should stay in 'de' because the images are of German text. However, the figures category might be better renamed in English for consistency, and seeing that the book was originally published in English, and English is the more widely spoken language. I suppose a gallery could also be made; that was my original intention at least.

I haven't come across an issue like this before so I want to try to get some input on it.

As an aside: Concerning scans of full pages like that, is there much point in making those? They aren't searchable/copy&pasteable (something I hate), take up more file size/bandwidth, and probably have other disadvantages. Surely it is better to upload as text to Source/Gutenburg etc rather than here as images? Richard001 (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

If the images and page scans needs separate categories, I think there are better ways to name the categories. Maybe "Images from ..." or "Page scans from ...", or maybe the images can be in a category with the English title "Isectivorous Plants (Darwin)" and the German page scans in a subcategory. Page scans are used for proofreading texts at German Wikisource, so there is apoint in having them at Commons. Djvu may be a better format for books since all pages can be in one file, so that no page scan category would be needed. /Ö 09:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Should we maybe try to keep it below 100k (it's currently approaching 200k), topping the archive up periodically and creating a new one when it gets too big? It always takes a while to load for me. By the way, what's with the post from May that hasn't been archived? Richard001 (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Someone is adding {Low quality} templates to a number of my pictures, but I thought they can't all be that bad... Funny thing is that he only edits my pictures, plus one I that I have worked on in the past. He also added Category:Faded images to this, this and this image, which I think is not correct at all. This same person changed an image on nl-wiki this morning, which was a new upload by User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT. And only yesterday I removed a watermark from one of his images, and corrected the perspective on another one... Coincidence ? Would somebody please try to find out what's going on ? - Erik Baas (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Checkusers could confirm if the IP is that user, but its pretty obvious in this instance that they are - and checkusers would likely deny a request for that reason. I've warned the user and reverted the IP edits.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. - Erik Baas (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

<offtopic>You should really warn about spider pictures... :)</offtopic> Samulili (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that, I'll try to remember... ;-) - Erik Baas (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Erik, it seems like your corrected the perspective on Image:Wemmel E1 JPG.jpg got reverted. User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT had much more positive reaction to my removal of his watermarks: he upload original unwatermarked images under new names and deleted the old ones (see Image:Villers-la-Ville JPG00qia.jpg. A response we would hope from all authors uploading watermarked images. --Jarekt (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Wemmel" was not reverted, he saved a new version in which he made the correction in another way, but less radical; that's allright, in any case it looks a lot better now than the original did. Pity about the traffic sign, though... About the watermarks: I'm glad he's doing that; working from the original file it wil probably be better quality, I didn't look that close (Image:Han-sur-Lesse JPG01.jpg). - Erik Baas (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why do words ending with u x x show up as ux, and words ending with u x show up as ŭ. This automatic correction do not obey nowiki tags. For example in image Image:Electrolŭ Vacuum Cleaner.jpg the word Electrolŭ has to be spelled with 2 x's to show the link correctly (Image:Electrolux Vacuum Cleaner.jpg). But it is not the filename of that image. This is very confusing. Does anyone knows what is going on? --Jarekt (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you are using the Esperanto magical conversion gadget. It makes such corrections to make writing esperanto easier. If you don't write esperanto it is probably not so useful, so you can disable it in the gadget section in your preferences. /Ö 13:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes I did have check next to Esperanto gadget (no clue how it got there). Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

In an attempt to change my username from Eivindghoel to Eivindgh I only achieved to make a second userpage, not an effective move of the user account. How do I do this? --Eivindghoel (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

See Commons:Changing username. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Commons:Deletion requests/own photographs violatoing COM:FOP - some are statues and obviously copyrighted, but I can't see photos of utilitarian bridges like Image:Wiki electro bridges from south.jpg being a problem. Can somebody with more knowledge than me of COM:FOP please evaluate this? --NE2 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just resently discovered that Wikimedia Commons is widely used as a picture repository for sex industry workers (example Category:Porn actresses from the United States) were many pictures seem to advertise the service they are selling and glorify sex industry as a work for women. Am I the only wikipedian who does think this is unappropriate? I am trying to found out if the Wikipeda community has any policies about this, but I only can find this sentence: "Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such." Can you point me to some resouces/discussion etc about whether to allow porn industry selling material here in Wikipedia? I know the porn industry is very powerful and will surely like to influence potential customers but to many of us this industry is at tha best humilation and exploitation of women and children and at is worst extreme sexual violence,slavery and human trafficking.

I have also noticed that is seem to be accepted that some users load up lot of extreme close ups of mutilated female sexual organs and I tried for the first time yesterday to request delation of one such images. Very soon three users had voted for keeping the pictures (one of whom almost loads up grossly vulgar picture of women sexual organs )and an administrator declared the discussion over. Here is the discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bui Clit.jpg What kind of fake discussion is this? In whose favor is it that these kinds of pictures stay in wikipedia?

