Commons:Village pump/Archive/2009/08

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

Bad license on presumably good image

I pretty routinely recategorize images that are placed in the much-too-general Category:Architecture. I recently ran across File:A serie des prix front 05139.jpg and File:A serie des prix frontismice 05142.jpg, which I recategorized more appropriately, but I notice that these are dubiously described as "own work" and given clearly bogus license releases. (It's also hard to see why we would want both of these images, but I leave that matter entirely to others.)

Since this was a collective work published in 1897, I'm guessing it is likely to be public domain. But it also tells me that the (presumably French-speaking) user who uploaded it has a poor understanding of rights issues. (I've crossed paths with him already on his poor understanding of categorization.)

I'm not sure how best to follow up here; would someone else care to do so?

Also, Category:Architecture currently contains quite a few French-captioned images that could use better categories. I'm sure I'll eventually get to these if no one else does, but if someone with good French would like to take these on, it would probably be a lot quicker. - Jmabel ! talk 18:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The description might not be technically wrong: it's quite possible that the photographs are the uploader's own work, and he's certainly free to license them under GFDL/CC-BY-SA. Since any copyright to the subject has presumably expired (or has it — who's "G. Delarue" and when did he die?), the photographer is the only one with any copyright claim to the image, tenuous as their claim may be.
That said, I'd say the description certainly goes against recommended Commons practice: if the main subject of an image is a work that ever was or could've been copyrighted, that should generally be noted and some explanation (e.g. "copyright expired", "U.S. government work", etc.) provided for the absence of copyright. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
"G. Delarue" is a publishing company. It does not matter when its eponymous founder died any more than it matters for a Doubleday book when Frank Nelson Doubleday died. - Jmabel ! talk 01:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Too much incomprehensible guidance

I wish to report several images that have been placed on your pages. I would like to have found the proper place to do that, however, your instructions are overwhelming.

Three photos: I found these under the image search "camping"

1) a nude man with his legs spread apart, under "nudist camping" 2 and 3) 2 pictures under "camping: nude" of a woman's vulva spread apart exposing all sexual aspects

I've never seen explicitly sexual pictures on Wikimedia before, and wonder if these are legit entries.

thank you. for God's sake, what is this????????? No "send message" button? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.173.176 (talk • contribs)

We have no rule against sexually explicit pictures (although most sexually explicit pictures don't fit the project scope); since you don't indicate precisely what images these were, it's hard to tell whether there is a problem.
As for how to send a message to participants in general, you've found the correct way to do that. - Jmabel ! talk 04:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. NSFW content, for sure, especially the latter two. The images in question are apparently File:Naturist Camping.jpg, File:Camping Nudes 066.jpg, and File:Camping Nudes 063.jpg. I personally have no idea whether these should be kept, but at least the last two should be renamed: there is no way someone searching for "camping" should be finding these. I also suspect that they are very redundant (both to each other and to plenty of other, more appropriately named images). The first one at least has the merit of being an interestingly composed photo. - Jmabel ! talk 04:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Many people enjoy uploading nude photos of themselves, for whatever reason. Often, these images are considered either not in scope because they are not useful for educational purposes, or redundant with existing images that illustrate the same topic better (see for example Category:Penis). We have no rule regarding sexually explicit material in particular. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, the first is the sole contribution by the user who uploaded it, and the latter two are from someone who has uploaded nothing but poorly named closeups of vaginas. - Jmabel ! talk 04:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated the latter two files for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Dmar6065. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Royalty free high-resolution photos from Eurovision

hello,

I have just seen this photo on Commons, but for me, royalty free pictures are free like free beer, not free speech. I could delete it directly, but that would be a good idea that somebody who speaks English better than me contact them to see if they would agree to use a real free licence for their photos. Okki (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"Royalty free" doesn't necessarily even mean free beer, just "pay once to drink as much beer as you want", although in this case the price does seem to be zero. I doubt they'd be likely to switch to a real free license, especially since they'd probably have to get permission for that from all the original photo agencies, but it can't hurt to try if someone wants to compose a nice e-mail to them. Still, in the mean time I've tagged the image as lacking permission. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Animated GIF is too heavy to load

Category:Animated GIF always makes my browser freeze. How to decrease the quantity per page? 200 animated GIFs per page is too many to load! --百楽兎 (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I just disabled the thumbnails. ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
But now it becomes INCONVENIENT to browse those GIFs... --百楽兎 (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that GIF thumbnailing is currently broken. (It used to be broken in a different way, but that put too much load on the servers, so it got changed so that GIFs aren't thumbnailed on the server side at all. So now it just overloads users' browsers.) I'm starting to think that the best solution, at least for the time being, would be to generate static PNG thumbnails of GIFs (showing only the first frame, if the GIF is animated) and only serving the original GIF if the full size is requested. That should sidestep the server load issue. One more item for my "to do as soon as I get around to it" list... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
That wouldn't solve the problem that the GIF thumbnailing procedure used to be better than the PNG thumbnailing procedure (which still has significant inefficiencies), and back in the old days many people uploaded static GIFs instead of PNGs specifically for that reason. AnonMoos (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Some files do not generate thumbnails, like music, PDF, large PNG, large JPG, SVG with embedded images, etc. Other files like GIF do not produce separate thumbnail files and relay on the browser to scale them. I think that it might be useful to add capability to upload thumbnails, just as we can upload new version of a file. That way users or bots can create our own thumbnails, like static PNG thumbnails of GIFs (showing only the first frame, if the GIF is animated) Ilmari Karonen mentioned and upload them somehow. We can activate this feature only for some MIME types and files without thumbnails. Also we might want to migrate by a bot all non-animated GIFs to PNG format. --Jarekt (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know what's wrong with File:Vernal Fall pano.jpg, but large JPEGs work just fine; see File:Deepest View Ever of the Universe.jpg for example. –Tryphon☂ 15:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Vernal Fall pano.jpg is a progressive JPEG: the image is encoded in a way that you can get a general idea of what the image looks like before downloading all of it, but generating a thumbnail requires decompressing the entire image (and using 72 MB of RAM). File:Deepest View Ever of the Universe.jpg is a standard JPEG: you can decompress it one batch of eight lines at a time, and generating a thumbnail only takes 150 KB of RAM. --Carnildo (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
A smart thumbnailing algorithm would not need that much RAM at all. You don't need to progressively decode the file all the way to generate a thumbnail. --Dschwen (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
You are right, that was the reason why this image could not be rendered. I uploaded a new version converted to a regular JPEG, and it works now. Thanks for the explanation. –Tryphon☂ 12:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Custom thumbnails wouldn't work too well, since people tend to want different size thumbnails for different purposes (120ps, 180px, 800px etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
If your browser cannot handle it, don't look at the page! It's that simple. Why inconvenience the rest of us for who it displayed just fine? It is a maintenance category in any case. Why would you even want to look at a page with hundreds of moving little images. Want to self-induce a stroke? --Dschwen (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It would only be that simple if one knew it would break ones browser before looking at it :-). If it is truely a maintenance category, shouldn't it be a hidden cat? If it is not a true maintenance category then just break it down into sub-cats. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahrgh! No! This is driving me nuts. No more subcategories. Hide it, alright, but this categorization-madness has to stop here. There is no meaningful way to subcategorize this category. --Dschwen (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I use Firefox with adblockplus and "upload.wikimedia.org/*.gif" as filter, so that all gif files from all wikimedia projects are removed. And this works fine. Teofilo (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Yea, why don't you just browse with lynx while you're at it ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Federal Judicial Center database of federal courthouses with public domain images

The Federal Judicial Center maintains a database of historic courthouses, complete with images that are in the public domain because they were produced by the U.S. government (the agency responsible for generating each image is listed in the entry). Here is a typical example of such a page - note that each entry is accompanied by a separate moderately sized JPG file (like this one) which is larger than the image on the page with the description, and also a very large TIFF file (in the order of 15-20 MB); I'm only interested in getting the larger JPG files and the information on the entry page. If someone has the wiki-fu to scrape those images and stick them in Category:United States federal courthouses, along with the information on the description page, I will be absolutely delighted to go through them and subcategorize them by state, and then add those images to the appropriate Wikipedia articles. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded the high resolution version of this one: File:AL-Birmingham_RG121-C_1_A_8.jpg. I will upload more. I created a category to contain these images: Category:Images from the US Federal Judicial Center database. Yann (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Fantastic - I take it that will be a permanent category? BD2412 T 22:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I suggest creating a template for the site explaining why the images are PD, showing some kind of icon and having a maintenance category. (Category:Images from the US Federal Judicial Center database).
They are not in the public domain for any special reason other than being the product of the United States government. I would observe however that the author of the image is not the same as the architect who designed the courthouse (indeed, the "author" is not a person at all). BD2412 T 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please make a template. Yann (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Please fill the "Author=" field of the information template at least with the photographer's name, or with both the phographer's name and the architect's name. Likewise, the date field should be filled with the photography's date, or with both the photography's date and the architecture's completion date. In the case of File:AL-Birmingham_RG121-C_1_A_8.jpg, the photographer's name or the photo agency's name seems to be written in difficult to read white letters on the picture itself, while missing on the fjc.gov website's description. For each picture, write down why you believe the photographer is a federal employee, or why you believe he died more than 70 years ago, or why you believe the picture was first published before 1923, or why you believe it has been published with a lack of copyright notice, at a time when the US copyright law required copyrighted publications to display a copyright notice. Teofilo (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
For example, the first picture on fjc.gov website's Shreveport, Louisiana page is described with Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Historic American Buildings Survey, Reproduction Number HABS,LA,9-SHREV,1-9. If you enter that number in the "search in number fied" in the Library of Congress' database search engine, you find for picture #9 of that collection "Historic American Buildings Survey Unknown Photographer May 31, 1912 CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING, 1912, FROM EAST CORNER From the Collection of Alex Campbell, Jr. Photocopy by Thurman C. Smith". So we have no indication that this photographer was a federal employee or that he died more than 70 years ago. So I don't think this picture should be uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. The Library of Congress says the following about the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record/Historic American Landscape Survey Collection :
Publication and other forms of distribution: The original measured drawings and most of the photographs and data pages in HABS/HAER/HALS were created for the U.S. Government and are considered to be in the public domain. However, occasionally material from a historical society or other source is included in the photographs or data pages. These materials are noted by the presence of a line crediting the original source, and it may be necessary to receive permission from the owner of such material before it can be published. In all cases the courtesy of an acknowledgment is requested if material is used in a publication. Privacy and publicity rights may also apply. Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record/Historic American Landscape Survey Collection - Rights and Restrictions Information
Teofilo (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
See the FJC page describing the origin of these images, which states:
The largest group of photographs is from Record Group 121 at the National Archives, the records of the Public Building Service and its predecessor agencies. Most of the images drawn from RG 121 were collected by the Office of the Supervising Architect in the Department of the Treasury, which was responsible for the construction of most civilian federal buildings until 1939. The images from RG 121 are largely a photographic record of completed federal construction projects, but the records include some photographs of the construction and alteration of these buildings. The selected images show the best available views of finished buildings, as well as extensions that significantly alter the look or footprint of the original structure. In 1901, the Office of the Supervising Architect compiled a book of photos and text, A History of Public Buildings, describing all the public buildings under the control of the Treasury Department. Some of the photographs that were not available in other locations are included here.
Other images in this site are from the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), a project of the National Park Service available through the Library of Congress, and the Annual Report of the Supervising Architect of the Treasury Department (1869-1920). The General Services Administration provided additional images and information for historic buildings under their care. The National Register of Historic Places, which is administered by the National Park Service, provided further information and images not found at other repositories.
These are in the public domain at least two different ways. Photographs taken for either the National Archives or HABS would be a government product. Moreover, these are publications dating before 1922, meaning that they are in the public domain under United States law irrespective of who the author is. BD2412 T 03:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I upload JPEG files after a few basic corrections (cropped, white balance, grayscale, etc.). Do we need the TIF files on Commons? I feel we don't because we can't use them directly on the projects, and anyone who wants them can get them from their original source, which won't disappear any time soon. But may be there are other uses I don't know? Yann (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no use for the TIFF files, and I don't see how anyone else will. I plan to make individual articles on each of the courthouses, if enough information exists (which only requires the JPG image), and if not to at least include all of them on the w:List of United States federal courthouses (which could do with just a thumbnail even). BD2412 T 01:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

July 27

Prototype for alternative to Special:NewFiles

As I wanted a way to see new files and their relationship regarding uploaded, I've made an prototype implementation for an Latest File viewer onto toolserver. What it will do it do show the N latest images, and group them according to uploaded. Also it only shows images over or below a certain size threshold.

Examples:

At the moment it's pretty ugly and unrobust, but if you think it's an idea to go further with, I'm up for some more fine art :) →AzaToth 01:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible (and useful) do you think, to included in the ‘Latest File viewer’ the number of different editors who have clicked on and viewed the actual image page to check the details? This addition would offer as quick way of seeing which images have been ignored. Also, a small short hand version of the licence below the image would help to highlight possible bad licence choice, copyvios etc. Just a thought. --P.g.champion (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps an indication in the ‘Latest File viewer’ as to whether it has also been flagged as a possible copyvio would help draw in second opinions. My thinking is that the sooner an newbie uploader gets feedback on how s/he is doing, the easier s/he can learn, (and the sooner upload vandals will give up). It would only need some thing like a two letter code CV (copyvio) or WL (wrong licence), ML (missing licence), and so on, to indicate what is presumed to be wrong. Those images with high view rates and no flags will be judged to be ‘probably’ OK. This will, I think, save the Village Pump from being used so often to bring peoples attention to problem images rather than just general issues and chit chat. This would streamline any deletion process (if it comes to that) as all the information and consensus of views would be in one place on the image’s discussion page.
If the number of uploads that editor has done or the first date of first upload can be included in ‘Latest File viewer’, it would alert editors, as to who are the newbies and less experienced uploaders and thus make self evident, those who may need a helping hand to make sense of it all.
I think this would also make checking images much quicker for those on dial up, as it would require less clicking to find images that need attention.--P.g.champion (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
On the first one, there is no way to see how many times an image or pages has been loaded/viewed (no counts are hold). Tags can be looked up per categorylinks. Upload count and first upload date is doable. →AzaToth 19:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Will be good idea to add links to possible actions: delete, marking no source, etc. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
unless it gets too cluttered :) →AzaToth 19:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

An new version is available at http://toolserver.org/~azatoth/latest_files/?maxsize=-1&minsize=1.00+MiB&count=60 It's all fully rewritten and I've added the two user data as of yet. →AzaToth 23:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The latest version looks more informative than the existing strictly chronological ‘latest files’.
In my part of the world, most sensible people are on vacation at present, so I wonder if that is why there has been so little feedback so far. It would be interesting to hear if anybody searches systematically through the latests file pages or whether they just use their ‘gut instincts’ to investigate images that ‘look’ as if they might have issues. If so, what extra info would they find most helpful. Your right that we don’t want it cluttered, because I think it would be easier to scanning lots of images at a time, without getting information overload. --P.g.champion (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I only occasionally scan new files; I never look at all files systematically, but rather look for possible copyvios. I find the presentation by uploader, rather than by time, to be very useful, as well as the extra information about the uploader. A couple of comments: 1. I don't think you need to include the upload time. All these images have been uploaded in the last few minutes. If you're afraid it will get to cluttered, that's something you could remove (this would not be true on smaller wikis, of course). 2. Could you maybe include direct links to the user talk page and contribution list? 3. The gallery tool has a useful feature you might want to include: it lists all templates on an image page, and highlights in green the licence tags and in red the "bad" tags, such as {{Uncat}}. 4. Is it possible to indicate that an image has no metadata? That's often a useful clue when looking for copyvios. 5. Some indication as to how long the description is would also be useful, but I don't know how to do that well.
These are just random thoughts; I'm sure people who spend more time on Special:Newfiles will have more comments and will disagree with some of what I wrote. Pruneautalk 17:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Added support for all wikis, though it will bork on enwiki as s1 is down, and on eswiki as they don't have any images. Example: http://toolserver.org/~azatoth/latest_files/?maxsize=-1&minsize=1.00+MiB&count=50&domain=ja.wikipedia.org →AzaToth 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  1. When a file name is very long, like File:Sudbury_River_Conduit,_B.W.W.,_div._4,_sec._15, Nov._13,_1876._South side_of_bridge_from_Newton_side (centerings_of arches_"F"_and_"G"_removed), from_Robert_N._Dennis collection_of stereoscopic_views.jpg, the whole tool becomes extra large and no longer fits my screen, so that I must use the horizontal scroll bar, and this is not very convenient.
  2. Is it possible to see all files of any size (not only those below 1000000 bytes (default) or any maximum value) ?
  3. It would be great if you could add the file's categories, as the "gallery tool" on user pages is doing, with a colour marking of maintenance categories (especially deletion related cats), so that you would know if somebody else has already marked a given file as a candidate for deletion. Teofilo (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot, what happened?

It's been a while since the Cat-a-lot function is somehow changed worse. At the beginning it used to list just categories, sub-categories and so on, but now it also lists all the files in a category. Why? The problem is that now, if I open the cat-a-lot function in an overfilled category I just cant'use it, because the list is too long and it covers more than half of the page, so I cannot select files to move somewhere else. Sometimes the Cat-a-lot menu is so high that I can't even press the botton "Go". Is it possible to reset the function to its previous version? I don't even understand any suitable purpouse of listing the files in that menu, I am not supposed to move an image from a category "to a file". Thanks for help. --Sailko (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a very recent change I think, and a right pain! --Tony Wills (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I reported this problem on MediaWiki talk:Cat-a-lot.js#Problem with the_list of subcategories. After a few days, I simply removed Cat-a-lot from my gadget preferences. I try to use Hotcats, instead, although Hotcats is not as powerful when many files are concerned. Teofilo (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Check Usage Isn't Working

I have tried using check usage on several images and it is giving me this right now: Database Error: Unknown database 'enwiki_p' (sql-s1) on sql-s1/enwiki_p

Failed to connect to DB enwiki_p!

Failed to connect to database for en.wikipedia.org

--Jorfer (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The toolserver's S1is having some issues at the moment because a reimport is in progress. Hopefully it'll be fixed soon; see here for updates on status. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2

Categories of commons images in wikipedia's

What happens with categories of commons images, given to images in wikipedias? Do they show up in commons and in wikipedia? Or only in wikipedia? or only in commons? Or does it depend on the wikipedia? --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean an image arrived at via a wikipedia, on commons. The categories show up only on commons. I'm not sure what would happen if you created the image page on wikipedia with categories, it might prevent the image from showing at all. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
IIRC, if a Commons image has a local description page on another project, the local description is simply prepended to the Commons description. This allows other projects to e.g. tag Commons images as featured pictures locally. It could indeed also be used for categorization, but I'm not aware of any Wikimedia project doing so in any systematical fashion. After all, we have a hard enough time getting all our images categorized here on Commons — just imagine how much harder it would be to repeat all that work across hundreds of projects. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
we have a hard enough time getting all our images categorized here on Commons. Yes, and don't you think it's a pity that this huge work remains hidden from most Wikipedia readers ? I guess that most Wikipedia readers either do not know, or can't afford to spend the time to
1) click on the link to commons,
2) scroll the page down and
3) at long last, watch which related Commons' parent categories might be interesting to explore.
Shouldn't links to Commons' parent categories of a picture be available at least on the English Wikipedia? For other languages, the language issue makes things a bit more difficult (although the animals and plant's latin named categories would be useful for most language versions)... Teofilo (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Another advantage of making commons' categories more visible could be that more volunteers would come to help when they see that a picture is not categorized in a suitable category. Teofilo (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What happened to old versions' thumbnails ?

Hello,

Do you have any info on what happened to old versions' thumbnails, usually displayed in the "history" sections of file description pages ?

  • Is it a bug ?
  • Has it been turned off intentionally (for example to ease the server's load) ?
  • Will they never be displayed again in the future ?

Teofilo (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

They went during the server problem and as yet have not come back... Arriva436talk/contribs 10:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
According to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Projektneuheiten#12._Juli, they were turned off (not only on Commons) on July 12th intentionally, but only temporarily for performance reasons. Now you can take a guess when temporarily will be over … --Rosenzweig δ 11:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. It is good to know that it is not a bug. Teofilo (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

License Policy Recommendations

Outsource your copyright policing to the copyright holders. Force them to issue takedown notices. The argument against that is: "then we'll be like YouTube and have to take down everything." That is not true. Wikis differ from YouTube in a very important way: they are participatory. This is what can save Wikimedia Commons. There are enough wikimedians to pay attention to individual takedown notices and, crucially, defend the content against them.

Such a policy would be a huge service to humanity and Free Culture. It would generate more data on how many frivolous takedown notices are issued. Copyfrauders would think twice about issuing takedown notices to Wikimedia Commons, knowing that unlike YouTube, the community has the manpower to defend against each one. And because Wikimedia Commons can publish documentation about takedown notice conflicts, others can point to that data if they get harassed for using the same content. Any contested media will develop a publicly-accessible record, a huge asset for anyone who builds on content.

As long as content is uploaded with the appropriate Free Culture license, accept it according to community standards (notability, relevance, usefulness), not according to its license verifiability. Much content will obviously be mis-tagged as Free. Instead of deleting this, add a clear "LICENSE WARNING" label. This label may be disputed. The argument against allowing possibly-mislicensed content is "what if someone builds on it, and then it gets taken away?" I argue that risk is far preferable to accepting the burden of being copyright police. Also, a "LICENSE WARNING" label will alert the remixer/builder to the risk. Again, the warning label can and should be contested and removed when appropriate.

This policy would improve the health of the community. The energies of adrenaline-seeking users could be directed towards defending content against external takedown notices. They would gain status (in my mind at least) as heroes. That really could be a game - "conquer the frivolous takedown notice." Fun!

It would also vastly improve relations with content creators. If my content had been tagged with a "LICENSE WARNING" label, I might have been flattered. I wouldn't have been totally enraged, as I was when my user page was deleted (guided by the Commons' "Precautionary Principle": http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PS#Precautionary_principle - which I dearly hope y'all radically change or eliminate). You'll still hurt feelings with the (mis)application of other criteria like "notable" or "educational," but that's a different problem.

Some wikimedians (especially law students) could specialize in reviewing "LICENSE WARNING" content, adding information about what the rights really are. That would yield immensely useful information, since there's no reliable government copyright registry. They could go totally crazy and actually contact the ©holder, inform them of its relevance to Wikipedia/the Commons, and ask them to free it. If the ©holder says no, then remove the content. If the ©holder says yes: more verified Free content! You could in fact have 3 license statuses: LICENSE WARNING, for suspected mislicensed content; UNLABELED, for most content; and VERIFIED, for content with lawyer-quality verification - so squeaky-clean even an Errors & Omission Insurer would accept it. (But if you only accept VERIFIED content, you will die of irrelevance and tininess. I, for example, am unwilling to provide that much verification for my own works - it's way too much hassle.)

The big benefit would be Wikimedia Commons could focus on its mission (sharing educational knowledge freely, with a sense of neutrality and balance), allowing it to survive and grow and fulfill its promise. Nina Paley (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Well, we do get takedown requests - we comply with those that have a basis in law and we don't comply with those that don't. We also try to proactively get rid of material falsely labeled as free - we want reusers to have some confidence in our material (though prudent reusers will try to verify the copyright status for themselves). But we're really not super-strict on what proof we require for material being free. You really have nothing but my own say-so that e.g. this picture is something I took by myself and didn't yank from some website without permission. In my case you can at least know my full name and try to hold me accountable if I mess up - but we also accept contributions from anonymous people. Haukurth (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

How exactly does the takedown process work here? When Wikimedia receives takedown requests, who exactly receives them (the Foundation?) and what do they do next? Are pending takedown notices publicized? Is the community encouraged to defend the content in question? I entered "takedown notice" in the search box and got no results.
Meanwhile, you do have this troublesome official policy: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PS#Precautionary_principle Nina Paley (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you and I are fairly close ideologically - I think copyright does more harm and good and should be abolished. It's possible that someone can come up with a copyright system that's not tyrannical and harmful but none of the proposals I've seen seem particularly convincing to me. The question then becomes what we can do to get rid of copyright or diminish the harm it does. That conflict is being fought on multiple fronts and Commons cannot fight on them all. It's quite possible that the tactic of aggressively violating/ignoring copyright law is the one that'll ultimately topple the system and that's fine by me. But Wikimedia is not fighting on that front - we're trying to build things that allow you to be free from copyright restrictions without having to violate any laws. We do this by building a collection of verifiably free materials (hence the precautionary principle). It's not that what you're suggesting is a wrong way to go about things - it's just that it's not our battle. Haukurth (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice if Wikimedia could stay out of copyright altogether, as current policy attempts to do. But you can't. In order to be "free" you have to vigilantly police the licensing status of content, and even that battle you aren't winning. As you and others point out, reusers must verify the copyright status themselves. The Precautionary Principle strongly encourages users to err on the side of eliminating content - the wrong side, in my opinion. I really wish this weren't Wikimedia's battle, and hopefully someday it won't be. But under the current copyright regime and its attendant untenable laws, you have to respond somehow. Right now that response is to block meaningful, useful content when in any doubt at all about its liscense status. I recommend erring on the other side - that the precaution should be against eliminating useful content. Under the current policy, you'll stay "safe," but impoverished and emaciated. Content is your "vital nutrient"; eat, eat. Nina Paley (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, we aren't doing so badly in my opinion. And it's not about staying safe - it's about staying free. Lots of other sites are out there eating, eating, and that's great. As for takedown requests the most recent high-profile one is this. Haukurth (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm familiar with that case. Dcoetzee's and the Wikimedia Foundation's response is excellent and inspiring. But as far as I can tell it's not a DMCA takedown notice, which is what I was asking about. Nina Paley (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"it's not about staying safe - it's about staying free" reminds me of this: "There is more than one kind of freedom. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don't underrate it."— from The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. Nina Paley (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
And I would still like to know what happens with the takedown notices. Nina Paley (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe they are usually received via a public contact email, copied to the Foundation's counsel, and dealt with by a small group. I don't believe the current process encourages public archiving of the takedown request itself. +sj +
Normaly users search for unfree content and mark it according to Commons:Deletion Guidelines#Detailed guidelines. Every user, even IP users, can mark images for deletion easy using the Nominate for deletion link in the toolbox on the left side - deactivate your pop-up blocker first. Thats the normal way, in 99,9% of cases someone else with no relation to the copyright holder requests deletion. Pending requests related to copyrights are in Category:Copyright violations, Category:Unknown and some in Category:Deletion requests. The option you mentioned, Wikimedia receives a takedown request, is possible but not very common I think. See the Disclaimer for this option. --Martin H. (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is alarming: Commons:How to detect copyright violations

"Photographs by professional photographers"? "Modern Art"? These guidelines assume professional photography and modern art can't be Free licensed. That assumption is increasingly wrong. That's good news - it means there's Free Content out there. But the bad news is you assume it's poison, when in reality it's a vital nutrient. Nina Paley (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, they assume that uploaders interested in violating (c) are more likely to upload those sorts of works. I think this is true. But I take your point. +sj +

We've been through this. The reason we can't use the YouTube model is simple: Wikimedia Commons content is not solely intended for online use, nor only in the United States. The moment you print it in a book, DMCA's OCILLA is no protection against subsequent claims of copyright infringement, and the cost of modifying a book already sent to the presses is prohibitive. We cannot achieve our mission while eschewing responsibility for policing copyright status. We don't delete any image whose free status can be confirmed; factors like the professional appearance of an image are only considered in ambiguous cases. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who uses a Commons image in a textbook already has to verify the copyright status on their own. Standards for confirmation remain prohibitive and discouraging; I'm still supposed to get my close friend Ian, who took my official photographs, to send written permission that yes, I can put it here. I'm not going to. Technically, that photo should be deleted from the Commons. I appreciate that it hasn't been deleted due to courtesy and increasing familiarity, but I wouldn't ask other content contributors to spend several days focusing on Wikimedia as I have, just for that privilege. Nina Paley (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
That's quite true; any serious publisher would seek an explicit written and signed contract. That's why specifying the source/author is so important. However, we still don't want to construct an encyclopedia that depends heavily on images that we know would not be approved by their copyright holders for use in print. The process of obtaining that permission, and replacing images that turn out to be unusable, should be as straightforward as possible. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree - and I'm calling into question how you know. Because current policy says, "when in doubt, delete." Which is going to turn away all kinds of nutritious Free content you need. And put you on the bad side of many content creators, who will not just run away, but actively denounce the whole project. Nina Paley (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Dcoetzee - I don't know how I feel about allowing an image to stay until it is challenged (the Commons equivalent would be setting the default upload license to CC-SA), there are very nice things about Commons's insistence on getting uploaders to think about where their material is coming from which I hope survive the proposed upload redesign. But 'offline use' is a red herring: identifying different levels of image license verification is superior to any thumbs-up/thumbs-down model of inclusion. At present, almost no images on Commons have been license-verified to a degree that a major publisher would accept, and every one would need confirmation. A better system would support both less-certain and more-certain license statements, all the way up to officially badged media whose status is affirmed by a media licensing group. +sj + 07:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you pick some specific examples of deletion requests you think are unreasonable we'll have something to talk about. You could start here, for example. Haukurth (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Is there a way to search deletions and deletion requests by reason? Then a whole section of suspected copyvios could be examined. Nina Paley (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's mostly just one big lump. The major reason for deletion is copyright problems. More rarely, images are deleted because they're considered out of scope. Our scope is huge, though. Haukurth (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
To chime in, I have uploaded a number of images that I had from my own or a friend's camera, which we took and were certainly available for free reuse. Because they were uploaded before the modern standards for licensing, most of them were proposed for deletion later on. Many databases become available for bulk upload, but have questions about some of their licenses -- these are other cases in which a quarantine-style license would be valuable : something that says "assumed free content, details not known; source: uploader: known metadata:". We could decide how to let these uploads be used : only in user-space galleries and talk pages? only with a warning notice that they may not be free for reuse? +sj + 07:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Of the first 16 images up for deletion, 4 are for suspected copyright reasons. Search-ability and reason classifications would be a big help in analyzing this problem.
But really, I'm more concerned with a scenario like mine: my images weren't deleted, my user page was, with no review. Understandably so, considering the guidelines. The admin who did it was clearly trying to help, and was in fact following guidelines. He had more than one reason to delete my page: not only were the images I uploaded highly suspicious according to "How to detect copyright violations," but also they looked "commercial," making my page look like shameless promotion. He gave "out of scope" as his reason, but further explained he suspected copyright violation and self-promotion. The admin made a mistake, but it's a mistake anyone could easily make - probably would make, given formal policy guidelines. You have a better review process in place for deleting images than for user pages. Unless admins can also delete images at will? Can they? Nina Paley (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think your page fulfilled any of the speedy deletion criteria and I think the admin made a mistake deleting it. If this type of false positive is common then maybe we have some sort of systemic problem - but I'm not convinced it is. Wikipedia and its sister projects gets a lot of self-promotion type material that we genuinely do not want. Non-notable people, bands, companies etc. post laudatory biographies about themselves accompanied with images with inadequate licencing information all the time. Watching new articles over on Wikipedia is like swimming through a sewer. It's not surprising that admins get trigger happy. Haukurth (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
If that type of false positive is common, you wouldn't know about it, because the victims are unlikely to stick around and tell you. It's easier to leave and bitch about it, than to stay and give feedback. Most artists and authors - content creators - are even more sensitive about rejection than average, while (I believe) most Wikimedians are tougher than average. Nina Paley (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Also note that we often take ourselves hostage in order to procure free content. Lots of people want some of their stuff to be on Wikipedia - but many of them would prefer to grant only a non-commercial licence for it or a Wikipedia-only licence. We insist on free content or nothing and this often leads to the other party relenting and publishing the material under a free licence. Haukurth (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I hugely admire your no non-commercial licenses policy! Really I do. Rock on! Nina Paley (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I just have to disagree with the basis of this. What you are suggesting is that we essentially allow Commons to be a dumping ground for stuff which may or may not be free, and we just pretend it's all ok unless someone argues. That's just wrong-headed. As someone who takes photographs, I would be bloody pissed off if someone uploaded my stuff here without me publishing it under a free licence. Now, imagine if you're someone who makes their living from photography, and suddenly people can just take your photos for free without your say so. That's just wrong. The point of commons is to promote free media, by providing a repository of stuff which is, to the best of our ability, clean. We don't want to be a Youtube, where people routinely ignore copyright. It's not helpful for what we do. Say someone uses an image on wikipedia, then someone complains it's a copyvio and it gets taken down after a year say. That means that Wikipedia is violating the copyright, and that's not good for business. We are not Pirate Bay, we respect people's copyrights (PD-ART excepted). Why do we want proof that your friend allows publication of those photos? Because we respect his copyright, something which you may not. You make a good argument, but I'd rather be involved with an organisation which respects the law than one which allows people to flagrantly break it. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and deleting copyvios is fun. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I would also rather be involved with an organisation which respects the law, but there are still the borderline cases. Take a picture more than 70 years old, photographer unknown, possibly unknowable. Whith this proposal we could have a policy where these pictures could stay, but with a notice to reusers that they must be cautious because the free status has not been thoroughly verified. That could be possible without turning commons into Youtube or something similar. Haros (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, if there are excellent images which would make great replacements for what is currently available, they need to be available somehow on the projects for an army of license-seekers to reach out to the author or publisher to get clearance. The addition of some sort of quarantine to support this would be helpful, and less offensive to uploaders who are told they have to do more work to make their uploads fully-approved members of the Commons repository. +sj + 07:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed (with Mattbuck, that is). I place my works under a copyleft license for a reason. I want my works and any derivatives to stay free, and I'd like to be attributed for my donation. I get annoyed when I find my works on other web sites without licensing and authorship information, and when I do, I get in touch with their maintainers to correct the information or (as a last resort, if they are not willing or able to do that) take it down. The only thing that allows me to do that is copyright. It would be rather hard to encourage those who take copyleft donations without preserving the licensing and authorship information to pay attention to those details if Commons itself threw the precautionary principle to the wind and projected an image of copyright carelessness. It would also make it harder to appear as a serious party in negotiations with museums and other potential media sources. In addition to copyright concerns, source information is also vital for many images in the same way that it is vital for factual statements in Wikipedia articles (i.e. to verify that it is what it claims to be). —LX (talk, contribs) 12:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It would be great if copyright law simply ceases to exist, and all kind of creative works could be shared freely. The quality of Wikipedia would be even greater if we could choose and use the best images, rather than the best free images. But... it's just a nice dream. Copyright law exists, and while it does, the precautory principle should stay. The problem is simple: there are free files, that we can keep, unfree files that we don't. In the middle of both options we have a grey area of files with unknown copyright status: we decide to delete them. What would happen if the inclusion criteria is moved, and we keep both free files and "nobody cares" files around? The gray area between "it must be deleted" and "it must be kept" would not dissapear, it would simply be moved. But, if the side of kept images does not have strict and specific rules, and any image can be kept simply because the uploader "thinks" nobody cares or because he doesn't know it's source (even if it's known with a little investigation), then the deletion criteria would be weak: any image could, with just a little speech to justify it, be kept. Belgrano (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC) By the way, if copyright ceases to exist, and anyone could copy and redistribute a work for free even if it wasn't, then say goodbye to most mainstream creative industry. Would would spend millions to shot a movie full of stars and effects, if there were no profits to be had?
That's easy: just reverse the order of things. Instead of spending $32 million to make Star Wars VI and hope you make a profit on ticket sales, announce that if you get paid $50 million in the next two years, you'll make Star Wars VI and release it to the public; if you don't reach the funding goal, the money is returned. --Carnildo (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My only comment on this debate is that I agree with Nina 100%. I have always marveled at the willingness of many members to actively police the content. One should think that, on a platform dedicated to providing free content (with its members presumably dedicated to free content as well), policing copyright is the one undesirable task that needs to be delegated in order to get it done. But au contraire, there are literally thousands of members who do it voluntarily and in a highly aggressive manner. Just last week, in the Featured Picture nominations section where I work, this picture was nominated for speedy deletion. The reason given? "Sydney Opera is copyrighted", just about the biggest pile of bull I've ever heard. To be perfectly honest, I believe that there should be strict requirements (i.e. a law degree or equivalent) for people to place copyvio notices on Wikimedia. It's the same as in the real world. We don't want just anyone to police our streets either, just because they can and may be right. Too many nonsense notices are hurting the community itself, from within. -- JovanCormac 15:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I also think that Nina's idea of creating a publicly accessible database of takedown notices received is excellent. I really would love to see that implemented. It might quite possibly have a "chilling effect" on people who like to send bogus takedown notices. -- JovanCormac 16:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
So we're trusting everyone to know the law enough to upload the pictures, but we can't trust anyone without a law degree to mention that they think an image is a copyright violation? That's absurd. It's not the same as in the real world; you don't have to have a law degree to call the police on someone. If "Sydney Opera is copyrighted" is the biggest pile of bull you've ever heard, you must not be experienced in copyright law; the Sydney Opera House is almost certainly copyrighted, and if it were in France, for one example, our page on the law says that the picture would have to be deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's not. And the subject of Freedom of Panorama has been discussed over and over again. Surely anyone who takes the time to post a copyvio notice can also be expected to take the time to check a simple page like the one you mentioned, where he would instantly find that his objections are unfounded. If he isn't willing to do this, I believe he has no business posting the notice either. Copyright is obviously an incredibly complex subject, and in its entirety way beyond the understanding of a layman. Any copyvio deletions (other than the most obvious ones) on Commons are therefore to some degree based on guesswork and assumptions (with a large margin of safety), not knowledge. It is inevitable that a lot of works get deleted which could have stayed; and arguments such as "this looks too professional (to be free)" (see discussion, as well as post below) as a basis for deletion requests are downright ridiculous and shameful. The actual copyright holders (if they exist) are more than willing to let people know that they are using stuff they believe they shouldn't. I don't see how self-policing could possibly help us in any way - I see a thousand ways it could hurt us, though. -- JovanCormac 06:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