Most of the sexual and sadistic pictures in the Commons demonstrate women being tortured. Hereis an example Category:BDSM Drawings

Also while some of the pictures are disgusting and show deep contempt for women and are used as a tool for opression it is even more sad that I have encountered more than one instance where picture of children were exposed in sexual surroundings. Two examples of this is in this picture gallery Category:Peter_Klashorst. While the picture of children are not sexual them selfselves they became a part of a sexual exploitation of children when they are part of such catagories. Please help me fight this kind of evolution of the Commons. Freedom is not narrowly defined as the right of one group of society (male) to oppress and harrass other groups. --Salvor (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Only issue I have is if it's a copyvio image or shows any violence then it should be deleted. I've looked at some photos in the above links and I fail to see the issue. If you don't like it don't look at it. Commons and most if not all Wikimedia projects are not censored. Also in what way does it become "part of a sexual exploitation of children"? Look at docos on TV should they be banned as well? Really this sounds like someone with a religion point of view which is one of my dislikes. I will not be supporting you on this unless I find an image in which has broken a policy. Bidgee (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Most of the pictures in Category:Porn actresses from the United States are used to illustrate articles in Wikipedia about those porn actresses. They are not advertising, nor is Commons glorifying any aspect of the porn industry; our role is to provide free and legal images which fall within our scope. Again, these images illustrate articles on notable people, and that is enough to show that they are in scope. You may not like these people's activities or the fact that they are notable, but Commons is not censored (this link is probably the policy you were looking for). In general, if you want to get a photo deleted, you are going to have to show that it either poses a legal problem (e.g. non-free license, breach of personality rights) or that it is outside of scope.

I suppose that the Peter Klashorst images you are referring to are Image:Expirimental.jpg and Image:Werkpauze (photo by Peter Klashorst).jpg. I fail to understand how these are "a part of sexual exploitation of children". I also don't see who is "harassed" by the presence of the images you mentioned. It's not like we are putting them up as Picture of the Day: the only way you are going to see them is by looking for them. Pruneau^talk 18:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Photos of porn actreses who are just posing for publicity shots (i.e. the photo itself is actually not pornographic) are really not controversial here, and you won't get anywhere by opposing their presence on Wikimedia Commons. Furthermore, the other type of image you were referring to are not in fact "mutilated female sexual organs"; for those, see Category:Female genital mutilation.

I'm actually moderately sympathetic to the view that someone who goes on a scummy third-world sex tourism escapade, and takes photographs of the rather young (maybe sometimes borderline too young) prostitutes whose services he purchases, shouldn't have his images remain on Commons merely because some people consider that their photographic artiness outweighs the ethically questionable circumstances in which they were obtained. However, to get such images deleted, you're going to have to articulate specific cogent factual arguments, and not merely express general moral outrage... AnonMoos (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

"porn actresses who are just posing for publicity shots". That is NOT what I am talking about. I have no problem with photos of famous people even if I am horrified and shocked by the work they are famous for. But these picture repositories I am talking about are not that kind of material. These are deliberate attempts to use Wikimedia Commons as an outlet and medium to advertise sexual services and promote prostitution.

Take for example Category:Vanessa Blue, all these photos are from user Vanessa Blue and link to a porn site http://www.vanessablue.com/ with the services she is offering. Many of the picture repositories are explicity showing the girls in working cloths of the porn industry and they are posing in a way they would be posing for costumers, often with emphasis on the deformed breast area (implants) characteristic of female sex workers. Some random galleries to explain my point: Category:Cindy Crawford (porn star), Category:Demi Delia, Category:Sophie Dee, Category:Aurora Snow, Category:Abbey Brooks, Category:Vanessa Blue.

--Salvor (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also about the Peter Klashorst gallery, I read the earlier discussion from May 2008 where user Ribi says:

What gives Peter Klashort the right to post pictures of 50 poor Thai and African women's genitals for all the world to see? Just because he paied them 20 euros to have sex with them? These same pics HAVE BEEN DELETED FROM FLICKR for inappropriate content. Please do check!!! I ask that Peter Klashorst be asked to produce release forms from his models. Isn't that the law in Europe? or does it not apply to poor girls from Africa and Asia?

User Ribi says s/he is friend of one of the girls and Peter Klasthort has payed 20 euros for pictures.

It did not take much effort to search the web and find some traces pointing to that the User Ribi had a point. Sex tourism can also be disquised as being an artist. These pictures seem to be product of sex tourism in poor countries. I do not think Peter Klashort himself has posted the pics on the Commons or linked to them in his wikipedia page, some admirers that share his view of women probably have but he has a blogspot blog where he aired his views about prostitution of underage girls, he calls it [sad but voluntariy sadness.]

--Salvor (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thats just Ribi's word which could be incorrect and just trying to give Peter a bad name since he can't defend himself here on Commons and also who is to say that the above blog is Peter's? Anyone can start one and even under his name. I'm not defending him but we can't just give anyone doubt when they're not here to defend themselfs. Bidgee (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Salvor, while I appreciate that you are personally concerned about the moral issues surrounding some of these issues, please understand that as long as they are within the project scope and provided under an appropriate license there is no reason to delete them. You bring up a good issue about personality rights, but the fact is that we have a limited amount of information to go on when it comes to vetting these images. Obviously posed pictures (i.e. images where the subject is fully aware they are being photographed) are generally treated much more favorably than candid snapshots, and professional-quality images by artists (i.e. images that can reasonably be expected to see release) are generally given more leeway than images by unknown users.