July 28

Professional looking Cartoon

Here is another cartoon that looks too professional to be on WC (cough, cough). File:Decottopia Conservanti.jpg. Think the sheet reads: “List of additives.” Does any one recognise the artist as someone other that the uploader? All but one of the the uploader’s images look as if they have any camera exif info and they are of a very mixed style (but concern the same topic). All images uploaded on same day. I think there is enough doubt about ALL the licences provided by this uploader, that I intend to add the list below to the ‘delete’ file. It is also unlikely that he is currently monitoring his talk page and so will not be able to appeal with more info. If I had to guess, I would say they were uploaded by a trainee who had been given the job (plus images) to design a pamphlet for a herbalist.
File:Decottopia Conservanti.jpg
File:Decottopia Depurazione.jpg
File:Decottopia zucchero.jpg
File:Decottopia Alcool.jpg
File:Decottopia famiglia1.jpg
File:Decottopia Decottopia.jpg
--P.g.champion (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

All but the first two are confirmed copyvios, now tagged. I'd say the first two also are copyvios. Lupo 11:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The Cartoon File:Decottopia Conservanti.jpg is from liceotedone.it which appears to be an Italian academic science site. No details of copyright status, but unless the uploader created the cartoon and the others on that site, the existence of the site flatly refutes the uploaders authorship, and come on source as "my camera" is not that convincing.KTo288 (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. That’s reduced the uncategorised images by half a dozen. Just a few thousand left to do now. Looks like I wont be able to find the time to cut the grass again this year – what a same;-)--P.g.champion (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Bulk license changes from {{GFDL}} to {{GFDL-1.2}}

Is it OK to bulk change the license on image pages from GFDL 1.2 or later to GFDL 1.2?

Some background:

We have a policy concerning user templates:

which explicitly states that user templates with embedded license templates must not be transcluded onto files pages.

However, long before this became official policy many users did this, and still a lot of users do, and I think most of them are not even aware of the policy. Many of these templates are to be found in Category:User custom license tags.

There is not really much harm in having these templates as long as the license templates are not changed (as such changes are not visible on the file histories), but some users do change the license this way. It would not be so bad if they mere added other licenses, but there are also cases where the license has been done more restrictive.

In particular I am familiar with two users who have changed from {{GFDL}} (ver 1.2 or later) to {{GFDL-1.2}} (ver. 1.2 only):

The license changes by these two users have changed the license condition for more than 1500 images from GFDL 1.2 or later to GFDL 1.2.

There has been some lengthy discussions about this already, see

Especially the later discussion are rather "laywerish" and quite frankly they are beyond my understanding. However, it seems like the discussion have never lead to a firm conclusion. I think the concurrent license migration added some extra dimension to this making it a difficult problem. However, now the details about the license migration are settled (as far as I understand), and I think it is important to reach consensus and perhaps modify our licensing policies such that it is clarified for future similar events, whether such changes are OK or not?

--Slaunger (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there is no problem so long as the contributors are only doing with their own images. The net result for Commons is pretty much identical to the migration=opt-out which is allowed. Some editors consider the involuntary migration to cc-by-sa-3.0 to be dramatically different from or contrary to the spirit of earlier editions of GFDL, hence this is basically a clarification of the conditions under which the authors allow their work to be shared. Infrogmation (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit confict)As I understand the argument for doing this (though I haven't read all the above discussions ;-), is that the terms of the later GFDL's are claimed to not conform with the spirit of GFDL 1.2, therefore the interest in back tracking to GFDL-1.2-only. If the later GFDLs breach the letter or spirit of GFDL 1.2 then that is an argument they have with whoever writes GFDLs.
The basis of our policy of not allowing changes to more restrictive licenses is quite simple: whatever the author would like to now license those works as, they have already been licensed with a wider license. Anyone who has taken a copy of the image under the old license is quite at liberty to use it under those terms, including re-uploading it here under those terms.
I am in favour of allowing people to 'correct' their licenses when they are new here and did not understand the ramifications of the license they chose for their first few uploads (ie the license was clearly a mistake and the correction would probably be upheld by a court). But after that they should have been much more careful and understood they are making a legal contract with the re-users, they can't uni-laterally back out.
Trying to revoke the licenses here has no meaning. The license was not with us, it is with the world of re-users. We do not actually have the ability to withdraw the wider licenses and are mis-representing re-users rights if we do.
I appreciate the great contibutions of the users who want to do this, but I think it is far too late to try and change license terms. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It might be seen as a 'clarification', but it is in fact a restriction. The difference with the migration is that the migration widens the license terms (with the agreement of the authors as they haven't opted out), where as this trys to narrow terms - which can't be done as the works are already out there under a wider license. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Tony here. I think that files uploaded before a certain date (April 2009?) can't be licensed under a license more strict than the previous one. Yann (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Your contractual analysis I think is correct, but if you read the discussion on MM's talkpage that means that a contributor is free to modify the license. If I make a unilateral contract, eg a reward for $200 to anyone who brings me a four leaf clover, I'm free to modify the terms of that unilateral contract (to say $150 reward) to anyone who hasn't yet accepted the offer. So the original re-user would continue to have it under the GFDL license, but the new offer (on commons) would be for a 1.2 only license. --Fir0002 www 14:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't need a policy, we just need to point out the logic here to those that don't get it. Tony summed it up. "Anyone who has taken a copy of the image under the old license is quite at liberty to use it under those terms, including re-uploading it here under those terms." It's impossible to revoke a free license. Period. Not because some policy or license says this but because it's logically impossible. And saying "some people can use this license, while others have to use this other one" doesn't work with free licenses. This is not a legal issue, but a moral one. Personally, I have no problem with Fir0002's change from GFDL to GFDL-1.2. The important thing here is to point out that we allowed this and he didn't exercise any legal right he doesn't have. This isn't the same as a user simply changing their mind and revoking any kind of free license. If people really need that newer version of the GFDL, there's always the history. Rocket000 (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well actually not so (on the last part anyway). A person can only use the image under the license in the image description page - if the copyright owner has specified a certain license then that is the license the image must be used under. But you're quite right - the issue was ultimately decided on the moral implications of the migration rather than the legal ones. --Fir0002 www 14:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
"A person can only use the image under the license in the image description page" because...? A person can use any license the material was released under. This applies to any license change. (For example, do we delete Flickr images because their description pages list a different license? No. Does Commons description pages have more authority than Flickr's? No.) Moreover, what happens if they are using an archived version of Commons (the image description page will be of the older license)? Rocket000 (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The user may only use the license according to what it is currently released under. That's pretty obvious. With your flickr example, say Person A initially uploads under a CC license but then changes it to All Rights Reserved, but say Person B knew it had already been licensed under CC (or was using a google cached version of the page) Person B cannot download the image from flickr and use it under the previous CC license. The IP owner is no longer offering the image under that license. --Fir0002 www 13:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
No, that's not obvious at all. If you install Windows, and a EULA comes up on the screen, it doesn't matter what edits Microsoft has made to the license back in Seattle; you're agreeing to the license on your screen. Likewise, any validly given license a file can be found under, whether it's in the file history or the Google cache, can still be used. Furthermore, Wikimedia Commons is not a hosting site for your IP; it's a collection of free media that you agreed to license your works to when you uploaded them. Not only that, even under your theory, since the GFDL is transitive, anyone who downloaded it could upload it under the exact same license. It could even be bot-automated; take a backup of the Wikimedia Commons, and reupload the images under the license that the IP owner agreed to give the creator of the backup and agreed to let him or her extend to others.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Your EULA analogy is not strictly accurate - if Microsoft tells its customer that it is no longer licensing Windows under EULA v1 before the user clicks "I accept" then the user cannot use the license under EULA v1, they would need to use it under EULA v2 (or whatever). It's a basic proposition of contract law - the offeror is at liberty to revoke or modify the offer upto and until the offeree accepts the offer (see for example Goldsbrough Mort & Co Ltd v Quinn). So here anyone downloading my images would be faced with EULA v2. Old licenses are implicitly revoked by any new license - you can't use the image under it's old license simply because you can access the old license. Well by definition commons is a free repositry of images so in many ways it may be thought of as a hosting site - its analogous to flickr in many ways. You're last point has been discussed elsewhere (I do wish you'd read the previous discussion before jumping in), and yes in theory a person could re-upload under GFDL but they would have to prove that they downloaded the copy prior to the license change (so no doing a server dump now would not be acceptable) and it would probably be necessary to retain my originals (for source information) and it would be extraordinarily disrespectful towards the contributor (ie me) and an excellent way to discourage me from hitting the "upload" button in the future. --Fir0002 www 13:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I did not follow the relicensing discussions at all, but if I understand Tony Wills correctly CC license was added with the agreement of the authors as they haven't opted out. This just sounds wrong. For example, I noticed that someone changed license of {{Photo-by-Wojciechowscy-GFDL}}. Authors of the images released them on their website under GFDL and as I understand were contacted by Commons and approved {{Photo-by-Wojciechowscy-GFDL}}. When I saw the template changed I assumed that someone contacted the authors and they agreed to widen the license to CC. But now I suspect that the license was changed without their permission and we are waiting for them to notice the change and opt out if they do not want their license widen beyond what their website uses. That does not sound right. --Jarekt (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I do understand these contributors original argument, where they felt that the change in the GFDL from 1.2 to 1.3 opening up to make it effectively equivalent with CC-BY-SA here was not in the spirit of GFDL 1.2 or later. However, now that the community has agreed to have an opt-out option on the migration to CC-BY-SA should they then not really change their license from {{GFDL}} to {{GFDL|migration=opt-out}} instead as the opt-out effectively eliminates the issue with the GFDL that they found is not in the spirit of the GFDL 1.2 or later? Unless, of course, the contributors now do not longer trust any later version of the GFDL. ("If they could make the GFDL equivalent with CC-BY-SA, then what is next? Public Domain?") Although I can undertsand that concern, I really think it is a mess to make such a license change in a way where it is not clear from the file page history that such a license change has happened. The everday re-user has no chance of unravelling and understanding that they should really be looking at the history of an embedded template and not the file page history. It is really confusing. I therefore suggest that in these two cases, the creators should change the license in their transcluded user templates to {{GFDL|migration=opt-out}}. Next, the license should be extracted from the user template and added explicitly to each file page. I have already discussed this part of it in detail with Fir0002 and this is something I can do with SlaungerBot. --Slaunger (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you are right (I have finally read some of those long discussions), the opt-out-clause should be sufficient. We do not want to set a precedent of allowing and slippage in license terms. So leaving the license at GFDL+, with the opt-out for migration effectively leaves the image at staus quo. If future GFDL licenses add other 'objectionable' features then that can be argued at the time.
The point made by Jarekt is a good one, if the contributor isn't from this community (ie it is not a "self") license, then effort should be made to contact the author, or opt-out should be assumed? Has this issue been addressed in the migration discussions? --Tony Wills (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I really don't see the need for going through the pain of this migration issue again. 1.2 only is a commons accepted license and this change should be honoured. As an aside I briefly noticed this a while ago and I suspect that such instances are relatively common and feel that common-sense and good will should prevail in dealing with contributors in such matters - it's the only way a community such as commons can survive. Also I'm not even sure how the GFDL|opt out is meant to work - it will just add confusion because the typical reuser will think they can use it under 1.3 which contains clause 11 dealing with the migration. How does the opt out become part of the license? It just doesn't make sense. --Fir0002 www 14:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The opt-out keeps the license "1.2 or any later" BUT without the CC-BY-SA option. Keep in mind the limitations on when reusers can choose that option (e.g. the August 1, 2009 deadline, "We do not want to grant people this permission for any and all works released under the FDL. We also do not want people gaming the system by adding FDLed materials to a wiki, and then using them under CC-BY-SA afterwards."[1]). Rocket000 (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's the thing: Both sides are right. The GFDL and CC-BY-SA are in the same spirit as far as the licenses' original intent goes (how can you argue with the people who wrote them?) The GFDL wasn't made for something like an encyclopedia, let alone media files, but we used it anyway. Now we're trying to make the license appropriate for what it is most used for (thanks to us abusing it so much). It's not "What's next? PD?" because I think everyone can see that the change wasn't to make it less restrictive, but to make it as restrictive as it was meant to be (this can be seen in the fact that the change doesn't affect those people who use the license for software as it was meant to be used). The problem arises when users of those licenses did so not entirely by choice or because they shared a similar ideology. They were choosing the GFDL because of the unintended consequences it happened to have. It made reuse, specifically commercial reuse, a lot harder (because we were using a software documentation license for something that wasn't software documentation, not because of the spirit). This was an issue that we "solved" by adding CC-BY-SA, but now those users that chose the GFDL for the wrong reasons (i.e. making reuse harder—the exact opposite goal of *any* free license) are left with something that isn't in the same spirit as they intended.
That aside, here's something the FSF has said:
Normally, these sorts of licensing decisions can and should be handled by the copyright holder(s) of a particular work. However, because Wikipedia has many copyright holders, the project needed some alternative way to accomplish this, and we've worked with them to provide that.[2]
This doesn't apply to files. They usually have one author. The copyright holder should be the one deciding these things when possible, and it's definitely possible here. We shouldn't be changing third-party files like Jarekt brought up, even if we technically can. It's just not what they agree to (the "spirit" is irrelevant since that not why they used the license). Rocket000 (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with all points. Talk about not being in the spirit is bogus, the opt out allows for people who relied on the restrictive effects of the license (and who don't wish to truely freely license their images). And third party licenses are a seperate case. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
And to make it crystal clear for the mind-weak user here (me ): Does that imply that we all agree that going from {{GFDL}} to {{GFDL-1.2}} is not OK. Rather these users should change it to {{GFDL|migration=opt-out}} (for files uploaded prior to their license changes)? --Slaunger (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
✓[OK] (I don't know about all though ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Changing GFDL to GFDL-1.2 has never been allowed; this has nothing to do with the licensing update. Our opt-out clause is a courtesy to people who feel strongly about the relicensing process; this is completely unreladted to this discussion. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
And the courtesy clearly extended to permitting my license change. I quite disagree that "we all agree going from {{GFDL}} to {{GFDL-1.2}} is not OK" - seems that it's just you and Tony saying that. To bring us a complete circle to when you first brought up this issue, there was never any policy regarding license changes; after extensive discussion in which it was attempted to force my images into the migration the community decided to respect my decision not to take part in the migration by allowing the reversion to 1.2. This was a one-off case in light of exceptional circumstances, it's not policy. --Fir0002 www 14:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
{{GFDL|migration=opt-out}} is not license change. It's simply keeping it the same (no added CC option). Rocket000 (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
We all know that free licenses are irrevocable and that removing licenses from images is _not_ accepted. This has been Commons policy for ages, there's no need to go over this again. I really cannot see the community consensus going into the direction of allowing you to go from 1.2+ to 1.2-only. Many other people have tried to go this path, nobody was allowed to. I can't see why these are exceptional circumstances. We have had this discussion over and over again; there's no need to once again explain why revoking licenses is not tolerated. To clean up the mess you created by including a license template and then altering it: Just have a bot go over all the images you tagged with this template. If it was tagged before 30 January, mark it with {{GFDL}}, otherwise mark it {{GFDL-1.2}}. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Licenses are irrevocable? Fine, then is also the Re-licensing from GFDL to CC also a Joke?`When the Foundation can relicense my work, then i also can do this. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Note the term "irrevocable". You can add new licenses but you can't remove. So you are free to add {{PD-self}} or a {{Cc-by-whatever}} to your GDFL-images. --MGA73 (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
"This has been commons policy for ages" - an interesting claim considering that after an extensive debate no such policy has emerged. Your claim that no one has been allowed to relicense is quite incorrect; the diff I mentioned above is but one example of where this has happened. And yes these are exceptional circumstances - how often does commons have a migration? Finally, it seems pretty clear from the discussion here that a relicence to 1.2 only was an acceptable way to opt out. Obviously you wouldn't agree, but then you were in favour of forcing users into the migration! Your insensitive approach to people's intellectual property is quite inappropriate. --Fir0002 www 04:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Please stop questioning my morals. The community has decided to give creators the possibility to opt out of the licensing update without revoking a license. We don't need a policy page saying that free licenses are irrevocable because this is just fact - check any of the licenses and you will find it. BTW, COM:L says The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable. The case you cited was _one_ user deciding he wouldn't take further action against another user changing the licensing of a file against policy; on the other page there are _two_ users saying that going to 1.2-only might be okay. Is that how we define consensus now, with only 3 people? Is that how we override licenses? -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 07:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason not to - if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then call it a duck. Anyway, you seem to be failing to realise that relicensing the image does not revoke the license. As I've already mentioned to Tony above, people who have downloaded the image under GFDL+ will still be able to use it under that license. It is only new downloaders who will be confined to 1.2. Furthermore it seems ridiculous to get all concerned about those users because at the time they downloaded the images they were using them according to ver 1.2 and so were clearly happy with those terms. Version 1.2 is obviously acceptable to them and the modification should cause no concern at all. Not that it's important, but AFAIK the GFDL doesn't, in fact, contain a "irrevocable" term as you claim.
That was only one case that I happened to stumble upon - I'm not some kind of watchdog over these matters so I don't have a definitive reference list. I'm just saying that I suspect this sort of thing is quite common. It's a courtesy to the contributor and good for the long term interests of the commons. Because if you stopped and thought about it you'd see that commons suffers no loss - the images are still licensed according to a commons-accepted license and available to the world. --Fir0002 www 13:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
License your work under a license that implements an "any later version" clause and specifies that later versions can be published by you, then yes, you can relicense your work. We just won't accept such a license here. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Basically, yes. I was more or less recapping the license change in general, but you are correct, the opt-out ({{GFDL|migration=opt-out}}) is the method the community has chosen to deal with these issues, not any method that lets users change the license to something else. Rocket000 (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Section break: How late can one opt out?

There is another point I am confused about. So let say I have some GFDL images than someone adds CC license to my images, I decide to opt-out and use opt out flag, which removes CC license. But why is opting out allowed - it removes "irrevocable" CC license from the images that someone gave to my pictures. Is there going to be a time period it is allowed? Days? Months? Years? --Jarekt (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, tomorrow is the last day. This is a license migration not a permanent feature add to the GFDL. Rocket000 (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the August 1 deadline is pretty much irrelevant for the opt-out, and, IMHO, as a matter of courtesy we should keep the opt-out option open until everyone who wants to exercise it has had time to do so (which will probably take a few more months at least). But no, we can't keep the opt-out open forever — at some point we'll indeed have to decide that everyone's had their chance to opt out, and that if they haven't, it's their own fault.
The whole thing is something of a mess: ideally, those who wished to opt out should've done it before the WMF resolution took effect on June 15, but in practice I don't think we even had the mechanism for doing so in place yet at that time. Also, it's probably best not to delve too deeply into the legal validity of the whole opt-out scheme if we can avoid it, given the vagueness of the actual WMF resolution regarding media files in general. Better to just treat it as a courtesy, and hope that nobody will in fact be discourteous enough to try and weasel their way into using an opted-out file under CC-BY-SA on a technicality; whatever the outcome, that would likely get extremely awkward for everyone involved. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is a mess, which is exactly why we should not prolong it any more than neccessary. Opting out can be done until August 1st (you have a few hours to go), after that it's no longer possible. As soon as the rest of the migration candidates are processed, we will have a bot go over all the images anyway and replace the current parameter system with actual license templates, those can then no longer be removed. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
August 1 deadline is pretty much irrelevant for the opt-out It seems that way so what is the deadline for then? I thought it was the end of the migration period. Of course, it should have been opt-in but that would defeat the purpose. There's no (technical) legal issue because their licenses explicitly said "or later" (the enforceability of that is a different matter; what would happen in a courtroom is anyone's guess), but morally, as even the FSF has stated, we shouldn't be making that choice for copyright holders where we can avoid it. You can't avoid it with encyclopedia articles that have 1000s of authors, many anonymous, but you can with files that have one or two authors and the authors are active users. So do we need a new deadline? I would give it a couple more months at least. Rocket000 (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Photography strictly forboden!

This suggestion might be better appreciated here rather than on one of the WPs so here goes: What with the current National Portrait Gallery kerfuffle and the vacation season being upon us. Would it not be helpful, to indicate on the relevant WP articles, which museums and galleries are camera friendly and which are not (e.g., NPG). You know how disappointing it is for the kids (both big and small), when you arrive at some place they have been looking forward visiting to for ages, only to find they can't take photos, not even of each other standing next to any of the exhibits, not even with their camera-phones. How many would bother going to Disney Land if they imposed that restriction? We might be able to included a little prohibition sign in the articles, featuring (say) a red circle with a diagonal across a camera. Perhaps also, a new category Category: Photography strictly forboden. It would certainly make planning that big day out a little easier. --P.g.champion (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons:WikiProject Arts/Museum photography. Man vyi (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I have now added the National Portrait Gallery to the project's list.--P.g.champion (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
What the...? Kids looking forward for ages to visit museums? Has the world gone mad? Belgrano (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Here in the UK it is the museums that have gone mad. They are so popular with the kids that if I had my way I would have the children banned rather than the cameras! I could then look around and play with all the interactive exhibits myself - in peace ! Example--P.g.champion (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

August 3

Questioning recently uploaded image

Regarding File:John_F._Kennedy.jpg, shouldn't there be proof other than the word of the uploader that the image is originally from the Executive Office of the President of the United States? The source is listed as "allposters.com", and I don't see the U.S. government source listed there. Sswonk (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, but if it is PD, there's a much higher-quality version on this page (courtesy of TinEye). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I still have questions about this. The photograph is the work of Alfred Eisenstaedt who was an employee of Life Magazine, however according to a source [3], the photo was used as the "Official Portrait of President John F. Kennedy". This is as far as I have been able to get in terms of finding whether the photo's copyright is or was owned by the U.S. Government. It could have been called the "Official Portrait of President John F. Kennedy" but the copyright still owned by Eisenstaedt. Is there some way of tagging this image which will then bring this issue to the attention of administrators? I would rather have this issue cleared up before the photo gains significant use on other projects. Sswonk (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there an explicit claim of copyright somewhere? In those days (before 1978), in the U.S., the copyright to commissioned work was often held by the commissioner, not necessarily the photographer (today it is different though). Obviously, there could have been a contract which spelled things out, but usually official portraits were/are meant to be copied far and wide, pretty much defeating the purpose of copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

August 4

How to delete my own photos

How do I delete my own photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloverepp (talk • contribs) 14:32, 2009 August 4 (UTC)

You may nominate them for deletion. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Be aware though that if you uploaded them here, then you released them under an irrevocable licence. However, we generally allow deletion of own uploads as long as they're not in use. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Licence selector

In the upload form there is a licence selector that allows to select from a set of the most typical licences (own work, flickr, pd-old, pd-art, etc), and another field where I can employ less common ones if needed. However, I frequently use some of the not so typical ones (such as {{CC-AR-Presidency}}, a must for politicians of Argentina) and a number of the ones available in the selector I haven't ever used (like the complex Pd-self ones, or United States before 1923 wich is hardly among my usual editing topics, or the "taken from Google", pointless for me as I'm well aware of the need to know a right source and licence before uploading). Is there a way to customize this selector, and have it provide in this manner some licences of my own choosing? Belgrano (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be doable with user JavaScript, I think. I'm too tired to try it myself right now, though. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Managing Picture Sets

I think we need a consistent and user-friendly way to track and manage picture sets, i.e. sets of pictures which only make sense (or gain value) when seen together, and possibly in a particular order. Wikipedia has a special template for Featured Picture sets (can be seen on w:File:Early flight 02562u.jpg, along with a fantastic custom-made template indexing this specific set). An example that shows the dire need for a similar system on Commons is this picture, which is featured as part of a complete and very valuable set (nomination here) but looks plain and uninteresting (i.e. everything but featured) by itself. It simply must be seen in the context of the entire series to be appreciated.

Probably the best way to accomplish a consistent handling of picture sets would be by using a template on each of the pictures' pages which is given as parameters the names of all the pictures in the set and lists them in some manner (could be a simple gallery). The current state however (no set handling at all) robs set pictures of their much-needed context and diminishes their value. -- JovanCormac 09:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't diss the Bellman's map (it's a truly classic illustration)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

An incorrect visualization of an image

I notice that File:Zlataninter.jpg appears when loaded on a Wikipedia page with a bad version (that is a copyvio from there): see for example the current version of the article about Ibrahimovic on the Spanish Wikipedia. Is it possibile to delete all the versions of the image, except the first one, in order to recover it correctly? Thanks, --Mess (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done -mattbuck (Talk) 18:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Note that issues like this are often caused by stale caches, either on the Wikimedia servers or in your own browser. Following the instructions at w:WP:PURGE and w:WP:BYPASS usually resolves them. (That said, deleting the copyvio version was of course a good thing too.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Board of trustees election: links

Hello all!

About the Board of trustees election, see the notice here. You will find the candidates presentations here and if you wish to vote you go here and click the button "Go to the voting server". --Zyephyrus (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv

Hi up until recently I was able to access the 100,000 or so pictures you had online from the bundesarchiv. easily searchable by year. this access seems to have gone,I certainly cannot search pictures as they were a month or so ago. Have they been removed? Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.182.78 (talk • contribs)

Images are here but categories are gone. See Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009Jul#Bundesarchiv_categories discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyvio - no evidence

I'm sufficiently unfamiliar with processes on Commons to bring the following here: if anyone wants to pick it up. User:Ztglare has uploaded a couple of images, claiming they are his own - File:Rickeywiththebase.Jpg and File:EckCelebrating.Jpg. They look in every respect like professional photos of ball players - notably in terms of depth of field. Copies have not been found on the internet, so there's no proof. On en.wikipedia they'd probably be taken to Possibly Unfree Images. I have left a note for the user. I grant they may in fact be fine, but felt a concern should be raised. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The clear image and shallow depth of field only indicates that the photographer has the right equipment for this kind of assignment. The only similar picture I can find are shot from a different position. Would be nice to know if the licence is correct, as it probable means he has quite a few more photos that he could upload. --P.g.champion (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Rickeywiththebase.Jpg was taken in 1982, and File:EckCelebrating.Jpg was taken in 1989. If User:Ztglare is the same as the 31-year-old Youtube user with the same name (who happens to have uploaded a professionally produced baseball related video there), they would have been around 4 years old at the time the first one was taken and around 10 at the time of the second one. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Rickeywiththebase.Jpg was taken on May 1, 1991, but otherwise your argument is correct. Lupo 14:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's give him a couple more days to respond to the question on his talk page (he does not have e-mail enabled) and if no credible story shows up I say we delete without any further ado. Haukurth (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
(Thanks for the correction, Lupo. I misread the article.) It's been a couple of days and then some. I've reverted Ztglare's edits on the English Wikipedia, where he replaced free images with these ones. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Image upload no preview, won't show on wiki

I just uploaded this image and it just simply won't work. File:Lottestarcityexterior.JPG. I've never had an issue with any uploaded images before but there is no preview (it claims there is) and linking to it on en.wiki generates nothing. if I click the full version it is there.--Crossmr (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I reuploaded this as a PNG and its working fine. if someone could delete the broken image I'd appreciate it.--Crossmr (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Probably just a corrupted version in the cache, it looks fine to me now. The original JPG upload would be fine. Could someone perhaps delete the 3 later, smaller versions? (save re-uploading it). --Tony Wills (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Why didn't it show up as soon as I uploaded it? It shouldn't have been showing anything from cache right after I uploaded it.--Crossmr (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I can see the JPEG just fine. I guess you're using an ad-blocking software, and the image path is http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Lottestarcityexterior.JPG (notice the letters ad in the path, that probably triggers one of your filtering rules). –Tryphon☂ 06:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow it does. I never would have thought that would have done that. I wonder why I've never come across it before..--Crossmr (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Just out of interest, which ad-blocking software (and which version) are you using? Seems like someone ought to whack the authors of that ruleset with the clue stick send them a polite note suggesting an exception for upload.wikimedia.org. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Adblock plus for firefox of course. I think I'm using corset + easylist. I set my own exceptions for commons.wikipedia and en.wikipedia. If anyone knows how to submit bugs or something to them they might want to.--Crossmr (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I have fixed this issue in Corset. For future reference, people can report false positives to the appropriate maintainer listed here: http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions 24.17.247.103 23:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What's Wrong with this Picture? (Literally)

I tired to upload this file. The page simulataneously says

  • No file by this name exists
  • THis file was uploaded by Noloop....

HUH? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Western_and_Arab_Women.jpg

The Flickr upload bot can sometimes take hours to upload the image. Not sure why. They almost always show up eventually though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It still says, simultaneously:

"No file by this name exists, but you can upload it.

...This image, which was originally posted to Flickr, was uploaded to Commons using Flickr upload bot on 04:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC) by Noloop (talk). On that date it was licensed under the license below." Noloop (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It says so because the bot has added the tag, so the file page will already be tagged as license-reviewed by the time the image is actually uploaded (if the Flickr user changes the license, the bot’s proof will still be on the page). You don’t have a TUSC account, do you? So you probably have not asked the bot to upload the image (i.a. it is not in Category:Image pages created for Flickr upload bot without files), and you should upload the image under that name manually (make sure you upload the largest version). The bot just helped you create a description page and confirmed that the license is acceptable. --AVRS (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
On a side note, File:Fourniéjulien6.jpg is suffering the same symptoms, "No file by this name exists, but you can upload it." This file is supposed to be deleted (see DR), which the image is, but the page for the image still remains. Jappalang (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. I uploaed it. I followed the steps. I was told I had uploaded it. The page says: "This image... was uploaded to Commons..." It says it was uploaded even though it wasn't uploaded? Noloop (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
When I click on "upload it" I jsut get the same page I already filled out. What is a TUSC account? Noloop (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The Flickr upload bot doesn't require a TUSC account. I'm not sure what happened here. Maybe there was one step missed (did you click on the link in the template, which can still be seen in the original version?), or maybe there was an odd error. But it sure looks like the steps were followed, but Flickr upload bot didn't come back to actually perform the upload. Maybe view the original version, and click on the link again, to see if that triggers anything. Or, upload this one manually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation in a category

There are two categories for two different lakes named "Lake of Sant'Anna": I made this, but I know it's not the right thing. What should I do? Can someone please fix it? --Superchilum(talk to me!) 13:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks ok. I would say you should add interwiki links to both subcategories, but neither has articles in Wikipedia. I will add interwikis to the locality categories instead. The two disambiguators aren't ideal unless there are other lakes with the same name in each province or the one you used is the one usually applied to these lakes in Italy. As I'm not sure about this I left it as is for now. -- User:Docu at 13:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
According to my experience, such a construct eventually fills up with images that are categorised with what I call "lazy categorisation". One can see a subset of that problem in Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories. Basically, most persons that search a category that start with "Lago di Sant'Anna" suppose that it is theirs, the one they need.
For disambiguation, I would certainly suggest a Category:Lago di Sant'Anna (disambiguation) as such a category tend not to fill up with lazy categorisations. --Foroa (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
If we are sure that it gets placed into one or the other instead, that is a good solution. If people don't categorize them at all or the images end up in an inexisiting category instead, it's preferable to have them in a "lazy" category. BTW HotCat doesn't allow you to pick Category:Lago di Sant'Anna. -- User:Docu at 17:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User name in category ?

Hi all,
Is there any reason this category and its under-categories all have their creator's user name in their titles? If not, could an administrator change the names of categories by removing the user name and advising Borodun not to do this for the future? Regards Moumou82 (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. If they have the user's name in it, they are a set of user categories. As such, they shouldn't be a subcategory of Category:Ribbons, but hidden categories, subcategories of Category:User categories (use {{User category}}). You might want to discuss this directly with Borodum. Move requests can be made at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. -- User:Docu at 16:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands is only for uncontroversial move requests. Multichill (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Description of PD-licensing

When I uploaded File:Brev från Mikael Agricola till Nils Bielke 1549.jpg, a photograph of a 16th century letter, I could choose a public domain-licensing, but none of them seem very carefully formulated to me. The best alternatives was "Author died more than seventy years ago", but in the form I filled out, author refers to the person who created the file, that is, who took the photograph of the letter. There is also the alternative "Reproduction of a painting that is in the public domain because of its age", but this refers explicitly to paintings.

Is it possible to change the second alternative so it includes old letters, documents, seals etc.? --Årvasbåo (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Taking a photo of a two-dimensional object (like a letter) does not create a new copyright. {{PD-old}} is OK. Sv1xv (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
PD-Art is appropriate for photographs of any two-dimensional artifact, if you are not the photographer. It says "painting" mainly to distinguish it from {{PD-scan}}, since non-painting documents are usually scanned rather than photographed. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Climbing_in_Joshua_Tree_National_Park

This category does not show anything except 2 words Override this function. Is it just me? --Jarekt (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, had this error already on several Wikis in several namespaces, temporary problem. --Martin H. (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec)It happened in a lot of places as a new version of the Mediawiki software was put in. See en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) for more. Clearing your cache should fix it. - BanyanTree 03:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Override this function" Error message

The link File:Dublovice, hřbitovní kaple (márnice).jpg returns error message "Override this function". What is the matter? --ŠJů (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

All right allready. --ŠJů (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Same for File:Serac.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I had the same message a couple of times with "edit" and "history" tabs of different files. [F5] does not solve this. I needed to use [Ctrl]+[shift]+R (on Firefox). Teofilo (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No_tag_message_whitetemplate, and newbies.

In case someone is interested (it seems that user:filnik is still on holidays) User_talk:Filnik#Improving_on_text_of_"Template:No_tag_message_whitetemplate" -- [w.] 05:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Messages translation

On a message I sent on the village pump in July '09 (link) I asked for help regarding about how to translate certain Commons tabs. I had done as I was instructed (by creating a subpage of MediaWiki:Extra-tabs.js for the Maltese translation. It has been now more than a week since I created this page, but nothing happened to the tabs. If you go to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cu-Scheibe.JPG?uselang=mt the tabs "check usage", "find categories" etc. are still with in English (and not in Maltese). Is this a type of bug or what? Thanks. —Chrisportelli 15:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Original caption" template

I am looking for a template to add to image pages to show their original verbatim captions. This is for use on images from a collection or publication where there is a specific printed caption underneath (or otherwise adjacent). This is not for translated versions of those captions but to simply document how the original image was described and to indicate that this part of the description does not need "improving" or "correcting" or "editing" in any way apart from correcting any mistakes in the copying of the caption from the original. There also would be a parameter to indicate the publication name/ISBN or collection that this caption was from. If the image was published in multiple books etc, then I would envisage just using multiple {{Original caption}} templates. I expect that this template would also be useful where caption material or 'watermarks' have been removed from an image to indicate exactly what has been removed. Anyone know of any such template or are there any comments about the creation of such a template? --Tony Wills (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Bundesarchiv images use {{BArch-description}}, but that's not really a general-purpose template. Still, if it resembles what you want, you could perhaps use it at least as a base for a new template. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I have created a very simple template {{Original caption}}, you can see an example of its use on File:Huia Buller.jpg. The template needs the text "Original caption" translated into various languages to be useful - insert the translations into {{Original caption}}. I suppose that {{Original caption/doc}} could be translated too. Any comments, corrections or translations appreciated :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
French translation added. Great idea! However, I have a request: would it be possible to also modify the type of the quotation marks used? French quotations use the « and » symbols, any other symbol is typographically incorrect. →Diti the penguin — 12:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I could think of two ways of doing that, one is to move the '''{{{1}}}''' parameter up into the LangSwitch box, the other was to add two more LangSwitch options. ✓ Done I did the latter on the assumption that most people will use the " symbol, if I'm wrong then I'll change it to the former method :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Added another example of its use File:USS Abatan (AW-4).jpg - have added caption template in readyness for removal of all text from photograph, and also a caption template for the title on source website. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a good idea. I've always included an "Original caption states..." line in my uploads, and a multilingual template makes sense. - BanyanTree 09:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Massive batch job

I've stumbled upon a massive batch of illustrative images that are (largely) licensed under CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. Due to the sheer quantity of them, I'd like to request the assistance of any willing person(s) capable of processing hundreds or thousands of image files spanning across several websites.

The complete lists of files may be seen at all-silhouettes.com, hongkiat.com, and vector4free.com; but here is a small list of examples:

This batch job will inevitably require some manual labor. All three sites include imagesets of various licenses, so it is imperative to discern which sets are in fact CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Additionally, many of the images are clustered into a single SVG or EPS file, and will need to be split up into individual images.

All-in-all, most of these images seem to be of high quality, and I believe that they could be beneficial for a multitude of uses (especially templates) across all Wikimedia projects.   — C M B J   23:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Batch uploads may be able to help with this. Personally I'm occupied with currently ongoing batch upload projects, but someone else might take a stab. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
{{Oppose}} out of COM:SCOPE. Teofilo (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I checked the guidelines of COM:SCOPE, and I don't quite see where you're coming from. The commons already has dozens of categories containing similar images, and they're used extensively throughout Wikipedia.   — C M B J   08:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
"The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”." How about uploading one or two from each category, insert them on Wikipedia or other project's pages, wait for a few days to see if nobody there objects or reverts, and if the icons are accepted there, go on with uploading a larger quantity ? Teofilo (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
"Self-created artwork without obvious educational use" is not allowed by COM:SCOPE. Art is allowed when the art can illustrate an artist's article, when the artist is notable-enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Teofilo (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The websites can be added on Commons:Free media resources/Drawing so that people looking for such icons can find them. Teofilo (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree in this case that these images are out of scope if not actually in use, and should only be uploaded if and when they are needed, but I also view it as unfortunate that there is no place for gathering together disparate small collections of freely licensed works that may have some utility for creative reuse and may become undiscoverable or lost if left to themselves. Perhaps this is a job for a new media archive. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, I guess some whole collections of clipart have been uploaded without checking what percentage of the collection is actually used. So it is difficult to say that whole collections can never be uploaded. That would mean restricting the choice to the present collections and never change. Some kind of nuanced rule is needed, but I don't have any idea of the criteria which could be used. I change my "oppose" into "neutral". Teofilo (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Graphics like these are welcomed in moderation. Take those Tango icons for example. The majority of them have found uses somewhere on Wikimedia, not to mention elsewhere. I'm always looking for nice looking icons to use in templates and such. Even the clipart that was batch uploaded from OpenClipart comes in handy once in awhile, especially the flags and heraldry. You just have to use common sense and not be indiscriminate. For example, uploading 212 Awesome SEXY girls would be a bad idea. But I see many things on those sites that could be useful. A lot of it seems to be vector resources for purely artistic work, but a little of that here is ok, I think. You never know when vector elements like that might come in handy for educational purposes. Or more likely for administrative/operational purposes. High-quality images regardless of their internal use, can attract more people to use Commons. I don't think COM:SCOPE was meant to limit our artistic side, as much as it is to limit our personal image side. There's a big difference between those, and it's not the educational thing, but the reusability. Clipart is made for people to reuse it and people will find uses for it. They probably won't for personal photos of your family on vacation. I asked a similar question here awhile ago because I wasn't sure where we stood on the issue, but the general impression I got is that unless storage capacity becomes an issue, we shouldn't worry about it too much. Rocket000 (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Also, don't forget that Wikimedia is more than Wikipedia. Many of the business-related vectors would be useful in presentation material within the scope of Wikiversity courses, for example. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

August 6

German speaker help needed!

I had tagged images of user MaxtorNP as "missing permission", a link on the source website says using their images needs permission: (http://www.airport-nuernberg.de/unternehmen/presse/faq/;art186,1203) but it seems there is another page which I didn't saw at first place which say "All photos available for private and commercial purposes, specifying the copyright Airport Nuremberg used freely" (http://www.airport-nuernberg.de/unternehmen/presse/fotomedia/) can someone who understand German language please take a look at this pages, Thank you very much. (I used Google Translate, to translate pages to english.)   ■ MMXXtalk  17:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would "translate" the linked declaration into {{Attribution}} "Airport Nürnberg". --Túrelio (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot   ■ MMXXtalk  18:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The first site says that you need permission to make photos for publication purposes. The second link is a free file archive with the attribution requirement like Turelio said. --Martin H. (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Our very own barnstars!

Maybe this isn't right place for this kind of announcements but as we don't have "Commons Award project", here I am, introducing two barnstars specially designed for Commons!   ■ MMXXtalk  18:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Commons Barnstar - To recognize particularly fine contributions to Commons.

    Commons Barnstar - To recognize particularly fine contributions to Commons.

  • Copyright inspector Barnstar - For users who help in finding copyright violation images.

    Copyright inspector Barnstar - For users who help in finding copyright violation images.

Cool, they look nice. But what do you mean we don't have a "Commons Award project"? We give out barnstars here (but not overdoing it like some projects). See Commons:Barnstars. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I was completely unaware of Commons:Barnstars, I was looking for something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards :)   ■ MMXXtalk  06:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, you meant a whole WikiProject devoted to it. Anyway, I'm sure these will be finding their way to user talk pages soon. Thanks for making them (a few of the others look in need of a makeover next to these). :) Rocket000 (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Difference between ogv and ogg video filetypes? Which to use?

I am trying to get a video on a WikiPedia page. I understand that I need to convert to an Ogg Theora filetype. I downloaded and used ffmpeg2theora-0.24.exe to convert a .wmv file. The output file was a .ogv filetype. In the Wiki help pages, I see that of the types that can be used, .ogg is mentioned, but not .ogv.

Question: Can I use .ogv? If not, how can I get an .ogg?

I started an upload, using Firefox, some 45 minutes ago, and the 150,907KB file has yet to complete. Should I be surprised, shooooooot, I bet there is a max filesize? thanks

I answered one of my questions myself. Max filesize if 100MG. Gloverepp (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing file-type and file-extension here. You can get a .ogg file by simply renaming your .ogv file :-) --Dschwen (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
.ogv is preferable to use in upload filenames, I'm pretty sure. .ogg is more often used for Ogg audio (Vorbis codec or other) files, however it was/is also commonly used for Ogg Theora video files, and so both are used. But whichever extension you use, an Ogg Theora file is an Ogg Theora file. Also note that the Mediawiki software cannot scale videos on its own; if you intend to use one on a Wikipedia article it is better to also upload a smaller version, close to the size you want to display in the article. (Large videos will appear to be scaled, but the full size will be downloaded and web browsers would need to do the scaling.) The larger videos (if they are under the size limit) are still a good idea; someday the software will get better I'm sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

August 7

File:FN F2000 Slovenian Soldier.jpg

Could a en wiki admin check this file for the original sources? Thx.--Sanandros (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Original image description page was, in its entirety, the {{PD-self}} template. No other source besides the claim to be the photographer was provided. - BanyanTree 11:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, thx, but the User isn't active any more :(--Sanandros (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Which means the "no source" tag was incorrectly applied -- it was claimed as "self work". That is dubious, but it is a source. Those types of things should go through a regular deletion request instead, unless original (unlicensed) sources are explicitly found first. In this case, there is a very similar picture File:SlovenianSoldiers.jpg (also marked "no source") which shows up on an older website here, and credited to Bruno Toič/SI MOD. That photographer has a personal website here. I'd have to guess that this photo was taken by the same person, and we would need permission. So, both files should probably be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How to change photographer name on a picture?

I inadvertently loaded a photo taken by a friend of mine and claimed it as taken by myself. I need to change the photographer name (assume that is author) from mine to his. He is not a member of wiki commons. What is the syntax for changing the name? If it can't be changed, then I need to delete it, would the syntax for that be "speedy|Picture is not mine" with double braces on each end? Gloverepp (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which image is this but you certainly need permission from your friend to publish her/his work here on commons, But changing the name of author is very easy, in the image page click on edit, you will see this code:
== Summary ==
{{Information
|Description={{en|1=The Anjodi tied in dock in Capstang for lunch.}}
|Source=Own work by uploader
|Author=[[User:Gloverepp|Gloverepp]]
|Date=2009-06-16
|Permission=
|other_versions=
}}
Just change the bold text with Author's name, but I must say again, you need permission from original photographer.   ■ MMXXtalk  19:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Mizunoryu and serious copyright issues

I stumbled across Category:Video game logos, and found a dramatic number of possibly unfree images were uploaded by this user. As evidenced by Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guitar hero logo.png, he/she evidently believes that because they can find a font online that replicates the logo, it is somehow free. Threshold of originality in US copyright is very low, and the vast majority of images currently in the above category need to be fragged as copyright vios. --David Fuchs (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Some are already under review. The shapes of letters are not copyrightable under U.S. law -- even if it is a funky custom font, or hand-drawn -- so most of them look fine to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
It'll be tough. There are a lot of clear copyvios, a lot of clear okays, and a lot of ambiguous cases in that category. All we can do is review them one by one. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Most of the obvious-looking ones have an Ubisoft license, GPL license, or an OTRS ticket. A couple have been appropriately tagged with npd. The bad ones I saw were not User:Mizunoryu's uploads, which have already been gone over recently. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Woops, right you are. I didn't inspect them closely enough. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
A lot of them don't look "simple geometric shapes" to me. --MK (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Most of the ones that aren't don't use the PD-textlogo tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Images of, and taken from, the CN Tower

A notice near the entrance of the CN Tower states that images of the tower -- and images taken from it -- may not be used for commercial purposes. If enforceable, this restriction would make such images unsuitable for inclusion at the Commons. I presume it's not enforceable, and can be ignored. That right? Rrburke (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

{{FoP-Canada}} indicates that such a provision is unenforceable. It's private property, so they can kick you out if they want, but any pictures you take prior to being removed from the premises remain under your own to do with as you will. Powers (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
And if they sue you for breach of contract ? Teofilo (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
We do not advise users to take action in contravention of house rules or legal contracts - however, any such conflict would be between them and the CN Tower and would have no bearing on Wikimedia Commons' ability to republish these images. See Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions#.22House_rules.22. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Guidance needed!

I want make something for wikipedia using Photoshop actions but the action's license says: "The digital images of the free actions can be used with non-commercial projects only." this is about a free jigsaws puzzle action which is also available for purchasing. could they actually limit users, like this?   ■ MMXXtalk  04:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Aren't Photoshop actions just a series of filter effects? If so, that would be like Adobe trying to claim copyright to everything you make because you used their filters and stuff. On the other hand, non-trivial patterns and brushes can be copyrighted by the original creators. If it's like the simple default jigsaw texture, I would say it's fine. If it does anything more than that for you, it may be a problem. The question is, is there any originality in the finished product that's not yours? Rocket000 (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Why nbot use a free software, like The Gimp instead of Photoshop ? Please note that graphics related questions might receive better answers on Commons:Graphic Village Pump than here. Teofilo (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a copyright related questions! BTW the action is from (http://www.panosfx.com/pro-actions/puzzle-effects.html) But I use the free version, This action, first make jigsaws paths and then cut the picture and add bevel and emboss, do you think it is original enough to be copyrighted ?   ■ MMXXtalk  18:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
No, the shapes are not original at all since almost all puzzles look like that (we have a nice vector template, btw). The .atn files themselves are copyrighted of course, but not what you create with them. It is just a tool. The effects—automated beveling, embossing, slicing—are common in practically every graphic editor. They are computer generated and lack original authorship. Also, it doesn't look like there's any license (i.e. EULA) at all to the free version which could make you agree to things not protected by copyright (those may or may not be enforceable, but still, they could use it to say you agreed to not use it in certain ways). Rocket000 (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
@Teofilo: Free software wouldn't make a difference because GIMP is no different than Photoshop in that anyone can create free or non-free things for both of them. And this isn't a COM:GVP issue but more of a CT:L (not that posting here instead was wrong). Rocket000 (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes I can alos use this file, it is very useful becuase it have individual pieces, Thanks.   ■ MMXXtalk  17:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Murals and Wall paintings

Hello. Could anyone documentate the following categories: Category:Murals, Category:Wall paintings and Category:Wall paintings on houses (I can hardly see the differences). Where would you place Category:Wall painting in Angoulême - they all deal with "blind" walls of houses ? (I will correct the name: paintings, not painting). Category:Murals in France is a bit messy . Jack ma (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoever does it, please be aware of freedom of panorama restrictions, for instance, in the UK, 2D works in public spaces are not automatically PD, even though 3D ones are. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I have added a {{speedy|no freedom of Panorama in France : see [[COM:FOP#France]]. It is OK if someone else wants to convert this into into a Deletion Request, but I don't have much time to do it today}} on all France mural categories. I hope people understand I don't realy mean "speedy delete", but let's have a kind of warning so that people don't add more pictures... Teofilo (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
So you can add it to Italy as well... And the lack of time is not an excuse, sorry. Or we strictly obey to this (stupid and non common sense) Freedom of Panorama and you add "speedy delete" (or rather "delete") to all these categories - but I won't. Maybe there is another better banner which says not to upload more photgraphs into those categories ? Jack ma (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Some 10 months ago, I already integrated category:Wall paintings by country into category:Murals by country and I see that "they" are coming back with a slightly different name. So far, I did not manage to understand the differences.
This COM:FOP#France issue is a bit quick: what if the paintings or pictures are very old ? --Foroa (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Before 1960, when de Gaulle's ministry of culture André Malraux started a program to clean the walls, Paris' walls were all black because of pollution, coal smoke, etc... Teofilo (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
But Paris isn't the only town in France, is it? –Tryphon☂ 15:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Yann, instead of improving what I had started doing (for example by changing the speedy delete tags into formal deletion requests) and who apparently does not know many other patterns of communication than threat, is using threat (diff). So let's have Wikimedia Commons become a repository of free media and copyrighted French murals ! Teofilo (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
...and Italian ;-) Jack ma (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How to change my userid?

What would be the syntax, or process, for changing my userid spelling e.g., it is presently a combination of first and last name, but I would like to capitalize the first letter of my last name. e.g. Gloverepp to GloverEpp. I would not want to lose connection to anything I have already contributed to wiki commons or pedia. Gloverepp (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello,
You should go to Commons:Changing username/Current requests, here you can ask for the rename of your account.
But you should think about it good, because you should request a rename on every project where you have edits, it can be a lot of work.
Best regards,
Huib talk 17:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively (and I think it's a good option for a simple cosmetic change), you could just customize your signature. It wouldn't change how your username is printed in logs, or histories, but you could use it in author fields and to sign your contributions. –Tryphon☂ 18:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
For example just put this code in "My preferences>User profile>Signature" text box:
[[User:Gloverepp|GloverEpp]] ([[User talk:Gloverepp|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]])
Which will produce:GloverEpp (talk)
Just rememmber to tick the check box in signature field "Treat signature as wikitext"
Happy editing!   ■ MMXXtalk  19:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Change name

Is it possible to change my wikimedia name? Rvk41 (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello,
You should go to Commons:Changing username/Current requests, here you can ask for the rename of your account.
But you should think about it good, because you should request a rename on every project where you have edits, it can be a lot of work.
Best regards,
Huib talk 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"released by the family"?

The caption to File:Ahmed Al Darbi.jpg says "released by the family". It says the image was taken by employees of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Nevertheless, the first version I uploaded has a grainy sideways caption on the lower right that seems to be crediting the AP/Leuktokei. And it may have a poorly rendered copyright symbol on it.

In this instance, where the caption and the embedded slug disagree I think we should go with the caption.

If we do, what does "released by the family" mean? Omar Khadr's family released family photos of him. And by "released by the family" they meant released into the public domain.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

August 8

Thumbnail and image page not working?

This image File:Eurasiantreesparrow.jpg shows up with a blank thumbnail, and image dimensions of '0 × 0' pixels; click on the thumbnail and the image does not show, but click on the image name, and you can see the photo full size. I tried re-uploading the photo but that made no difference. Can anyone solve it? - MPF (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. There was indeed a small error in this file, that apparently was big enough for the Wikimedia servers to give up creating a thumbnail, whereas web browsers would just happily ignore it. I closed the associated DR too. –Tryphon☂ 09:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Was the image uploadable under another name after fixing? It is a good pic, worth having here. - MPF (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, after fixing it I noticed that the author had already uploaded a working version under File:Eurasian Tree Sparrow.jpg, so I deleted File:Eurasiantreesparrow.jpg as a duplicate. –Tryphon☂ 12:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

copyvio?

Is this File:Pira poster2009.jpg copyvio? --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's possible, No source + Watermark, I nominated the file for deletion   ■ MMXXtalk  17:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I shall not vote, anyhow. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello Fellow Wikinians:

I just uploaded 104 bird images to the Commons. They are of a very high quality. I did the cover and 19 full page images in the 2005 edition of National Geographic Guide To The Birds Of Florida. Before 2000 I was a gallery photographer in NYC as well as teacher of World Cultures.

I will ask if a few of you can put the images into the actual Wiki pages of articles and their galleries. A few of you experienced and trusted Wiki people should make these decisons and actions. Let me know of your response to this request.

I would think 10 days would be the point at which I should delete all 104 bird images NOT PLACED IN THE WIKI ACTUAL PAGES BY THEN now in the Commons Watch under Peter Wallack. By then I hope they have all gone to where all of you think they belong.

I do have Microsoft Works Word articles on my bio, bird photo mission, and my photo process but I cannot attach anything.

I am used to direct email and places that are central post boards. If you can connect me to who I will be team members with, I am sure I can do this. But, I DO NEED THE HELP DESCRIBED HEREIN !!!!

Dr. Peter l. wallack, Ed. D. Columbia University 1981

See User:Peter Wallack,contr --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
All these images can be found on http://birdsofsanibel.free.fr, and contrary to what you say, they are not "very high quality". Take File:Yellow-crowned Night Heron.jpg for example; at full size it is clear that it has no more details than this 400×600px image (it looks like you just increased the image size, based on this small-sized version). Also, all the images you have uploaded are lacking metadata, which would be surprising if they were the original files. Under these circumstances, I think you should send an email to OTRS to prove that you're the copyright holder; otherwise, I think the files should be deleted as copyright violations. –Tryphon☂ 14:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Cuban copyright in photography?

These images appear to have been uploaded by a single purpose account. [4] Some are being used on the Spanish WP article for rum – not surprisingly. [5] Wrong licences almost certainly but as the origin may be Cuban, is it really a copyvio? Also possible, is that the work could have been sub-contracted out abroad and so be under different copyright laws from those of Havana -if Cuba has any photographic copyright laws that is. Has it? It’s enough to make one toss a pineapple in the liquidiser and mix a large piña colada. --P.g.champion (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The copyright for photographs in Cuba is 25 years I believe. See Template_talk:PD-Cuba. Kaldari (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
{{PD-Cuba}} can work for images under 4 different possible legal backgrouds. Shouldn't it be split into 4 different licence tags, each one for a specific given situation? Belgrano (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it should be edited to accept a parameter indicating which legal situation applies. It probably isn't necessary to split it into 4 different templates though. Kaldari (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that maybe be the easiest option. Perhaps four tick boxes to make it clear that one option has to be selected. --P.g.champion (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Paternity License

That we can upload a picture from Flickr under Creative Commons that have the by License?-- A2 supersonique 20:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

ANYTHING CC LICENSED...as long as its not non-commercial or no derivatives, is allowed. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thank you.-- A2 supersonique 20:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong name

I upload a new image but I made a mistake and I call my image File:BackLotec Sirius.jpg when it will be File:BackSpyker D12.jpg. That someone can change it because I'm not able. Thank you. -- A2 supersonique 21:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Image renames aren't easily possible -- the best would be to upload it again with the correct name, then mark File:BackLotec Sirius.jpg with {{badname|File:BackSpyker D12.jpg}}, (i.e. it is a bad name, and reference the correctly-named image) which will cause it to be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Photograph?

I need help could someone put the right licease tag on my photograph i uploaded. thanks. --BeauPics09 (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but we only accept images under a free licence. In the case of your upload, the artist is Pablo Picasso. He died in 1973, his work is in public domain with January 1st, 2044. Until then it can't be uploaded here, unless you would be able to get his heirs to release the image under a free licence, which I highly doubt. More information you can find at COM:PDART. -- Cecil (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Searching by file size

It would be useful to me to be able to search for high resolution pictures. Any way to define a file size range when searching would be great. This is a feature request. --Anon (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Mayflower Advanced Search allows restricting the results to files larger (or smaller) than the specified file size. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Bryan

Since User:Bryan is no longer an active wiki member, as per User talk:Bryan, will some other member etc, take care of bryan Flickr Upload bots, and its responses/problems? Many Uploadbot failure reports are piling up on his talk page, without any one to respond to them! Otherwise, users be forewarned, before using bryan tools, and alternatives suggested.

Also Magnus upload tool, also has a warning message, that it may not function properly! Thanks! --Ekabhishek (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

More bird images

I would like to thak the Wiki people who put the scientific names with my 104 bird images.

I spent time after that improving and/or editing the DESCRIPTIONS of thos posts.

I hope you can email me or this site automatically emails me as these images are posted to the Wiki Encylopedia where all yo Wikinians decide they belong.

Let me know when this process of placing these images will take place and if there is a need for me to keep my 104 Commons posts after that.

Best,

Peter wallack

I'm not sure you understand the point of Wikimedia Commons. We serve as a collection of free media for more than just the Wikipedias. Users may add or remove these images from the Wikipedias at their will and leisure; if you want to know where they're used, your best bet is to go to the image and choose Check Usage on the top bar. In any case, Wikimedia Commons will keep these images indefinitely, for the use of all the Wikimedia projects and any one looking for free educational media.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Commons thanks you for your donation. If the images are superior to the other images in their respective categories, you can be assured that, over time, they will find automatically their way in several of the hundreds wikipedia's Commons is serving. --Foroa (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

biographie.net

I need some advice on how to proceed with a French-language web site making infringing use of my freely licensed work, passing it off as their own non-free work. I suspect they are also making massive infringing use of other Wikimedia content.

Back in January, I became aware that Biographie.net was using File:Petter Solberg 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg and File:Lennart meri 2004-07-03 02.jpg without crediting me as the author and with the patently false and fraudulent statement "© Copyrights Crialto - Tous droits réservés" instead of stating the license they are actually under.

I made several attempts to contact them about this, requesting that they complete and correct the information and informing them that if they were unwilling or unable to abide by the licensing terms, they must immediately cease the use of the images. Unfortunately, their mail server doesn't recognize either the common convention info@biographie.net or the required postmaster@biographie.net.

The mail server bounces originated from gunther.lixium.fr, so I then contacted postmaster@gunther.lixium.fr to alert them of the misconfiguration of their mail server and request that the message be passed on to the correct person. I never received a reply, but it seems to have gotten through, because I received no bounce message, and the images disappeared from several of the pages. However, File:Lennart meri 2004-07-03 02.jpg still appears on at least six pages [6][7][8][9][10][11], and since then, File:Chris Atkinson 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg has appeared on http://www.biographie.net/Chris-Atkinson.

It appears that, in addition to infringing use of mine and probably other Wikimedia users' images, the site is publishing verbatim copies of large portions of Wikipedia articles, citing Wikipedia only as a "source", but without crediting its contributors or acknowledging that the copied text and any derivative works are under a free license. I know authors' rights in France are quite strong, so I find it a bit surprising that such blatant infringements have been able to stay up for so long.

I don't read French very well, but the site seems to have been discussed at fr:Wikipédia:Respect de la GFDL à vérifier/En cours#biographie.net copie les biographies de Wikipédia, fr:Wikipédia:Legifer/octobre 2008#Pompage "en règle" de Wikipedia, fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/24 janvier 2009#Copyright et cetera, fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/19 mars 2009#Photos pompées sans respect des licences and is listed at fr:Wikipédia:Liste de sites réutilisant le contenu de Wikipédia en français#Sites en lecture seule. Still, the French language edition has happily provided a link to Biographie.net from fr:Biographie since January, 2005. The site also appears as an external link or source in fr:Daniel Leduc, fr:Histoire de la géostratégie russe de 1991 à 2008, fr:Armorial de la noblesse d'Empire and fr:Jean Balmino.

Could someone who understands French sum up the discussions and the current status of the case? Has anyone managed to get a comment out of them or their service providers? And as I originally asked, what's the best way forward here? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

For a start, I removed the links in "external links" sections of French Wikipedia: [12], [13]. Yann (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you try to contact them through their web interface? Yann (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I did. I notice the images are actually not copied, but just hotlinked without credit. Since hotlinking is explicitly discouraged and since they appear to have no desire to respect the copyleft nature of our work, can we get our techies to block requests with biographie.net in the HTTP refer(r)er header? It doesn't address their textual copying, but at least we'd stop contributing server power to their infringement. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Some research shows that this site is made by http://www.rlagency.fr/ if it can help, and "whois biographie.net" gives a mail @gmail.com and a mobile phone number in Paris. Yann (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I think they're just the domain name registrar (unless you got that from somewhere other than the whois record for the domain), not the host, so I don't think they're responsible for the content. However, the domain name resolves to 195.246.231.199, which belongs to europeanservers.net, which would appear to be the same as Lixium, which I already contacted. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
RL Agency is not a registrar, but a company making and hosting web sites, and this company and the web site belong to the same persons. Yann (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we have a tool like picasa2commons to directly upload images from picasa?

http://toolserver.org/~magnus/flickr2commons.php

Hi, since I found very good images from picasaweb, which is affiliated with Google, I have manually uploaded about more than 300 images from Picasaweb with free license. However, I wonder why we do not have a tool like picasa2commons? I tried to use the Commonist tool, but it only effective for those who upload their own images from computers.. Since there are many useful and good images on picasa, I hope somebody who knowledgeable of making tools would heed my request. Any though?--Caspian blue 18:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I just skimmed the Picasa API documentation, and doesn't seem to support retrieving the licensing status (or else I just missed it). This means that, while it would be relatively simple to make a script to transfer files from Picasa to Commons, it's not so easy to automatically verify their license. Although I suppose it would be possible to just screen-scrape it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Like most things, screenscraping it ought to be a trivial regexp match. This sort of tool has been requested before. I would work on it myself, but I don't have a toolserver account. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the inputs.--Caspian blue 22:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Lots of useful free images - User:Joi's flickr stream

I don't have the time right now, and I guess neither does User:Joi (w:Joi Ito) - but he has a lot of free use images on his flickr stream which would be of use to Wikimedia projects. Such as photos of w:Om Malik[14], w:Violet Blue[15], w:Steven Levy[16], w:Jimmy Wales[17] and more.