More to the point, I think you should consider what it is that you are railing against. To me, it seems that your beef is less with Commons as a media repository and more with body piercing and sexually-themed images in general, and that you are simply using Commons as a forum to air out those frustrations. Needless to say, this is not the appropriate venue, and as a Wikipedia bureaucrat you should know that soapboxing is generally disruptive and unproductive. Finally, if you are concerned that the sexually-themed content is skewed against women, then I would suggest that this is due to simple systematic bias and encourage you to help correct this imbalance through file uploads rather than attacks. --jonny-mt 06:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm inclined to agree with Salvor's position. See also recent contributions by someone called Thirdship. His userpage consists of nothing more than "geile fotos" (German for "randy pix". I don;'t think that anything he has uploaded so far has a significant encyclopedic value. I suggest that we advise him to upload his pictures somewhere else. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why are you inclined to agree with an point of view when we should all be following Commons policys and guidelines in which the photos/images are not inbreach of? With Thirdship if any images prove to be unencyclopedic then maybe those photos should be deleted but only if they have NO encyclopedic value. Bidgee (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

My point is that those pictures have no encyclopedic value, and that this uploader no doubt will be able to post them somewhere else.~Best regards, MartinD (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you prove that Thirdship is or will use them elsewhere other then Wikimedia projects? Bidgee (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, I can't. I actually have no idea why he has uploaded them. MartinD (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I deleted most of those photos as lacking permission, and tagged the rest as requiring OTRS permission. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia projects include more than just work that is "encyclopedic"; Wikibooks has guidebooks, manuals, etc, that go to a higher level of detail than WP proper. One can imagine a textbook on the sex industry needing more and different images than WP would want. Stan Shebs (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Or tutorials about erotic photography. Rama (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, I've said what I wanted to say. I think that if someone wants to "geile fotos" he should it somewhere else. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

So what if they have "geile fotos" on their userpage. It doesn't mean anything it's just words. If you have an issue then thats your problem and not the Wikimedia projects, so it's best to treat Thirdship as someone who is here to improve all projects. Bidgee (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is a bit sarcastic that Commons discourages people to upload personal photo gallerys/party photos but there seem to be no policy against people uploading and making galleries of dehumilating sexist photos and very openly sexual workers advertise their services on the Commons.

MartinD, I looked at the uploads of user Thirdship. It is only recently that this user started to upload this very sexist photos. Perhaps because this is tolerated here right now. I looked at the upload history of some of the persons that violently opposed my opinion when I tried for the first time to request a photo deleted. One of those user:Lamilli almost entirely uploads pictures that most people considered pure and vulgar pornography. I fail to see how those pictures can be userful it Wikipedia. I know there need to be picture in Wikipedia of female reproductive organs but this user has uploaded at least 18 pictures of vulvas and most of them very pornographic. Randomly chosen example of this user work is is :Cola bottle and vulva.jpg and :Me and my Chucks.jpg. There is somethinf fundamentally wrong in the decision making of Commons if votes from users like this which seem devoted to using Commons as a medium for pornography and themselves upload photos that no medium channel I know of will other than Commons or sex industry websites will tolerate are the only persons that decide whether to keep that kind of pictures in the Commons.

It is also sarcastic how undemocratic the socalled discussion about to keep a picture in the commons was and how biased the Commons administrators are towards my point of view. I guess all of us who work in the Commons share the belief of freedom and many of us look upon Wikimedia as a social movement against oppression. But why should we not listen to those that point out that the mechanism of the Commons right now are adding to the oppression of some groups - women and children - and by advertising sexual services the Commons is aiding to the exploitation of very vulnerable social groups.

--Salvor (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

User:Lamilli seems to have some kind of piercing fetish, which leads him or her to upload many dozens and dozens of similar and somewhat redundantly repetitive piercing pics, but most of them are not really pornographic as such... AnonMoos (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

So? Doesn't give you the right to make a statment to say that they have a "piercing fetish". If the photos are not causing any issues then I don't see the problem unless we are going to name people that people have a fetishs which this project is not about. Bidgee (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Neither Wikipedia nor Commons are "a social movement against oppression". They are an encyclopedia and a media repository, respectively.

"I know there need to be picture in Wikipedia of female reproductive organs but this user has uploaded at least 18 pictures of vulvas and most of them very pornographic. Randomly chosen example of this user work is is :Cola bottle and vulva.jpg and :Me and my Chucks.jpg."

Yes, I've though about that myself, why do we have over 200 photographs of kittens? And why are some of these images gratuitously cute, like kittens in mugs?

"mechanism of the Commons right now are adding to the oppression of some groups - women and children - and by advertising sexual services the Commons is aiding to the exploitation of very vulnerable social groups"

Where have you seen images advertising child pornography? This would be illegal, so if you see some, please do report them; if this is just an outrage figure of speech, please come to your sense and tone down.

As for women, you should know that there are respectable trends of though that regard prostitution a legitimate business, including feminist ones. From this point of view, your charges against pornography, assimilating it with sexism and minority oppression, is unacceptable. They attempt to destroy a legitimate industry, and are a moralistic backlash against sexual freedom.