Joi is the CEO of Creative Commons, so the social circle represented by his photostream include lots of notable free culture advocates, journalists and technologists - many of whom are notable. If anyone has time to work through these, it'd be a worthwhile project and the output would definitely benefit Wikimedia projects.

ps - It'd probably be useful to drop all those photos into a Category:Photographs by Joi Ito, as his work is quite fragmented across Commons, some having been uploaded by other users already. 94.194.23.112 22:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

August 10

Can I Upload Public Domain Images From Internet Archive Org

Hi. I'm doing some work on another Wiki project about country music. I found this image of the Carter Family at Internet Archive Org and I was wondering what license should I use to upload to Wikimedia Commons. The Internet Archive Org has a public domain license displayed on the Carter Family page and has made the photo available for download. If anyone can help that would be great.

thanks --Sluffs (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not all images marked public domain at Archive.org are suitable for upload to Wikimedia Commons, because they accept anything that's public domain in the US regardless of the license in its source nation. The copyright status has to be independently verified. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
They also accept material that is public domain in Canada regardless of its copyright status in the source country (e.g. UK publications). Therefore, like what Dcoetzee said, take care with materials from archive.org. Jappalang (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
What is the URL of the page? If it is a U.S. work, the tags there are *usually* correct. (However, note that sound recordings made prior to 1972 have a very very messy copyright situation in the U.S., so be careful of those). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link: [18]

thanks --Sluffs (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Apparently a photo of two musicians (related to the Carters) posing with the Carter sisters in 1944ish, with a "courtesy from" tag from someone who sounds like a relative of one of the musicians. Hard to be completely confident about that one, especially as the tag is probably more meant for the music. Maybe it is a personal photo, or maybe a (copyrighted) photo by someone else where the family had a print, or other possibilities -- it was not uploaded to archive.org by that person, from the sounds of it, either. The original appears to be here, where there is a copyright notice. Most likely it was a promotional photo and published at the time, which the relatives had a copy of -- in which case the copyright was owned by someone else. Odds are high that the copyright was never renewed, but that is hard to prove. As an unrelated aside, I would also be careful about any "public domain" tag on any sound recording made in the United States before 1972... those are extremely tangled, copyright-wise. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

August 5

HotCat bug

HotCat addings are not working right now:

See

I don't even have a German interface on Commons... --Mattes (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, User:Magnus Manske inadvertently edited the wrong file on the wrong project. You'll have to reload your browser's cache to get it to work again. Lupo 19:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

August 11

Category:Government ministers by country

Who wants to look at the category tree Category:Government ministers by country? I have already proposed several moves from Category:Ministers of ... to Category:Government ministers of..., reason:to avoid that ministers end in Category:Government ministers by country}}. Also, I am not sure that Category:Prime ministers should be there - and that should probably be Category:Prime ministers by country. And one has to look also at Category:Minister of Defence by country. And may-be there are more anomalies. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Motifs of national interest

How are the general rules about "motifs of national interest", such as motorway bridges, hydroelectric powerplants or airports? Even though some of the sites have photo restrictions or camera prohibition many have not any signs or information boards. There are of course differences in different counties, but how is the general rule? This or this seems pretty harmless to me, but could one get caught for espionage (in democratic countries) by uploading pictures to Commons? V-wolf (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just getting a chance to get as far as uploading would be nice. Here in the UK you can get harassed and even arrested just because you were seen walking down a street with a camera. London seems worse. Not a Crime You’ll just have to use your common sense and inquire about local laws and practices. --P.g.champion (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
In Sweden, where the second image you list as an example is taken, a structure or area may be designated as protected with or without photography restrictions. Protected areas with photography restrictions have this sign posted. If you take photos inside an area where such signs have been posted, you could indeed find yourself in a Swedish maximum security hotel, but if you haven't passed any signs, you should be safe to snap away. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
As V-wolf asks for a general rule and this is a case where over generalization might end up extending your vacation by many many years, perhaps it would help to have a project page about this. A bit like Commons:WikiProject Arts/Museum photography but with a world map, and examples of signs that one can expect to see. Links to relevant web pages etc., etc. There is the useful Sirimo guide called UK Photographers Rights Guide version 2 but Simon asks not to directly link to it, so here is the introductory page which contains the PDF link. uk-photographers-rights-v2. Other countries must have similar guides because professional photographers the world over will have similar concerns. Photographer's Rights. New South Wales, Australia.Direito de Fotografar em PortugalPhotography Laws in Canada Wikimedians could do with all this info in one place. --P.g.champion (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers and the guide. An international project would be nice, but very extensive and tricky, not for non-lawyers at a first glance. In Sweden we have some old signs from WW2 with restrictions of trespassing and photographing, particulary at the sites of hydroelectric powerplants. Are they to ignore, if the sign LX showed is the one to obey? What are generally the rules for photgraphing an object from "outside the fence"? V-wolf (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

File:USA Dakota County, Nebraska age pyramid.svg problem

The scaled svg versions don't display correctly. (The numbers mess up and do not scale along in the smallest version, used in articles. An SVG problem i think. Can anybody fix this? Maybe there are more pictures like these? Regards, 217.121.6.68 21:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Odd. The SVG software is not scaling some of those font sizes. The numbers at the bottom are fine though, and they use the same CSS class internally. It works when I render it directly in the browser (Safari) and scale... Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Probably the same problem discussed above at "SVG to PNG conversion failures..." under August 8. AnonMoos (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

category paragliding: help request for sub-sections names

Hi. I first put that request on the french Bistro but I didn't get any answer. I would like to create a few sub-sections to arrange the paragliding category. My problem is that I'm not a native english speaker, I don't konw iin details the naming conventions on commons and I know how difficult it is to rename a category when you have a mistake in the name. So I would like to ask for some help to find the correct names. I want to create the following categories:

  • landing (should I name this "Landing paragliders" or "paraglider landing" or "paragliding landing"...)
  • take-off
  • flying paraglider
  • ground handling
  • regulations
  • paragliding by countries (I want to put all the sub-categories paragliding in France, paragliding in Germany...etc in there)

Could someone please help me to determine the correct category names ? --PiRK (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

For take offs in general Commons has Category:Starts in aviation (which is not the an immediately obvious title.) so for take off
Category:Paragliding in France are all okay, if you make them subcats of Category:Aviation in France and Category:Paragliding by countryKTo288 (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I can put the category "paraglider starts" in "starts in aviation", but using the word "aviation" in a category name that focuses only on paragliders doesn't seem very helpful for people who are going to look for this category. I see that there is a sub category called " Aircraft carrier take offs" so I will use that as a template and create category:Paraglider take offs. Thanks anyway.

Brastel Telecom

What is going on over at en:WP ? Have they gone commercial. This looks more like blatant advertising rather than a encyclopaedia article.[19] And the images are being uploaded here on WC, all done from the same single purpose account. --P.g.champion (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A new article at Wikipedia made by one user not being the most neutral thing in the world. Surprise, surprise. The only thing that's an issue here is the images, and the Village Pump isn't really the best place to deal with them either. There's always Commons:Deletion requests if you think they should be deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The images have already been flagged. What I am querying is the growing number of advertorial looking articles that are appearing on WP in resent times that don’t get tagged COI. If this was done sooner, so that the editor was made aware of permitted images, there would be less cleaning up do do here. --P.g.champion (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Very high high res images available and on the verge of extinction

This is a call of duty to anyone who cares about the digitization of the world paintings treasures. There is a torrent floating on the web (http://www.mininova.org/det/1199752) containing 118 files, 14.85 GB of very high res images. Some of the images have already been uploaded: Category:Hermitage hi-res from a .torrent (only 22). The torrent has only 7 seeders which make it very unstable and could become inaccessible at some point. Please anyone with a fast connection or has some way of making these available on the net, help!--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of those look like they're actually from a different torrent (there's [20] but that can't be the original since they're all JPEGs). For example, I don't see File:Owl-Flying-against-a-Moonlit-Sky.jpg in the list. Anyway, I'll help seed at least. Rocket000 (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The files are mostly over 100MB which poses a problem to our limit. Is it possible that a dev would import the files? The seeds are very good and downloading is very fast.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

JPEGs over 100MB? Seriously? Those much be high-resolution scans of full-size paintings, or something. If they're TIFFs try re-encoding as PNG. If they're really JPEGs, then I must agree regarding uploading the full-size images, and hopefully we can get help. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • All of the torrent files are TIFFs.
  • I have now one of the seeders, so they are not on the verge of extinction anymore.
  • At least some of the files at Category:Hermitage_hi-res_from_a_.torrent are not in the 25C90FC3 7BA4EAF5 4184BCCC 2E1EE5F5 43C8FE6B .torrent
Platonides (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
They're TIFFs, ranging in size from 13.8 to 432 MiB. I'll have to wait for the download to complete to say anything more about them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well I already downloaded the first five files but can't upload them because I have a really slow connection with only 10 kilo bytes upload rate. The files range from 4,000 to 10,000 pixels on the short side (at least for the largest I have (170MB)). I converted that one to jpg and it became 80MB which shows that the larger files wouldn't be possible to upload even as jpgs. These are files that aren't to be found anywhere else. Maybe the Wikimedia blog can write an article on how they saved the masterpieces :) .--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • If they're TIFFs take a close look at them and see if they have JPEG artifacts (sometimes TIFFs are converted from JPEGs - dumb but true!) If they do not have artifacts, we want the full resolution images, but please convert them to PNG - it's unlikely they contain enough useful metadata to justify the extra bytes. Also, it will be very important to carefully identify the pieces and their provenance - the last thing we want to do is pass off a copy as the original piece. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Did someone get the whole torrent? I could download it for preservation if need be.  — Mike.lifeguard 00:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't download the whole file. I am at about 50 %. Yann (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I've got the whole thing, and I'm seeding it now (though not very fast). I see no reason why I couldn't keep seeding it for quite some time. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Are we OK as long as >0 people have it? Not sure I want to bother downloading it if someone else has it covered, which I guess I should have made clearer in my initial comment.  — Mike.lifeguard 19:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Many of them are by now in Category:Hermitage_hi-res_from_a_.torrent. Platonides has been uploading file by file as he got them (or so it seems). There are a few Picassos and Kandiskys in the torrent; these are still under copyright. Lupo 20:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
At least one file File:Gogh, Vincent van - Memory of the Garden at Etten (Ladies of Arles).jpg might have lost a few bits here and there. --Jarekt (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
There are still very few seeds (only 2 currently seeding). Yann (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I finally got a few files. I uploaded some which are public domain in Canada only here: wikilivres:Category:From Hermitage torrent. Yann (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have got the color space wrong when you converted those TIFF files to JPEG: they're really not supposed to look like garish neon graffiti. GIMP seems to do a reasonably good job of the conversion, even if its support for the TIFF format and non-RGB color spaces is otherwise somewhat lacking. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Could someone upload the Tiffs or PNGs so that they would be worked on by restoration artists? And also for archival purposes? Some files can't be uploaded because of their too big size. These would later be important by devs, if possible. For now though, could someone upload the ones that are under 100MB?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I converted them with Imagemagick (convert). Gimp slows down my PC quite a lot for such big files. Yann (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems ImageMagick doesn't correctly handle TIFF files in CIE Lab color. You might try running "nice gimp filename.tif &" from the command line, and maybe closing other programs first (to minimize swapping) and getting a cup of coffee while it's loading. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I just used freeware Irfanview (with its free plugin pack) to convert some Commons tiff images to png. Took 4 seconds for a 5 megabyte tiff image, and 30 seconds for a 30 megabyte tiff image. I set the conversion for the highest, lossless compression during the tiff to png conversion.

Using Pngout (part of Irfanview plugin pack) during the conversion takes longer, and it will only reduce the png size a little bit more. So it is not necessary to use with these photos.

IrfanView (http://www.irfanview.com) installs instantly. As does the plugin pack. No need to restart one's PC. It is a very popular image editor, and it is extremely easy to use. It doesn't do everything, but what it does, it does well.

I found the tiff images by using Special:Search to search files for "tiff". --Timeshifter (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I generally use ImageMagick's convert at the command line to do this type of conversion. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Ilmari Karonen, higher up, wrote: "It seems ImageMagick doesn't correctly handle TIFF files in CIE Lab color. You might try running "nice gimp filename.tif &" from the command line,..."
Does that fix the ImageMagick problem Ilmari was talking about? Does IrfanView have this problem? --Timeshifter (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please post the original TIFF files somewhere permanent? Some of the converted JPEGs are severely clipped (especially on the black side). I wanted to see if this problem was also present in the original TIFFs as well. Kaldari (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have the whole thing (since July 10 actually), have been seeding, and plan to keep seeding until the peers (downloaders) go to 0. There were 6 when I was downloading and now it's 13; the seeders have stayed at roughly 4-5. Given the size, that makes sense. I don't leave my computer on all the time, but it's on a lot. Upload speed for me usually maxes out at ~55 kBytes/s but I have to cap it at 45-50 kB/s for browsing and stuff. I wasn't planning on uploading since I suck when it comes to editing files of this nature. If it's not something I can do with a simple ImageMagick command, I'm afraid I'm not much help. I know nothing about color spaces or profiles or any of that. I can upload the TIFFs directly. Since I'm also not one that wants to be adding the descriptions, categorizing them, etc. I won't batch upload them all, but I'll take any requests. That said, this torrent ain't going anywhere so no rush. Rocket000 (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I also have it, nearly complete now (91.6%). The best would be to have a copy of the toolserver. I will try to upload them there. Yann (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I also have the torrent completely downloaded. Kaldari, I can send you some file you may want. The problem with sending or storing is that the TIFFs are quite huge. It's not easy to find a place happily willing to allocate you more than 14GB. Most TIFFs are bigger than commons file size limit. On the other hand, I think I have all uploadable files uploaded. Platonides (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No more seed now. Still a few files missing. Do we need the TIFF files on Commons? Or PNG versions? I think it could be useful because there are not available elsewhere, but we would need help from someone with a shell account, because there are over the size limit. Yann (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Yann (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
That's odd — I'm still seeding, and my BT client shows four other seeds. Mininova reports 6 seeds and 17 leechers. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Me too. Right now I see 6 seeds and 16 leechers. Check your torrent client and connections settings. If you're still having trouble getting the last little bit I can upload some files to file dropper (it's like RapidShare minus the suck). There's a 5GB limit without signing up. Rocket000 (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps getting them up to www.legaltorrents.com might help. →AzaToth 23:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got a whole torrent long long time ago if anyone need some files. Though I cannot help with seeding because of my ISP. 4649 02:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I got the whole torrent now. I asked Erik Moeller about uploading files over the 100 MB limit to Commons. His answer was negative. I am uploading smaller files to Category:Hermitage hi-res TIFF files from a .torrent, permitting that people don't delete them... Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gogh, Vincent van - Memory of the Garden at Etten (Ladies of Arles).jpg‎ :( I will upload the big files to Internet Archive for now. Yann (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded the complete collection to Internet Archive. It will appear as soon as the scheduled task is finished. Yann (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded File:Boucher, Francois - Landscape Near Beauvais.jpg now, though I had to crop it and reduce quality to 99% to make it under 100MiB (also made minor color correction). →AzaToth 02:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

I was looking at some porn on the internet this afternoon, and came across something interesting. A few years ago, there was a user here called User:Ti mi uploaded a few images of herself which were soon removed because of worries that they were being uploaded by someone other than the subject of the photographs. Today, I saw a photograph (not safe for work, of course), which you can see at http society.pichunter.com php/photo.php?id=145477 (I can't post the link because of the spam filter), and I recognised it instantly; File:Masturbation.jpg is almost certainly traced from this original image. So I'm here to ask a couple of questions: 1) is it legitimite for us to have a tracing of an image without permission to have the original image, and 2) does it make a difference that the apparent copyright holder of the original image uploaded other pictures herself to Commons a few years ago? thanks. Just a comment (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The resemblance may be a coincidence. If however the tracing was directly based on a photograph and the person who drew it was not the copyright holder of that photo, we may have a derivative work which would justify deletion. I've seen at least one image deletion of such a derivative drawing (a user-created drawing based closely on a work of modern art). Dcoetzee (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
That's quite a coincidence; having looked at both the photograph and the drawing, I'd have a hard time believing it wasn't traced. Dcoetzee, was that statement based on looking at the photograph, or was it meant in general? First thing I would do in this situation is ask the artist of the drawing, especially since User:Rama is an active editor.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't look (I'm at work) - if Rama uploaded it I kind of doubt there's an issue, but we should check it out. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It's indeed the same, only the mouth is a little different. I agree that it looks as if the line drawing was traced from that photo. I'm sorry to say, but I do have problems with other of Rama's line drawings, too: compare, for instance, Image:Philippe_Kieffer_portrait.jpg with this photo. Is that photo PD? If so, why not use the photo? If it isn't, then the drawing is not OK either. I do wonder about the other drawings at User:Rama/Personalities_drawings, one of which (File:DeGaulle-BBC.jpg) was already deleted as a derivative of a famous photo (the one shown e.g. here). Good drawings, but what were they based on? (Notified Rama on his talk page, too.) Lupo 21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
None of these images are traced, because doing so would be trivially a derivative work. All these images are free-hand drawings, using various numbers of photographs for documentation. Problems arise when the number of available photographs is 1 (as in Kieffer) or if similarity to a particular photograph is desired (as for De Gaulle at the BBC or for User:Ti mi). It is difficult to make convincing portraits without having a view of the subject seen under same the angle as in the drawing, though I have tried this for French generals of the Alger Coup.
In the particular case of User:Ti mi, if I remember correctly, we had trouble both deleting the photograph (because somebody was complaining) and keeping it (for privacy reasons etc.), so it was suggested to defuse the situation by producing a closely resembling drawing that would have the main information but not the problems associated with the original photograph.
In any case, the presence of these drawings on Commons is in now way a statement that I believe that they are acceptable. Of course I do not upload deliberately illegal material, but I realise that it is very difficult to judge one's own drawings after spending hours on them; this is a difficulty to judge artistic merit, and it is also a difficulty to decide whether the resemblance goes too far. If some of these drawings are deleted, I will regard this as a danger averted. Do not be worried about upsetting me if that happens.
Cheers! Rama (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Rama, I had used "traced" in the sense of "was drawn after that photo and the result is very close". It doesn't matter whether you actually traced or did a freehand drawing, in either case the Kieffer and the Ti Mi drawings are derivatives of the base photos IMO. Lupo 06:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the drawings will always take something from the photographs used as documentation. The problem is to judge where the limit is between taking abstract information, which is not copyrightable, and doing a servile reproduction of the original. For instance:
  • File:Jean Moulin.jpg is designed to look like a known photograph, by the choice of attitude and clothing.
  • File:Hissene Habre 2066.jpg is a composite of several photographs showing Habré under different angles; one of these photographs had a larger influence than the others in the sense that its angle is closer to that of the drawing
  • File:Edmond Jouhaud-portrait.jpg is a drawing showing the subject under and arbitrary angle, different from the only photograph I had. The result is that it shows the main features of the subject (man, 50s, bald, no facial hair, etc.), but as a composite of how I draw these features, by default. In this sense, this drawing tells more about me than about its subject, a little bit like cartoon characters.
I might try to retrieve the images that I have used for documentation, see whether I can match them to the drawings, and delete those where the original photograph is recognisable. I think that we should strictly go on a "better safe than sorry" basis, even if I have to redo some of the sketches with increased precautions later. Cheers! Rama (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Preserving fysical image materiaal

I have a lot of old (1979-2000) slides of railway subjects. I have uploaded some interesting ones to the commons and wil keep doing it. (example file:FCL railcar 3.jpg) However it wil take forever to upload and comment them all. I estimate at least 5000 slides or more. I worry that in the event of my death, all this material wil disapear as I have no descendants. And even for uploaded and scanned pictures it is usefull to keep te originals for a posible rescan.

I could pas them on to railwayenthousiast organisation. But these organisations tend to keep the copyrigths and not make the images freely available as they want to publish books and periodicals or put them on their websites. I suspect I can only give the wikipedia foundation virtual things in my wil and no physical things such as slides and negatives. The foundation is not set upp to keep physical material and maintain then. Is there a way I could give them to the foundation and that the foundation gives them in trust to a private wikipedian, museum or library? This way the foundation wil keep acces to the originals. The legal constructions will be different for many countries so it wil best to keep it local.

Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how long Wikimedia Commons will last. There are other image uploading services on the internet, but these are not as likely to last as long as Wikipedia or its sister projects like Commons. I think the most important thing on your mind right now is to let these images be freely available to anyone. Commons is a good choice, but it is convoluted right now. Websites and web servers are likely to erase files when they no longer get paid, and even then, it's volatile. I know that there are various small, private libraries throughout the country who collect items of a particular nature. There's probably one for railcars somewhere in the country. Usually they stick to local history. I imagine that there is a program that you can use to more easily upload your collection here. It would be nearly automatic. I'm sorry I don't know any specifics, but I wanted to help somehow. Cyborg Ninja (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I imagine the WMF is here to stay, and if it ever should disappear, it'll take care to hand over its physical assets to an appropriate organisation. (The on-line assets—the projects such as Commons and the WPs—would likely survive a demise of the WMF anyway, as they'd surely be "forked" by some successor: yay for free licensing.)
In any case, the WMF already has at least once accepted a physical donation of images: the illustrations donated by Pearson Scott Foresman (16 boxes). I suggest you contact the WMF office directly about this. Lupo 06:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

August 13

Possible autopublicity

Is this possibly a set of autopublicity images: [21] ? --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Four copies of the same paintings

Hello, While uploading a photo of a unknown painting, I found that this painting had already 3 copies on Commons, but not linked to each other, with different names, different descriptions in different languages, different sizes and ratio, and different colors. :( Yann (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  • My picture

    My picture

This leads me to several questions:

  1. What is the proper complete name of this painting?
  2. What is the good ratio?
  3. What are the good colors?
  4. If I believe the information in the descriptions, the painting I took is a reproduction. Is it worth making a good picture of it? With what information? Yann (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The Prado museum has a page about this painting. According to that page:
  1. The correct name is La Inmaculada Concepción de los Venerables o de "Soult"
  2. The dimensions are 274x127cm. I don't believe this is correct. The 172x285cm stated on the description of File:Murillo immaculate conception.jpg seems closer to the true ratio.
    This page gives a size of 274 x 190 cm. Yann (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. Clicking on the magnifying glass gives a good photo of the painting. File:Murillo immaculate conception.jpg has the closest colours.
    Well, this image comes from the museum, that's why the colors are the same. Yann (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  4. Yours is definitely not the same painting. For example, it is missing an angel at the very top of the painting, towards the centre. Pruneautalk 20:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Often copies of old paintings are as notable in their own right as the original, depending on the artist and their age. Try to document the source carefully, and maybe someone can later determine if it's a notable copy. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Prototype for alternative to Special:NewFiles (take 2)

Have done some more work on it, listing current features below:

Specifier
  • Maximum file size (can be unspecified)
  • Minimum file size (can be unspecified)
  • Maximum x resolution (can be unspecified)
  • Minimum x resolution (can be unspecified)
  • Maximum y resolution (can be unspecified)
  • Minimum y resolution (can be unspecified)
  • Which wiki
  • What file types (multiselect)
  • How many to return
Returns
  • User name
  • Total uploads for user
  • First upload date
  • Image name
  • Image date
  • Image size
  • Image resolution
  • Image (yea!!)
  • Categories

Example: http://toolserver.org/~azatoth/latest_files/?maxsize=400+KiB&maxresx=1024&maxresy=1000&mime%5B%5D=jpeg&minsize=30+KiB&minresx=100&minresy=100&count=200&domain=commons.wikimedia.org

The 200 latest jpegs above 30 KiB and below 400 KiB, with an resolution between 100x100 and 1024x1000 and from commons

Hope this is sufficient for you folks (at the moment toolserver is a bit kinky, so commons data inst updated). →AzaToth 22:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretty. Do you think you can compress some of the extra spacing? Just a tad? And maybe use less absolute length units? I made my browser window 1280x960px (WebDeveloper extension) and got a horizontal scrollbar. Rocket000 (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone think it would be fair to included whether the user had ever been banned for copyvios? It makes them appear guilty until proven innocent from then on, so might be considered unfair. Yet it would reduce their belief that they might be able to successfully upload the same image again when nobodies watching. It looks good.Having the first upload date helps to identifies the newbies that might need help in understanding the licences.--P.g.champion (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's unfair to treat users with a track record of violating copyright and ignoring warnings (and you don't get blocked unless you do both) with a heightened degree of watchfulness. It might be nice if such a flag could be dropped after a certain number of OK uploads over a certain time. It would also be useful to highlight uploads using the same name as a previously deleted file. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
That would require an rather subjective algoritm. →AzaToth 15:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. I'm thinking something like "if the block expired less than one month ago or problem notifications have been posted on their user talk page for images uploaded in the last month, raise a flag." —LX (talk, contribs) 18:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I meant that specify an month is rather subjective. Also the entity "problem notifications" are rather wiki-specific, and thus would need some major engineering to make generic. →AzaToth 19:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I am thinking, that: if a 'block flag' could be indicated on just one Wiki, it would serve to demonstrate how useful this flag can be. If it is proven to be useful (as I think it will be) then it will help to focus the attention of other software geeks to look at how the other wiki's can be brought into line. The beta version does not have to be perfect, (and it is all ready better than what we had). Do please, continue to inform us as to what the problems are, as most of us are naïve to the workings of WC but we would like to learn more.--P.g.champion (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The visual design might need someone good in web design :) →AzaToth 15:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you have done an excellent job AzaToth. I am using it in preference to the original ‘latest files.’ I wonder if there is any way we can get this added to the left hand side ‘Participate’ menu, just below the existing ‘latest files’ - as a beta option. This would bring it to the attention of a wider number of users. Some maybe able to help with the more difficult to do improvements. Does anyone else think it is ready for wider adoption? Would it create a heavy load on the servers if it was used as it is by a large number of users?--P.g.champion (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Cool! Maybe you could try to figure out the real uploader for bot uploads (some ways to do this for the bots commonly used here at the Commons can be found in MediaWiki:Notifier.js, function get_user_from_json). Links to the talk and upload log pages of the so-determined uploader might be useful, too. Maybe take a look at MediaWiki:Gadget-GalleryDetails.js to see if there's other stuff that might be useful to include. Lupo 11:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

One problem is that uploaded bots are pretty much commons specific, and thus the app isn't commons specific, it would require some strange special rules. →AzaToth 22:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

August 9

Archaeological records

Are images depicting the process of archaeological digs, such as drawings of trench grids, eligible for copyright?

Peter Isotalo 09:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
What about re-making them similar to some of our historical maps (compare with File:Monte Alban archaeological site.png)? I was asking because I thought they could fall under roughly the same category as vowel charts (for example File:California English vowel chart.svg), ie as information rather than original artworks.
Peter Isotalo 11:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
If one draws upon just one source for anything like this, then it will almost certainly be a copyvio. However, much archaeology is financed out of the public purse ( i.e. the tax payer). In some countries this information may be public domain or have a sorter than normal copyright period. The Monte Alban map may -for all I know- be a technical copyvio or it may not.--P.g.champion (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, even if all sounds very iffy. How about archaeological drawings of designs on wooden objects, such as carvings? Can these be copied and used here if they are illustrated with both drawings and photographs?
Peter Isotalo 15:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
We have in the past accepted photos of cave paintings without the permission of the photographer. This was somewhat contentious, but it's believed to fall under our PD-Art policy. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

August 10

Need help uploading image

Some of the administrators (or just one) have run wild rather than attempting to help other users. I basically want to avoid them and get my file uploaded as quickly as possible. My image is derived from eight separate files on Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. The original images are available here: [22], as part of the picture box to the right of the page. The image I created is here: [23]. I have cropped the images and combined them into one. I did not want to do so, because it prohibits others from easily changing those represented, but an administrator here gave me little choice. I have tried using the upload feature "a derivative work of a file from Commons," but it continues to give me just my IP address rather than showing my username, even though I am signed in. Some of the original images do not have necessary tags, and often this site does not accept the same tags even. Cyborg Ninja (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  1. The Imageshack image you link is very low-resolution. Is that your intent?
  2. I'm not sure at all what you mean by "tags". Do you mean templates? Categories?
  3. For at least one of the images you've used (File:JuditPolgar85.jpg), I don't see the basis to say that it is appropriately licensed. The stated source ("Template:RCF") seems meaningless. The author is given as "RCF, 1999", which is also quite unclear. There doesn't seem to be any statement about licensing on the page. The image is described as "resized for Ashkenazi Jews", but it doesn't say resized from what appropriately licensed image.
If you can clarify this, great, and if not, perhaps someone can work with you to sort this out. But I hesitate to upload your image from Imageshack while this is not sorted out, especially while at least one licensing issue appears not to be sorted out. - Jmabel ! talk 06:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Jmabel, I'm not sure why you didn't click on the links to the pictures from the sandbox article - instead you went through the history and clicked on an older version of it. I was talking about the licenses and procedure for the original images, which are the ones currently on my sandbox page. Clearly, the image I created is to be used for the picture box of the Ashkenazim article. There are several similar images on Wikipedia.
The other images were wrongfully removed literally a few minutes after uploading them; I remember the Albert Einstein one having the exact same license information and relevant infobox as the original image. But I just want to upload my image without any of the red tape. Cyborg Ninja (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm kind of curious why, after all the other images were obviously deleted, you'd pick the one that wasn't and say: "Here, why isn't the tag for this fixed?" But nevermind that. I would like to have help in uploading this image. That's pretty clear considering the title of this section. It's strange how I haven't received any help so far when the issue seems relatively easy for those who have been here for a long time. Cyborg Ninja (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure I understand everything you're trying to do, but I'll still give a shot at an explanation. The issue with File:JuditPolgar85.jpg is that there is no indication as to why it is available under a free licence. When you upload your image, you will need to provide a source for each image you have used. If you are looking for free images of Judit Polgár, we have a few in Category:Judit_Polgár. Right now, if you were to upload your image, it would be deleted because of the unclear status of File:JuditPolgar85.jpg. Pruneautalk 16:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Cycling teams' jerseys drawing

Hello, I'm thinking about starting to draw with Gimp or Inkscape the jerseys of a bunch of cycling teams, but I wonder where the limits of copyright and trademarks are. I assume that logos and similar stuff has to be avoided, but what about just basic figures replacing the logos? What about text for the name of sponsors?

Following is an example:

  1. This is the jersey for the Banesto cycling team in 1994: [24]
  2. This is a drawing found in Internet with great details: [25]
  3. This is a stub drawn by myself: [26]
  4. This is the same stub by myself, without text: [27]

The best option would be a pic of the jersey or maybe a cyclist wearing it, but that's too difficult to obtain, especially in defunct teams. My understanding about the limits of drawing is the following, correct me as necessary please:

  1. Real picture, own work
  2. Real picture, others work
  3. Drawing like number 2, own work
  4. Drawing like number 3, own work I doubt
    1. If the answer is yes, can it be the font the same or similar to the original, or must be a neutral one?
  5. Drawing like number 4, own work

Thanks! Gothmog (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't really help you in detail, but two things I can say are: 1) Trademark issues do not constrain whether images can be hosted on Wikimedia Commons (they only constrain how people can legitimately make use of images with trademarks taken from Commons). 2) The soccer people have confronted somewhat similar issues, and came up with the solution (for their needs) of "fake flags" (see Template:Fake flag, Category:Fake flags). AnonMoos (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Also, clothing as it is actually being worn by a person is generally considered functional or "utilitarian" under U.S. copyright law, so that a photograph of clothing being worn usually does not raise copyright issues under U.S. law... AnonMoos (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly the same topic, but what I get from that case is that I can achieve this task if I don't put recognizable logos or copyrighted images. Also in soccer category, the equipment often is drawn in the articles through CSS. In the other hand, I don't think I understand your 1st statement about trademarks. Everything uploaded to Commons must satisfy the freedom to distribute, modify and use, right? So, by definition, it can't be any constrain. Although maybe I'm wrong about that. Regards, and thanks for the answer! 84.123.220.102 14:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Forgot to login, sorry. Gothmog (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Everything uploaded to Commons must be sufficiently free with respect to copyright, but trademark (and also certain trademark-like restrictions, see Template:Insignia) is a completely separate thing from copyright. That's why we have ca. 1900 Coca-Cola and NY Yankees logos... AnonMoos (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks again for the clarification. Gothmog (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki link sorting order

Is there any (written down) policy or recommendation on Commons about the interwiki link sorting order? At the moment some of the categories and galleries have them are sorted by the ISO 639 language code (e.g. de(Deutch) – en(English) – et(Eesti) – fi(Suomi) – fr(Français) – sv(Svenska)), and some of them by the native language name (the same way as on the English Wikipedia; e.g. Deutch(de) – Eesti(et) – English(en) – Français(fr) – Suomi(fi) – Svenska(sv)). The Interwiki sorting order page on Meta says that Commons sorts them by the language code but is that a policy on Commons, or is that just the default value for bots? If there is no policy, I think we should have one, and I vote for the English Wikipedia way. The same policy could also be applied to image/gallery/category descriptions and links to template translations. (The latter was briefly discussed in July.) --Apalsola t • c 22:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is we can't get enough people to comment all at once in the same place. If you look above, you'll see I'm also trying to figure out the consensus. Everyone has an opinion on this matter. I know this because I run into it all the time. Yet when someone tries to establish a formal policy, only a few comment. I don't know. Rocket000 (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice you had already started the discussion on this. So, I think we should just forget this discussion (that I started) and comment on the one you started. --Apalsola t • c 08:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I overlook messages on the VP all the time. :) Rocket000 (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

August 14

Changing thumbnails for videos

Hi everyone. Please take a look at File:Wikilovesart_tropenmuseum_interview.ogv, which is an interview a taped with Susanne Ton from the Tropenmuseum for the Dutch Wiki loves art project. As you can see, the thumbnail for the video is taken at a rather unfortunate moment. I'm wondering: how can i change this thumbnail to something nicer? The original thumbnail (a JPEG file) seems to be located here, but afaik there's no way to change that. Suggestions anyone? Husky (talk to me) 12:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

For use in articles, you can use the "thumbtime" parameter to a normal File link to pick the thumbnail (e.g. [[File:Wikilovesart_tropenmuseum_interview.ogv|thumb|thumbtime=50|description]]. I'm not sure what can be done about the image page itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's currently any way to set the "thumbtime" value for the image page itself (though I could well be mistaken). It would be nice to have such a feature, perhaps using a special keyword on the image page such as {{FILEDEFAULTS:thumbtime=50}}. (We could use it to set defaults for a bunch of other parameters as well.) While waiting for someone to code this feature, though, a possible workaround in this case could be to crop, say, a second off the beginning of the video (which just shows a still image anyway) so that the thumbnail (which is by default taken from the middle of the video) will show a less inopportune frame. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

August 15

Seeking opinions on Afghan images again

I found a document that contained several dozen pictures from the Afghan elections in 2005. The pictures were taken in Afghanistan, a country with no copyright protection. It seemed the pictures were being published without credit. But on the last page of that document the photographers are credited -- people with European names, who seem to believe that their images were protected by ordinary copyright.

Here is the document: http://www.jemb.org/pdf/catalogue2.pdf

I am considering requesting deletion -- as a courtesy, and to save hassles. I welcome opinions.

I assumed the wikimedia foundations lawyer was an intellectual property lawyer. But I have been informed that his specialty lies elsewhere. I had been hoping that the wikimedia foundation could get the opinion of a real specialist in international property law to weigh in on the copyright status of images made in countries with no copyright protection.

Here are the images:

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Flower identification

Any help would be welcome! Thanks in advance. --Eusebius (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the fruit of a Pulsatilla alpina. --Eusebius (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio?

I hate copyright paranoia but File:New NBC film ratings.jpg which I came across today is too obvious to ignore. It's a picture of all NBC film rating labels, has absolutely no description, and the "License" section actually claims: "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses: [GFD, CC-BY-SA 3.0]". Since the copyright holder is presumably NBC, this seems hard to believe. -- JovanCormac 15:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I filed a deletion request. However, this image is possibly {{PD-ineligible}}; in this case it could be kept with a change in license tagging. Sv1xv (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

credit

Is it possible to require people to credit me as "Rastaman3000" rather than using my real name (which I haven't revealed here) when using my images? (CC-by-sa-3.0)? Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello,
If you didn't give your real name for a credit people need to credit you by your username when they re-use your or our content.
Some people place there real name on a image so they can get the credit on there real name, haven't you done that people will just user Rastaman3000 as credit line.
Best regards,
Huib talk 17:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, Thanks. Rastaman3000 (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not WAV? Or AIFF?

Why doesn't the commons allow files of the format .WAV? If size is the issue, then the Commons should allow small .WAV files, and later editors could convert them to .ogg. Are there patent issues with .WAV files? Creating audio files in an obscure format is unnecessarily difficult. None of the industry standard tools can produce this format. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

WAV, in its most common form, is a completely uncompressed raw format, making it impractical for online use. The Ogg container format is capable of encapsulating losslessly compressed formats such as FLAC, which is approved here. This is similar to how BMP is not approved while PNG is. However, TIFF, while strongly discouraged, is accepted, so I guess it's not entirely out of the question. I'm not sure what you mean by "industry standard tools," but there are plenty of Free, lightweight and easy to use (drag and drop) tools for converting WAV files to Ogg-encapsulated FLAC or Vorbis audio. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
As I suggested on En, I think it would be great if the software allowed an option to automatically convert OGG-FLAC files to WAV on download, and conversely to allow uploaded WAVs to be automatically encoded and stored as OGG-FLAC. This would make things easier for our users. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if it's industry-standard enough for you, but Adobe Audition and Sound Forge both support Ogg. What program are you using? It's likely there is a plug-in or an update available. --J.smith (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, if the software you're using really doesn't support Ogg at all, you can download the free Audacity audio editing software which handles both Ogg and WAV files just fine. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding translations and interwiki links to category does not work

I tried to add to Category:Heracleum sphondylium translations with the Template:VN and to add interwiki links as [[de:Wiesen-Bärenklau]]. In the preview I see nothing of what I have added and all category links have gone. What could be the cause? Thanks Wouter (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you give us a diff of the modifications you were trying to make? Pruneautalk 11:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean with diff. I tried to add {{VN |nl:Grote berenklauw }} (and also for other languages). I tried to add it at the top and I tried before the categories. In the preview I see only the part starting with {{Tordylieae species. All Categories mentioned are not present anymore. Wouter (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the purpose and detailed functioning of Template:VN, but from what I can see, it would not be too suitable for adding interwiki links, and you didn't attempt to do so on Category:Heracleum sphondylium. The way to add interwiki links is to add interwiki links, the way I just did... AnonMoos (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Template:VN is used for adding universal scientific names, not for translations or interwiki pages. --Jarekt (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The correct syntax for the template is {{VN|nl=Grote berenklauw}}, with an equal sign and not a colon. /Ö 16:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

See [28]. That's how you do both. Interwiki links and vernacular names. Rocket000 (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the cause of the problem. I had stored an example of the VN template (with the right syntax) as a piece of flat text in order to use it when I wanted it by copy/paste. That text is apparently not identical to the original and causes the problem. Now I use a link to a page so I know where to get the text to be copied/paste and adapt it. Wouter (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

SVGs and PNGs -- optional upload field proposal

When uploading a non-vector graphic -- Pupillarydistance.png, derived from Pupillarydistance.svg, I decided to upload both separately, and then use the png version in the article (because of scaling, clipping and font display issues encountered using Google Chrome). In addition to this, I happen to have a proprietary-formatted source file (an Adobe Illustrator .ai) that might be useful to another artist trying to later fix my work.

Just brainstorming!

I'm wondering (1) what is the preferred way of indicating source imagery in the case of my PNG upload, (2) is my SVG just being improperly created by Adobe Illustrator or is this a browser SVG display or Mediawiki SVG-->PNG issue, and (3) would having an optional upload field to include source materials (e.g., SVGs, early iterations and mockups, proprietary format source files, screencasts of the creation process) as fields alongside uploads in the mediawiki and wikimedia commons be worth it?

--Bcjordan (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: just found the template Template:Vector_version_available, which answers question (1)! --68.199.228.200 09:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

#2: It's probably an issue with MediaWiki's conversion. I haven't used Illustrator for a long time, but I know it can create some additional problems (up to CS2 at least). I would always save as "plain SVG" if you can regardless of the software you use. Most up-to-date browsers (Chrome/Firefox/Safari/Opera) handle SVGs better than MediaWiki (and even better than some vector editing software).
#3: We love SVGs, so always upload that if that's the source. :) As for "early iterations and mockups", you can upload those before uploading the finial version keeping the same name. That way they'll show up in the file's history. For example, look at the section called "File history" on File:Glockenturm mit Glocken.png. I don't recommend doing that many steps, but a couple won't hurt if you think they would be useful. As for "proprietary format source files", I assume you mean linking to them off-site since they can't be uploaded here? Usually what people do is note somewhere that they can be contacted if someone wants the sources files. There's also that "other_versions" field in the {{Information}} template where you can always link to, well, other versions. Rocket000 (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename foto

this photo File:San Sebastiano ferla.jpg is not San Sebastiano church in Ferla but is San Antonio church how I can rename it? Rippitippi (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I tagged it for rename. --Jarekt (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

 Question How long does it take for the bot to come along and rename it? -- H005 (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Some time. See Special:Contributions/BetacommandBot or the logs history User:BetacommandBot/log. At the moment it will take much more time untill the old one is deleted. Every deletion requires administrators work, the backlog in Category:Duplicate is large, CommonsDelinker is not working with replacement, so no deletions at the moment. --Martin H. (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

how to change the source of File:Falasha makstyle.jpg?

Hello,

I am the author of this file, i took myself the pic in 2006. Since this summer somebody contest that i am the source... it says no source for the file.... how can i add the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makstyle (talk • contribs) 21:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Are you David Bicchetti? --Eusebius (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

August 16

A hundred thousand Vorbis files

I just happened to notice that the number of Ogg audio files on Commons just broke the 100,000 mark. Thought it would be an interesting milestone to announce here.

Also, extrapolating from the current figure of 4,917,734, I expect that the total number of files on Commons will break five million around the end of August. That'll be a slightly bigger milestone, I think. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Great news. Im still waiting for pending 200K images from User:FotothekBot :)) Regretably there is the other side of the coin: Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention and Category:Media needing category review. Every help would be appreciated to improve the quality of our 5 Million files --Martin H. (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Structural Classification of Proteins (SCOP) - Useless?

I've noticed that Donabel SDSU's bot (DonabelSDSU.bot (talk · contribs)) has uploaded wast amounts of protein structure images from SCOP. Impo that is beyond we need here on commons. Allow me to point this out.

  1. We have now plenty of structures that hardly differ. Have a look in e.g. this here. Who will ever be able to distinguish between PDB 112d EBI.png, PDB 113d EBI.png, PDB 113d EBI.png? Where is the difference, who can know that??? Just one file would have it done too - if that is used (I doubt that).
  2. There is not any good name or description avaible. Here we donna know anything form the name. One have to klick and search in the links provided with. In addition: Why is "Plattdüütsch" in the description, who is speaking that???
  3. Oftentimes ligands are also drawn in those structures (like here). But what is what?
  4. Do we see single domains of proteins or whole of the enzyme?
  5. If one have specific wishes to have a protein structure, one can ask here (DE), here [EN) or there [EN] or certain well-known users (Ayacop, Fvasconcellos‎). The pictures hand-made are 100x better than this brute-force bot!
  6. Ofentime wrong file format: should be png instead of jpg!
  7. Btw, in those recent discussions (Discussion in February 2008 and Discussion in February 2009) who was really someone from the "field" (biochemist, chemist, biologist etc.)? I had the impression nearly noone.

Now commons is full of pictures hardly no one will take use of them. Commons should not be a mirror of other servers! Though it would be too much affords deleting them, I would like to stop this bot! --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think images are within the scope, but I agree that more time should be spend categorizing and linking those images. 20k files in Category:Uncategorized in SCOP is not a good sign. --Jarekt (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Like with any bot, if it isn't working as it should, stop it and request the user to fix the mess and fix the bot to work correctly before using it again. Belgrano (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I can see benefit in the SCOP classification itself, it's a scheme derived by mining the literature, and you could hardly find better methods of classification. I have issues, however, with pictures missing a correct and detailed description in general, and I object against in particular automatically generated 3d views of biomolecules, because it's an art to get it right such that it illustrates a point. I agree in all points with the OP but especially with Belgrano that to fix those shortcomings, the bot has to be stopped ASAP.
After that, the first problem the bot user will have to fix is those uncategorized pics are mostly no proteins at all. That's why they couldn't be cat'ed using the SCOP scheme. They are RNA and DNA etc and those are no proteins. So, the descriptions of all those 20k pics is WRONG in as they are not proteins. A clear error that needs fixing. --Ayacop (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The subject is far too important to have a discussion without some sort of resolution. I agree that we should suspend further downloads until a number of problems are addressed:
1. Definition of what proteins are, what are the apparent problems
2. A clear document, for example in the Category:Commons category schemes, that explains the proteins category schemes and structures, what will be included, what not
3. Hopefully participation of more people specialised in the domain
4. Assessment of what we have, what should be redone/removed/restructured --Foroa (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think protein structures are a delicate work. It's not done by just adding a standard ribbon structure somewhere listed - even without the right names and descriptions. What we need is a kind of peer-review, and the result is striking: compare:
  • Peer-reviewed work of some users
  • Thermolysin Ayacop

    Thermolysin Ayacop

  • Factor XI Ayacop

    Factor XI Ayacop

  • Xanthine Oxidase updated by myself

    Xanthine Oxidase updated by myself

  • Pancreatic alpha-amylase by Fvasconcellos

    Pancreatic alpha-amylase by Fvasconcellos

  • Useless bot-pictures, no information, no use
  • maybe Bacterial luciferase alpha chain, LuxA. And the remaining part?

    maybe Bacterial luciferase alpha chain, LuxA. And the remaining part?

  • seems to be the beta, but of the same luciferase?

    seems to be the beta, but of the same luciferase?

  • again an alpha chain, some cofactors bound but who cares?

    again an alpha chain, some cofactors bound but who cares?

  • an unknown DNA

    an unknown DNA

  • guess what...

    guess what...

So, do we really need those bot-imported pictures? I say NO! --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My main concern is the ridiculously complex category structure and extremely technical names. Here's a sample of some of the categories:

Seriously? Many are empty or contain one or two images. This degree of classification seems inappropriate for Commons (even for well-known/established scientific classifications like the TOL we still don't use every rank because they're simply not useful for finding content, we're not Wikispecies or some other taxonomy database). Even if there are specialists that can actually use this category structure to begin with, there's way too much unnecessary subcategorizing. And a bot doing it all (while inserting factual errors apparently) makes it even worse. I think making broader categories and more detailed (human-made) galleries is the way to go. Rocket000 (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Upon reading the discussions on this, I can see there's a huge problem here with the files themselves. I support blocking the bot if the owner doesn't address these issues. It doesn't seem like this material is wanted. This voiced by people who are knowledgeable in this field (I, myself, am not). If no one will ever use the images, they basically fall out of the project scope. Rocket000 (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
My comments:
Who will ever be able to distinguish between PDB 112d EBI.png, PDB 113d EBI.png, PDB 113d EBI.png? Anybody who understands hardcore biochemistry. 99.99% of our users and readers and viewers won't, but if the images are useful for hardcore biochemistry articles on Wikipedia or hardcore biochemistry Wikibooks or whatever, then that's okay.
There is not any good name or description avaible. What do you mean by good? The naming is based on a fixed and technical nomenclature. I guess for most of those molecules there are no trivial names. If a biochemist knows what he's searching, he will know the technical nomenclature and find the images needed.
In addition: Why is "Plattdüütsch" in the description, who is speaking that??? Speakers of Low Saxon are speaking it. See en:Low Saxon language.
The pictures hand-made are 100x better than this brute-force bot! And 1000x harder and slower to create. Humans will need years or even decades to create the amount of images that is now available through the bot's work. And while the work of humans will inadvertedly diverge in style, the bot's work will most likely be very consistent.
Ofentime wrong file format That's not "wrong" but just suboptimal.
This degree of classification seems inappropriate for Commons Perhaps the bot will add more images and the categories will be filled with more images over time.
If there are clear factual issues with the uploads (I lack the biochemical knowledge to judge), than address these issues. But don't root against the bot on a general level. --Slomox (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry pal, but how can you say on the one hand I lack the biochemical knowledge to judge and on the other hand make statements like: If a biochemist knows what he's searching, he will know the technical nomenclature and find the images needed.? or Who will ever be able to distinguish between PDB 112d EBI.png, PDB 113d EBI.png, PDB 113d EBI.png? Anybody who understands hardcore biochemistry. WRONG! This is impossible! If a biochemist is searching for a protein in pdb, he certainly doens't know the number! They know names like alcohol dehydrogenase, citrat lyase, and so on but not X-Ray numbers of those cyrallized proteins. Especially the latter is important: only crystallized structures of proteins are in the database.
The naming is based on a fixed and technical nomenclature. I guess for most of those molecules there are no trivial names. WRONG! Every pdb-file is from a certain protein. And that protein has a certain NAME. Comparable every book has its ISBN-number (do one know the title or the number?). Or every enzyme has its EC-number. The pictures in the gallery above from users have all specific names (good). The pictures in the gallery form the bot just have the "pdb"-numbers (useless)!
Why is "Plattdüütsch" in the description, who is speaking that??? Speakers of Low Saxon are speaking it. Come on, even German and French are spoken more frequently, aren't it?
And 1000x harder and slower to create. Humans will need years or even decades to create the amount of images that is now available through the bot's work. Yeah, sure, now we have maybe 10000 bot-imported pictures and maybe 7 are used. What a spam! As pointed out earlier, if someone wants a specific picture he will ask for it!
What the bot is doing is SPAM. Maybe you have other names for it, but this bundle of pictures won't be used. I'll promise you! --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone, and sorry for joining the conversation late. Let me start by saying I'm the one who initiated this effort and is "leading" this project. Donabel is a student who worked on this project who has since moved on to bigger and better things. A few points to start:

  • As is noted in the first post above, we tried to do everything by the book in terms of getting community approval. As you can see from the previous posts, our plan was discussed and approved by the community.
  • Systematically loading using the PDB ID was intentional -- it allows a user to assume that the PDB ID will be there under a given filename without having to search.
  • These images are part of a larger effort at Wikipedia to improve the information on protein structure in the Gene Wiki. For example, [29] and [30].
  • And, since it's been brought up above, I am a biologist so I think I qualify as being "in the field".

I'm going through the discussion above to see if there are any relevant points I can answer. If you like, feel free to specifically note any points you'd like me to address. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I could say much more about what you wrote, I stick to commenting on the sentence "Why is "Plattdüütsch" in the description, who is speaking that??? Speakers of Low Saxon are speaking it." Come on, even German and French are spoken more frequently, aren't it?
How about adding German and French then, instead of complaining about the existence of Low Saxon? Please spend some seconds and think about this. I guess, that's the main problem here: constructiveness vs. unconstructiveness. Saying WRONG! Shut down the bot! is unconstructive while e.g. pointing out problems and proposing possible solutions would be constructive. --Slomox (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
As you can see from the previous posts, our plan was discussed and approved by the community. How many persones of that community are scientiests in that field and have uploaded and generated own structures and pics?
Gene Wiki? The Gene Wiki is a project that facilitates transferring information on human genes to Wikipedia article stubs with the goal of promoting collaboration and expansion of the articles. What is the connection between a gene and a solved X-ray structure of a protein? --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone is spending a lot of time uploading these images to Commons. The user doesn't do this for his own benefit, but to improve Commons. So please don't start throwing around terms like "useless". Thank you, Multichill (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a BOT, not a user! I am spending a lot of time drawing and creating new pics AND asking people personally on Flickr to change license for commons! Hence I do have the right to critize the actions of a bot!
If I had a bot that would upload pictures form google with a propre license, would that be also good work? Quantity or quality, you have to decide in which direction commons should go! --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yikrazuul it's clear that you don't understand what this images were imported for and you did not bother to read the description of it. Although YOU may think that the names are somehow wrong please understand that a person looking for these images IS likely to search for the PDB ID and NOT the full name. As some of the other commentors have more subtly noted you are NOT qualified to comment on whether they are useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.158.0.2 (talk • contribs)

And you didn't understand what I have written. The names are not wrong per se, they are not handy to use. Oftentimes we have pictures of the same protein X-rayed at different resolutions. We could start a bet: How many users knowing names like xxx ligase, yyy dehydrogenase; and how many are using pdb Nr. 2ikl, 5daa? As some of the other commentors have more subtly noted you are NOT qualified to comment on whether they are useful. It is the other way round, and I can imagine why you have written it under an IP-number, sweety! --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

SCOP/PDB Arbitrary break

Can I suggest everyone step back a moment to let the emotions die down a bit? I'm confident we'll reach a consensus here, and I'm confident we'll do it based on the facts and reason alone. So that things don't escalate any further, I suggest that we don't use any more bold or caps or exclamation points in our replies. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to address below the recurring issues that were raised above. If I've missed any critical points, please add them below. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocking a bot is not the same as blocking a user. It's a technical message to stop the current behaviour while we address the issues. Stop acting like it has feelings or something... Slomox, we all know you have a skewed view on languages and think they're all equally useful to us, but please stop with political correctness for now. It doesn't help. Multichill, we all know you're a passionate inclusionist, but I know you also know that everything that exists is useful in someway to someone somewhere, we're talking about being useful to Wikimedia projects and other educational uses (which looks like the case here but is being debated, which it's allowed to be). Just because someone spent time uploading something doesn't add any value for our purposes. Yikrazuul, don't let emotions & exclamation marks steal the attention from your otherwise valid concerns. Everyone, stop saying who is or isn't qualified to give their opinion on matters. Let your words speak for themselves. AndrewGNF, exactly. I just had to say this but I'll shut up too now. :-) Yes, everything I just said is wrong/right/hypocritical/biased/a misunderstanding/whatever; no need to tell me, let's get back to the topic. Rocket000 (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Language issues

You do realize that "skewed view" and "political correctness" are purely inflammatory, right? Wikimedia Commons is a multilingual volunteer-based project, which means people will contribute with the languages they so desire to, and your options are to add more languages, or restructure the system so multilingualism is less intrusive. Whining about one line in an image description is either incredibly silly optimization--it takes up minimal screen space, and trivial file space--or pure dickery, compounded by a request for French or German, whose speakers usually speak English, instead of Chinese, whose speakers don't, and outnumber the speakers of those languages combined five to one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that there is a consensus that more languages (incl. e.g. Chinese) would be a benefit. Therefore, we should come back to the main issue. Thanks. --Leyo 06:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You guys do realize those comments were directed at specific users. People talk differently to different people depending on how the person thinks they will interpret it. If I was speaking to you it wouldn't be worded that wayt. I wasn't whining about the language being used; I think Slomox is completely correct and of course all languages are welcome here, but that's not the point. The point was that it's not always helpful to always be such an advocate for more languages (but usually it's a good thing). Rocket000 (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
It would be kinda funny if I was whining about that though, after the years of working on making Commons more multilingual. XD Rocket000 (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to note, the additional language was added to Template:EBI License, so it can be easily be taken out, or even more languages can be added. More generally about the descriptions, yes, we could have added a bit more data but instead opted to link to the full PDB record (e.g., [31]). If the consensus was to have more data in the WC image page, then we could probably arrange that. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Question: Can the 19,724 files in Uncategorized in SCOP be categorize in a more useful way? Or is it that there's just isn't any known system for it? Rocket000 (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the generation of protein structures outpaces their categorization by SCOP. Eventually these uncategorized structures will be assigned to categories. I believe there are also efforts underway to either improve the throughput of SCOP or develop alternate methods. But right now, SCOP is the best in the field. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'm unfamiliar with SCOP. Rocket000 (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. Next to nil of the 20k files show a protein, so the description as protein is simply wrong and has to be changed. --Ayacop (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Do mean that these can be better categorized now? Or are you just talking about the descriptions? Rocket000 (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Are these images being used? Clearly this seems to be one of the recurring questions above. The effort to upload images here was in coordination with a parallel effort by ProteinBoxBot at wikipedia to add structure data to Gene Wiki pages. So as you'll note, many of these images are being used now. To answer the question What is the connection between a gene and a solved X-ray structure of a protein?, genes exist (mostly) to create proteins, and understanding the protein structure is an important part of understanding protein function, including how it's related to disease. I agree that the amount of information you'd get out of a static, auto-generated thumbnail image is less than you'd get from looking at it with specialized tools (e.g., PyMOL), but that's why we've provided the link directly to the PDB. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be a biologist who don't know RNA from protein (see above) but you're certainly not in education. If a reader reads RNA (guanine-7-) methyltransferase, also known as RNMT, is a human gene. (see the WP entry for RNMT which comes straight from your fine Gene Wiki) What will the reader think? Aha, a protein is a gene. And then he'll look at the picture. Aha, that is a gene. But that isn't even a protein, it's the ribbon model of one. Fortunately, this crap is restricted to the English language WP. --Ayacop (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You write If I've missed any critical points, please add them below. This is cheap. You didn't answer a single of those points brought up by the original poster in his first post. Just look there, I can be as cheap as you. But there's another: why do you assume it's useful to show only a small part of a protein in many of your Gene Wiki entries? People will associate what they see with what you write and think it's the whole thing. This is not educational, and it's not professional---in case you come again with the argument only experts are interested in this. That may apply to a specific Gene Wiki but does not apply to the English lang WP nor to the Commons. --Ayacop (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility Sorry everyone, I'm just not going to engage in this discussion if we can't maintain a civil tone. If you'd like me to respond to any comments directly, please phrase it in a way that encourages collaboration and not conflict. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration would be answering all raised points, for starters. --Ayacop (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
full agreement with Ayacop! Expample of that "usefull" ProteinBoxBot:
  1. Troponin C type 1: The article is a mess. What is shown? Some kind of protein. Maybe it's a domain, or a mutant, or whatever. Maybe it isn't even the geneproduct. Who know's, only the BOT. Importance of the gallery: nothing at all. Just pictures of some structures, no comments, no explanations. Maybe they show all the same protein (?). Anyway, another stub!
  2. Tropomyosin 3: same as above. Gene -> protein (?)
  3. (MY FAVOURITE): RNMT: Now an enzyme is a gene?!!! GOOD LUCK! That gives it!
The real work only humans can do, users and specialists. BOTs are only for certain purposes good, but definetly not in that field. Now I do understand why en-Wiki has so many articles and - more importantly - so many useless stubs! This is not quality, but brute force BOTting!
@AndrewGNF: I pointed out my arguments earlier, you didn't respond properly. Of course you are interested in that BOT, but then you could at least start categorizing those pictures, good luck. I am doing that only for my pics!
So as you'll note, many of these images are being used now. Yeah, as spam somewhere hidden without any description. But obviously no critism is allowded, sadly! --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not in the field (solid state physicist) but I agree with Yikrazuul that bot-generated images of structures are totally uselesss. Ok, it could illustrate an article, just for prettifying, but such images are not educationally useful /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, no proper article would just have random unexplained protein/whatever structures. If they are used in articles I'm sure they add some kinda of value (to some people at least). Either way, we don't need to make that judgement; if the image is in an article, it's in our scope. Rocket000 (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so we needn't give a correct description here on upload---the WP-user will do that for us. One learns new things every day … anyway, let's see if all those RNA/DNA pictures will be used in the Gene Wiki about proteins. --Ayacop (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Correct. Descriptions are strongly recommend, but not a requirement. We don't delete things because they have are lacking one or have a incorrect one. If it is wrong, fix it. That's how wikis work. Images and image descriptions are two separate things and can be dealt with separately.... but who said anything about descriptions? If the image is used in an article, it belongs here regardless of what we think of it's value. Who are we to say, "Sorry Wikipedia or Wikibooks or some other site, you can't use this image in an educational way because I don't think it adds any value to your project and it's description on Commons is wrong. We going to delete it on you, but thanks for using Commons!" Now maybe that's unfair since I don't know if they can be used, but that was my point; I said "if the image is in an article, it's in our scope". Rocket000 (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I can provide some more statistics next week, but there are now PDB galleries on 2852 Gene Wiki pages. My guess is that there are an average of 5-10 per gallery, so my guess on the upper limit of images being used is 28,000. (Update: There are 10735 unique PDB images linked from Gene Wiki articles. AndrewGNF (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)) We uploaded ~66,000 PDB structure thumbnails to commons. Clearly we uploaded more than will be used in the foreseeable future, and I'm certainly open to discussing how we should handle it. I rather like the principle of having it all here as a collection. An editor could then assume that an image existed given only the PDB ID if they wanted to use it. Other reasonable solutions would be to trim to human proteins only, or to trim to only the currently-used structures.
Also, adding a better description to the commons page is a good idea. How about this [32]? If there is agreement on this general format, we can do another bot run to update. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
@AndreGNF: You don't get the point, so I will explain it to you.
1) I won't add any description to those "pictures" the bot uploaded. That's you prob!
2) Your example clearly is showing us where the problem is you cannot see: The file respresents just a single domain of some protein. No one will use it in that form since it is showing us a dimer (see point 4).
3) There are now PDB galleries on 2852 Gene Wiki pages. Yes, well hidden and without ANY information. This is spam and does not neither justify the actions of the bot nor the sense of those stubs another bot created.
4) An editor could then assume that an image existed given only the PDB ID if they wanted to use it. like 3) just spam. An editor (let me guess, not you?) won't do it this way, because the pictures are crap.
Example: File "2cw6" the bot made: Wrong, HMG-CoA-lyase is NOT a hexamer. Hence I had to recreate it showing at least the monomer with the right description. So your bot-generated files ARE NOT USABLE, they implicate facts which are not given!!!
It is not only a problem of the poor "description". The data presented from those pictures are misleading and wrong! --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
First, [33]. Second, my impression is that your mind is made up, that your opinion is not going to change no matter what I say. Is that correct? AndrewGNF (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible that you block critism that you donna like to hear? Just asking, since the objective issues (e. g. example with the HMG-CoA-lyase) cannot be ignored. Hence how can we change our opinion if you don't say anything resolving specific problems of the bot(s) I discovered? Or, or can it be? It is possible that you donna have any clues about life sciences? --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
On the example of file:PDB 2cw6 EBI.png, you undoubtedly know that the structure can be downloaded here, and you probably also know that this is where we download the thumbnail image that we uploaded to WikiCommons. The primary article that describes this structure is here. I can't speak for the authors on why they depicted six chains in their PDB file, but it's clear that it was intentional. Regardless, this example I think is tangential to the discussion here. If you think the deposited file or visualization is improper, then I suggest to contact the authors and/or the PDB. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Andrew, those images look like a really useful resource! I'll try and track down the ones with mappings to RNA families and add galleries on the relevant pages. Aren't we lucky that disk space is so cheap these days?--79.155.201.42 08:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea. Let us know if you have any problems or suggestions, either here or on the Gene Wiki talk page. One thing I'll note up front is that due to a change in the EBI's image service midway through the project, some of the images are uploaded as PNG and some as JPG. We're working on standardizing on PNG, and the short term solution is to create an "index" between PDB IDs and the filename location. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Better descriptions

Yikrazuul suggested that we work on getting better descriptions on our PDB images. If we can get consensus here on what we should actually add, we'll be happy to queue up another bot run to add the relevant data. I've taken a first stab at it here. Feel free to edit or comment. (In the interest of keeping things organized, please create a new subsection if you have another specific suggestion you'd like to discuss.) Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that would help a lot. Is there any way you could possibly incorporate that stuff in {{Information}}? Or create a specialized template to replace it? For example, {{Painting}} is a specialized infobox for paintings with all the relevant fields. Rocket000 (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. I've made a first-pass at the revision here, which utilizes {{PDB Info}}. The infobox is not exactly pretty, but of course now that it's in a template, we can beautify them later if need be. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

@Yikrazuul: I just want to say that you are not the only one who disagrees with a stupid dumping of innumerable numbers of useless files, just because we have "plenty, cheap and unlimited" diskspace. Every picture should be uploaded by hand and with intelligence.--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

With a few nuances (I personnaly use a bot whenever I upload pictures from Flickr, so the problem is not really if a bot was used or not, but whether the people behind the bot are willing and able to give convincing explanations on the usefulness of the pictures), I would like to say more or less the same as Wickey-nl. I criticized Commons:Bundesarchiv in the past for dumping hundreds of usefulness-doubtful pictures into Category:Rheinbefliegung_1953 (including one hundred into Category:Aerial photographs of France). Teofilo (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

See also Commons:Village pump/Archive/2009Aug#Massive batch job. Teofilo (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

SVG to PNG conversion failures...