You are free to hold whatever opinions you want, but please don't attempt to force them of other people. Rama (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

How on earth is it aiding to the exploitation of people? Nor does it want me to use the sites listed within the source of the images and again Commons is not censored. Whats interesting is you're only going on about women and children so what about men? Bidgee (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I seriously believe, that you got things mixed up a bit. You might have your objection against pornography and sex biz which is none of my business. Go on and fight your battle if you like. But what on earth is your problem with body piercing. What's exploitative about an image which shows a piercing. By the way, you even wanted pictures of male genital piercings (on an adult male) to be deleted, what has this to do with the oppression women and children???? I just don't get it.--Lamilli (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just to weigh in on one aspect of this: several wikipedias have articles on Vanessa Blue. Most, perhaps all, pictures we have of her on Commons are more chaste than the pictures of the average female rock singer in concert. Certainly they are appropriate pictures, assuming the articles are appropriate. If anything, I'd expect to have something additional more in keeping with the specific fact that she is a porn star. - Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am not 100% sure if this is a copyright violation or not. In the past, I accidentally uploaded two copyvios. Can someone who knows more about such things look at the image and see what you think? Thanks. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is published as {{CC-BY-2.0}} so is fine for Commons, even cropped. Finavon (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

What I meant was, do you think the Flickr guy actually took the image himself, or do you think he lifted it from somewhere else. That's how I got burned before. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd guess it's a safe bet he did. Look here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/oneidaprincess/page2/ The photo isn't out of line with the rest of his photosteam. rootology (T) 05:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is there consensus for intentional borders? I recently removed the border from this image and had the edit reverted and the image moved to this new category. Finavon (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Hi. It was I who created this category and the accompanying template {{Border is intentional}}. The uploader of this image has fought for at least a year with people who want to remove the border from this image, as you can read on its talk page. If he wants a border on his file, why is that an issue for you? The file is used that way in 3 different wikis, and if you want to have a borderless version in your wiki it would be painless to upload it with a different filename. This very image has been discussed before without much consensus. I believe this author should be able to have a useful image with a border hosted on Commons if he wants. -Nard the Bard 21:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I had missed the earlier VP discussion and wonder if we will get closer to consensus this time. The main issue is lack of consistency, which is likely to lead to the repeated addition of {{Remove border}}. Your category and template will put off some editors - harmless unless it sets a precedent. Finavon (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am under the impression that deletion nomination fails to complete when a popup blocker is present (thereby generating incomplete deletion nominations). Is this documented somewhere ? --Foroa (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think if you have your browser set to not allow links to open in new tabs that will break it. It shouldn't pop-up anything, only open new tabs. Rocket000 (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could an admin please add the Smith System (for ferns) to the list of taxonavigation template? It is locked from editing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is it possible to put Category:Books made in the 19th century in Category:Public domain books, or would that be too much of a generalization? How far back, if any amount, would we have to go before we could say a book and all its content was certainly public domain? Richard001 (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

For example, en:The Time Machine by H. G. Wells was published in 1895 and is in the public domain in the United States, Canada, and Australia, but does not enter the public domain in the European Union until 1 January 2017 (1946 death of author + 70 years + end of calendar year). Similarly, I'd have said, for The Invisible Man and War of the Worlds, but for the category it depends whether one is talking about cover art or texts, so it is difficult to generalize. Man vyi (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

If I want to add a number of images to a category, is it possible to just tell a bot which images and which category, rather than doing it the old fashioned way? Richard001 (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I can do that for you. Yes, if you have a list of images and a category - just post on my talk page and I can take care of it. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 04:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. I have done this task now but I'll let you know in future. Richard001 (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

A source (an institution that is owning national Dutch archives) is willing to allow publication of certain pictures, for which they own the rights, under conditions that are equivalent to CC-BY-SA. But, because this organisation is still having the CC-licenses under investigation, they are not (yet) ready to formally use a CC-license for this. Is it possible to use the Copyrighted free use provided that license for this situation? Bob.v.R (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Assuming that the "provided that" clause doesn't make the licensing terms contradictory to Wikimedia Commons requirements... AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Share: copy, distribute and transmit the work
• Remix: adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

• copying, distributing, transmitting must be done with clear mentioning of the licensor, and with clearly and entirely stating these conditions
• adaptations are only allowed if they don't impact the good reputation of the licensor

"Good reputation" proviso would seem to be counter to CC-BY-SA, GFDL. - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

What do you exactly mean here by 'counter'? (I saw that not harming good reputation is covered by section 4.d of CC-BY-SA). Bob.v.R (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Eventually he meant "being incompatible with CC ...". This should eventually be clarified with the licensor. So-called "moral rights" of the artist are not waived by CC licenses, especially not by the 3.0 version. But I'm not sure whether they (the licensor) mean that. --Túrelio (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The licensor is willing to allow adaptations to the images (which are all photographs, by the way), under the condition that the resulting publication (where the licensor must be mentioned, according to the conditions) will not be harmfull to the reputation of the licensor. I think this is in compliance with section 4.d of CC-BY-SA. Bob.v.R (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

That any adaptations should not "impact the good reputation of the licensor" is completely compatible with our licensing requirements. In fact, the GFDL covers this indirectly via section 4. I'm not sure it's necessary to have them in the license (given that nearly all countries will have some kind of rule about this anyway; if they're not called "moral rights" they're covered in some other area of law, like those forbidding misrepresentation etc), but there's no reason we should be unhappy with it.