Hello all, I have been creating road maps for the US Road Wikiproject for a long time now, and have noticed that, somewhat recently, the text has started converting improperly when viewed as a converted PNG. The problem lies in the text, in that it is displaying in the incorrect position and the individual letters are misaligned. I have followed the steps posted in the SVG creation page, but the problem is still showing up. I have had a few people taking stabs at it, and have been told that there is likely an underlying problem on the underlying Wikipedia conversion program. I direct your attention to the following discussions: NJ 12 map section, Section on NJ 79 mpa.svg, MTF and SVG's section, and The text issue. Any help would be greaty appreciated! 25or6to4 (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not up on the various technical details, but there seem to be various quirks and peculiarities which can affect SVG font rendering on Wikimedia, and the quick-and-dirty solution is to convert text to vector paths. I had to do that with the ultra-simplistic and tiny SVG file Image:Simple inverse relationship chart.svg in order to get the text to display legibly at thumbnail size... AnonMoos (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I will only do that as a last resort, as it makes files significantly larger, and tougher to edit if changes need to be made. Fixing the Wiki problem would fix all the images I (and others) have already posted, while me converting the images would probably take a year and possibly lower their usefulness... 25or6to4 (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Template for Picture Sets

After my post regarding a better management of picture sets was largely ignored, I went ahead and created a template for managing picture sets, {{PictureSet}}. To demonstrate it, I have added it to my picture set "Platonic Solids Stereo Animations" (see File:Platonic Solids Stereo 1 - Tetrahedron.gif).

This markup is added to the description page of every picture in the set:

{{PictureSet
|Set name
|File:Picture1|Picture1 description
|File:Picture2|Picture2 description
|...
}}

With Picture1, Picture2,... being the pictures in the set. There is no need to indicate which picture is the one the template is being put on, the template will recognize that. Thus identical markup is added to all description pages, making set indexing a copy-and-paste job.

Right now, the template supports up to 10 pictures in a set, but that can easily be extended. Comments are welcome. -- JovanCormac 17:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: The template now has a slightly improved layout and supports sets of up to 30 pictures. -- JovanCormac 18:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
For me, the file pages are not the right place to put sets. I find it more natural to have dedicated pages, showing galleries of images which belong together, and then categorize that to relevant categories. We also have in COM:VI the concept of Valued image sets, where a specialized template, {{VIS-gallery}} is used to display the images in their VI review size and in a contaxt where there is linbked to relevant pages, see, e.g., Valued image set: Oviposition among ichneumon wasps for an example. A link can then be made from the each file page to this gallery. Thereby a lot of redundant Copy&Past work is avoided as well. I could envision a more sophisticated approach where such a specialized gallery, when transcluded onto the file pages, gave another (with smaller images) view of the gallery meant for navigation. This could be controlled by switching between a full page and thumbnail version of the same template using <noinclude></noinclude> and <includeonly></includeonly> sections in the centralized gallery page, a trick which is also used, in Valued image candidates, see e.g. {{VIC-nom-preload}}. In that manner copy&paste could be avoided (of course you would still have to copy&paste a page transclusion, but the latter approach is maintainable. --Slaunger (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I often run into a problem of picture sets and how to include them in the individual picture description, and I adopted a solution I noticed other people used of adding a <gallery></gallery> tags to other_versions field of the information table. That approach seems to work quite well. See for example File:Joshua Tree - Jerry Brown 41.jpg or File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-131-0598-29, Warschau, Postamt, wartende Zivilisten.jpg. --Jarekt (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It's true that it works, but it's a workaround at best, and a hack at worst - after all, the "Other versions" section is meant for versions of the same image, not images that are somehow associated with it. -- JovanCormac 20:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Update 2: The template has been improved further, and been tested in many environments, and I now consider it stable. It has been added to File:Ornamental Alphabet - 16th Century.svg as well. -- JovanCormac 20:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
As for me, the pics are about twice the size of the large frame, and overlay other templates (Information or so). Pics frames also hide completely the text « This picture is part of the picture set », and are sometimes mis-aligned.
It is nice, though. Can be useful in some cases. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You probably looked at it while I was editing the template. Please try looking at it again now the template is finished. I tested it on WinXP & Vista with Firefox 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5, IE 6 and 8 as well as Opera 9.64 - it looks the same in all environments. -- JovanCormac 21:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you famniliar with Valued image sets? I think picture sets should be placed on separate pages, and either referred from or included by transclusion in file pages to avaoid redundant copy&paste. If done right, a transcluded version of a gallery page can render differently than the page itself. We use that in COM:VIC to have different image sizes in the VIC overview and on the candidate pages, see {{VIC-nom-preload}} for how this is done by switching between parsing the same parameters to two different templates depending on whether a page is transcluded or not. --Slaunger (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The separate pages for sets are useful, but I still think that the fact that an image is part of a set should be visible from the description page, and as I mentioned IMO the use of the "other versions" section is a hack rather than a solution. -- JovanCormac 11:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Where did other_versions come in, in what I described? I agree this field is not useful for that purpose. In my early days here I did use that field that way, but I have abandoned that use, as it is impossible to maintain, when you copy-paste it around on many file pages. --Slaunger (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Nowhere, of course. But you described only how separate set pages can be used to bundle picture sets together, which still leaves the question how one navigates the set from the description page. -- JovanCormac 14:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, You would do that explicitly by transcluding the set page onto each file page. Using includeonly you could switch between which template is used for rendering the set when transcluded on file pages (a navigation style rendering template), and which one is used on the set page (gallery like rendering), e.g., the set page could look something like this (cf. {{VIC-thumb}} vs. {{VIC}} or {{VISC-thumb}} vs. {{VISC}} as examples of the use of this "trick")
<includeonly>{{PictureSetNav</includeonly><noinclude>{{PictureSet</noinclude>
|Set name
|File:Picture1|Picture1 description
|File:Picture2|Picture2 description
}}
This looks a bit quirky, but it works. If you are really smart, all the ugly includeonly/noinclude tags can probably be embedded in yet another template, by breaking the tags up with other includeonly/noinclude tags. That is a little bit tricky though.--Slaunger (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Update 3: I now discovered that the template is not rendered correctly by Safari and Firefox <=1.5. While the template is fully CSS2 compliant, those browsers are sadly not. I have pulled the template from all pictures and reverted it to experimental stage. -- JovanCormac 13:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
What about just creating a other versions template when you need one? Rocket000 (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Loops in categorisation of rivers

There are some loops in geological categorisation of rivers: f.i. Category:Loire River has as parent categories several departments; the same departments arise again as side-categories in the Categories Loire river by department. For Category:Seine River it is even worse as there are not yet made Seine by department categories. This shows up as nuisance in catscans of french departments, see f.i. [[34]] (catscan Ardèche) ou [[35]] (catscan Aube). How to solve this? Suppress at Category:Loire River the parent department cats? Reorganise the Seine category? Or just accept those loops ? --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please could you detail a loop, I don't understand... For me, the criticable thing is that in Category:Rivers of Cher, Category:Loire River in Cher should be in Category:Loire River, shouldn't it ? (not parallel; and for all departments). I mean: Category:Loire River shouldn't appear at all in Category:Rivers of Cher, but only Category:Loire River in Cher. Then, yes, suppressing at Category:Loire River the parent department cats should be the solution. Jack ma (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
A loop is, for example where A is categorised in B, which is categorised in C, which is in turn categorised in A. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
In this case, there is no loop in the strict sense, but I agree that the situation is somewhat problematic. Consider the following chain of subcategories: Ardèche → Geography of Ardèche → Rivers of Ardèche → Loire River → Loire River by departement → e.g. Loire River in Ardèche. So basically everything along the Loire River ends up in a subcategory of Category:Ardèche, even though only a small fraction of those things are actually in Ardèche.
I think Jack ma's suggestion is the correct one: Category:Rivers of Ardèche should contain only Category:Loire River in Ardèche, not the whole Category:Loire River. For the Loire, this is an easy fix, since those categories already exist. But for the Seine, there currently exists no Seine River in Côte-d'Or or any other such subcategories, except for the solitary Category:Seine River in Paris. I think the only thing to do is to create all those departmental subcategories, and stick a {{CatDiffuse}} tag on the main Category:Seine River. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The loop is here: Rivers of Ardèche → Loire River → Loire River by departement → Loire River in Ardèche → Rivers of Ardèche.
I was about to make some cleaning, when I had a look at Charente River. We cannot delete the links such as Charente River → Rivers of Charente-Maritime (there is no loop here). Also, if we delete all the departemental links in Loire River, it remains no parent category (if we add Category:Rivers of France, the problem will be the same with a river in two countries)... Or, as Ilmari says, systematically create new departemental categories for any other river (Seine River, Charente River, which would be a bit heavy I think. Not that easy. I think a good (intermediary) solution will be this one: where there is a loop (as soon as a category "River rrr in department xxx" exists), delete the departemental links (e.g. all categories of Loire River, just adding Category:Basins by river and Category:Basins of France; for the joke, this latter category is presently only filled with one: Bassin d'Arcachon - not really a hydrological basin). Jack ma (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
When using CatScan, this seems to be a frequent problem (not just for this rivers). Probably it can't be avoided completely. -- User:Docu at 21:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedFor Loire River, I deleted departemental parent categories, because all 11 Loire by departement xxx exist. Jack ma (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Preselect small sets of files needing categorie review

Great news too: you may preselect from the long long series of "media needing categories" a small set of items you are able to classify: thas is by making a crosscatscan (=intersection) of some cat from the series of media needing categories .... and a chosen cat and put that at favorites in youy computer. Exemples:

  • Category:Media needing categories in use at fr:wikipedia and Categorie: Paris see [36]
  • or Media needing ...pt:wikipedia x São Paulo, see [37]
  • or a shorter list: Media needing ...fr:wikipedia x Nord, see [38] . It is a very powerfull tool, avoiding time-consuming searches in the long lists. Try a few. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
FYI: "A database error has occurred Query: SELECT page_id, page_namespace, page_title, page_restrictions"... (snip} "Function: getSubcategories Error: 1356 View 'commonswiki_p.page' references invalid table(s) or column(s) or function(s) or definer/invoker of view lack rights to use them (sql-s2)". J.smith (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
We have to try later. On the catscanpage is also the message: "The database for Commons was moved to a different cluster of servers and we lost our copy in the process. Should be fixed soon, bare with us". --Havang(nl) (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The databases are borked again, see this message Multichill (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, bummer. --J.smith (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

how to edit a page, not my own?

I'm a new user. How do I edit a page? This is the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Vieira My client (Ramana) has requested this to be updated but I'm a little lost. A few days ago I logged in to Wikipedia and edited the copy, everything was great. The next day the page went back to the old copy. How do I make changes or ask for permission to make the changes? Thanks for any help. (Ramanavieira2 (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC))

First, this is not Wikipedia itself, but a special files area slightly detached from Wikipedia. You should ask on Wikipedia, at en:Talk:Ramana Vieira and/or a general help area there. To judge by the history listing, some of your Youtube links were found to be in automatic prima facie violation of Wikipedia policies... AnonMoos (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Your affiliation with Ramana Vieira (your client) creates a conflict of interest, though, which strongly suggests you shouldn't edit the page yourself but discuss new information on the talk page with other editors instead. -- JovanCormac 10:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

August 17

Copyright on American Journal of Public Health

How long we need to wait before using an article from the American Journal of Public Health? E.g. Primary Atypical Pneumonia.
70 years after the death of the author? Or can we say, in this case, it is an article of the American army, so it is from the American government and therefore in the Public Domain?--Wickey-nl (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Was the article written by an officer or employee of the U.S. federal government in the course of their official duties? If so, AIUI it should qualify as {{PD-USGov}} — if not, it's likely to be copyrighted. See w:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government for details. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Title of gallery disputed

Discussion originally started at User talk:Kwj2772

I and User:Caspian blue are having a dispute concerning title of gallery covering Korean places and food.

Caspian blue moved 대구 to Daegu, 김치 to Kimchi. I reverted his moves. After that, he raised a problem (this was ok) with irrelevant basis of arguments. I exploded because of irrelevance logic. It sounded like harrasment. He provided an example in cat-space. Accessibility is mentioned in summary of moves, but there are a lot of redirects, accessibility can be gained via those redirects. Futhermore, Romanization does not express the sound accurately. There is 3 standards to romanize hangul, Revised-Romanization, McCune-Reischauer, Yale-Romanization. I think compulsory-romanization would make serious problems.

I has known places, specialty food are named in native language, native script per COM:LP as a custom. Caspian blue are not following this because this is just a proposal, not a guideline.

I am asking to confirm that COM:LP is Commons traditional custom, but it is not yet a guideline. I hope community will make right decision. Thank you. Kwj2772 (msg) 08:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For galleries we use the native name, so that would probably be 대구. For categories we use the English name, so that would probably be Category:Daegu. Multichill (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, you could say that part of COM:LP is officially a guideline. Rocket000 (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Commons is multilingual, so IMHO there's no problem keeping them at the Korean titles. However, redirects from the English name should exist so that people without Korean characters on their keyboard can easily access the gallery. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I was saying it's not just ok, but actually a guideline to have it in the native name. Rocket000 (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. English redirects is being kept, and will be kept. Caspian blue just ignoring Korean title. In contrary, he approves Japanese title. It seemed strange. Kwj2772 (msg) 00:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

To Kwj2772

Kwj2772, do not lie about my stance and do not excuse your incivility from the start. I've moderately asked you for a rightful place for discussion but you from the start attacked me and insulted me. I had to put up with your enough incivility in Korean. You intentionally wrote your argument in Korean regardless of my repeated request so that none except Korean readers can see your rudeness and fallacies. The proposed guideline is nowhere near to "consensus, nor policy. Japanese titles that you brought for your insistence are for Japanese subjects, not Korean subjects and that is not a rightful argument. You have failed to show me your assertion is a consensus built by the community nor even narrowly by Korean editors. I've asked you to show me either a right place for discussion on the issue or show "policy" that justify your edits. You've failed to do so instead of resorting to incivility. Besides, people here are saying that your unilateral decision is not based on "consensus" not "guideline". Caspian blue 11:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, you have not notified me of this discussion as opposed to the common courtesy. Since you're resorting to "convention" that neither do evidence of "consensus" nor "guideline" exist, don't you think you're breaking your own word with this behavior? I've asked you several times to direct me a rightful place for discussion, but it is obvious that you've intentionally ignored my request. --Caspian blue 11:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I think your uncivil attitude and unilateral decision making that can be shown your move of the galleries, Buan and Jinhae are inappropriate as admin, so I've brought the issue to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Kwj2772 - Incivility, POV pushing and lack of communication because your behaviors are beyond "content disputes". --Caspian blue 13:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Multimedia Usability Project Meeting October 2009 : call for comments

See m:Multimedia Usability Project Meeting October 2009. Comments are made on the related talk page. Teofilo (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Busy bots

In the first half of August bots were busy converting section headers to international versions, migrating licences, adjusting date formats and otherwise doing things every day to as many as a hundred of my four thousand (sigh) watched items. Sometimes the same picture was bot-handled twice or thrice in a week. In the past couple days my watchlist has not shown more of this kind of trafic. Have the bots gone to sleep? Will they awaken soon? Jim.henderson (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There is only so many things bots can try to fix:
  1. header localization
  2. conversion of phrase "Own work", and hundreds of variants used by many languages, to localized {{Own}}. My bot [[user:JarektBot] is working for a while converting different Polish versions (+ headers).
  3. conversion of many different date formats to ISO YYYY-MM-DD format
after those corrections are done, bots will move to other files. So in order to see if bots will be back, go and check a few files to see if those 3 areas were already changed. If they are than I do not see much bot activities for your files in the near future (until new improvements are needed). Also most of the bots should have a bot flag and can be excluded from your watch list. --Jarekt (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
And don't forget about the big license migration. Multichill (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
But the question "Have the bots gone to sleep?" still remains. Looking at the last 500 bot-changes, there were neither any "Changes to allow localization: own work" nor any "Changing image for the big license migration" among the edit summaries. As those two were frequent also in my wathch list as well, it seems like the anser may well be "yes". Haros (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Commons database at the toolserver is down so it's impossible to do the queries needed for the big license migration. Multichill (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like it, although yesterday Slobot was doing some date localization. I'm sure they start back up soon (the non-toolserver ones anyway). I really wish they would start combining edits more. Rocket000 (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Decidedly. When a bot does one of these three or four frequent actions to a file, it should do all or most of them, or notify the other bots so all the actions get done minutes apart instead of days or weeks. Much more pleasant to see one fat report today, than a thin report this week, then one next week and another next month. As it happens, these past few days of sleepy bots have made it easier for me to do some uploading and cat shuffling. I hope we can be kept informed here in Pump or another page we can watchlist. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried hiding bot edits in your watchlist? All these bots should be flagged. Or do you not like to hide any edits (I personally don't unless I get flooded and basically have to). Rocket000 (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Trouble with hiding bot edits is that I trust some bots, others I check :-). What I would really like is to see edits in different name spaces listed seperately (ie File: and Commons: etc monitoring in different lists, or able to be switched on/off). --Tony Wills (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Both the latest changes and the watchlist special pages can be filtered according to namespace. Haros (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for pointing that out, its nice to have one's wishes met :-) (I wonder how many years that has been there and I've never noticed, I'm sure it didn't use to be there ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Same here: I want to see what the bots are doing, but sometimes my watchlist can only contain the last 6 hours. --Foroa (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

August 18

Oh dear, typo!

On clicking to see a user's gallery, got the following error message "The database for Commons was moved to a different cluster of servers and we lost our copy in the process. Should be fixed soon, bare with us."

That should of course read "bear with us" ;-) can someone correct it?! - MPF (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty temporary message, so it might not be considered worth the bother... AnonMoos (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll change it to "beer with us". -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 12:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll drink to that (and to getting the database up and running again soon). :) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Good idea! Or "panda with us". Teofilo (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Superseded Images in Categories

Superseded images should be removed from their catagories because this way you end up with tons of the same image in one single catagory. When browsing through all kinds of catagories there are tons of duplicate/superseded images. My idea is to remove the superseded images from their catagories so only the final/defenitive ones remain. It becomes confusing with all these superseded ones. It would be better to have one catagory especially for superseded images. Brandy64 (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Like Category:Superseded images ? -- Klaus with K (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
And ending somewhere lost in one super category ? This sounds not a good idea. Maybe, sorting them with a - or ~ as pipe sort prefix, so they appear always at the end of the category. --Foroa (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
No, no, no, superseded is POV. These images shouldn't be hidden somewhere. Next thing you know people start deleting these images. Multichill (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Multichill. Leave them in categories but delete from galleries and mark as superseded. --Jarekt (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Superseded images should be still categorised properly. Adambro (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Superseded images must remain categorised, but could conceivably be moved to a subcategory with a postfix "(Superseded)". That way they would remain available, without creating noise. Haros (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This is why we have galleries: Put all the best images into a gallery so they can be easily found. A category is the hold-all and definitely should contain everything, old versions, edited versions, uncropped versions, superceded versions, slightly different versions from different sources. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

August 19

Language order

We never really established what interwiki/translation link order to use. For the most part, we alphabetize by language code. The main reason being it's easier to understand when editing the wikicode. Users don't need to know what the codes mean and don't have to try and figure out where non-Latin characters fit in. I doubt anyone can do it by name consistently without referring to some list. However, when the languages are in order by name, they not only look better, they make finding the link/translation easier (when reading, not editing). The difficulty in doing it by name is somewhat negated by interwiki bots and templates which always display by name regardless of the order code-wise. There's also {{Ll}} for automatically creating what you would normally do manually so now even the manual-style /lang pages (at least for templates) can be auto-sorted. The only time we will still have to do it the old way is for Lang-xx pages that link to translations of project pages which follow no naming convention (such as {{Lang-VP}}). Bots can maybe help with that? Either way, I don't think it's a strong enough reason for keeping them one way or another.

So, it really comes down to personal preference. But what is the community's preference? Vote or something. :) Rocket000 (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest to keep as few pages like {{Lang-VP}} as possible and to order them by bots. For these pages I would use the same order as the one used on Wikipedia. As for language links hidden in wikicode of many templates (see Category:Internationalization templates using LangSwitch) I do like alphabetic order, but I would not worry about ordering them if I find them in some other order. --Jarekt (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean the order in the wikicode itself. That's only important if it affects the display, e.g. all /lang pages. But if you have a template the creates language links, it should be the job of the template to sort it out. Take {{VN}} for instance, when I use that template I always input the names by code but when you see the template in action it's ordered by name regardless of what I do with the code. This is what I meant by "templates which always display by name". Interwiki links can be ordered like Wikipedia (en, I guess you mean, they're not all the same), but our scope is a little wider than that when we're dealing with languages (and variants and scripts) and not just currently existing Wikipedias (outside of Incubator). There's many languages that have no Wikimedia equivalent or we use alternate/additional codes (e.g. valid ISO codes vs. made up MediaWiki ones), and other issues, [39], etc. I'm making a list, so that's not an issue. I just want to know what order we prefer. Rocket000 (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally, as an editor I would in most cases find it hard to insert a translation in the right place if they weren't sorted in the source by language code, and would probably end up listing the new language at the end of the list. This wouldn't be a problem if the template did the sorting automagicaly, but we'd still have the risk of adding a language twice. So, code order is the best for the source view.
For the visible result, I suppose ordering them by name would be best, but how would we sort the languages written in a non-latin script, while keeping things intuitive (the point of sorting is to allow easy finding of a specific language)? There is a comprehensive collection of discussions on this issue here (and probably also on enwiki); I think these opinions may help exposing some problems we could run into if we followed that path. I am curious to read what other people think of this. --Waldir talk 08:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 Support. I agree with Rocket000. I also second his reasoning. --Apalsola t • c 08:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 Support of language order standardization. I would suggest ordering by bots and maybe keeping a single master list of sorted country codes to be used by the bot. But if that is too much hassle than alphabetic order by country code would be fine with me too. --Jarekt (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it is not too much hassle, that is exactly what they are doing, for example, on the English Wikipedia, and they do have a master list. --Apalsola t • c 13:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
May be we can borrow their bots. --Jarekt (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I have this page where I'm sorting out the languages by name. It's based on the interwiki order linked above but includes other languages we use here as well as valid ISO codes instead of made-up MediaWiki ones (which are still obviously used for interwiki prefixes but not translations). Any improvements in the order are welcomed. New codes will be added. This will be the order I use for {{Ll}} (i.e. /lang pages), {{VN}}, {{Translation table}}, etc. Interwiki bots of course only need the list on meta. That is, unless some people start objecting to this order. Rocket000 (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 Support Votes symbols seem to attract attention. :) When I first posted this I didn't have strong feelings either way; I just wanted to have some kind of agreement so that we can standardize them. But I thought of something when I was making my list. For some languages we have two or three codes, and if we go by code the languages won't always appear in the same order. So this is my main reason for voting "by language name". Rocket000 (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
There are interwikis, descriptions, templates for pages in several languages (e.g. VP).
For categories, it seems normal to list descriptions and interwikis for English first, as the category names are generally meant to be in English. For galleries, the logical one to start with would be the language the gallery title is written. -- User:Docu at 21:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Descriptions, sure, but interwikis? Bots would have no way of knowing how to order them if it's different for every page. Even humans would have a hard time if they didn't know what language the pagename is. Rocket000 (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Especially in categories, sometimes there is no description, just interwikis.
For a bot, it's easy to detect category namespace and sort accordingly. For galleries, this could be more complicated. If humans can't detect the language of the gallery title, there might be something wrong in the first place. The first language of descriptions might be the language of the page title. -- User:Docu at 09:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
It is logical always to sort interwiki links the same way. That may be alphabetical order by language name (I vote for this), alphabetical order by language code, or one of them with English iw link first. But, please, same order for every category and gallery. For gallery/category descriptions, English first or native language first principle may be a good idea but then they should be separated with a horizontal line (see Berlin for example). --Apalsola t • c 09:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

August 12

7 september

Launched on 7 September 2004, Wikimedia Commons currently contains 100,376,784 files and 97,892,555 media collections. 5th birthday is coming. 4,90x,xxx + 9x,xxx = 4 99x xxx ;). We have a lot images (not only fair use) uploaded in bigger Wikipedias:

Uploading is not the problem, checking the uploads is. If we still have about 5000 uploads each day we're going to just make it. Maybe we have some more batch uploads to raise the number in time? Multichill (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
My extrapolation (see #A hundred thousand Vorbis files above), based on the data collected by MIMEStatBot at Commons:MIME type statistics, is that we'll hit 5,000,000 files just around the end of August (most likely in August 31 or September 1). However, I note that there's a not insignificant discrepancy of about 17,000 files between MIMEStatBot's total (which is essentially the number of rows in the image table) and the count at Special:Statistics (which is a running total kept in a separate table) as it was around when the MIME statistics page was last updated. I'm inclined to trust the former more, since it's a actual count of all the files present (though I do know that it includes a few dozen broken or "phantom" files that are listed in the database but whose actual contect has been lost due to software failures), but the latter number is the one that people can actually watch growing in real time. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Strange, although number of images in en, de, fr and it wikipedias is rising, in polish (pl) wikipedia number of images is steadily falling since 2007, see here. Is it real? If so, does anybody know what is happening to those images? --Jarekt (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This is one of the things that distinguish the Polish Wikipedia from other wikis. The falling number of images is the result of various WikiProjects: the most important Wikiprojekt:Sprzątanie grafik that began in 2007 and was to clean the images and move them to Commons, Wikiprojekt:Grafiki wektorowe that aimed at vectorizing coats of arms of all Polish cities and villages and moving them to Commons, and Wikiprojekt:Na Commons!, which is all about moving images to Commons. Although they may seem to be inactive now, they have been very active in the past and seem to have taken roots. odder (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't trust Special:Statistics. It's not that accurate. A good example is nl:Speciaal:Statistieken. According to this page the nlwp has around 700 files, but as you can see here, the actual number is much higher. At User:Multichill/Commonscat stats you can see the number of images (and more) for a lot of Wikipedia's. Multichill (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, change 'deleted images' -> 'deleted pages'. 14 July 2009 we have 8 800 files and probably ~1000 pages on namespace 'plik:' (file:) without files - local templated FP etc. 9k + 1k = 10k :) Przykuta (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation of Belgian windmill images

This morning I started to recategorise images of Belgian Windmills, split by type and province. User:Foroa raised this objection on my talk page:-

Sorry, but Belgium is too small to add the complexity of an intermediate province level category. Most people in Belgium are not really aware of that (disappearing) administration level and hardly know the frontiers. I'll reintergrate the mills things into one. --Foroa (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion continued of Foroa's talk page:-

I'm trying to categorise these by province to make it easier to add them to the various lists on windmills in Belgium on the English and Dutch Wikipedias. Hence the split by type and province. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC) (minor correction to text made for clarity - was in hurry when I posted it originally)
If you have the name of the town or city, you have it all. No need for more; it is more important that the pictures of the mills are in separate categories than in intermediate category levels. --Foroa (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There are a sufficient number of photographs to justify the breakdown. Once I've finished, the Category:Windmills in Belgium will only have subcats showing - at least that is the plan. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Diasgree and I will reintegrate them. Categories per mill are the only good long term solution. --Foroa (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Categories per mill are a good thing. But only when there are a sufficient number of photos to justify the category. Thus - individual mill > province/county > country. Is it really worth creating a cat with just one file? Mjroots (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Obviously we are in disagreement here. Is there somewhere that this can get wider discussion amongst the community? I'll not recategorise any more images if you agree not to undo those I've already done pending further discussion elsewhere. what do you say to that? Mjroots (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, I'm trying to make it easier to add these images to articles on the English and Dutch wikipedias. If they were sorted by province it would match the lists on the English WP.

How should these images be best categorised? Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Before discussing about category organisation of large categories, one should know that large categories with a mix of categories, galleries and images don't work in Commons. (See for example Category:Rock bands and category:People of the United Kingdom). And this is not solved by adding more and more subcategories. --Foroa (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Because there are no rules for image names (so in a category full of pictures, you have no proper sorting, naming or location), an encapsulating category per item is the only way to have control of the naming and sorting, have clean lists and multiple categories (location, type of mill, age of mills, operational/not, museum, ...). The wikipedia rule that you should have several items before you make a category does not apply in Commons at all (I would say on the contrary: what sense makes it to have a category that is containing mixed subcats, galleries and lose images ?). Large categories are very well manageable with categories (category:Cities and villages in Belgium), not with images. The latter however is extremely useful for visual search (for example to find green mills or mills with a copper roof) and selection without having to dig in hundreds of subcategories. A cat structure takes a couple of tens of bytes, nothing compared to the multi-Megabyte images. For the mills, I think that it is useful to maintain a global mill category as most people don't know the differences between the types of mills. --Foroa (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I have worked on the Dutch windmill project. What we did here was categorize all windmills by provence. Since provinces are well known in the Netherlands, that will work quite well for people to find the images, which should be the main function of categorisation. If for Belgium the regions are not known well (I am not Belgium) it seems to make less sense.
I do see however another problem, mainly that there is also a 'windmill by type in belgium' tree. If you categorize mills there, they disappear from windmills in Belgium because of overcategorisation. For the general public then suddenly the mills are less easy to find if they don't know about mill types, while just the place is easier. That is solved by making some regional split in Belgium so that for example 'postmill in Belgium' is not overcategorisation of 'windmill in region of Belgium'. This is also the reason that in the Netherlands we want the 'by type' distinction only on country level. So I would like at least some regional split of the mills. What about just 'Flanders' and 'Walloon'?
Regarding the cat per mill, I agree to do that as long as there is content, for NL used a minimum of about 5 pictures. However, also these sub-cats should also be findable, so you still need a decent structure above them. Akoopal (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Put a catscanlink to the parent country category on each belgian province windmill category and both needs are fulfilled (except when the catscan is out). --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
You are right that the windmills have to be findable, so I think that you have to start with a more clear picture of what you want to achieve, and then you can try to design a structure. If you look in Category:Windmills in the Netherlands, you can see that only in Category:Windmills in Drenthe, it is easy to find a windmill if you know only the name or the location. In all the other provinces, you have all sorts of images sorted according their file name, but it is difficult to find a specific Windmill. It would be very handy if all the windmills got the location name in the category name (I did many renames of Dutch windmills and I was surprised on how they wanted to avoid the location in the name). In my opinion, all windmills need their own category and you need, in order of (my) priority categories for:
  • Windmills by name
  • Windmills by construction type
  • Windmills by age/century
  • Windmills by location (although, if the location is easy to find, its corresponding mill can be easily found)
  • Windmills by purpose (watermills, oil, sawing, ...)
  • Windmills for visual search
So this discussion turns around the location organisation, which is one of the lowest priority ones because easy to find in the location (when separate in a properly named category). Mill pictures grouped in categories are much easier to manage as a group.
Concerning overcategorisation, this is a much abused statement and the definition should be expanded such as "overcategorisation is not allowed in a category system in the same domain or with the same purpose". Look in the many art or Ancient Roman categories: there are tons of overcategorisations but they are right.
Concerning the further localisation subcats. Walloon/Flemish just gives a content reduction factor of 2. And categorisation according to what Belgian organisation: French speaking community, Walloon region, Flemish region, Brussels region, Flemish community, German speaking community (part of Walloon region); they are all different and overlap,
So far, we have not found any "per province category" in Belgium where the additional burden of the extra category level (and related knowledge, errors and maintenance) is compensated by added value.
Catscan is a handy nifty little tool but it has not the quality nor the availability of a wikipedia product. It overflows and aborts when 1000 or so images are found. --Foroa (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
One good thing about Category:Windmills in the Netherlands is how few photographs there are actuall in the cat that are unsorted. The Category:Windmills in Belgium has the best part of 200. It is these that I was trying to further split by province. Once they had all been sorted by province they can then be split by mill if enought images are available to justify that. Mjroots (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
If I follow your logic, then we have to say that Category:Windmills in South Holland and Category:Windmills in Gelderland contain twice as much categories and unsorted images than the whole Category:Windmills in Belgium, so you have to subdivide those categories into districts, arrondissements, or whatever. --Foroa (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that categorizing by province then by mill (if justifiable) would be sufficient. It is how windmills in England are categorised. I can't see any real justification for splitting by local council districts (district / arrondissement / gemeente or whatever). Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
? --Foroa (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Permit me 2 split the decision in 2 parts. One part is the discussion to put all mills in their own cat, or just allow single pictures as well in some bigger categories. I don't see problems doing the cat per mill, although I thought it was more common to do only when there were a couple of pictures. Only thing against it is that people tend also to search at an image itself. Consider for example you were cycling in Drenthe and decided to try to find it by looking at pictures in commons. You would start from Windmills in Drenthe, but now you would have to open 42 categories to see if that was the mill, instead of quickly scan. And yes, there are toolserver tools, but those are not always known to the general public. An extention that would show a random image of a subcat might help here btw, but can still be tricky if there are also interior pictures in the cat.
Separate from that discussion, either the subcat or the pictures need to be in some structure. You can split geographically, by type and by function. Also somebody has split by time period, which I find less useful to be honest. From these, I find the geographical one the main one, so the other ones should disturb that. Mixing these shouldn't really be done, otherwise you need to know a certain mill is a postmill or a corn mill, and you most likely only know the location. Although overcategorisation can be ignored, I am pretty sure there still will be 'purists' who will keep removing 'Windmill in Belgium' because the mill is already in 'Postmills in Belgium'.
Finally looking into if we really should want to split 'Windmills in Belgium'. If I look at the Belgium mill database I find 1628 entries. Although the category is full argument is often misused (I really don't consider 200 pictures full), but this is an amount that is not really manageable as one category. So I do think we should split this somehow, and to me the split into provinces seems the best option after all. I understand there is some resistance against it, but I really wonder why. Asking around a little bit, it does seem the provinces are still known in Belgium. Certainly if you on the other issue go for the one subcat per mill option, per mill you only need to lookup the province once. Akoopal (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Provocative thoughts on Wiki style

NEW & PROVOCATIVE THOUGHTS OF THE WHOLE WIKI STYLE I HAVE SEEN, READ AND BEEN HIT WITH BY PEOPLE LESS THAN FOCUSED ON THE MISSION OF EDUCATION _ Please Save as Edited as My Legacy Here. There is no need for anethema!!!

There Is A Definite Need To Know When A Footnote Is Necessary; footnotes should not organize articles the human ability to piece the puzzle of learnings together and communicate them in an exciting way should organize articles; otherwise, readers will either fall asleep, stop reading after a few paragraphs, or spend much time grinding away for knowledge only to find most of what was read not memorable or really worthy of raising the reader's understanding of life. The significance to people and the planet of any article should be implied at least.

When refering to common knowlege that can be checked in hundreds of places and hundreds of people relevant to a field no footnote is necessary. That passerines, perching/song birds, glean insects from trees is written about in every bird book I have ever read. That woodpeckers bore into the trunks of live trees and dead trees to get at grubs and other insects is also generally known as in the sentence above but is also implied in their name, WOODPECKER. To not understand nature to the extent that one would not realize that birds thus protect trees from mass infestation means you slept through K-Middle school science. The principles of THE BALANCE OF NATURE and THE PRINCIPLES OF SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIPS of birds and plants are taught. If I add that to the BIRDS Wiki article the ideas above thioer has to be some playing of the rules to tell me this needs a reference. To have a student in graduate work in the natural science delete that knowledge telling me there was no footnotes means there exists a state of SLAVERY TO FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES. Please look at the Oxford Standards on when and where references are essential.

The writing style for too many, not most, of Wiki articles seems to be a string of info taken from index cards with references. The readibility is difficult. There is no voice of authority organzing the important scientific description first and then synthesizing that body of knowledge and presenting it in a way that the presentation is PRINCIPLES FIRST, explained by the relationship among concepts to support those principles, with concepts then appropriately defined through examples and non-examples... The last sentence is just one of many styles of organizing information so it is interesting, enriching to the reader; after reading a Wiki article the reader should be able to appreciate the love of learning and thinking similtaneously, and the process of knowledge can then be remembered because there is a meaningful framework which holds the bits today just as your skeletal/muscle system holds you together and then you are recognizeable and memorable.

If this seems too crtical I won't be surprised. I do apologize in advance. I expect to be effective or make that attempt not to offend. Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Wallack"

Being unpopular doesn't make you a better person or more effective. There are several problems with the above screed; among others, documents that have frequent misspellings, insult people, and include the word "PPPLLLEEEAAASSSEEE" tend to get ignored. (One would think that that would part of the common knowledge of writing.) More importantly, not knowing what's going on and complaining about how everything is being done wrong in a forum devoted to a completely different topic doesn't impress anyone anywhere, nor is it part of effective communication. One might suspect that you are more used to bullying people with your doctorate than actually using effective communications techniques. For instance, this is the Wikimedia Commons. We are a collection of free educational media and a source for images for Wikimedia projects including Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wikibooks and Wikipedia, among others. We are not any of those projects, and complaints about those projects should be directed to them. Not knowing that will make you less popular; it will make you completely ineffective.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Peter, please lead by example. A good start would be improving Wikipedia articles on topics you know something about, or improving descriptions and organizing image collections related to such topics. And I agree with User:Prosfilaes that improved writing style would help too. --Jarekt (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
It's considered questionable behavior to make serious edits to a post after people have replied. It's absolutely not done to delete other's posts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User preferences - Editing tab

How to uncheck "Use new upload form logic", "Use new form layout" and "Resize gallery- and categorywidths to fit screen"? Ater I've unchecked all three and pressed "Save", the checkboxes are marked again. --Eva K. is evil 14:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like some smart guy had set the cookie those preferences were stored in to expire on August 2, 2009. I think I've fixed it, it should work now after you bypass your browser cache. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thx, at least unchecking "Resize gallery- and categorywidths to fit screen" works, the other checkboxes still insist on keeping the check mark. --Eva K. is evil 09:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems my bugfix introduced another bug. Try it again, now it should work. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
BTDTNT, thx. --Eva K. is evil 15:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

August 20

File address problem

Please see discussion at w:Village_pump_(technical)#File_not_displaying. File:A Boechout, Den Steenen Molen, stellingmolen 02aW.JPG has a problem in its name which causes the image not to display if the generated title is copied and pasted. Mjroots (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, the problem is that there's a non-breaking space (U+00A0) in the title between "Den" and "Steenen". I've just added some rules to the Titleblacklist that should prevent such filenames in the future, but I suspect this isn't the only such file that we have. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, we seem to have 99 of them: User:Ilmari Karonen/NBSP file names. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I've just committed a patch to MediaWiki that should fix this problem for good, at least once the Wikimedia sysadmins get around to applying it and running the appropriate maintenance scripts. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting that out. :-) Mjroots (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

August 21

Strategic Planning

The Wikimedia Foundation has begun a year long phase of strategic planning. During this time of planning, members of the community have the opportunity to propose ideas, ask questions, and help to chart the future of the Foundation. In order to create as centralized an area as possible for these discussions, the Strategy Wiki has been launched. This wiki will provide an overview of the strategic planning process and ways to get involved, including just a few questions that everyone can answer. All ideas are welcome, and everyone is invited to participate.

Please take a few moments to check out the strategy wiki. It is being translated into as many languages as possible now; feel free to leave your messages in your native language and we will have them translated (but, in case of any doubt, let us know what language it is, if not english!).

All proposals for the Wikimedia Foundation may be left in any language as well.

Please, take the time to join in this exciting process. The importance of your participation can not be overstated.

--Philippe

(please cross-post widely and forgive those who do)

This looks really important. Why are there virtually no proposals which specifically relate to Commons or to the acquisition and retention of media content? Here is a great opportunity to bring some of our bigger ideas (we do have some, don't we?) to the attention of the wider wiki community. That's the only way of building a groundswell of will and perhaps funding really to improve things. See especially this link: proposals. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons Checkuser request

For information there is a request here. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this note necessary? I find it certainly weird to do this, and AFAIK, we don't advertise such requests. Kanonkas (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Same goes to the AN thread. Kanonkas (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
As a checkuser really needs to have broad support in the community, IMHO it is totally adequate to invite the community to raise its voice. --Túrelio (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we've ever had a problem with a CU request not getting enough votes, Túrelio. However, if that was a problem, I would probably agree with you. Kanonkas (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Its not about getting "enough" votes in order to fulfil our election-policy, but to really give the CU, if he/she is elected, a broad basis/support in the community for this critical task. --Túrelio (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have pointed out on the admin board it is common courtesy to announce such request so that the community is aware of them. This has been done in the past. It is done on other wikis as well.

The need (& there is one) is because Mike has dropped the tools & the work remains there. I'd prefer two more actually. --Herby talk thyme 14:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Due to the privacy aspects of checkuser elections, I think it's entirely sensible that the widest review of candidates possible take place. I doubt that'd be affected by whether getting enough votes is difficult or not - note that the recent enwiki elections were widely advertised for the reason I stated and they clearly have no difficulty getting enough votes. All I see here is a sensible notification to the community and yet another example of a startling lack of judgment.  — Mike.lifeguard | @meta 14:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Independently of this discussion, I noticed that since the restructuring of the various request and votes pages in separate pages per job (it used to be in one single one), I have no longer a watch on the various new requests: it is only today that I discovered this check user request and it is a mystery to me how it is possible that so many people discovered the request for Kanonkas. I stumbled on it by accident because I was investigating the withdrawal of Mike. But anyway, I do agree: the more the job is important and sensitive, the more it has to be communicated. Maybe it could be summarized in the lists compiled by Bryan's bot. --Foroa (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What "request for Kanonkas"? Where is it? Sv1xv (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Foroa is talking about the recent RfB I had. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 19:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. For a brief moment I felt like an ignorant stupid... Sv1xv (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Kanonkas. --Foroa (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't notice it. Sorry. If I had noticed, I would have voted in favor, of course. Sv1xv (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no mystery in why so many people found Kanonkas' RfB however the restructuring of the pages was a real reason for posting here (other than Meta policy of course - here).

However I note that the page says For greater visibility, all requests made here are transcluded onto the central Commons:Requests and votes page. and that does not appear to be the case? --Herby talk thyme 07:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please drop the sarcasm. It's certainly not helpful. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 14:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I only wish the comment were actually sarcastic. Perhaps you need to accept that not everyone believes you walk on water and in fact some may take issue with your actions.  — Mike.lifeguard | @meta 19:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm open for criticism/feedback, but this isn't it. Though, the topic isn't about me, you, or any other person. So, I suggest we just cut this discussion. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 19:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
All requests are transcluded on Commons:Requests and votes. Rocket000 (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I've learnt something, maybe others too. I guess the only issue is that watchlisting it will not help, actually visiting the page is needed. Regards --Herby talk thyme 07:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
According to Special:WhatLinksHere/Commons:Requests_and_votes that page is not widely promoted. Commons:Administrators not includes other requests, only all other language versions (still) do. Commons:Community portal lists only Requests for Admin and Bots, Template:Welcome is linked to Admins only. I suggest linking the important Commons:Request and votes page at least from the community portal and maybe transclusion of RfB/RfCU/RfOV into COM:A. Put
I think will be good idea to merge Administrators/Bureaucrats/Checkusers/Oversighters request pages back. There is no too much activity justifying separation. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally I agree completely with Eugene. --Herby talk thyme 15:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status of Nazi propaganda video materials (1933-1945)

I am wondering about the copyright status of Nazi propaganda video materials (1933-1945). In the particular, I am having unaltered version of "Deutche Wochenschau", issue 07.17.1943
Is it a copyright free material to add it in Ogg Theora format to Wikimedia Commons? I believe so as the respective owner ended its existence at May 1945, and no one including the Federal Republic of Germany is claiming to be the respective heritor or legatee of the Third Reich.
Am I right or am I missing something? Neolexx (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You might ask that question also in the German-language Commons:Forum. --Túrelio (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are wrong. The Federal Republic of Germany is somehow the German Reich with another name. See: http://www.flaggenlexikon.de/fdtlhi3r.htm . Therefore, and not only for this reason, the material is still copyrighted (at least in Germany) if the author has not died more than 70 years ago. --ALE! ¿…? 13:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The German government does indeed claim to be the legal successor to the Third Reich and any of the copyrights. See here for one example. The German government set up the company Transit to administer such rights (and also a lot of pre-Nazi material, and the company has bought the rights to a lot of other stuff). For another example, the German government (and therefore Transit) has been ruled the copyright owner of w:Triumph of the Will (though I think that remains highly restricted to show in Germany so it wouldn't be promoted). The U.S. specifically excluded any copies the U.S. government had of any of the (German government-owned) Third Reich material from the URAA copyright restorations, so some of that material may well be public domain in the U.S. The UK has a similar exception. However, since it would still be considered copyrighted in the country of origin, Germany, so inclusion on Commons would not be permitted. If works are anonymous, then things may get more interesting 70 years after creation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

German Bundesarchiv

The page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_the_German_Federal_Archive_by_year has been deleted. Is there another way to view Bundesarchive's pictures by year? It worked in Dec 2008 for sure. Thanks. --Kanakukk (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC).

Like this. Multichill (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If you scroll a bit down then some pictures are not from the year 1940, for example file [...]deutscher Fallschirmjäger.jpg, but it certainly helps a bit. --Kanakukk (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC).

New Audio Editing Tutorial

There didn't appear to be a tutorial for audio editors so I created one. The page was already there at Category:Graphics_abilities. Edvvc (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

CDC Images

Hi guys. A brazilian user have some doubts about CDC. The following tag {{CDC-PHIL}} says some images are not PD, that we must verify their license. But, there are some images like these ones without any sight of licensing. And what is the appropriate license? {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-USGov-HHS-CDC}}? He found this one with the PD-US license and without a link do CDC page. Can somebody help us? Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your weblink is not covered by CDC-PHIL. {{CDC-PHIL}} is a source template only for http://phil.cdc.gov/phil/home.asp, and indeed there are some images not in the public domain which is always clearly noted. Enter e.g. 8212 - an image showing an extraction of the Guinea worm - which is not public domain a stated at the bottom of the page, this was my first copyvio ;) On the other side #1342 is public domain because it was created for the CDC and the CDC says that it is public domain.
The question if these ones are PD-USGov or not is not related to the template CDC-PHIL but to individual notices on this other website. --Martin H. (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I found this page talking about DPDx's licenses. But I couldn't clearly understand it. What do you think? Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

For an obviously federal government website, it would seem to most likely be images made by government employees, and therefore {{PD-USGov-HHS-CDC}}. If they use images from third parties, you would think that they would at least be credited (in which case a better copyright statement would be a very good idea). But I don't see any such credits... treating them as PD seems like a pretty safe assumption. Contacting them to make sure wouldn't hurt of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Your found indicates some images with copyright, some images are clear (Copyrighted material includes: life cycle images of Blastocystis and Pneumocystis, and electron micrograph images of Gnathostoma) - whatever this is - but all other images are not 100% PD (Most of the material is free of copyright [...] Copyrighted material includes [...]). That means what Clindberg said: If images are credited to a non-govermnemt source they should not be uploaded, otherwise we can assume them PD. The clearly mentioned unfree images on the page you found, see the first small text, are unfree no matter they wear a credit or not. --Martin H. (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
File:Pneumocystis LifeCycle.gif seems to be one of the unfree images from http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/pneumocystis.htm. --Martin H. (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, somehow I missed that little sentence in there. Yeah, that pretty much spells it out for that subsite I would think. Uncredited images should be by CDC employees. And yes, that would appear to be one of the unfree ones. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. The last doubt is the license =P. What license do I use? {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-USGov-HHS-CDC}}? Or should I create another template? Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The most precise license, thats the CDC license. --Martin H. (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Government publication question?

Could I include this, or graphics taken from this, on Commons? How about on en.wikipedia.org? It has been prepared for the US Deparmtent of energy: http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-17952.pdf --Bcjordan (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

For Wikipedia, no need since you can simply summarize and link to it in an article. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Clarification: I would like to include a graph they have in this paper on Wikipedia. --Bcjordan (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
It says it was prepared under a contract... this (PDF) appears to be the contract mentioned. It sounds like they can claim copyright in some situations, but if there is no explicit notice, it seems they are not supposed to claim, register, or assert copyright otherwise. Not sure if that is really saying "public domain" but it is close. Hrm. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
There are questions still unanswered in this. The graph is based on data. If you take that data and put it into a commonly used spreadsheet and creates a graph, at what point do you create something that you can claim copyright on. Is the specific selection of data enough? Is the selection of a commonly used type of graph enough? Do you have to use some specific colours? The point is that by getting hold of the data, Bcjordan can easily create a similar graph as the one in the document. At what point is that necessary rather than just copying the graph from the document itself? Haros (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
See Idea-expression divide. I don't know if that answers the question. We like our graphs to be SVG files, so that would be an additional reason to re-create a graph with software that could generate SVG output. --Teratornis (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Location of menu options

I am starting to think the CheckUsage function needs to be in a more "proper" location on Monobook and Vector (also hint hint, its not on Vector at all yet). I think it should be placed in the toolbox, with the tooltip being "List of all pages on Wikimedia projects that use this file" or something, and maybe even giving it a keyboard shortcut too. Also, about another thing, the "nominate for deletion" option, I think it should be among the "action" tabs on Vector (so it'd be like "Read - Edit - View history - Request deletion"), and if not already, only accessible to logged in users to prevent abuse. So, good ideas? ViperSnake151 (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

ImageAnnotator enabled

Given the unanimous support for enabling ImageAnnotator globally for everyone,[40] I have done so.

I suggest that everyone who had already used the feature (even just trying it out) reload their browser cache. This is not necessary, but ensures that everyone has the latest version.

People who had added the line "importScript ('MediaWiki:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js');" to their monobbok.js (or other skin-specific user JS file) may remove that line before refreshing the browser cache. This is not necessary either, but simplifies things.

People who had not used the feature ever will get it when their browser automatically reloads the JavaScripts, or when they manually force a reload of the browser cache. (JavaScripts are cached by browsers for 30 days. If you don't do anything, you'll get the feature in at most 30 days from now.)

Please report any problems or bugs at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js. If you do encounter bugs that prevent your working with the Commons, log in and then enable in your Special:Preferences→Gadgets the gadget for disabling image annotations. If you feel the need to do that, please also make sure that you report the problem at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js so that we have a chance to fix it. (We can't fix problems we don't even know about!)

I hope all goes well (it should...). Enjoy! Lupo 08:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the voting procedure. This vote should have been announced early enough, so that people have time to carefully test the tool and think about the potential consequences of having this enabled by default for everybody. People who knew that the tool was going to be implemented by default, or who merely happened to try the tool as a gadget have had an advantage and could give their opinion as soon as 11:43, 10 August 2009 (user:Saunders). How could someone who is new about the tool compete with that ? Why is it not possible to ask questions and have a discussion before making a binary "support" or "disapprove" answer ? Teofilo (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not have used Mediawiki:Sitenotice to call first for comments, and a few weeks later, to call for the vote ? Teofilo (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
What? No, we want this. There's no problem here. Rocket000 (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes this is just another instance of casual software implementation on a Wikimedia project. Teofilo (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You wrote that comment you linked yourself.
Casual? You're kidding! My call for beta testers went out on June 25. After extensive testing by many people I asked on August 10 for opinions about enabling this at the English, the German, and the French VPs, and announced it at COM:AN with a plea to have more translations of the notice posted at other languages' VPs. Nobody since June 25 has thought of using the site notice. Any odd admin could have done so. (It might have been a nice touch, but apparently it didn't occur to anybody.)
You know, not even reading the VP in your language and then complaining after the fact about procedure of all things is so ... puny. Phhhhh...
On a wiki, one can debate endlessly. Comments received (and I asked about comments and opinions, not votes) indicated a strong desire to switch this on, and some people even would have wanted to switch it on earlier. Finally, after one week, and about half of the comments from people who had notused the feature before my August 10 announcement, I've been bold and switched it on.
If you have technical problems or don't like it, disable it for you. (And report the problems.) Otherwise, discussing procedure is rather unproductive. Lupo 12:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Is a panel made of village-pump-addicted people who visit a Commons village pump every 8 days or more often in the middle of August, broad enough ? My concern is not directly technical. I trust your software developping skills. My question is more whether we need such a software at all ? Do we need to lead the project into that direction ? Do we need to invite people to spend time on this kind of tasks (while perhaps spending less time on other tasks) ? Of if we need this kind of software, do we need it to work exactly this way ? Teofilo (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The best way to find out is to enable it and see how it actually works in practice. If it seems counterproductive, it can be turned off. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, here is my view of picture annotation, using no fanciful software. Perhaps I should have used SVG, though. Teofilo (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Links, multiple languages, possibility to edit...? Yeah, that is what this « fanciful software » allows... Jean-Fred (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Not links, but categories. It is editable : take the original jpg again and create a third version in Chinese or Japanese if you like, using your favourite jpg editing tool on your computer (I use Pixia and Irfanview). How about the possibility to print and the possibility to upload the annotated version on a blog or another website ? I know I should use SVG so that people can reuse my color blocks instead of needing to draw them again. But I have some troubles creating SVGs on my computer. Teofilo (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Another type of alternative, in a Wikipedia article : Crescent group picture. Teofilo (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
That is geolocation, which is something Commons does and uses fairly well already, without ImageAnnotator (Commons:Geocoding/Panorama is a nice example).
As for the JPG editor, I think the point is partly to avoid this : anyone can add, edit or translate a note. I think not everybody knows how to use a JPG editor (let alone a SVG editor!). You may have a point about printing and embedding ; but I am unsure whether this would be really important.
Anyway, it is turned on now, and I agree with Carl Lindberg. Let's see what happens in Category:Images with annotations. Jean-Fred (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to place the notes on a subpage (like /notes)? Now the image page can become somewhat crowded with all these note templates. Multichill (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Multichill, this seems to be FAQ. It was discussed in Commons:Village pump#New interface feature (in the neighborhood of first  Neutral) --Jarekt (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the style of annotation User:Teofilo is advocating is exactly the type we are trying to avoid. It is hard to edit, needs uploads of new annotated images and does not allow links or localization. However if some people prefer User:Teofilo style of annotation, than there is nothing preventing them from to spending time on this kind of task. As for me I think it is a time saver not to have to be labeling people verbally in image description (the "10-th head in 5-th row with glasses" annotation style). In the past I played with SVG based annotation, see File:Warszawa_Powstanie_1944-08-04.svg, which is not supported by Commons software ( I had a bug report which was classified as WONTFIX). I also used, now (hopefully) retired, never-really-working ImageBoxes gadget which was around for a while. As for complains about roll-out procedure I think User:Lupo provided plenty of notices in numerous places and allowed quite long testing period. This was not just another instance of casual software implementation. --Jarekt (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I can fully endorse Jarekts view on this. The launch of this feature has been an example of how to do it in terms on placing notes the right places, giving time both in beta-test time for dedicated users and ample of time for stable code to be evaluated and tested on various vrowsers and OSs. If it should be more bureacratic we would never get anything done here. The tool has already found a spin-off application as a local image annotator in COM:FPC to pinpoint problem areas in nominated pictures. I think it will be of great help there as we spend a lot of time miscommunicating about where on an image there is a problem, and most reviewers consider it way too tedious to upload a derivative work just to mark a problem area. A derivative work, which is useless, once the issues have been fixed. --Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I too agree. This is a fine tool that we surely will seee applied in ways none of us have thought of yet. I can see nothing wrong in the manner it was enabled. Haros (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 Oppose. I disagree with your idea to use that tool for the purpose of COM:FPC to pinpoint problem areas in nominated pictures. Image description pages should remain free of contents which belong to talk pages or community discussion pages. However, you may add a template on the image description page below the image preview to call people to join the talk at COM:FPC. Don't add subjective comments or subjective problem area pinpointings on pictures, please. Moreover, even if that action was legitimate, you would not need to have the gadget activated for all users. It would be enough that the COM:FPC member select it as a gadget in their user preferences. For pinpointing problems, please use "div style=top:y%; left:x%" as I did on en:Paracel_Islands#Crescent_Group, or use mw:Extension:ImageMap on COM:FPC, not directly on the image description page. Teofilo (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
...which is the exact reason why it is now only used locally on FPC subpages in the image previews there, not on the file pages. I did it on the file pages a few times as a test, every time making it specific to the creator that they were informative and could be removed anytime. Following that, I suggested to Lupo to make it work locally as well, such that we avoid these critical nitpicking remarks directly on the file page (for the exact reasons you mention). He immediately implemented that and it is now rolled out and works by default for everyone. Have you at all had a look at how it works on COM:FPC? --Slaunger (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't have a look, but I don't think that was explained on the village pump. Anyway the part of my message saying that COM:FPC members could enable it as a gadget on their user preferences remains valid. Conversely, the tool could have been enabled on pages where it is useful like COM:FPC, without meaning adding it in a spam-like manner on every image description page. Teofilo (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
If you can't be bothered to look, then at least RTFM before spreading misinformed FUD. Lupo 18:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
If some people prefer User:Teofilo style of annotation, than there is nothing preventing them from to spending time on this kind of task. Yes my style is very time consuming. So it cannot be promoted on a large scale. But imagine some software developer creates some kind of cool software to enhance and make my style quickier and easier to do. Would not the resulting tool be able to compete with the present new tool ? As for me I think it is a time saver not to have to be labeling people verbally in image description (the "10-th head in 5-th row with glasses" annotation style). I hope you would still keep inserting the picture into relevant people categories, though. (and blind people might miss the verbal description). In the past I played with SVG based annotation, see File:Warszawa_Powstanie_1944-08-04.svg, which is not supported by Commons software. My knowledge of SVG is perhaps too limited, but would not it be good to set as a goal to have your bug fixed, and to have in parallel to Lupo's tool a kind of "simple online SVG editor" provided on each picture description page ? On each picture's description page you could have a "create an annotated SVG" link. Or if that annotated SVG already exists, you could have a thumbnail of that annotated SVG displayed nearby. Teofilo (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Teofilo, a paper tiger always beats a real tiger. The only problem of a paper tiger is that it doesn't exist for real, only on paper or in some people's imagination as a "future better tiger". But if and when there comes along in the future a better tool for such things that can also do what the current solution does and then some, I certainly won't object to replacing the current solution. Lupo 11:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I acknowledge that it is real. But a baby tiger. If it can't be easily reused elsewhere, it is not within the core activities of Commons. Teofilo (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
It can be used at other Wikis, too. What made you think otherwise? Lupo 12:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Or how about a format converter tool transforming Lupo-tool-annotated pictures into annotated SVGs ? Would not that be useful for printing and inserting into articles pages ? Teofilo (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather have a tool that fetched the (wikitext of the) image description page and displayed the notes on thumbnails in articles. (Technical note: shouldn't be too difficult. With some care one could even work around the single-origin policy for this and thus make such a tool work on third-party wikis, too.) Lupo 12:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Great tool. Thanks for developing, testing and implementing this. Excellent work. -- User:Docu at 19 August 2009, 10:10

  • Thank you. Lupo 11:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On File:Crissy Field beach and Golden Gate Bridge.jpg, people use the tool to count the number of dogs on the beach. This is without doubt a great tool for kids. But I am not sure if creating toys for kids fits the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation. Teofilo (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a good example of the misuse of the tool. Information content of the individual boxes should go beyond what is plainly visible in the image, and should be judged by the same criteria as content of the description field of the {{Information}} template. --Jarekt (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
It depends what you do with it. If you create a thumbnail for each annotation, you could navigate through the image. Commons isn't ideal for panoramas and such annotations can help navigate through images. Besides, you can expand the notes to add more descriptions. -- User:Docu at 17:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course there's some vandalism going on, but frankly said, there was, while I was checking edits today, surprisingly few vandalism. It seems to have picked up a bit in the evening (U.S. waking up?). See for yourself: image note edits and image note edits creating very small note rectangles. Lupo 18:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Teofilo, I can for each bad use of a note show you several good ones. Commons also is not the place to upload copyvios, porn, vandal images, self-promotion, and so on; yet people keep doing it all the time. Lupo 18:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
@Lupo, without having read all of the above, I have to say that this tool has massively increased vandalism and, as a result, the admin-workload on Commons. Whether that should lead to disabling or restricting is a matter of debate. --Túrelio (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Looking through this list now (23:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)), I do see some vandalism, but also many test edits where people (often, but not exclusively, IPs) add stuff and then remove it again. I also see a lot of good edits, also from IPs. Give it some time until the novelty factor has worn off, then we'll see clearer. (Also note that the "Add a note" button is far more prominent than the "edit" tab. That may also contribute to people using notes to vandalize instead of editing a page.)
If vandalism through this really becomes a problem, there are, of course several possibilities, not the least of which would be rollbacker rights. Other technical measures would be strengthening the AbuseFilters, or making the button less prominent (e.g., simple text link), or as a last resort restricting editing through this gadget to logged-in or even to autoconfirmed users. Though I'd hate to do that. It's a Wiki after all. Lupo 23:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW: re my comment above about the vandalism ratio having appeared to have picked up yesterday evening: that's maybe not even true. Someone changed that filter to log only edits made by not-autoconfirmed users. That means that all the note edits by established users disappear from the list, and hence the ratio naturally appears higher. In reality, we currently have no way of even guesstimating (short of dedicated DB queries) what percentage of note edits made thorough ImageAnnotator are bad. Lupo 06:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I changed the filter back, since it seems useful to have all ImageAnnotator edits tagged for just such review. Instead, I added a new tag for image notes by new or unregistered users. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Also note that the "Add a note" button is far more prominent than the "edit" tab (Lupo). Yes, and this is strange, isn't-it ? Why is the dog-counting tool more prominent than the serious description edit tool ? Why is the dog-counting tool more prominent than the category-editing tool ? Usually new tools are new tabs. Your tool being the last one, should be the remotest tab on right hand side on the tab line above the picture. Not in a prominent place just below the picture. Teofilo (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
See also fr:Aide:Tutoriel de création d'images complétées and how it is used for example on fr:Bas-Rhin#Géographie. Teofilo (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Location/lang in namespace desriptions

Could we use it for 'handmade descriptions'? On filespace and mainspace I must look for my language (as reader), but I read templates (like Template:Description - opis in Polish, Template:Source - źródło in Polish) as contributor/uploader in my language without this problem.

I know - it is better to use {{en|1=xxx}}}, {{it|1=yyy}}, {{nl|1=zzz}}, but for readers it is not too good (Москва). Maybe other form is possible: 

{{something
|something=blablabla
|en=aaa bbb
|de=aaa ccc
|it=aaa yyy
|ja=aaa xxx
|pl=aaa zzz
|ru=bbb ttt
}}

with result (for en readers):

aaa bbb
English | Deutsch | italiano | 日本語 | polski | русский | +/−

and for galleries

aaa bbb
en | de | it | ja | pl | ru | +/−

Sorry - my English is not too good. What do you think about? Przykuta (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

August 23

A request/question on licenses

Hello. I'm not intimately familiar with how things go on Commons and I was wondering if you could help me out with something. I have some concerns with the file contributions of User:Unbiassed. He has licensed virtually all of his uploads as PD-self. However, I find it highly unlikely that he was around in the early 1900s to take this photograph, and then made a comeback in the 1960s to make this duck stamp, especially since from former revisions of his user on English Wikipedia, I believe this image is of him when he was a child (note that that image is also marked as PD-self). Granted, the first image may be in the public domain (the subject died in 1935, so there's a good chance that picture was taken before 1923), but for many of the rest of his uploads (including the photograph of him when he was a kid) I think there may be copyright issues at hand, or at least licensing technicalities (PD-old instead of PD-self). I feel bad bringing it up, because I recently AfD'd an article he wrote on English Wikipedia, but I think it needs to be done. DroEsperanto (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(Moved from my talk pages to here --Foroa (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC))

Also, by coincidence no doubt, the two images that appear on his WP articles:[41],[42] are also featured on the Diamonds in Arkansas website site: http://www.diamondsinar.com/news.html. As you DroEsperanto, know how to AfD on WP maybe you would like to AfD these two articles as non-notable together with this one. [43]. --P.g.champion (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
And, of course, the duck revenue stamp was issued by the US Federal Government and should be licensed as {{PD-USGov-Interior}}. Sv1xv (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I AFD'd the articles for the people who found the diamonds, but left the ones for the diamonds for now, since their lack of notability seems a little less clear-cut to me and I don't feel like dealing with that right now. However, what about the images? DroEsperanto (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

New interface feature

French - German

Do you know the "photo notes" on Flickr? (Move your mouse over the image! Some more useful applications of this feature can be seen for instance here or here.)

For the past two months, we've been testing such a feature here at the Commons. Some examples can be seen at Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator#Preview. Our implementation offers "photo notes" as on Flickr, but with built-in support for creating, editing, and removing notes. The content of a note can be arbitrary wikitext.

I propose that we enable this feature for all users (including people who are not logged in) by default.

The JavaScript at MediaWiki:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js that implements this feature is stable and has been tested on a wide array of browsers and in different skins. The script works on all skins, including the new "vector" skin. It works fine on all browsers except old Operas, where it is disabled. If other problems with other old browsers are discovered, we can switch off the feature for these browsers, too. On recent browsers (IE6, IE7, IE8, FF2, FF3, FF3.5, Chrome, Opera >= 9.0, Konqueror 4, Safari 3 & 4), no problems have been found. In addition, there will be a gadget to disable this new feature, which logged-in users could enable if they experience problems that cannot be resolved.

The feature is fully localizable through interface messages in the MediaWiki namespace, and it has a built-in translation mechanism similar to the one used on the upload form. The interface has already been translated in Arabic, French, German, Low German, Polish, and Spanish.

Full documentation exists at Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.