With that said, a custom license tag might be better for this sort of thing, rather than the troublesome "copyrighted free use provided that". Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 00:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

May I upload images of Robotech mechas found here? --BokicaK (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

May be, but you'll have to use search option "Permits Commercial and Derivative Use". --Túrelio (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

They look pretty derivative to me... Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 00:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

My understanding is that any replacements of images should constitute minor changes which will have no impact on the usage of the images on the various projects where they are used. However, I have recently become aware of some hurricane track images which are being frequently updated with changes that are far more drastic than I can consider appropriate. Where these images are being used on the various projects these big changes can be quite disruptive. For example, one of these images is used on a Wikinews article about a particular storm. Since these images are constantly being replaced the image appearing on that article is now no longer relevant. I would be reasonably confident in saying that this same problem will effect other projects as well as captions are written and become invalid when the replacements are made. Instead of constantly replacing a single image with the latest we should have separate unique filenames.

I'm currently unsure as to how this problem can be resolved and as an interim measure have fully protected some of the images I found to be relevant so that this doesn't continue to get worse before this can be discussed. Adambro (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just a further comment on this. As the central repository for all Wikimedia Foundation projects we have a responsibility to all of them. It should be reasonable that if an image from Commons is used by someone on a project somewhere that they can expect that the image will still look as it did when they first used it later on. Adambro (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

At the same time, we received complaints all the way back in 2005 about littering the image namespace by uploading a new filename every 3 or 6 hours, and having the vast majority of those images remain unused. Additionally, uploading versions of a track map removes the problem of having to make dozens of useless edits across several Wikipedias (because many Wikipedias use these track map images with the understanding that it points to the latest information from official sources) three to six times a day just to update a picture.

The problem you present of captions being outdated is just a hypothetical: most Wikipedias use a variant of {{Infobox hurricane current}}, which doesn't use captions, and these track maps are only used while a storm is active; they are almost always replaced by something from Tropical cyclone tracks once the storm dissipates. And if Wikinews requires a particular revision to an image to illustrate an article, its editors are perfectly capable of uploading that particular revision, instead of forcing everyone to upload images that will never be used.

Again, I ask you to lift the protection, as it is not justified under the protection policy, and it is actually disrupting our ability to update several articles with the latest information possible. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Unprotected. Adambro (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Eh, wish we had image rename/copy, then the latest could always be there but the record of images could be preserved. In general I agree it's policy not to upload substantially different images on top of the same image name... but perhaps this is a special case? Let's lift the protection (thanks for doing that Adambro!), work through what the right thing to do is and not worry too much about the short term, we can sort this out long term, ok? ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd just like to note, that if we uploaded every track map under a new name for a current long lived storm like Bertha, we would have 81 separate images of which 80 are not used and have no value. -CWY2190 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would it help if the naming convention was something like Image:2008_02L_latest_5-day_track.gif or some such, to give a hint that it is subject to regular change?--Keith Edkins (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

How about we create a template along the lines of "this image represents the latest information available about current event X. It may be updated when new information becomes available. If you wish to link to this specific version, you should re-upload the image under a different name." Pruneau^talk 23:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Remember that we have image redirects now. You can easily rediret "Latest path of hurricane ....jpg" to the latest relevant upload. TheDJ (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image:7.62-cm-Pak-36r-ammunition.jpg Check out this incomplete deletion request. Whats that about? rootology (T) 00:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

is it allowed to charge the banknotes of the Cambodian riel ? (http://www.ccb-cambodia.com/index.php?q=main&p=banknotes)   Szajci ^reci 08:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Mr,. FX made that action.

Sir FX did not consult the Brazilian laws to determine what by protected copyright or not. A layperson in Brazilian laws who uses as argument the wheel foot that wounds the proper law.

I need help from another Admin please. Please holp my pic under roles of Commons not FX roles.

Marcio Benvenuto de Lima (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• All web sites are on domain publish (have extension GOV) in the same way that its content, to sir FX can' t deleted all pics or one pics using arguments of protected by copyright(content under law of Gov, domain publish laws), documents or archives of domain publish are on extension GOV acquired by law to all the Brazilians and foreigners.

Marcio Benvenuto de Lima (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

@Marcio, it is LX not FX. Though everybody might err sometimes, LX is an experienced admin and probably correct in his deletion request. For example, the website http://www.juquitiba.sp.gov.br/ that you named as source in Image:Rio2 - Juquitiba.jpg, says: (C) Todos os direitos reservados, suggesting its content to be unfree. But you might ask User:PatríciaR who is a Portuguese-native speaker and eventually knows the specialties of Brazilian copyright laws. --Túrelio (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

So sorry about it "FX", my bad...Túrelio I know PatriciaR, but the problem is the laws and actions from LX, I from Brazil too and then sometimes the web sites have extension GOV use "all rights reserved" but that web site under domain publish laws and can't use "all rights reserved" becouse that domain publish, look's lake City office New York have "Copyright 2008 The City of New York" but all Americans know, have Fair Use laws, Gov laws, look's lake in Brazil too, but the problem is that...wbe sites have extension GOV can't use "all rights reserved" that web site is domain publish and all things have inside of that web site.

Then if you don't know that and only deleted by on ways or personal action and... don't ask someone about it, I thing Sir. LX make mistake about law of Brasil and hit my works in Wkipédia PT, I holpe Sir. LX can know that and look for another ways to work, I work too in here and I tray don't hit anyone by my action you kno, but sometimes you can't be sweet wich all.

I am only look for my rights inside of the Commons project, for me it is so difficult for look for pics of "Vale do Riveira" you know and then Sir LX deleted all pics and hit my work in Wikipedia PT, "lol" I see that and look for how did that? my first ask...1 pic I can see one good person but 20 or more it not fanny too my work in wikipedia PT, that funny for someone not me, sorry say that but all time I always speak with the heart. I holpe you can help me, I don't want fight, but I want "fight" for the right of the pics not fight for my ways or actions.

Marcio Benvenuto de Lima (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Note: Discussion in question comes from here.

I asked an administrator some questions today about a deletion they performed. Several of their answers disturbed me.

I don't question that there are circumstances where an administrator may have to delete content immediately, without any prior warning, or discussion. But, surely, in those circumstances, if our administrators are committed to exercising their authority accountably, they have an obligation to advise the content uploaders of the deletion AFTERWARDS?

This particular administrator wrote:

I could have put a notification on your talk page afterward about the deletion of a copyright violation image, but I prefer to do that only to people whom I believe have uploaded the image in bad faith.

I suggested to this administrator that:

1. Good faith contributors, who mistakenly contributed content have no opportunity to learn that they are not complying with policy if the deletion procedure does not include either a prior warning, or a heads-up afterward.
2. Administrators are fallible, and will make mistakes. And they will not learn of their mistakes if they don't tell content contributors when they silently delete content.

So, is this administrator correct, that policy allows him or her to delete content both without prior warning -- AND without any kind of advisory afterwards?

The administrator in question told me that my questions were tl;dr. This translates to "too long; didn't read" -- which seems to me like a big juicy Foxtrot Oscar.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The deletion seemed to be justified and the administrator explained to you their reasoning when you asked them to. In a perfect world we'd be able to explain the reasoning for all speedy deletion but that isn't practical unfortunately but I can accept that doing so can sometimes be helpful. Adambro (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Adambro, I checked your log, and see that you too are an administrator. I am not disputing that adminstrators are entrusted with the authority to delete images. I am not disputing that administrators are entrusted with the authority to delete some images without any prior warning.

I would be very grateful if you could see your way clear to unambiguously confirm for me that, in your opinion, administrators are not obliged to tell contributors when they delete images.

I would be very concerned to learn this was the general consensus among the current corps of administrators.

The admin who deleted the image I uploaded said they only informed contributors when they suspected bad faith. This strikes me as completely backwards. In effect this administrator is punishing good faith uploaders, by not advising them that they are making errors that are causing their contributions to be deleted. This administrators stated deletion protocol is guaranteed to waste the efforts of those good faith uploaders, by robbing them of the knowledge that their misunderstandings of policy is causing their contributions to be deleted.

This administrator is triggering the waste of effort of other quality control volunteers, who will end up making the effort to clean up after the contributors future good faith mistakes.

And then, of course, there is the corollary, the wasted effort when it turns out that it is the deleting administrator whose interpretation of policy is flawed. Maybe the community has done such a good job picking the current corps of administrators that they are hardly ever wrong. But the current corps of administrators remain human, and fallible. And I am not comfortable with those cases being discounted.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

A note never hurts, but in most cases it probably isn't the end of the world if something is deleted, as most people may not regularly check their commons account/talk page. For the deletions themselves, I don't think prior warning or a discussion is always required here on Commons since there are really very, very few "subjective" deletion reasons. It's either allowed or it isn't, unlike Wikipedia, where politics, negotiating, and consensus plays as much a role as anything. Here, if it's not valid, it's not valid, and it's going to be almost always open and shut, black and white, and very binary. rootology (T) 15:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Added a link back to the discussion that began this so people can see the full context. rootology (T) 15:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

There may not be "subjective" cases, but in my experience there are often borderline cases and difficult cases. Is that guy wearing a logo t-shirt with the logo so prominent as to be a copyright issue? Is that blurry picture of something so rarely photographed that it is still worth keeping? Is there sometimes a good reason to keep 6 separate versions of the same image? Has the admin from Japan adequately understood how Freedom of Panorama functions in the U.S.? - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Jmabel you are correct, there are border line cases. If I personally am ever unsure about if an image should be deleted, I either talk to other admins and get their opinions or push the image in to a proper DR. There will always be some calls made "on the spot" by admins. We're not infallible either, which is why we have talk pages are COM:UDR. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 19:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am concerned by these comments. I am glad to read this individual acknowledge human fallibility. But the existence of dialog among administrators, and the existence of individual administrator's talk pages, is totally unhelpful when uploaders are not informed that their images have been deleted. The existence of those talk pages does not help those good faith uploaders learn to avoid making the same good faith mistakes in future, when they aren't being told about the deletions in the first place.