What do you think about enabling this globally? Lupo 11:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  •  Support I have tried it a few times and I think it is a valuable addition to Commons and worth enabling by default. Nice work, Lupo et al.!--Slaunger (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I have been waiting for a tool like that for a while. We should also inform other wikis so the annotations are visible in their native environment. --Jarekt (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    Let's first try it here, and then think about how to get other WMF projects to use it, too. Lupo 13:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I have had it enabled for some months now. I have also annotated a few photos and I like the idea and the user interface. Good job! However, the tool leaves the source code of the file description page quite messy. Would it be possible to move the annotations to a subpage? If that could be fixed, you would have a strong support from me. Nillerdk (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    Don't know when you tried it, but the clutter has been reduced quite a bit since the first version. I had thought about using subpages, but decided I would not want to move the notes to a subpage for a variety of reasons:
    1. edits to notes wouldn't show up on watchlists unless people also watched these subpages (currently, editing notes generate edits to the image description page itself, so they show up on watchlists if the image is watched);
    2. technically much harder to detect edit conflicts and keep things in synch between the notes displayed and the notes stored;
    3. the script would need to load the subpage just to display the notes, and I'd like to keep the number of calls to the server at a minimum.
    4. harder to keep in synch if and when image moves are (re-)enabled.
    Keeping everything on the image description page is the best we can do currently. Lupo 13:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I gave it another try (the result as a permanent link is here here), and I see that you are right (the clutter is indeed significantly reduced). I accept your reasons for not wanting annotations on subpages. I still think that the organization of the annotation data could be further improved. What about having the script automatically format it like I have done manually (compare [44] and [45]). An algorithm could re-organize the filepage as follows: A B C D, where B is the block of annotations (marked with line breaks and comments), C is the block of all categories, D is the block of all interwikis and A is anything else. This should be easy for well-formed filepages. If the filepage is not well-formed, the algorithm could revert to the current behaviour (which is just appending?). Nillerdk (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's feasible. Just consider how a script would find categories (your block C). What should it do? Collect anything that matches the regular expression /\[\[\s*Category\s*:[^\]]*\]\]/, remove all matches from the text, and append them all on individual lines at the end would be one approach. However, that may fail in the case
{{SomeTemplate|
[[Category:Foo]]
}}
because it'll remove that "category" and put it at the end, which might break the template invocation. Depending on what other parameters the template has and what it does, the file may not even end up in category "Foo", or end up in other categories besides "Foo"! A script can't detect such things in general (short of having a full-blown wikitext parser).
However, the latest version of ImageAnnotator at least tries to keep notes together. See MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js#Three (minor) changes. I.e. if you had moved block B (containing the notes), which is by default appended at the end of the text, manually to some other place, new notes will get added to the end of B, not to the end of the file. Lupo 09:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, the annotations don't show up when accessing through permanent links in my browser (Opera 9.64)! Nillerdk (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support. Yes please. This is very useful, and the code seems well designed. --Dschwen (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I've had it in my monobook.js for some time now and can't wait for it to be used more widely. Pruneautalk 15:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Question: Who will be able to add the annotiations? Autoconfirmed users or also IPs? --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    Anybody who can edit the image description page, including IPs and non-autoconfirmed users. It's a wiki after all. Any modifications made to notes through ImageAnnotator are normal edits to the image description page and could also be done manually without the script. They can also be reverted or undone like any other edit. The script just displays the notes and provides a fancy interface to make such edits easier. On protected images, only admins will be able to create/edit/remove notes, and on semi-protected images, you'll need to be at least autoconfirmed to be able to modify notes. Just as with any other edits. Lupo 19:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it. Raymond 20:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support: Looks good. Just watch the usage, because I presume that vandalism or testedits will be made with this new tool. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Wha, don't know what you mean... (File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal.JPG) →AzaToth 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      Hm, do we need a new policy about what good and accepted uses of notes are, and what uses are rejected? Lupo 07:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Tried it and it looks good. Easy to use and simple interface. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Very cool. :-) I love this example: a picture inside an annotation, plus an automatic language switch if the user language preference is supported. Can Flickr do any of this? I doubt it.--Eloquence (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks :-) Very cool examples of images in notes are at File:Transasia trade routes 1stC CE gr2.png. Another example is at File:Pearl Mississippi Community Center.jpg. The language switch thingy, however, relies on a doubtful feature using {{int:}} that is considered, strictly speaking, a bug... Lupo 06:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Question How do I activate the gadget? I can't find it in Special:Preferences->Gadgets, and Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator does not tell. --Kjetil_r 12:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    I don't know how I found out myself, but now I have added the instructions here. Nillerdk (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    It isn't activated as a gadget yet. If we enable it by default for everyone, we'll include it directly in MediaWiki:Common.js, and there won't be a need to set it up as a gadget. If you want to try it out before it is officially switched on, follow the instructions at the very top of MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js. Lupo 12:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support This can be really useful and convenient. Good work! --Waldir talk 14:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment It appears to me that we have a consensus to enable the gadget by default. Could someone with the capability and rights thereto do that please. --Slaunger (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    I will, of course, do so in due course. But there's no hurry. Even if all comments so far were positive (thanks, people), I think going ahead just three days after the question was posted is a bit rushed. I will enable it next week. Lupo 06:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. Thanks. For us, who have manually entered some line in some skin js to enable the gadget, should we remove that line again after the gadget is enabled? --Slaunger (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Once it is enabled, people who have already used it may remove that line from their monobook, but if they forget and leave it in there, it doesn't hurt. The code guards itself against double inclusions (and additionally, importScript also avoids re-loading the same file multiple times). It would be a good idea, though, if people who already had used it refreshed their browser cache once it's enabled to make sure everyone has the same and latest version. But again, that's not critical either. I will post a notice explaining it all when I have it enabled. Lupo 07:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Apalsola t • c 09:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I also support Nillerdk's proposal on better organization of source code. --Apalsola t • c 09:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but a general re-organization or cleanup of the image page is not feasible. However, the latest version of ImageAnnotator at least tries to keep notes together. See MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js#Three (minor) changes. Lupo 09:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I hope image notes at commons to be usable on other projects. Kwj2772 (msg) 09:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support For enabling it on all pictures. This is a great addition to Commons. -- JovanCormac 15:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support That's incredibly useful for panoramic views. --Ianezz (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Enabled

Given the unanimous support for enabling ImageAnnotator globally for everyone, I have done so.

I suggest that everyone who had already used the feature (even just trying it out) reload their browser cache. This is not necessary, but ensures that everyone has the latest version.

People who had added the line "importScript ('MediaWiki:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js');" to their monobbok.js (or other skin-specific user JS file) may remove that line before refreshing the browser cache. This is not necessary either, but simplifies things.

People who had not used the feature ever will get it when their browser automatically reloads the JavaScripts, or when they manually force a reload of the browser cache. (JavaScripts are cached by browsers for 30 days. If you don't do anything, you'll get the feature in at most 30 days from now.)

Please report any problems or bugs at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js. If you do encounter bugs that prevent your working with the Commons, log in and then enable in your Special:Preferences→Gadgets the gadget for disabling image annotations. If you feel the need to do that, please also make sure that you report the problem at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js so that we have a chance to fix it. (We can't fix problems we don't even know about!)

I hope all goes well (it should...). Enjoy! Lupo 08:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the voting procedure. This vote should have been announced early enough, so that people have time to carefully test the tool and think about the potential consequences of having this enabled by default for everybody. People who knew that the tool was going to be implemented by default, or who merely happened to try the tool as a gadget have had an advantage and could give their opinion as soon as 11:43, 10 August 2009 (user:Saunders). How could someone who is new about the tool compete with that ? Why is it not possible to ask questions and have a discussion before making a binary "support" or "disapprove" answer ? Teofilo (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Useful or not?

I find the feature basically useful. For example, I believe I've made good use of it here. Still, I wonder about whether it is being used well by many who are using it. For example, I fail to see any value in the note here. Are we going to adopt some guidelines about appropriate use? - Jmabel ! talk 14:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to start a policy on that. Some guidelines are already in Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator#How to add informative notes. If that becomes a full policy, that section should probably be moved to the "Commons" namespace and only some brief hints and a pointer to the policy should be left on the help page. Lupo 15:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bots awaken

Pleasant to see the bots at work again, moving licences (I assmume that's important for some reason), installing internationalized headers, and otherwise making adjustments. Even nicer if those reports were combined, by merging the bot scripts or coordinating their activities or otherwise. What surprises me a bit as that new pictures don't get international-style headers. Will the new pix be visited eventually by the bots for this reason? Jim.henderson (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Village_pump#.7B.7Bt.7Cown.7D.7D_in_UploadForm below --Jarekt (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist problems

ResolvedJmabel ! talk 03:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

For the past hour or two, I've been getting a blank page when I try to view my Commons Watchlist. Is this problem widespread? If so, anyone have any idea what's up or when it will be fixed? - Jmabel ! talk 21:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Still not working for me, it's been about 10 hours, does anyone know what's going on? Jmabel ! talk 05:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
My watchlist seems to be OK. When that happened to me on en.wikipedia, it was because someone had renamed an article on my watchlist there to a garbled title full of "%" characters in strange places. AnonMoos (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Still not working for me. Is there somewhere I can go for help on this? I have tens of thousands of images on here, and really do like to keep track when people make changes to them. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried using another browser? Have you tried viewing the source of the page to see whether the problem is with your renderer or with the server? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Under Firefox, page source is blank
  • Under IE, I get a "500 internal server error". And that was on a new version of IE I'd never fired up before, so there should be no issue of history. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Mine is fine. As the above but throw in "clear you browser cache/history/wiki cookies" would be something I would try? --Herby talk thyme 16:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you be more specific on what you think I should try (preferably on Firefox, my usual browser)? - Jmabel ! talk
  • Sorry missed this. In FF -> Tools -> Options there should be a "clear cache" one. I am now on ff3.5 & can't find it instantly bit it was there on 3.1*. Try googling "clear firefox cache". Otherwise it will not hut to clear all history & see if that does anything.
  • Do you have access to another internet connection - friends, family, work? If so try there?
  • Do you have any recent/updated add-ons? Such things may cause issues.
  • Have you got the wonderfully intrusive .NET add-on from MS. Doesn't ask you & tends to screw stuff up.
  • Let us know how you get on, cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
You might also try using a very basic web client, e.g. wget on Linux. Try getting the page with that one and see whether the server outputs HTML or whether it serves a blank page. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
If your problem is similar to the problem I had on en.wikipedia about six months ago (ultra-wacky page name containing excessive special characters), then it really can't be fixed by changes to your browser configuration. See en:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_46#Special:Watchlist_not_working... AnonMoos (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Weirdly, without my having done anything, it just fixed itself. Go figure. - Jmabel ! talk 03:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Could just be that the problematic entry expired off of your 3-day watchlist, but if you go to your 7-day list, then it will still be there... AnonMoos (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

August 22

BSD

Is this here (BSD) compatible with Commons?19:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it requires attribution only, and allows free reuse, modification and distribution. See [46] and [47]. -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 20:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

August 25

Uploading files to flickr

All, I have been, for some time, making wallpaper and screen saver files from files I find on Wikimedia Commons, and recently decided to upload some of them to flickr. My reasons for doing so are to share the effort that I've put into cropping (in a few cases digitally enhancing) and resizing the pictures, to have quick access to these pictures so I can use them on other computers I use for a screen saver/background, and to promote wikimedia commons. I'm seeking feedback on a few things.

Pictures I've posted have been used in online magazines and news articles (see treehugger.com article on Maldives & ozibuna.net for example). However they attribute the pictures to "trodel_wiki" my yahoo id rather than the original artist that is clearly identified in the description. (I'm guessing that is because they are using some kind of automated tools to grab the pictures).

  1. Do you think I should worry about this? (In 1 of the 2 cases where I asked them to update the attribution, they just took the picture off the article)
  2. Why aren't magazines searching wikimedia commons for images to use? Is there something about flickr that makes it easier for them to search, upload, etc?
  3. Should we as a community work with Flickr to change the way that Flickr identifies the artist of a picture so that one can attribute the original artist when uploading properly licensed content that isn't one's own work?

Comments appreciated. --Trödel 16:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

August 26

Tabs missing

After being gone for a couple of days, I've just noticed that some tabs appear to be "missing" from image pages. What's going on? For example, File:Geneva Old Main.jpg has five tabs — file, discussion, edit, history, and watch/unwatch. What happened to the button [can't remember the name] that searched for usage in Wikimedia projects other than Commons? Moreover, English is my default language; what happened to the tab that took me to the file on the English Wikipedia? Of course I can type en:File:Geneva Old Main.jpg to get this page, but I'd appreciate having my tab back for the sake of convenience. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm. The tab that searches for usage in other Wikimedia projects is labeled "Check usage", and I still have it. I think the "en" tab, that takes you to the file's page on enwiki is a setting in "my preferences" (I could be wrong on that), and I still see that tab too. Not sure why you don't have those anymore... Killiondude (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Usually happens when Javascript is turned off in the browser for some reason. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Try reloading your browser's cache. Lupo 06:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I had (and still have) the same problem since yesterday afternoon with Internet Explorer 7, while there was no problem with Opera on the same computer. Ctrl-F5 didn't help. --Túrelio (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Try the procedure I've outlined at User talk:Ilmari Karonen#All scripts are gone. Lupo 11:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Tried and repeated, but didn't change anything. "nominate for deletion" and new "add notice" button also gone, as is HotCat. --Túrelio (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The "nominate for deletion" is gone on IE8 but is still there on FF3.5. What is wrong here? --ALE! ¿…? 12:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, it's missing for me too. I'm running IE8, too; I should have mentioned that. I've not made any changes to my browser settings: I know nothing of Javascript, so I don't do anything with it for fear of damaging something unintentionally. Moreover, I can't find anything in my preferences that is changed or that even could affect the display of those buttons, and cache clearing doesn't help either. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Great to hear that Im not the only one with that problem :)) I fixed the problem with restoring my browser to default settings. Not a satisfactory sollution. However, I got yellow warnings in the down left corner of my IE, I dont remember the whole text because I fixed the problem with the browser reset. I only remember: Bezeichner, Zeichenfolge oder Zahl erwartet (identifier?, string or number expected) / Zeile 312 (line 312)/ index.php. --Martin H. (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason is related to the compatibility view http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/08/27/introducing-compatibility-view.aspx. Deactivating it fixes the scripts and tabs, regretably it results in some strange and uncomfortable page jumping while editing - especially editing the edit summary - and some optical problems with the /lang templates. --Martin H. (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed. The reason was a spurious comma in MediaWiki:Common.jsthat made IE bork, but that was ignored on other browsers. Just reload your browser's cache. Lupo 08:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Own}} in UploadForm

Hi, as you probably all know, {{Own}} is now widely used with bots having fun and adding it everywhere they can. Great thing.

So we wanted to make it default in the Upload Form, instead of « travail personnel (own work) » (in the case of french), that would be replaced later by a bot. But it seems that that MediaWiki:UploadFormOwnWorkLabel doesn't work if templates are used. Otourly suggested that maybe it would be possible to tweak MediaWiki:UploadForm.js so that it would used {{Own}} (since there is no localization neede anymore at that level).

Would anyone know more on this ? Jean-Fred (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely support this. If {{own}} doesn't work, maybe {/{own}/} might work (at least it's always used if a template is supposed to appear in custom .js/.css files). --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that our upload form should be changed to use {{Own}}. The same goes for section headers (see Commons:Village pump#Bots awaken above), and dates . The new uploads should be done in such a way as to eliminate need for bots to fix them. Alternatively we could have a bot just processing new uploads.--Jarekt (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
&#123;&#123;Own&#125;&#125; works. --Leyo 13:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Putting <nowiki>{{own}}</nowiki> into MediaWiki:UploadFormOwnWorkLabel and then deleting all subpages of MediaWiki:UploadFormOwnWorkLabel should work as far as MediaWiki:UploadForm.js is concerned. It had explained that a long time ago. However, please see the German VP: it appears some people have problems with that template. Lupo 14:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be the problem. I edited MediaWiki:UploadFormOwnWorkLabel/de in that way like I announced it as a test. For the upload form, it works as it should, but it seems that this causes the problem you mentioned. Honestly, I don't know why. --Leyo 15:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
How about headings? Can we get them in localized form? And should we have a bot looking at new uploads fixing {{Own}} and possibly dates? --Jarekt (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The headings are added by the server if the user chose a license from the license drop-down menu. To get them localized up front, you'd need to submit a bug report at bugzilla, but be warned that the {{int:...}} "feature" is considered a bug (it may lead to "what links here" inconsistencies) by some developers... Might be interesting to watch the reactions when they're asked in a bug report to "fix" an issue by applying a "bug". :-) Lupo 13:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Where is the text of the heading coming from? Is it hardwired somewhere in the server code, or is server code getting it from some a place where it can be configured? If it is hardwired than I would call it a bug. As for {{int:...}} "feature" used by headers: if it is a bug why are we using it? Shall we write a template (using {{LangSwitch}} ?) to add uniform localized summary and license headers? The advantage of a template would be that it can be changed in the future without need for changing text in files again. --Jarekt (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It comes from MediaWiki:Filedesc for the summary and from MediaWiki:License for the license header. (The latter will come from MediaWiki:License-header as of r55558, c.f. bugzilla:19966. We're currently running r55286, so that change isn't active here yet.) Note, however, that both messages are also used on the uplaod form, and normally you don't need to use any autotranslation mechanism for stuff in the MediaWiki-namespace, since the server software already does that. It does, too: when you upload with the user interface language set to Polish, the heading generated will say "Opis", not "Summary". (Or so I thought, though I'm no longer sure after looking at the code.) The server makes the translation once when the file description page is created during the upload, whereas what we'd like to have is a translation that is done when that page is viewed. Lupo 08:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so as far as I understand it the problem is that MediaWiki:Filedesc and MediaWiki:License are used for two (or more) different purposes by the server. In the past that was desirable but with the current push for localized headers it no longer is. Lupo, you mentioned that MediaWiki:License-header will take over some functions of MediaWiki:License. I assume than we will be able to insert headers like == {{int:license-header}} == instead of already translated headers as it is done today. Can we use the same approach with MediaWiki:Filedesc and create MediaWiki:Filedesc-header? That would solve the header problems. --Jarekt (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
No, no, no. The bug report was only about MediaWiki:License, which was used for two semantically different purposes! If you then set the new MediaWiki:License-header to "{{int:license-header}}", you subvert the whole reason for this split. And I'm not sure it'd work; in MediaWiki-namespace, the server already does the autotranslation, and I think I remember that "{{int:...}}" doesn't work right in that namespace anyway. Lupo 13:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
So if we are going to file a bug report with bugzilla, what should we ask for?--Jarekt (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Jarekt, all template based autotranslation methods use {{int:}}. That's the only way templates like {{LangSwitch}} work. Rocket000 (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I did not realized that all our autotranslated templates relay on a bug. I thought some where safer than others. --Jarekt (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
bugzilla:2085 & bugzilla:14404 (where I asked them not to fix it before I understood them problem ;). I wouldn't worry about using it though. Rocket000 (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Summary" header on file description pages

Is the initial header needed when {{Information}} is used?

The header seems useful in the absence of an information template (on files uploaded prior to its introduction), but if the template is used, it seems somewhat redundant. -- User:Docu at 16:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be a matter of preference. For images using {{Information}} template, four layouts seem to be used most frequently:
  1. summary header; {{Information}} without license template; License header; license template
  2. {{Information}} without license template; License header; license template
  3. {{Information}} without license template; license template
  4. {{Information}} with license template
Number one is an upload default. Number 3 Commonist default. Other 2 are also popular. I think all 4 forms are perfectly fine although I prefer #1 and definitely do not like #4 with verbose license templates (like Template:GFDL). --Jarekt (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally I prefer pages with (2) unless the license templates are short (4). Removing the "summary" header from the upload form would avoid needing to convert them. -- User:Docu at 17:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The headers are automatically added by the server when the user chose a license from the license drop down menu. Lupo 13:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I always go for (4). -mattbuck (Talk) 14:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought the primary purpose of the ==Summary== header is simply to give you an edit button so that people can easily just edit the following section (usually the information template) without editing the whole page. If nothing else this gives an edit summary that gives some idea of what sort of thing was being edited. When editing I always add a summary heading at the start of the page if none is present. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Mass uploading PD material; guidance sought!

I may over the next weeks be assisting a third party in doing uploads of large numbers (hundreds, possibly thousands) of PD images to Commons. I have looked for whether there is a particular policy or guideline on a "best practice" way of doing this, but I've not been able to locate anything just yet. I plan to use a modified version of Nichalp's upload script, although if there is any more modern preferred way to do this please let me know.

We also plan to register a secondary account, similar to User:FotothekBot - again, if there is a problem with this can you please let me know? Lankiveil (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at Commons:Batch uploading. Multichill (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Deadly mushroom picture

I'm new here (made this account to start this topic) and sorry for my possibly bad English.

Even though this topic has been discussed before here (read this to make any sense of my post):

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009Mar#Deadly_mushroom

...the name of the file remains the same. If its true that the mushrooms in that picture are deadly, I think its very dangerous if it has wrong name and if there is a possibility of someone eating deadly mushrooms.

I'm also worried (in case the mushrooms in the picture are deadly) because Google Image Search finds that wikimedia common picture 5 times on the first page if you search for "Schafchampignon" and also if you search for "Schaf champignon". Schafchampignon means some mushroom in German, I think. See:

http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Schafchampignon

I personally am not an expert on mushrooms so I don't know if they are eatable or not but I'm worried if there is a possibility that someone would eat deadly mushrooms because a picture of them would have been named wrong.

What I wish is that you people would investigate this case properly!

In case the picture will be deleted or changed, it should be deleted/renamed on other sites as well, for example on those sites where Google Image Search finds the picture when searching for Schafchampignon. Also Google cache should be updated as soon as possible (I think Google has tools for this) after the file is deleted from the actual locations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soratakva (talk • contribs) 20:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I was contacted by the above poster about this image by e-mail (in Finnish). I'm no mushroom expert either, but it does look like Amanita virosa to me — and if there's any uncertainty, that's certainly the safer identification. I've gone ahead and reuploaded the image as File:Amanita virosa Oberschleißheim.jpg and deleted the original (which had already been orphaned). I also adjusted the description accordingly. (Ps. To any German-speakers here, please feel free to correct any mistakes in my attempt at a German description.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Was there another great accidental deletion?

We remember the great accidental deletion of images, where also the backups were deleted. Now I noticed that it says on the OTRS server that "February 1, 2009: A large number of tickets older than 30 days were accidentally deleted from the database. Recovery from backups will be attempted on the live DB. "
Any updates since February? How much was deleted? Has anything been recovered? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This problem persisted only 2 days, see bugzilla:17279. Reported on January 31st and tickets were completely restored on February 2nd. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 04:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

August 27

German speaker help needed!

Can some one please translate my comment on User talk:Gaggo to German language, Thanks in advance.   ■ MMXXtalk  03:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I took the liberty to change your translation a bit. I hope you don't mind. Regards, --NEUROtiker ⇌ 05:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, both of you.   ■ MMXXtalk  06:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Translation

Can anyone translate the language in File:氷川丸.jpg to make it possible to find the ships name? --Stunteltje (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)t

It's "Hikawamaru." I've added the file to Category:Hikawamaru and translated the Japanese caption. The ship even has a page at en.wiki. - BanyanTree 07:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
And, important to be found, an IMO number mentioned. Thank you very much for your help. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Concern over admin actions

The community may wish to review my posting here. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

August 28

Create a specific mediawiki extension for i18n message used in Wikimedia commons

Hi.

As you know, wikimedia Commons use lot of translated message or box. Some message are needy.

So my proposition is :

  • Create a Mediawiki Extensions wich contain all the specific message wich be profitable to be translated (as all licence template, all talk_user message used by bot or similary)
  • Tell the translatewiki to work on this extension (to translate the message)

advantage :

  • if the original template or message is change, all over language are informed that it need a new version
  • hide the language link in all template (some template use more place to indicate the language than the message itself)
  • less charge for the server if a high-used template is modified

Thanks for your listening. And excuse me for my english. Crochet.david (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why this needs its own extension. I'd rather list all system messages that need translating on a subpage of Commons:Template i18n, for example Commons:Template i18n/System messages or something. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It's very nice if the templates translated here can be of use for other wiki's, that's a big advantage. I talked with the translate wiki folks about his at the dev conference in Berlin. The current setup of autotranslating would have to be changed. I'll see if I can build an example template to show a possible implementation. Multichill (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hm, it seems so that I didn't really understand the proposal. Can someone with a bit better English skills explain me what's planned here? Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I think someone did write an extension (LanguageConverter) to embed translations with a special wiki markup, but per the discussion I don't think it is enabled. I'm not sure this is quite the same thing as you are suggesting, but thought I'd mention it. It was discussed at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2009Jul#Link_table_problem_of_.7B.7BLangSwitch.7D.7D but that discussion didn't go very far (but it sounds like an intriguing one to me). Judging by comments in the code, it is already implemented in LanguageConverter.php, but perhaps not turned on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I really misunderstood this. An easier way to use {{LangSwitch}} would be awesome. It's not something that needs to be immediately improved IMHO, but it definitely would be good. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I created an example at {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-example}} (de, nl) it uses MediaWiki:Template_Cc-by-sa-3.0_text & MediaWiki:Template_Cc-by-sa-3.0_attribution_text which could be filled by an extension. Multichill (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I admit that I really misunderstood this, so here's my opinion for this: I  Oppose the idea. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of sharing these messages with other wikis, but I currently see too many disadvantages for the Commons. First, templates without links to other languages are bad, especialy here at Commons, where it's multilingual. All non-registered users use the English language setting and would probably not even know that such a message exists in their language. Registered members could change their language setting, but most people don't even know that this is possible. Second, I don't like to be dependant on other wikis for such important things like our licensing texts. Who ensures that all translations are factually correct? The most translators over at the translate-wiki don't have a good knowledge of copyright and might rather make mistakes than our editors do. Who looks out that the templates don't get vandalized? I am not interested in patrolling on yet another wiki, and I also don't want to visit another wiki for reverting vandalism here. And what do we do if one wiki that also uses this doesn't agree on a change we made? What if they insist on their opinion, or they edit-war? If we change some policy, will we then need to go the translatewiki and change it there? If we intend to create another template, will we have to ask them to create it? Furthermore, many good users have grown from autotranslating. It's a good way to recognize one's dedication to this project, if people translate templates into their language. And the {{Autotranslate}} and {{LangSwitch}} templates with {{Fallback}} in there doesn't suck that much. Sure, it could be better, but there's no immediate need to improve this. Thus, I'm against this idea. I would not be against creating such an extension, but strictly against using it here. An alternative to this extension might be to export the templates to the wikis that are interested in them. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
We're already dependant for all our current mediawiki messages. Your assumption is that our editors are better at translating licenses. That's a rather strange assumption. We provide a baseline (the English version). And the folks at translatewiki (which include a lot of editors from Commons) get these messages translated into languages you've never heard of. These messages can always be overridden on a wiki, just alter the mediawiki message. I'll start a little test with the cc-by* templates and see where this takes us. Multichill (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's correct, I forgot that it could still be overwritten here. For license tags, this idea might work, but we should really carefully consider which templates should be translated this way. User talk templates, as proposed, should not be done this way. There's too often the need to change these, and they're also (unlike the licensing templates) not relevant for other wikis as they don't have DRs, copyvios or similar. And, the language link problem still remains. I know that they look kinda ugly (Template:GFDL/lang), but yet they're necessary. Maybe some solution like the thing in the COM:AN might work. Though I use the English skin, it always shows me the German text, and there are no ugly links to other languages. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure, this is only useful for a small subset of templates on Commons:Template i18n. Creative Commons templates are used on a lot of WMF Wiki's so these might be useful to translate in a central place. Multichill (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wells

Hi there, I think people might often categorize water wells in here. Do you think we should move this category? --Flominator (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Multichill (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thx --Flominator (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

August 24

User galleries

Does anyone know what happened to the User galleries, I know they were unreliable but they were a good way of looking for new images that might be used on Wikipedia. Most of my edits are on pages to do with Leeds and the surrounding area. Knowing the main 4 or 5 users who add such pictures, enables you to look for new images in a chronological list, which is much easier then searching the many Leeds based categories, some with hundreds of images all in alphabetical order. Thanks, Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Toolserver is currently down, so tools like the Gallery aren't working. Hopefully, that won't last long. Pruneautalk 17:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
You could enable the PrettyLog gadget and just look at at the upload log of these few users here at the commons. Lupo 14:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I prefer to just maintain my own. --J.smith (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Scope

Is this event here within the Commons' project scope? Perhaps a polish speaking user can help. The files are used here.
Seems curious: I have shot some photos of a cabaret event organised by some families in my street (even the mayor came - well, smalltown-vantages), so if I write an article on en.wikinews those images have the right be left on Commons? Greets,09:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes they do. Main thing is that they are of educational value (in this case: representing a cabaret and a public event). --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Just click checkusage and you'll see why these images are in scope. Multichill (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request

I have had a deletion request on file since 12 July, see here. So far, no one has commented. I assume that no one will ever comment, and the image will, therefore, never be deleted. I find this to be a shockingly useless process, and sympathise with Wadester16 for performing his own deletions. Is there any way to get my deletion request from languishing in the archives? Is there any way to ask a sensible, kindly admin to just delete it? It's enormously bloated in size due to stitching and saving mistakes, it contains several errors, and it has been superseded by two files which are better (the licences are the same). The biggest Commons weakness is its housekeeping. Maedin\talk 09:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete this image. It is of larger size (higher resolution/analysis) than its derivatives. You have released it under a free license, which is not revocable. Sv1xv (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps if those admins who complain about the slow DR process were to do some admin work in that area ... ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Tony, I'm not an admin here, so I'm qualified to complain without feeling obligated to help, ;-) I feel bad for the poor sods who try to open the huge image, and as I said, it contains errors so it is not a good version for people to be working from. I will upload instead a new version on top of it that's smaller to address these concerns of mine. And, as I have provided the same image with two different files and the same licence, I still don't see why this can't be deleted for housekeeping. But ok, I accept that it's not an area of policy that I'm familiar with. Thanks for your help! Maedin\talk 10:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Some deletion requests languish for months, Maedin, but in my experience they all get addressed eventually. Powers (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Not eventually, definitely. There is a backlog with deletion requests, but they are not archived without a decision on keep or delete. I agree that the interest in deletion discussions is too small. --Martin H. (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Eventually means in the end; not the same meaning as eventuell or éventuellement in German and French. –Tryphon☂ 19:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
@Maedin, no that wasn't a dig at you, just a dig at those who want to bypass the DR process because it is too slow, but don't participate in it :-). I have to admit that I haven't downloaded the whole thing and looked at it carefully (due to the size!), but in terms of people cropping bits from it to make derivative images, the stitching errors would not necessarily be a problem. I think the best idea is just mark it as redundant or something and note that there are better versions, rather than uploading yet another version over top of it (which would achieve nothing but too hide it and make it even less likely that anyone will use it). --Tony Wills (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

August 29

What happens to a derivative work when the original work is found out to be a copyrighted file?

Hi,

I've used a file (image:Glijscherm.png) to produce several derivative images:

But according to an anonymous IP (see [49]), the author might not be the original Dutch uploader. I can confirm that the picture was on the main page of that para2000.org website in 2008, but I believed the webmaster took it from Commons. I sent an email to the webmaster of www.para2000.org to ask him if he knows the real origin of that file. In the mean time, I'm a bit worried about what is going to happen to File:Parapente3D.svg and File:Parapente3D demi suspentage.svg if the original picture is to be deleted. I traced those 2 diagrams with Inkscape with the original file in the background. Is this an illegal copy? --PiRK (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

But the article on Wikia states that the image was copied fron nl-wiki. Did I miss something? Sv1xv (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The image description page (I copied it from commons) states that the image was copied from nl-wiki, but somebody added Source : [http://www.para2000.org/ Para2000] to the page on which the image is used. OO-C74 pretends he is the author on the original upload log, but the image used to be in the middle of para2000's main page. So until I get an answer from para2000's webmaster, I don't know what the actual source of the image is. --PiRK (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I found another page where the image is still used : [50]. --PiRK (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The webmaster of Para2000.org Gerard Florit confirmed to me that the picture has been on [51] and [52] for more than 10 years so OO-C74 is definitely not the original author. The problem seems to be solved now because somebody (almost certainly Gerard Florit himself) corrected the description page (as I adviced him to do) and didn't change the licenses. --PiRK (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the license for images on para2000.org ? Is it GFDL or some other free license? Where is it stated? Sv1xv (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Nothing is stated on para2000. Everything is copyrighted. The only thing I know for sure is that Gérard Florit is now aware that one of his image is on commons because I sent him an email. In that email I asked him if he was the original author, and he replied that he is. Then I sent him a second email to advice him to ask for a speedy deletion of that image or to correct the author if he agrees to publish the image with GFDL license. An d then somebody came to correct the description page, so I suppose the webmaster of para2000 agrees to publish this single image with the specified license. --PiRK (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
If he agrees to release this image under a free license, then there is a spefic procedure to be followed, see Commons:OTRS . Sv1xv (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Optional headers guideline should be destroyed

Here, the page that shows information about the file description pages addresses that the header "Licensing" and "Summary" are optional. By now it seems mandatory that we use the local template header (e.g. {{int:filedesc}}). Shouldn't we configure that statement now? ZooFari 16:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite clear what you mean with "optional headers guideline should be destroyed". We could do away with these headers.
If you try uselang, you will note that it does use {{int:filedesc}}. Bots are converting them to this, but they don't add them. The formatting here could probably be improved.
If they are not present, pages shouldn't really be edited to add them, unless e.g. {{Information}} is added as well. As mentioned earlier, the "summary" header is somewhat redundant anyways. -- User:Docu at 16:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
These headers (summary and licensing) are still optional, so please don't change that statement. Multichill (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Arabic speaker help needed!

Can someone please write a message in Arabic language to User:سبأ and explain to the user that he/she is uploading copyright violation images, and translate our concerns to the user. please see: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Persian user uploading book scans. Thanks in advance.   ■ MMXXtalk  04:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Search index

It seems that the search index hasn't updated in several days. Is there a problem? -- User:Docu at 10:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this is being solved now: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Search_engine_defective?. -- User:Docu at 4 September 2009 17:31
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009/08&oldid=148484426"