I almost didn't learn of this most recent deletion. My watchlist on another wiki had an entry from the commonsdelinker bot. Geo Swan (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am disappointed in Rootology's comment.

Rootology seems to be saying that while "An explanation never hurts...", real life time constraints make this a courtesy, not a requirement.

For the record, I was not actually suggesting a time consuming explanation. I believe the tool administrators use to perform deletions could be easily modified so that leaving the advisory on the contributor's talk page is automatic, transparent, and no more work for the deleting administrator than it is now.

If the existing deletion mechanism does not inform good faith contributors that their uploads have been deleted then it should be fixed, ASAP.

Rootology has asserted that decisions here are "almost always binary". Without regard to Rootology's concurrence with the administrator's decision in the deletion that triggered my raising this issue, I wish Rootology had acknowledged that, being human, administrators remain fallible -- and thus should always act in an open and accountable manner.

I wanted to divorce this discussion from the specific instance that triggered my concern because I was hoping that all participants here would recognize administrators, being human, remain fallible, thus making it absolutely essential and non-negotiable that the deletion process inform contributors when their images are deleted in every single case.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry I disappointed you? For notification you do mean here on Commons only, correct? I can't see this being feasible to chase people down on email or to their home projects, wherever that may be. rootology (T) 03:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

RE Geoswan. Not that I'm going to get into an argument with you here on COM:VP. But for anyone else reading this, I said in my last message "will have to investigate this and get back to you.". Oh, and if I was telling you to Fuck Off. I would have told you to Fuck Off. I don't _do_ subtle. Now back to the talk page. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 19:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

  For the record, when there is a copyvio-related speedy deletion, I always tell the uploader in some way (usually before deletion), and would strongly encourage other administrators to do the same. It saves lots of trouble like the one above. Please note that this was a general comment. --O (谈 • висчвын) 04:21, 21 July 2008 (GMT)

There's no reason to waste time notifying someone about copyright violations. That's like notifying someone that their vandalism/test page/broken redirect got deleted. If someone ever notified me of a copyvio I uploaded, I would be like srsly!? Just delete it! what do you want me to do? Nothing would get done if admins had to warn users before or after everything single copyvio they delete. Sure, some admins who delete only a couple a day might do it, but those who delete hundreds a day know better. It's not practical and doesn't help the project. I consider the warnings to be about the uploader's behavior not about the deletion itself so the only time I give out warnings are when I think there may be a problem with the user. It's so when they get blocked they won't say "but I didn't get enough warnings!" If it's not an obvious copyvio than that's a different story, but most of the time most admins won't notify most users about most copyright violations. There are exceptions but it shouldn't be expected. Rocket000 (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I strongly disagree that advising uploaders that their content has been deleted is a "waste of time". I see that you too Rocket000 are an administrator. Please explain how good faith uploaders are going to learn that they are uploading content that violates policy if the administrators who decide they have to delete those images don't tell them it is being deleted?

Please consider the unnecessary waste of effort of those good faith uploaders who innocently go on and continue to upload similar images, which also violate policy? Please consider the time of other quality control volunteers who clean up after the other, later images those good faith uploaders uploaded. All of this potential waste of effort can be avoided if the deletion process administrators use always tells uploaders when their images were deleted.

Uploading some images can be a lot of work to upload. I am in no doubt that uploading an image, figuring out who took it, and when they took it, is a lot more work than leaving a note on the uploader's talk page.

I don't understand why the tool that adds an entry to the deletion log can't automatically add a similar entry to the uploader's talk page at the same time without costing the deleting administrator a single millisecond of their time. If the tools available to administrators aren't currently capable of automatically advising uploaders then I suggest that administrators who feel an obligation to show they respect the efforts of good faith uploaders should spend the time to manually append that advisory to the uploader's talk page. You need to paste two things into this note you leave on their talk page, the name of the file, and whatever text you left in the deletion log. How much time are we talking about here, anyhow? Geo Swan (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, when you tag an image with {{Copyvio}} the resulting template on the image description page offers a ready-made line of text (like {{subst:copyvionote|Image:To Kwan Hang Andrew 20080604.jpg}} -~~~~) and asks you to notify the uploader (see for example in Image:To Kwan Hang Andrew 20080604.jpg). I don't know why this step couldn't be made automatically. If this notification has been made, an additional notification when the file is actually deleted would be unnecessary, IMHO. --Túrelio (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree, it seems like it would be a very good idea if when the {{Copyvio}} warning tag was {{Subst}}ed it automatically left a note on the uploader's talk page. But that wouldn't help in the cases where an administrator decides to delete an image without warning.

I don't question that there are circumstances where an administrator will feel it is necessary to immediately remove an image, without any prior warning. But I feel strongly, that in every one of those cases, the uploader should be advised afterwards. Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have to support Rocket000 here. On a purely practical level, some admins can delete hundreds of copyvios in a single day, and there is simply not enough time to engage in conversation with or even notify each uploader. It is hard enough for us to keep up with the work as it is. On the other hand, I do see the benefit of the proposal, and would very much support a bot which would allow admins to delete and notify the uploader in a single click. I normally use Lupo's js to do deletions, and perhaps that could be enhanced to post user messages? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Category:Logo is a disambiguation. As it seems, images depicting logos should be listed in Category:Logos, and 451 of them can indeed be found there. Still, 130 other logo images are listed in Category:Logo itself, where nothing should be. Can someone easily fix this using a bot? :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

You could use {{Category redirect}}. Other problem, that many logos there are copyvios. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, it seems to me that Category:Logo is an attempt at disambiguation between Category:Logos and Category:Logo (programming language). Therefore the disambig notice and Category:Logos and Category:Logo (programming language) as subcategories. Right now Category:Logo (programming language) was erroneously removed from Category:Logo and added to Category:Logos; I undid this. However, I'm not sure that "disambiguation categories" are a good idea at all, as often things will get added to them without checking. But as it is meant as a disambig, I don't think {{Category redirect}} would be the right option. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation pages refer to other categories, they never include them as subcategories. --Foroa (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you that redirect cats and disambiguation categories are not very efficient as they "attract" items with the wrong category. Categories that are not really used should not exist and show red links. Meanwhile, I made a similar Logo disambiguation page. --Foroa (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is the toolserver down, or is it just me? I'm unable to reach Flickr upload Bot. This link was working fine until today... Kelly (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, never mind. The link has apparently changed to http://toolserver.org/~bryan/flickr/upload. It seems to be deathly slow, now, though. Kelly (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

That link also doesn't work. I know that my DNS and 256/64 ADSL connection is fine. Bidgee (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Toolserver appears to be a bit overloaded atm. It works for me though. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is this page in scope? --Jarekt (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

No...  :) Rocket000 (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

HI, i have a problem uploading an image for a battle article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hyrba, i followed all the possible rules, and it still says you must provide a worthy source and license, i dont get it, here is were i got the image from (http://www.geocities.com/indo_european_geography/) and this this the source filename, i think (this is the pic)(http://www.geocities.com/indo_european_geography/kurd.jpg). If you can upload this image for the battle in the top of page of the article over were it says date, and put the text for the battle which is (en:Nearest place to the unknown location of Hyrba), under the pic, Category:Battle of Hyrba, and the name of the article on wikimedia commons ,or this place, is File:Battle of Hyrba.jpg. I would AMAZINGLY APPRECIATE IT! THANK YOU SOO MUCH!!!--Ariobarza (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talkReply

I've uploaded some photos recently. Copyright is OK, they are free, taken by me and released under a Creative Commons license. But I would want to get opinions related to this notice in the upload page: "Compromising or embarrassing images of non-public people taken without their knowledge are often problematic. Use good judgment".

There are non-public people in my photos. But I've taken those photos in a public event, at a public street in Madrid (Spain), and I was definitively not the only one taking photos, there were many people, lots of professional photographers and mass media taking photos as well, it could be argued that those people were aware of that. So I *think* it is OK to publish them. Please take a look at this photos:

• Image:LGBT-2008-Madrid-11.jpg
• Image:LGBT-2008-Madrid-3.jpg
• Image:LGBT-2008-Madrid-7.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by R0b3rt0 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 21. Jul. 2008 (UTC)

Those images look fine to me--it's a street scene, which means what they were doing was public anyway. Commons:Photographs of identifiable people states specifically that "unless there are specific local laws to the contrary, overriding legal concerns (e.g., defamation) or moral concerns (e.g., picture unfairly obtained), the Commons community does not normally require that the subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded". None of these look unfairly obtained, so unless there are Spanish laws governing the photographing of people in a public place, you can rest easy. --jonny-mt 13:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree. They look fine to me, too. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I wanted to upload a picture of Swedish comedian Calle Norlén found here, where the information tag states the image has no copyright. Wikipedia currently has no image of Calle. Since it's not released under a license I don't really know how to tag it here on Commons, is this free enough or do we need something more? Thanks! Axelv (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you can't find a copyright page/information then I would assume it's copyrighted therefore can't be used here on Commons. Best bet is to email them (if possible) and get them to send an email to OTRS. Bidgee (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

One of the photos does have some copyright information: it states "Fotograf: Jack Ristol; Ingen Copyright" ("Photo: Jack Ristol; no copyright"), without any further details. But since the owner of the copyright (Jack Ristol) is not the owner of the website, I would still advise to go through OTRS. Pruneau^talk 16:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

What is the copyright status of images made in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan is not a full signatory to the Berne Convention. According to w:List of parties to international copyright treaties it does not seem to be a full signatory to any other international agreement on copyright.

COM:L#Afghanistan directs readers to w:Afghanistan and copyright issues, which starts:

"As of 2005, Afghanistan has no official copyright relations with the United States, resulting in works created in the country not being copyrighted in the United States, regardless of the local copyright laws of these countries."

So, what does this mean for the liscensing status here on the commons for images made in Afghanistan?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

This came up recently in connection with a deletion request (that I can't now find). The conclusion was that, as far as we are able to ascertain on the web, Afghanistan currently has no copyright laws at all. So, photographs taken of sights, posters, murals etc should be OK to upload here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply