Commons:Village pump/Archive/2009/10

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

Removing work from Wikimedia

I have uploaded a couple of images to Wikimedia but have now decided I want to permanently remove them. How do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblecar (talk • contribs) 17. September 2009, 22:58 Uhr (UTC)

Lol (sorry), thats the shortes Wikimedia career I ever saw ;) You can neither delete your account nor the images you contributed under irrevocable free licenses. --Martin H. (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course, the image tagged as "missing a source" may be deleted anyway if you don't provide evidence that it is free of rights. --Eusebius (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Do what you like, but I won't be uploading any more images. Far too anti-user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblecar (talk • contribs) 17. September 2009, 23:12 Uhr (UTC)

Colleagues, Bubblecar (talk · contribs) looks clearly like a troll to me, who has succeeded in starting four threads (see above). Don't feed him anymore. --Túrelio (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm an artist and luthier who has contributed a couple of images (and intended to contribute more), but experienced a good deal of trauma in trying to do so, because of the non-intuitive nature of the upload interface. And one of the images won't be accepted because of material that is apparently copyrighted elsewhere, but I can't work out how to re-submit the modified version which doesn't include this material.

You people really need to consider that many of your contributors are creative individuals who have decided to make unique and interesting images freely available to the global public, but who are not much helped in this aim by the software here. And when we're called "trolls" this really does make the Wikimedia project look half-baked and unwelcoming indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblecar (talk • contribs) 23:53, 17. Sep. 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bubblecar, I understand your concerns (and do not believe you are a troll). The problem is that the matter itself, especially licencing, is very complicated, if we would simplify this any further it would become illegal. All this fuss is about protecting the rights of artists like you are. Sorry for that.
But I do believe that you probably have some very valuable images to add. If you have trouble uploading, we are willing to assist you. Or, if you don't mind, you can send your images to other users, e.g. me, accompanied by a descriptiion and a confirmation that you release all rigths, and I will upload them for you, provided they are indeed valuable. -- H005 (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies to everyone. I was drunk and obnoxious, and deserved the troll call.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ? (talk • contribs) ? (UTC)

If you dislike the interface here, you may upload your pictures to [http:www.flickr.com Flickr] with a Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license and then ask someone (for example at Commons:Help Desk) to move them from there to here. Teofilo (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
And there is also the problem of a bug in the upload interface this past week. Some things still do not work - very frustrating, aspecially for new users. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


ok; this exchange is a perfectly lovely text-book example of what we are doing wrong @ wmc:

here we have a photographer; (as of this writing) their lone surviving contribution to wmc demonstrates professional-level skills & interesting, highly useful subject-matter.

Rebec fiddle. A medieval and Renaissance bowed instrument, one of the precursors of the violin. This reconstruction of a rebec was made by Nikolas Zalotockyj. Photo by User:Bubblecar

this person wants/wanted to contribute; to upload & share their work @ wmc.

they uploaded some stuff & found (big surprise) that the media-wiki software is clunky-as-hell, awkward to use, & that it pretty much takes advanced-level user skills to do anything beyond extremely basic tasks like uploading & categorizing a file (& even those functions aren't particularly user-friendly).

this person perseveres, & finally comes on here (commons:village pump), asking for help.

the first couple of help comments they get are rather unhelpful (i'm sorry, but it's true)

then, the user gets called a "troll"; a hostile, & completely baseless claim. how exactly is name-calling meant to be helpful/useful on here anyway, & when!? ( ...back where i come from, we have this thing called "wiki-ettiqette").

so now, we have pretty much lost this artist for wikimedia.

great job guys, high 5's all around!!!

P

this conversation should be preserved as an example of how to collectively screw things up, & drive off a noob user with concentrated community-hostility.

i'm willing to believe that at least some of the people involved were acting in good conscience, but either way, the result is the same...

2 obvious points:

1. we need to actively apologize to this user, & try to get them back (& help them with uploading their work!).

2. we need to try & stop this kind of collective-effort-screw-up from happening!


if bubblecar is still bothering to read this thread:

i abjectly apologize on behalf of my fellow-wikimedians; sometimes this can be a hostile & uncouth tribe, but there are people on here who want to encourage new creative talent, & actually help fellow-users with their problems. i'm one of them, please feel free to contact me, anytime, if you need help/want to continue @ wmc. my main focus is on wikipedia/english, but i do work with other artists; recruiting them, helping them to upload their work, & getting it placed on wikipedia articles, as merited

i very much like your fiddle picture, & hope you will choose to upload further works.

Lx 121 (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki links for File: pages

Following this edit by User:Mattes at File:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - Don Giovanni - Overtüre.ogg, I had a discussion with that user about the usefulness of Interwiki links for File: pages on my talk page. In short, I think File: pages should never have Interwiki links (the kind that appear in the left sidebar), Mattes thinks they provide information as to the file's usage on other language Wikipedias. We are not making much progress in resolving our diverging points of view; is there a better forum for discussing such matters with a broader input from other editors? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That might work, but let's see people with more experience in that type of area think.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 02:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite understand: what might work?
My intent in bringing this here is 1) either to be directed to an appropriate forum where this can be discussed (Commons:Image pages or Commons:Guide to layout … ?), or 2) to discuss it here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
In the past we had discussions on wisdom of adding interwiki links to images and the consensus was that it is not a good idea. Someone might upload dozen of other files related to this work and if we add similar links to all of them we will end up with many-to-one configuration of interwiki links. That is bad because it is not clear what the interwiki link from wikipedia to Commons should link to. Interwiki links should be only used at the category/gallery level. In case of this file I would add it to a one-file category and add links there. --Jarekt (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, these interwiki links are to the *file page itself* on the various language wikis. In other words, they are links to itself, though showing the view from the local wikis. Sort of like the "en" tab at the top of the page. I can't see too much of a purpose, except it may show the page with a different default language (not worth it in my opinion), and it also makes a quick way to see what usage there is on a particular wiki. At first blush they seem ridiculous, but then again we do have a link to the en-wiki in the tab bar for every image, so if there is a reason for that maybe there is a reason to link to other wikis. Dunno. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
We don’t have link to en, we have a link going to your “home” wiki, I have a link to cs, for instance. That has a tiny bit of usefulness, but having 272 interwiki links at each image…? Why? To check where is the file used, see CheckUsage. I agree that the interwiki links are a bad idea. --Mormegil (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I once added some when copying images from one wiki to another wiki. This was before using commons though.
If an image is on commons, generally there aren't any file description pages in the other wikis. So linking there would link to a nonexistent page. This can't be of much use. BTW there is a link "check usage" on commons file description pages that lists all uses of an image.
Within a description, it can be helpful to link some of the words to articles in the corresponding wikipedia, but this isn't the question here. -- User:Docu at 10:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
@ “If an image is on commons, generally there aren't any file description pages in the other wikis. So linking there would link to a nonexistent page. This can't be of much use.” -- Yes and no. The main reason is to see “OK this file is used there, there and there”. Yes, there is no further description. No, that isn't useless because one gets the links in a particular Wikimedia project. BTW: Where do we get a valid solution for this matter (not in a discussion but rather in a query I guess ...)? We don't need to put this topic in n discussions over and over, and furthermore on n pages. A policy or similar needs to be set up here. --Mattes (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Writing guideline/policy

It seems there is consensus that Interwiki links on File: pages are not a good idea, or even verboten. How and where is this going to be documented? I'm not very experienced in this, but I suggest to add this passage to Commons:Guide to layout#File description pages and Commons:Image pages#Interwiki links (new section):

"In-line Interwiki links –those which are preceded by a colon ( : )– for terms used in the description of a file are encouraged. On the other hand, File: pages must not have Interwiki links of the kind that appear in the left sidebar as they would link to non-existing pages.

Example – good

… a composition by [[:w:en:Tekla Bądarzewska-Baranowska|Tekla Bądarzewska-Baranowska]] …

Example – bad

[[en:File:Georges Bizet - Rosabel Morrison - Carmen poster.png]]
[[fr:File:Georges Bizet - Rosabel Morrison - Carmen poster.png]]
…

I'm open for better suggestions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Transfering an image from Wikipedia

Just need someone to make sure that I haven't made a pig's ear of things. :) I've just transfered en:File:WikiProject Korea.PNG to File:WikiProject Korea.png. I excluded this revision because it appears to have been uploaded in error (was reverted by author and reuploaded at en:File:WikiProject Korea Military history project.PNG) as well as the most recent revision which I have uploaded here seperately at File:WikiProject Korea (new).png. Is this OK? PC78 (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems no problem as long as you correctly states the photographer, and license status, and original file name. By the way, I'm inviting you to Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10/Category:Gyeongbok Palace (you know the reason why per en:Talk:Gyeongbokgung#Move request.--Caspian blue 01:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Volunteers still needed

Hi all,
Although we soon will remove the centralnotice that is up, the Wikimedia Foundation is still looking for volunteers to serve as subject area experts or to sit on task forces that will study particular areas and make recommendations to the Foundation about its strategic plan. You may apply to serve on a task force or register your name as an expert in a specific area at http://volunteer.wikimedia.org.

The Foundation's strategy project is a year-long collaborative process which is hosted on the strategy wiki, at http://strategy.wikimedia.org. Your input is welcome (and greatly desired) there. When the task forces begin to meet, they will do their work transparently and on that wiki, and any member of the community may join fully in their work. This process is specifically designed to involve as many community members as possible.

Any questions can be addressed to me either on my talk page here or on the strategy wiki or by email to philippe at wikimedia.org.

I hope you'll consider joining us!

Philippe (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

location dec

I try to use the {{location dec}}-thing (I don't know what a sjabloon is in english), but using the search function I only find images of other people who didn't seem to get it working either. Where shall I look for more information, and how can this be made clearer and easyer to encourage uploaders to add location information. KKoolstra (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In english it is called a template, so documentation is at template:Location dec. This is a working example: {{Location dec|59.858232|17.633442|}}. It was generated automatically from metadata by the Flinfo tool when I uploaded a file from Flickr. Very friendly. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the bunch of faulty {{Location dec}} calls mentioned by User:KKoolstra. Two common faults were wrong type of or missing {{ }} brackets, and the inclusion of compass directions N,E, S, W etc when it just wants two numbers. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, consider using the Geolocator tool as suggested in Commons:Geocoding (it's just point, click, copy and paste). Now, perhaps, it just needs some more visibility (a direct link to Geolocator in the upload form wouldn't be bad, IMHO). --Ianezz (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The remainder of the July 2009 upload problems

Most of the files uploaded in July are now OK, but please tell if you can download the full size versions of:

I don't know if they are easy to recover, and if it is worth writing a bug on bugzilla only for these 9. Of course I have not checked the whole month of July, but I can hardly find more.

Teofilo (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also

available for full size download, but no thumbnails. Teofilo (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In-article attribution requirement

Please forgive me if this has been addressed before.
When I was preparing to place File:Jens Stoltenberg 2007 04 18.jpg on the English Wikipedia's main page, I noticed that it was tagged with Template:Harry, which includes (in part) the following text:

Attribution: All usage must display the phrase "Photo: Harry Wad" in the immediate vicinity of the image. The word photo may be translated. This requirement also applies to any articles in Wikimedia projects using this image.

Is such a requirement enforceable? The English Wikipedia's article doesn't appear to comply, and I think that it would be preferable to use one of the other available images of Jens Stoltenberg (as I did on the English Wikipedia's main page) than to add "Photo: Harry Wad" to the article. —David Levy 11:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There have been discussions about that in general, though - if I remember right - most photo contributors, who are interested in this topic at all and who prefer a "near-the-photo-credit" wouldn't demand that for Wikimedia projects, because here the full credit is only 1 click away. As to my knowledge, only :no-Wikipedia has enabled crediting in the image caption (for an example, see here). So, if we take this photographers demand seriously, then File:Jens Stoltenberg 2007 04 18.jpg is used "wrongly" on 30 Wikimedia projects. --Túrelio (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Also see no:Hovedside, where the image currently appears in non-compliance with this condition. —David Levy 14:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly enforceable, although it is debatable whether it (a) conflicts with the CC-BY license, or (b) remains compatible with Commons. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I'm wondering. A copyright holder is entitled to place any number of arbitrary restrictions on his/her works' use, but I'm not accustomed to seeing such a condition attached to an image available under a free (by our standards) license. —David Levy 13:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I took the opportunity to add "Photo: Harry Wad" to the English Wikipedia uses, and used {{byline|Photo: Harry Wad|2007}} for two of the captions. -84user (talk)
Hmm, though surely well-meant, that may create a precedent. IMHO it would be more appropriate to open a local discussion (i.e. on :en) about that. --Túrelio (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
For the time being, I've replaced the English Wikipedia's uses with File:Jens Stoltenberg.jpg, which has no such requirement. —David Levy 17:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As In-article attribution isn't yet accepted on :de, I've put notes on the talkpages of the two articles using the Stoltenberg photo. --Túrelio (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's like fair use, it's up to the local projects to decide whether they accept it or not. →Diti the penguin — 16:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
My take on this is: this demand appears to be a common confusion which I think comes from reading copyright notices on websites. These are written up by some arty-farty wordsmith, who has simply copied it from another website, rather than added by a lawyer (to get a lawyer, to write anything at all, costs lots more money and the result is usually totally incomprehensible). Legally the copyright owner can demand anything he wants; that is the whole purpose of Copyright – it allows the rightful owner control over publication. From a practical point of view, this particular stipulation is unwise, and perhaps therefore Harry might consider rewording it. And again on Template:Harry2 & Template:Harry3.
The CC licence only says:
* If the work itself contains any copyright notices placed there by the copyright holder, you must leave those notices in tact, or reproduce them in a way that is reasonable to the medium in which you are re-publishing the work. How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work? added emphasis mine.
The reason to alter it, is that: to demand how and where ones credit goes, is to interfere with the “ would be” publisher’s typography or page layout. Something that a publisher would not tolerate on principle. Otherwise, famous or important photographers would start demanding all sorts of unreasonable attribution prominence. Some images ( in say a book) might have all the credits placed in one place at (say) the start of the book or perhaps in an appendix at the back. Many websites now have click through credits (CNN springs to mind). Copyright owners need to be flexible for these reasons. Shall we post him a note on his WP talk page? He probable hasn't thought it through. --P.g.champion (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The license is clear: "Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." But I remove the specified requirement/reminder for Wikipedia in the template. --Harry Wad (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I hope that people will use byline if possible on Wikipedia to. On No.wp we use byline if the photographer's name is known, even if he does not require it. Such is considered good manners :-)--Harry Wad (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, this restriction conflicts with the license text of CC-BY-2.5. Also, it's too strict for Commons. Therefore all images with this extra restriction should be removed. As a sidenote, I do not think that Wikipedia should be forced to include an attribution in the main article text. Should we add an attribution to each paragraph, or even each sentence as well? Or maybe display the list of authors on a sidebar? The name of the photographer is of no interest for the average reader and should not deface articles. --Sebari (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia hosts texts written by a large proportion of persons. It is logical that we must keep an history for this purpose. On the contrary, photographs are almost exclusively made by only one person; they also have generally not the same license as the text, something that should be clear for the reader, who is also likely to be a reuser. And no, it is not too strict for Commons, an image credit is an attribution, not an additional part of a license, and has nothing to do with freedom, but copyright. Should I mention there is still a copyright on any free file (except works that are released under Public Domain)? My opinion is that reusers (and it includes Wikipedia) should themselves follow the CC license terms, that say “you must leave those notices in tact, or reproduce them in a way that is reasonable to the medium in which you are re-publishing the work”: you cannot, for obvious reasons, properly include a link to the license on a printed support, so you have to adapt it. Oh well, you sure can remove the files that require such attributions, but people will post them on other websites anyway. Why deleting the good work? →Diti the penguin — 20:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see my response below. Setting aside the legal and philosophical issues, hosting these images is far too burdensome (given the added work and confusion involved) to be considered a net gain to the Wikimedia Foundation and those who benefit from the content that it distributes. —David Levy 20:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Specifying where to put the attribution is an additional restriction that is not covered CC-BY-2.5. Therefore the images in question are not covered by CC and are not eligible for Commons. David explains some of the practical problems with this additional restriction well. Also, Wikipedia articles are collaborate works, usually by many contributors. These include writers, photographers, authors of diagrams, reviewers, and editors. Usually photos are used as part of the whole (like texts), and there is no reason to single out their contributors in an article. --Sebari (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the condition is too burdensome for Commons or any other Wikimedia project. Even if the practice of including in-article attributions were universally regarded as acceptable, editors and content republishers are entirely unaccustomed to it, so most won't even think to check whether the requirement exists.
Given that the vast majority of free images lack such a restriction, it's far more practical to simply prohibit it (by requesting its removal and deleting the images whose owners decline) than to demand that editors check every image to ensure that its license terms have been met (a chore likely to fall to the small percentage of users aware of the issue).
I also agree that the actual practice (whether mandatory or optional) is inconsistent with our projects' collaborative philosophy (and therefore highly undesirable). —David Levy 20:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Harry,
The problem may lay with understanding ‘who’ the manner belongs to. YOU own the manner of the form that the credit takes, the PUBLISHER owns the manner of how and where he displays it. This reads like the rantings of the chef on Muppet's to me but maybe it makes more sense to you. Navngivelse-DelPåSammeVilkår 3.0 Norge. Then please read my last post again.--P.g.champion (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I end my participation in this discussion, if any, like to delete my photos or threaten to, please be my gest. But make sure it is in line with the guidelines on Commons. I do not like bickering, send an email if there is anything you want me --Harry Wad (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am more concerned by the 'offensive words' provision. A license is basically a document saying "I own the copyright in this work, but I promise that I will not bring an action for copyright infringement if you to use the work according to these rules". In this case, if our use of this contributor's image was accompanied by "words that can be considered offensive", then it would be an infringement. However, "can be considered offensive" is a very broad phrase, as anything could conceivably be considered offensive to somebody, under the right conditions. The copyright owner could point to any word and correctly say that it could be considered offensive by someone, under some circumstance. In short, the license is no license at all, and the promise is illusory. BD2412 T 16:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • This requirement is quite understandable, as we see that the Wikimedia projects are increasing their pressure to deny authors their right to be recognized for their works in a normal way, including the You agree to be credited, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL when your contributions are reused in any form on edit pages, and the extremely harmful pdf book tool implemented on many Wikipedia projects. Teofilo (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I missed the "could be considered offensive" bit, BD2412, and would agree that this voids the license so far as Commons is concerned and all images with {{Harry}} must be deleted. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Collect remaining current problems?

It's come to my attention that Commons has had some more problems than we saw on the other wikis... I want to make sure we get that cleaned up!

Andrew has just deployed some more fixes which should eliminate the 'file already exists on Commons' bug. Can folks go through the lists above and collect just the problems that are still current down here so we can make sure we finish them up?

  • ResolvedCommonist fixed in r56793 trunk/r56794 branch
    Uploads via Commonist -- fixed or do we still have problems?
    • (Who's the best person to contact about debugging or developing fixes for Commonist?)
  • Missing description page immediately after edit -- is this still happening?
  • Anything else?

--brion (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Tonight http://toolserver.org/~magnus/flickr2commons.php still did not work for me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey brion, on Friday or Saturday I was going through and deleting images that were missing sources, license, and/or permission, and I came across an issue several times where the software said there was no image uploaded for that filename, but the upload logs showed that an image was indeed uploaded, and I could see it in the deleted revisions (once I deleted it, of course). That happened on several files that I was dealing with on that day. I'm not sure if it's an issue anymore, but I just wanted to let you know. Killiondude (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Magnus's CommonsHelper still doesn't work, too. --BokicaK (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Reported working after the fix for Commonist went in. --brion (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a bug with ogv or something else, but I can't upload File:Lilik - Il copyright sulla cultura - video Noè.ogv (19.1 MB). I tried removing the Unicode character but nothing: when the upload seems completed I only get a http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&action=submit blank page. I'm using Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3) Gecko/20090910 Ubuntu/9.04 (jaunty) Shiretoko/3.5.3. 

{{Information
|Description={{it|1=''Il copyright sulla cultura'', documentario per spiegare il diritto d'autore e la sua evoluzione al pubblico medio. Con aggiunta di immagini libere.}}
|Source=[http://leonardo.lilik.it/wordpress/2009/01/19/il-copydoc-diventa-video/]  [http://www.worldofcom.altervista.org/copydoc.html] [http://www.worldofcom.altervista.org/Copydoc.wmv]
|Author=Lilik, Franco Noè
|Date=2009-01-19
|Permission={{cc-by-sa-2.5-it}}
|other_versions=[[:File:Lilik - Il_copyright_sulla_cultura.ogg]]
}}

[[Category:Documentaries]]
[[Category:Copyright law]]

--Nemo 11:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks a lot, brion. Sadly, the version update did not fix the Commonist problem. Commonist is still non-functional (for me at least), still with the dreaded error "UnexpectedAnswerException unexpected response data (UiSimpleActionBase) status HTTP/1.0 200 OK". I don't know who to contact but the e-mail address given here. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC) PS: By the way, Commonist is a useful tools, but it's far from perfect. I think some better tool for mass uploading to the Commons would be great to have , or ar least something like Flickr's multi-file upload. Actually, I think it is a crucial problem for the further development of the Commons that all methods of uploading are as tiresome and as they are.

When I try to click the "Open upload form" link from the Flinfo tool, I get the following error: 

Request: GET http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uploadformstyle=basic&wpDestFile=...

Error: ERR_ACCESS_DENIED, errno [No Error] at Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:39:25 GMT

Kaldari (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To fix Commonist FileUploadAction.java (in commonist-0.3.41/lib/mwapi-src/src/net/psammead/mwapi/ui/action) needs to be fixed to include wpEditToken like I did here for pywikipedia. Multichill (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Since the edit token isn't actually needed to enforce CSRF protection on web file uploads, I've relaxed the check unless a token is actually passed or we're doing a non-file upload. (eg upload via URL). I can confirm that this fixes Commonist; probably it fixes a lot of the other broken upload tools as well. --brion (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Rotatebot went down too (Category:Images requiring rotation starts filling up). I left a note for Luxo. -- User:Docu at 17:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Flickr2Commons is still broken for me. Ultra7 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC) And Geograph2Commons wasn't working yesterday. Ultra7 (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

bugzilla:20736 is a remaining problem with MW's/Commons' integration with the "Firefogg" extension (or so I hypothesise, can test more thoroughly tomorrow). Jarry1250 (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm on IE. Ultra7 (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm pointing Michael Dale at that one, as he's responsible for the firefogg integration code. --brion (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And http://toolserver.org/~luxo/derivativeFX/deri1.php does not work either. These problems have been going on for a week now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for fixing Commonist. It works again! --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I still have the problem described above. --Nemo 12:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Flickr2Commons still doesn't work. It's a shame because we just missed out on a shed load of images of the Sttaffordhire hoard due to a license change. Had it been working at the time I would have uploaded 20 at least. Now we only have 2. Ultra7 (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


  • File upload service/Script, which several uploading bots are based on (mine included), doesn't seem to work anymore. This is preventing me from uploading about 3,000 images for Wikipedia Loves Art as well as about 150 images from the US State Department. Any help fixing the script would be appreciated. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed by setting wpDestFile to the UTF-8 encoded filename. Kaldari (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • One file moved today doesn't seem to have a working redirect in one Wikipedia
(en:File:Swiss_National_Council_Session_Spectators.jpg redirects, but fr:File:Swiss_National_Council_Session_Spectators.jpg doesn't).
For another file moved today both work: en:File:Fotothek_df_ps_0003830_x.jpg and fr:File:Fotothek_df_ps_0003830_x.jpg. An earlier one I checked was ok too.
We found this one when checking the first file that wasn't replaced by CommonsDelinker everywhere. -- User:
  • ✓ Done disappeared or was solved in the meantime -- User:Docu at 07:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

September 22

French copyrights and images of modern buildings

A user told me that Category:Tour_Montparnasse and Category:La Défense have images of modern French buildings. In France, freedom of panorama does not exist (see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France. Also from discussions on the French and English Wikipedias, I learned that images of recently built French buildings get a copyright from the architect who designed the building. Does this mean the images in these pages need to be removed? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an open DR here: Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Grande Arche. Copyright protection is even claimed for bridges, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Millau-Viaduct-France-20070909.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Viaduc de Millau-traversée.jpg. Luckily, Van Gogh could paint before all this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I have begun nominating deletion requests for some French buildings. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
On French WP, there is a special category for these images : fr:Catégorie:Image d'œuvre architecturale récente en fair use. Before any deletion, uploading them in this category would be smart. Thanks a lot. --Croquant (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

September 29

Procedural question

Hi, I have a question about procedures. I try to be very diligent about following all the Commons rules for images (now that I understand them). But I have a fellow in Yorkshire who has agreed to let me use one of his images from Flickr. However, he doesn't understand the need to change the copyright on the image, which right now just carries the full copyright on it. He asked if there is a way to leave his tag on the image, but for me to still be able to use it. I told him it might be possible to use OTC and have him write a letter to Commons giving his express permission to use the image in this one instance. However, I don't know the correct procedure on this, or whether that is indeed permissible. Would really appreciate some guidance. Thank you! MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean with the "OTC" acronym, but I think you should read Commons:OTRS, where you will find information on how to write permission E-mails. If you have further questions, you may ask the people at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Teofilo (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The easiest thing for your friend to do, would be to use the email template at Commons:Email templates and send that to OTRS. Killiondude (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Sorry, I meant OTRS and had my mind elsewhere. I will go that route, which I've used before for photos not on Flickr. Thanks.MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Request

Anyone can insert the page Template:No license/pt-br in Template:No license/lang?}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Melo da Silva (talk • contribs)

✓ Done, the right place to ask is the talkpage of the template Template:No license/lang using {{Editprotected}} if the page is protected. --Martin H. (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

File upload service/Script broken

Commons:File upload service/Script seems to no longer work since the recent API update. Since several File Upload bots are based on this script, it would be awesome if someone could figure out how to fix it. I have about ~3500 files personally that I can't upload until this is solved (from various museums and the US State Department). Kaldari (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what you get from running an obsolete unsuported script. wpDestFile is not set. It should contain the new filename (UTF-8 encoded). Multichill (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. That fixed it. Kaldari (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2

Volunteers still needed

Hi all,
Although we soon will remove the centralnotice that is up, the Wikimedia Foundation is still looking for volunteers to serve as subject area experts or to sit on task forces that will study particular areas and make recommendations to the Foundation about its strategic plan. You may apply to serve on a task force or register your name as an expert in a specific area at http://volunteer.wikimedia.org.

The Foundation's strategy project is a year-long collaborative process which is hosted on the strategy wiki, at http://strategy.wikimedia.org. Your input is welcome (and greatly desired) there. When the task forces begin to meet, they will do their work transparently and on that wiki, and any member of the community may join fully in their work. This process is specifically designed to involve as many community members as possible.

Any questions can be addressed to me either on my talk page here or on the strategy wiki or by email to philippe at wikimedia.org.

I hope you'll consider joining us!

Philippe (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Category broken

I have uploaded this image and i have found a tool with which i can create automatically categories. But i want to add a new category which is only a red link category. What is done wrong. I have tried it several times to find a correect term!--A.Hakansson (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently someone fixed it for you already. –Tryphon☂ 12:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Finally an answer i was waiting for. Where can you see that somebody already has changed it? What do you think of that image? Is it in good categories? Or is it in order if i add more?
If the category was removed or changed, like here, you can see it in the "history" of the file description page, click the history tab. If the category is now blue it was created in the meantime and you can see in the history of the category page who created the category. Regarding categorization: The image was over categorized at that moment (do not edit, old revision!). Category:People's Liberation Army is a subcategory of China and Military. At the meantime this is also fixed, see the description page history. --Martin H. (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC) p.s.: Maybe some expert want to add a category for the vehicle, you may add the file to Category:Tanks (if it is a tank, I dont know). --Martin H. (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for helping and giving me this info. Now i know what the categorization means. I think it is a tank, but i do definately not know. I am not interested in military. I only liked the contrast: chinese tank and a gucci store. That is quite curious and a rare composition. In addition, the PRC of our time and its history beefs this image up, too. Equal, thank you for your support. If this image is not appreciated, i can delete it. By the way one question: How can i delete images?--A.Hakansson (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)--A.Hakansson (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Reading your next to last sentence I already thought to myself: No, you can not delete, you can only request deletion following Commons:Deletion policy#Detailed guildlines. But the image is great and free and uploaded with good description and source, so no reason for deletion. Your posting here attracted some editing, please dont feel surprised by the categorization and edits others do to the image. --Martin H. (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Help!

I've reverted File:Flag of Belgium.svg to an earlier version, per the official source. I need now, however, to create File:Flag of Belgium (state).svg, with the earlier image, but I have no idea how to create SVGs. (The source code would be something like: "− <svg width="450" height="390"> <rect id="black" width="150" height="390" x="0" y="0" fill="#000"/> <rect id="yellow" width="150" height="390" x="150" y="0" fill="#ffda0c"/> <rect id="red" width="150" height="390" x="300" y="0" fill="#f31830"/> </svg>"

Or like 

<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"
  xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" width="450" height="390">
 <rect width="150" height="390" />
 <rect x="150" width="150" height="390" fill="#ffde00" />
 <rect x="300" width="150" height="390" fill="#f00" />
</svg>

If anyone can help me/create this file, that would be much appreciated. Thanks!! Oreo Priest (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. You simply needed to put the above code in a text file, and upload it. –Tryphon☂ 15:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

please help with image description

I have uploaded a image using commons helper but the automatically generated text is all wrong i tried to manually fix it but it just got worse the image is File:Binary_executable_file2.png

✓ Done fixed information template --Jarekt (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Faked or not?

I have the strong impression that these two images of the same uploader

are faked or doctored. To me, it looks as if the head/face was photoshopped into an existing image. Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious (bad) photo montage. --BokicaK (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

apparently deleted already (MartinGugino (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

Template Looping in the Template:Info/Main series of templates

I'm not sure how long this has been around or how widespread it is but I have noticed some template looping. To see it, visit either of the following pages (there may be more, I just checked the Nimitz after spotting it at the Yamato):

and look to the bottom of the information area.. These both use specific info templates, respectively

The looping seems to come from the "aux" part of the templates. {{Info/Main}} is a very complex template. It displays a lot of information, and apparently automatically generates crosslinks and the like to multiple wikis including various languages and the like, but I think the actual work is done in other templates, not sure. It's used to make the ship specfic info templates I show. As you can see, there is no looping AT the ship specific Info page, it works OK, but if you look at usages, you see the template looping detected note. Near as I can tell there is a redirect from ../aux to the main on each of the ship specific aux pages but deleting the redirect didn't fix it, nor did leaving the page there but getting rid of the redirect. If someone can take a look that would be great. This may be endemic? not sure. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

First time I heard of this pseudo-namespace "Info:". Is it still being used? The information could be added to Wikipedia and category descriptions instead. -- User:Docu at 19:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
There's a whole bunch of them (see Special:PrefixIndex/Info:). As far as I can tell the /aux subpages are all redirects to the main page so any calls of the aux pages in {{Info/Main}} are pointless. Given the fact there has been no activity on these pages and their creator isn't active.. perhaps we should just deprecate as they are unmaintained, and replace the Info:s with simpler templates - I don't think all that scripting is necessary.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Damn, what a mess. That might be the right choice. Multichill (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Nod. However I think the idea behind them is nifty... a template that links to other wikis and to other categories as well as giving a blurb seems great. I have done similar things for some photos I've taken or found, for example see Template:Christopher Columbus (whaleback), for example File:Christopher Columbus whaleback Stereoview stern view.jpg and the images that embed it, or images in the category Category:Croton_Dam_(Michigan) such as File:Croton_Dam_Muskegon_River_Dscn1100_cropped.jpg... so if there was a way to fix this Info: thing, and maybe make it less complex and easier to use, without getting rid of it entirely?? that might be goodness... because it does seem nifty. ++Lar: t/c 03:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that Info: should be a real namespace. I mean, just think what people do when they press Special:RandomPage and they see such a Info: namespace. It's just useless for the readers. Also, since the pages are counted as a gallery, this makes it harder for things that rely on namespace things, like the AbuseFilter. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the stuff in the Info: pages is just a template - its designed to be transcluded into galleries/categories - so a namespace isn't really necessary. What Lar has done with his example is right I think.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I copied the Nimitz Info page into my userspace (I'm going to work with it to simplify/update).--Nilfanion (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Nilf. Please consider trying to retain the template nature of this, so that new info pages can be constructed easily... (the way I did mine is too much work to create new ones, at least if you want the automatic finding of other language pages) but I think moving it into template namespace (from the pseudo namespace "Info:") probably is a good idea, per The Evil IP. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Made a much simplified (no subtemplates!) at User:Nilfanion/Info/Redesign. I've put a test use of it here and it can be compared against the original here. I've also replicated the parameters (with one exception) so if a straight replacement was done none of the transclusions would break. Its pretty much ready to go live now. My remaining concerns are that I can't think where to put it and I think it might be better served by two templates: One for the header and one for the box. That would be trivial to do from my work - just split it in two.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks for the work on that. Next steps? Try it on one of the current usages? I'll try it on Yamato to see if I ca puzzle it out. To be clear, this would be included in the current Info:Battleship_Yamato ??? Or would be used to replace all the invocations of it? ++Lar: t/c 20:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Basically just replace the call to Info/Main (that is {{{Do|Info/Main}}}|N1={{{1| }}}|N2={{{2| }}}|N3={{{3| }}}|N4={{{4| }}}|N5={{{5| }}}|Get={{{Get| }}}|What={{{What| }}} with one to User:Nilfanion/Info/Redesign (which we should move to template-space). The file link will need fixing, and it will moan about the lack of an English description... Basically I designed a straight a replacement for {{Info/Main}} - which is a template to assist in creation of other templates. Therefore just modify the various info pages :)--Nilfanion (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
That's what I hoped! I will give the one for Yamato a whirl... why don't you move your page to template space now? It should be good to go I think? Thanks again. ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Moved it to: Template:Info/New. I hate that location (Template:Info and Template:Information are very different things!), but it will do until we can think of a new home for all the Info: space stuff.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I converted the Yamato usage, seems to work nicely. Thanks! Now to convert all the rest I guess. ++Lar: t/c 18:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem! Just watch out for the things I did alter, in particular the image coding. [3]--Nilfanion (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Check usage error

The check usage tool is returning an error from Italian Wikiquote. All images seem to be affected, I have tried a number of random images [4][5][6]. Anyone have any idea where this should be reported? SpinningSpark 06:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a bugs and requests link at the top of every CheckUsage page. I guess that would be the place. –Tryphon☂ 06:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I had seen that link, but you are required to be a signed up member before you can use it. SpinningSpark 12:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind - it seems to be fixed now. SpinningSpark 12:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

More Deutsche Fotothek images!

Hi everyone, another batch of about 18.000 images is going up now. We really need your help to get all these images properly categorized. This process is described here. Multichill (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You can watch the fotothek upload here -- 217.234.187.217 15:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The batches are up. The biggest categories to sort out are about Leipzig and Dresden. Multichill (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

How should we proceed?

Hi. There seems to be 2 pictures on the same name at File:Jeff Bridges.jpg but maybe the first one was copyrighted. Whatever the case is, we have to do something: either create 2 separate files or delete the first file if copyrighted. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the first file is correct regarding the copyright status, see Category:Alan Light. But I sugest deletion of the file version with a proper reason to prevent later reverts or misunderstandings. --Martin H. (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Better idea: I will separate the files. Temporary deletion, restoring off all versions untill the correct identification and moving them to File:Beau Bridges at 1993 Emmys-cropped.jpg. Then restoration of the newly uploaded Jeff Bridges photo. --Martin H. (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done, the images are now separated with all its history. --Martin H. (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I actually didn't realize it wasn't Jeff but Beau on one of the 2 pictures ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

SVG not re-rendering

I've updated a new image, but the png renderer doesn't re-render it. This has happened several times now. --Beao (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Doubt...

Hi. I have a doubt. I've just uploaded this picture from Flickr but I was wondering about the copyright problems about such a picture. The licence of the photo is fine but what about the costumes people are wearing? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Aren't logos supposed to be copyrighted?

That's what I wondered when I saw that we had a logo of Pixar. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no specific copyright protection for logos. Logos are protected by trademark restrictions. If they are "artistic", of a creative design, they are additionally protected by copyright, which also expires normally. If they are very simple, there is no copyright protection. Sv1xv (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
See COM:CB#Trademarks. Lots more examples in Category:Logos. --Teratornis (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-routine bot request

I know where to go to request moving categories and universally replacing an image (User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, for anyone who didn't already know), but where do we go to make a less routine request? For example, I'd hope a bot could be of some help in creating a category corresponding to Rote Flora, and removing the then-redundant supercategories from the images. Or do we have to do something like that entirely by hand? - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Work requests would be of use.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

rsvg-view?

rsvg-view link doesn't work and I can't find it trough any search engine. --Beao (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the archived version. Anyway, that's just a web version of the standard man page that ships with the program: assuming you have rsvg installed on your computer, you should get the same page by typing the command man rsvg-view. Also, you can Google for man rsvg-view to find other versions of the manual page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

October 3

Image from Flickr

Hi, i don't know all rules about transfering images from flickr to commons, but can anyone tell me if this image can be moved to commons: It is licenced under this licence. --SveroH (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No it can't. See COM:FLICKR and COM:L#Acceptable licenses. –Tryphon☂ 10:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The best think to do if you want to move a picture from Flickr to Commons is using the Flickr upload bot through its web interface. If you write the link, the bot will tell you if it can be moved or not, and if it can it will be very useful and quick to upload it on Commons (apart if you want to upload a cropped version of a picture you found on Flickr, which is not possible with the bot..) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks --SveroH (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Another piece of advice: if you're looking for some keywords with the advance search tool, select all 3 lines in the Creative Commons section at the bottom. Then you'll be sure that everything's found with your search will be compatible with Wikimedia Commons (well, except for stuff for which people claim they're the author when they're not but that's another story!) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I've uploaded this image from flickr. i searched under advance search. so, can you tell me if image is ok, thank you. --SveroH (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Regretably not. The image is freely licensed on Flickr but the Flickr licensor is not the copyright holder. Only the copyright holder can provide a free licensing, see COM:FLICKR#Questionable_Flickr_image. Also the Flickr uploader Kalumba2009 is listed at Commons:Questionable Flickr images. --Martin H. (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

ok, i'll be more carefull next time --SveroH (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Italian lake prefix

We have some categories which have instead of "Lake XX", "Lago di" is this the correct naming style?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is your username not in English? -- User:Docu at 21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that's the proper naming style, since "Lago di" is not a prefix, but part of the proper noun of the lake. What follows "Lago di" is often the name of a village/locality/municipality, so the proper noun of the lake includes "Lago di" (roughly: "Lake of") to differentiate. Rarely, an italian lake has a proper noun which does not include "Lago di" (lake Trasimeno, for example, but that's the only one that comes to mind), and in that case a category named "Lake Trasimeno" would make sense because "Lago" (note: without "di", which translates to "of") is really just a prefix in that case. On the opposite, a category named "Lake Garda" would make little sense, because "Garda" alone is the proper noun of the municipality/village of Garda. The same thing happens also for italian castles, towers, palaces and villas (where "Castello/Castel", "Torre", "Palazzo" and "Villa" is part of the proper noun (and what follows is often the name of a locality or family). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
A look via catscan on en.wikipedia w:en:Category:Lakes of Italy by region shows a large majority for Lago, some Lakes and in South Tyrol even some Seen (der See - pl. die Seen; German term for lake). --Martin H. (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Well the thing is that most of these are stubs and may not follow the naming conventions.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ianezz. Constructions like Category:Lake Maggiore and Category:Lake Como are abominations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Pieter Kuiper. MartinD (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories vs. pages?

Can somebody point me to info about when it's best to make a page with a gallery (e.g., Ward Cunningham), vs. when it's best to just put things in a category? Thanks! -Peteforsyth (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh the old Category vs Gallery discussion :-). There is little point having a gallery which just duplicates the category, or with very few images. A gallery can be selective, ordered and structured, whereas a category just shows you everything (usually unordered), including redundant, poor quality, and superseded versions which are not the images most sought after. So you might group photos of a bird into male, female, young, nesting, feeding etc.
You also do not need to have a one-to-one relationship between galleries and categories. ie You might have a gallery that includes a few good images from a number of related categories (eg separate sections for different sub-species) so that people don't have to search through many sub-categories (eg to find a good example of a species when the exact sub-species isn't important). See Commons:Galleries --Tony Wills (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

October 4

Unassessed QI candidates

The category Unassessed QI candidates contains images which were nominated for QI, but for whatever reason never got any reviews (either promote or decline) within an 8 day period. This seems like a bit of a limbo-land. Shouldn't there be some kind of process by which these can be assessed? Or is the expectation that they remain in limbo? Or is it permissable to resubmit them to the normal process? 99of9 (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally it means that the image wasn't interesting enough for anyone to assess it. But they can indeed be re-submitted, if one is ignored for a second time, then I would take it as a big hint :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Global warning bot.

Recently I had a discussion about posting a warning on relevant article's talk page (on other projects) of images which we are deleting here and/or informing users who might be interested in solving commons' images copyright problems.
User:Paradoctor suggested that we can use a global bot/tool which uses the output of "CheckUsage" to alert file users in other projects. for example it can post a warning on relevant article's talk page.
I think it is a good idea and pretty necessary for us.   ■ MMXXtalk  04:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I initially read that as "Global warming bot", and my imagination went for a wander ... :-). But sounds like a good idea, might save people a lot of trouble if they find out early that there is a problem rather than waiting until the image disappears. Apart from notifying article talk pages, which users would you notify? I suppose people who have it on their user pages, what about people who have it on their watchlist (even if possible would that invoke privacy issues?) - maybe those who have edited its description page?--Tony Wills (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Ha! I made the same mistake, couldn't believe my eyes... -- JovanCormac 07:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 Support Yea sure great idea. This would alert users who have the articles on their watchlist where they could participate in the discussion of the deletion. This has been one of the issues of users not participating in commons (Images get deleted without proper notice...).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
What about images used in a transcluded template. I think CheckUsage reports one use for every page where the template is transcluded, which would create a huge mess if the template is widely used.
In my opinion, it would be enough to warn the uploader on each project where the image is in use. That should take care of drop-by users, who only contribute to Commons when they need an image on their home project, and never return to check their user page. Those are the most likely to miss a DR or nsd/npd tag, while they could actually do something about it. Putting a warning on the article talk page would surely warn a lot of people, but if a permission is missing, what can they do about it?
But of course, the easiest solution would be to strongly encourage users to activate email notification (or make it the default). –Tryphon☂ 21:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Adding template detection to CheckUsage shouldn't be too hard, methinks. Missing permissions may be obtained by asking for them. The point of a warning bot would be to inform interested parties who have not explicitly expressed their interest. I'm primarily thinking of images used in articles. In this case, uploader, linker and article editors might be three different user groups, with the latter being the one standing to profit most from such a bot, and they're the ones for which email notification is not feasible. Sure, undeletion is usually an option, but a warning might save everyone some work. And that is, after all, the idea behind using silicon slaves. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad category name

Seems to me that this category is not optimally named. Can somebody rename this category, please. --A.Hakansson (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you think it should be named instead? -mattbuck (Talk) 18:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Category:People in swimming pools? /129.215.149.98 15:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Sounds about right. I did the move. Wknight94 talk 15:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Wknight94! I am quite shocked that an administrator as mattbuck is, did not know that category names on Commons MUST be in plural form ([7])!--A.Hakansson (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
"People" is a plural noun, hence, Category:People in a swimming pool is plural. Category:Animals by country is analogous. Category:Animals by countries does not exist. Category:People in swimming pools applies to images showing more than one swimming pool containing people. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
That's not really analogous. "People in a swimming pool" sounds like a bunch of people in one swimming pool. People by country means people grouped by their country. "People in a swimming pool" would be analogous to "People in a country". It would be confusing at best. Which country? Any country? I would change that one to "People in countries". Wknight94 talk 17:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm just saying that when asking for a category to be renamed, it's helpful if you say what you think it should be named instead. I personally think People in a Swimming Pool should be the name of a band. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Well if anyone's looking for less than optimally named categories with people, Category:People in shower is a candidate for pluralization. Man vyi (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
That one's done now too. By the way, we have COM:DL for obvious renames like these. Wknight94 talk 19:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Flickr again

sorry to bother you all again, but i want to upload this image from flickr to commons. it is licenced under free licence and uploader is not on list of Questionable Flickr uploaders. --SveroH (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  • This seems to be a legitimate upload. The user seems to have many valuable images. Please do a batch upload request and Commons:Batch uploading so we could import his various images to Commons.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • You may do a batch upload request, of course, but you can also transfer only this image - it is ok. --Martin H. (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • ok, i submited batch upload request here. this is my first time to do a batch upload request, so please tell if it is ok, thank you --SveroH (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)--SveroH (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I've found anoher uploader that i think it's ok. he has uploaded few whitney houston's photos. we have none whitney's photos here on commons. can i upload this few images? author is here (tm 10001) --SveroH (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
ok, i should that figured out --SveroH (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Picasa - Trusted Users

I think we should update the trusted users, there is more place to look for images, for example Picasa, the license it is the same as in Flickr. And I'm sure a person who is empowered to check the Flickr is able to assess in Picasa. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

October 5

File:Ponte delle Catene (Fornoli).JPG

When I uploaded a new, cropped version of File:Ponte delle Catene (Fornoli).JPG, the thumbnails, in any size, show up in the aspect ratgio of the cropped version, but show a vertically compressed version of the original image rather than the cropped version. Does anyone know why and how to fix it? -- H005 16:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I purged it; seems okay now. –Tryphon☂ 16:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup ! -- H005 18:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Move Info:Hospital ships to category namespace?

Info:Hospital ships is currently used in

  1. Category:Hospital ships (transclusion) (← links)
  2. File:Britannic hospital.jpg (transclusion) (← links)
  3. File:Vaisseau Duguay-Trouin-École d'application des Aspirants.JPG (transclusion) (← links)
  4. File:Britannic hospital.jpg (transclusion) (← links)
  5. USNS Mercy (T-AH-19) (transclusion) (← links)
  6. USNS Mercy (T-AH-19) (transclusion) (← links)
  7. USS Mercy (AH-4) (transclusion) (← links)

I'd like to move this to the category description of Category:Hospital ships and remove it from all other uses. The other files/galleries are already in the category "hospital ships" and each description states that it's a hospital ship. -- User:Docu at 10:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

See a few threads up, there is a proposal to change the Info: pseudonamespace files to not be there any more. I suggest you convert Info:Hospital ships to a template as I did for Yamato (and will do for others when I hvae time) per the good work Nilf did... then make the decision about whether to include it from JUST the category or from all the images. Personally I prefer the latter, but it needs conversion, not copypasta. Moving the content to the category would be something I would oppose. ++Lar: t/c 21:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you address the question if this specific text is needed anywhere else than in the category description? We all know about the template namespace being for templates. -- User:Docu at 21:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you missed the point of why I mentioned the conversion. But to your question, well, most of the other uses of Info: pseudo namespace pages I've seen applied to a single thing (the Yamato, for example) rather than a whole category of things. Still, when I look at, for example File:Britannic hospital.jpg, it strikes me as useful information to have on the file's description page. (It would be even more useful if it didn't have "template loop detected"... which conversion to Nilf's version fixes) I wouldn't be likely to go to that category in search of the additional info unless I knew about it being there already. I can see the argument for not having it, but on balance I think, marginally, weakly, I'd prefer it be kept on the individual files. For uses that apply to a single thing (again, the Yamato as an example) I think the argument for keeping it on every image is far far stronger. If it were relegated to the category (Yamato has its own category) that would be a significant loss of info. ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Personally I think the note on hospital ships is a valuable category description (which is why I suggested moving it into that namespace in the first place).

From a categorization point of view, e.g. USNS Mercy (T-AH-19) shouldn't be in Category:Hospital ships as Category:USNS Mercy (T-AH-19) is already in Category:United States Navy hospital ships (itself a subcategory of Category:Hospital ships.

To summarize your point of view, you would suggest making such category descriptions into templates and adding these to all images in their sub-categories? -- User:Docu at 08:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Weakly. (for categories that "include multiple physical things" like hospital ships) More strongly for categories that are about just one thing (like a single ship). Although I didn't use an Info: sort of thingie take a look at File:Christopher Columbus whaleback Sprague painting.jpg which is in category SS Christopher Columbus... I put the same informative template invocation in both the images and the category. Not everyone knows to go look at categories. ++Lar: t/c 17:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I think I must object to your counter-proposal. It isn't consistent with the current way categorization is being done. Besides, you don't seem to be too convinced of it yourself. -- User:Docu at 11:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Not everyone knows to go look at categories. I certainly would not REQUIRE that informative templates be placed on every image, but I wouldn't waste effort removing them in order to have them solely at the category level. Again, I think my SS Chris images came out pretty nicely, the template invocation is right in the {{Information}} box. ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
You might want to start another thread if you are interested in feedback on that other Info page and its uses. -- User:Docu at 19:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Policies navbox

Hi, sorry if this is not the appropriate forum to post this, but I am hoping to solicit some discussion at Commons talk:Policies and guidelines regarding my proposed addition of a navbox to the policy and guideline pages. Cheers, DoktorMandrake 09:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For information, this is the template being discussed:
DoktorMandrake 13:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Excellent! At last. Finding out what's allowed on Commons and what's not is still way too hard. -- JovanCormac 09:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe also a line related to bots? It's really hard initially to learn how to make a request for a bot to do a task. Nothing on the Community portal. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why no thumb for GIF?

Why thumbnail image does not be produced for the GIF format file? --百楽兎 (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You probably just need to purge the cache if something has gone wrong with the thumbnail. You can add a "Purge" gadget on each image's page by turning on the option "Thumbnail Purger" under "Gadgets" in user Preferences. --Tony Wills (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I means another problem. For example, I made a thumb of File:Fire .gif with 64px width as the right image. Now please save the right image to your PC and see what its dimension is. You will find that it is the same as the original source, not a thumb generated by server. The thumb of Other formats is not like this. For example, this thumb of PNG format: --百楽兎 (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem was that animated GIF images did not scale properly, so the server delivers all gif images at their full size and lets the browser scale it. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh! So the Purge thing at the top of an image file page is only purging the thumbnail from the cache? I've always wondered what that was, while not daring to test it in case it would erase that page. I know that would be highly unlikely though. Johan G (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So this problem will not be fixed in the future? --百楽兎 (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Image File:Luna 3 wide angle.png not NASA PD?

The Image File:Luna 3 wide angle.png from the Soviet Luna 3 spacecraft is currently tagged as NASA-PD. The NASA-PD template includes the warning that "The NASA website hosts a large number of images from the Soviet/Russian space agency, and other non-American space agencies. These are not necessarily in the public domain". I am quite sure that the NASA-PD template is not valid for this image (the template says that "this file is in the public domain because it was created by NASA", but this is obviously not a NASA image), and one may rise the question if that image is in PD at all. Any comments? --Vesta (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, since term of copyrights protection in Russia (USSR legal successor) is 70 years. There are no special exemptions in Russia's copyrights law for this kind of images. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

CC Copyright-Only Dedication (PD US)

Which license template should I choose for that at Commons? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/

--217.189.240.185 13:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This one: {{Cc-pd}}. The full list of Creative Commons license tags is in Category:CC license tags. –Tryphon☂ 14:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

October 8

Consensus

I think its a pretty clear consensus the bug is placed as 21059 Huib talk 17:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

MOTD 10-09 is deleted!

MOTD 10-09 is now deleted. What should we do for October 9th media? Kwj2772 (msg) 12:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

9 October is the birthday of Camille Saint-Saëns, so how about File:Camille Saint-Saëns - The Carnival of the Animals.ogg? Man vyi (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
OK. I changed. Thank you for your suggestion! Kwj2772 (msg) 11:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Images of peta

Are all peta images generally in the public domain or must there be a certain permission of peta to publish an image under a PD-licence? Example here (without OTRS) and here (with OTRS). Michael, 12:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The OTRS email contains an email from PETA that states all their own works are "not copyrighted and may be redistributed freely", but their copyright policy does not say the same thing. In all fairness, the email was from 2007, so there's a possibility that they changed their copyright policy. I'm not sure how to handle this one. Killiondude (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandhill crane poster

I would like to get my son (lives in Las Vegas) some posters of sandhill cranes. Can you help? I don't understand how to use Wikimedia Commons or any part of this website. Is this the correct place to ask this questions?

I liked the cranes with the baby walking, and others.

Contact: tilliecamp@solarus.net

THANKS!

Well, you could look through the images in Category:Grus canadensis, and if you find one you like that will print nicely at a large size, download a copy and send it to Kinkos or any other print shop. Otherwise, you could Google for "sandhill crane poster" which finds pages of links. --Teratornis (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

How does a professional athlete/trainer get his bio put up & protected on here. I am working with an MMA trainer and would like to get his information listed. His name is already connected with many MMA/UFC names listed in the bios, but of course without a link to his own bio.

Who does the bios?

How do we get a bio up?

Can I enter the info?

How do we protect it so others cannot mess with the information (perfect example BJ Penns Bio is semi-protected)?

Do I need special programs to upload files/create the bio?

How can I make sure only I and authorized people EDIT the bio?

Help for name of new category

Hi. I wanted to create a new category within the sex categories dedicated to illustrations showing the sexual penetration of an object (but not only dildos, which may be a sub-category), as in this picture. Do you have an idea of the best way to name this new cat? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In blissful ignorance of COM:Cat, I suggest "Penetrative use of sex toys". And a big "thank you" for raising this topic. It crowned an already pretty good day with a big smile. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Language policy

Hi, in an effort to move the Commons:Language policy closer to completion, I have been editing it and cleaning it up for the last few days. I have tried to make the page as neutral and consistent as possible with the relevant policy and guidleine pages that it cross references.

I would appreciate it if you could look at Commons talk:Language policy and contribute your thoughts. This is the version that exists as I am writing it and I am encouraging everyone to consider the "static" page until everything gets sorted out.

Many thanks. Evrik (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

PotY 2007 about to be deleted

Picture of the Year 2007 is about to be deleted according to Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Grande Arche. The picture represents the Grande Arche de la Défense, a major 20th century building in the Paris vicinity, designed by an architect who died in 1987. As France does not recognize freedom of panorama, the picture was DR'ed a first time in January 2008 and kept on De minimis grounds. However, I decided to close this new DR with 'delete' because people who voted 'keep' were probably not aware that a French court had forbidden non-authorized postcards representing the Grande Arche "in a panorama of which it was the main feature, or at least an important feature" (TGI Paris 12th July 1990). The Grande Arche may not be the main feature in this picture, but it sure is an important one. Also, you can represent the fountain *without* the Grande Arche. You just have to face the other way.

Anyway, I'm mentioning this here, on the Village Pump, so that people from Wikipedias allowing Fair Use may move PotY 2007 locally. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2007 was File:Broadway tower edit.jpg. The image in that deletion request was not even one of the finalists. It was a candidate in the POTY2007 vote just as all other featured pictures from 2007. /Ö 19:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Enable patroller permissions

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Enabled. Kwj2772 (msg) 13:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should have a patroller group consisting of autopatrol and patrol. The permission can be granted in the same manner as rollback is being granted now (see this section for more details on the procedure). Please voice your opinion below. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 17:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Support

  1.  Support. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 17:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  2.  Support Madness it has never been implemented already - I've been after this for over a year for Commons. --Herby talk thyme 18:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  3.  Support - Seems reasonable. I don't think it will/can hurt anything, and will only cut down on the backlogs. While I will admit I rarely use the patrol feature, I know it will help those who do. Tiptoety talk 18:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  4.  Support As above. Yann (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  5.  Support as it aids patrolling of Special:NewPages. I fear some of the opposition are based upon misunderstandings of this feature. This proposed change would have absolutely no impact on the vast majority of users, only provide an additional tool for those who patrol new pages. Adambro (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  6.  Support. Per Herbythyme [8] and Tiptoety's [9] comments below. This proposal lets the edits that would be routinely marked as patrolled (by a human), now be automatically marked as patrolled. Doing this helps people doing new page patrol because they don't need to review the edits of people that are known and trusted. This change will make the task of reviewing contribution more manageable because the more high risk edits will be the ones that are un-patrolled. ( This is my understanding of how the change will be used on Commons if nothing else is changed. ) FloNight♥♥♥ 12:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  7. Seems a reasonable proposal. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  8.  Strong support When is the last time you opposers looked at this? No one patrols pages anymore, so why do you even care? Seriously, I can't even believe we need to vote on something like this... Rocket000 (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  9.  Support It seems there's a very real need for more patrollers. Steven Walling (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  10.  Support-Anything that will further automate the wiki and reduce the need for wasted human hours is supported. I would like to comment that basically no pages are patrolled, so perhaps this will make patrolling more common again.Smallman12q (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    To garner further support, consider writing a policy discussing exactly how this will be used and implemented.Smallman12q (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  11.  Support-It makes sense to distribute responsibility to more people where it can be easily delegated. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  12.  Support- As it disappeared from various screens, I thought this was deactivated here. Anyways, I have no preference whether admins patrol my edits or just have them marked autopatrolled. -- User:Docu at 10:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  13.  Support Raphael Frey (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  14. Support would be useful. Barras (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  15.  Support --Kjetil_r 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  16.  Support Now that I understand it. --Foroa (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  17.  Support Evrik (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  18.  Support Yes, its necessary a patroller group Ncasolajimenez (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  19.  Support: Based on the condition that Commons:Patrol will be kept as short guideline/info page and used for linking and the like. After the improvements by Diaa abdelmoneim (thanks for this) I think it's ready. If there's anything else, please let me know. I still think that the way of proposing wasn't perfect, but shit happens. Let's forget this and rather concentrate on if the implementation is fine like this. And I think it's ok like this. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  20.  Support for Commons:Patrol. Next time, please create a policy and then vote about it on the talk page. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  21.  Support I am not sure this is so useful, but some people want this, so let them have their toy and be happy. I still find lots of stangely licensed or unsourced files from 2006 or 2007, so there are plenty of things to patrol and check among old things too, not only new pages. Teofilo (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  22.  SupportYes. Sure. It is necessary to progress. I also chose to Wikipedia Army and Wikipedian extra long-range missiles for a preventive attacks ;). Wikipedia must be strong. --I.Sáček, senior (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  23.  Support now I understand. Kwj2772 (msg) 02:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  24.  Support I think Wiki needs that. --EUvin (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  25.  Maith go leor anois ós rud é gur scríobheadh Commons:Patrol. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  26.  Support Det är ju närmast hopplöst att locka folk att rösta på något, när de knappt vet vad det handlar om. När bara sysops ensamt ser och förstår vad det rör sig om är det ju närmast meningslöst. Men med min erfarenhet från svWS och enWS säger att det inte är någon stor sak, så kör på. -- Lavallen (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
    Translation: It's almost hopeless to ask people to vote for something, when they hardly even know what it's about. When sysops only see and understand what it's about, it's almost meaningless. But my experience from svWS and enWS tells me that it isn't a big thing, so go ahead. Alfons Åberg (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  27.  Support I support a simple patroller permissions, like what we have on en-wiki but a little more strict , see my comment below in discussion section   ■ MMXXtalk  19:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  28.  Support, essential to new page patrol. –blurpeace (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  29.  Support I moved from the oppose section for a few reasons. The first of which, there was no documentation for what this whole thing was even being voted on (it's inane to "support" a one line sentence). The second reason was that I thought that the patroller right should be given to anybody who was autoconfirmed, but I realized that Commons was slightly different than en.wiki; here, it only takes an account 4 days old which isn't enough to have patroller permissions in my opinion. On en.wiki it's 4 days and 10 edits. Meh. Killiondude (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  30.  Support The more options the better :) Mrout (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  31.  Support I was admin on the French Wikipedia. This a useful feature if properly given. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  32.  Support Katerenka (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  33.  Support AZ'sReincarnation (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  34.  Support Tgkprog (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2009 (IST) work out details - its a good idea
  35.  Support -- Petritap (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  36.  Support A useful feature on enwiki as well, plus an excellent way for users to show trustworthiness as a step up to adminship. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  37.  Support Very good feature to fight against spam, vandalism and copyvio. vlsergey (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  38.  Support If properly handled, it's useful. Rachmaninoff (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  39.  Support and strongly. I'm used to the autopatrol/ patroller functions from Wikipedia in Norwegian, it works very well there, pluss I did a fair bit of new page patrol here at Commons when I was sysop here. We could use non-admin patrollers to help out, and in my opinion even more so the autopatrolled setting for established users who creates a lot of galleries. Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  40.  Support - Most users don't get copyright, and we need a higher level of scrutiny on images uploaded here. Plus, it is a pain to get something deleted.Blargh29 (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  41.  Support Armbrust (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  42.  Support, works fine elsewhere, will work fine on Commons. --Aqwis (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  43.  Supportit will be very useful. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 11:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  44.  Support like in a lot of projects. ~~×α£đ~~es 16:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  45.  Support It makes patrolling more bearable for those willing to do it, and it doesn't prevent anyone without the proper right to do it by himself afterwards -- IANEZZ  (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  46.  Support it's very useful tool, it works on other projects. Also, in my opinion, its a good way to "test" candidates for admins --Ex13 (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  47.  Support Lambdoid 01:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  48.  Support Works for me. Pmlinediter (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  49.  Support it seems consensus has been reached. I suggest filing a bug.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  50.  Support Seems reasonable. Ruslik (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  51.  Support a bit late but sure --Mardetanha talk 14:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  52.  Support I've used this on En:Wiki, a useful tool. TimVickers (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  53.  Support Sure. --Meno25 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  54. --Rave (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  55.  Support Prashanthns (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  56. Support — Occasionally I use it on en.wiki, and would be willing to here, too. Others should be allowed to as well. As noted above, the auto-confirm method is different here, so making it a "special" right instead of an "automatic" one makes sense. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” • “w:en” • “m” ) 06:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  57. --Euku:⇄ 09:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  58.  Support Suppose it is correct idea --Italiamoderna (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

I have been trying for quite some days to figure out what this whole thing was about. The opposers are correct. This isn't the way to suggest a new right. It has to be explained what is being voted on. I didn't know till now that one has to be an admin to mark a page as patrolled. I just thought it wasn't available on commons. On en.wiki any autoconfirmed user can mark a page as patrolled. I don't see why this shouldn't be the case here. I have created Commons:New pages patrol with the help of User:The_Evil_IP_address that should adequately explain the tool. It contains screenshots and the related links of New pages patrol.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose - Its simple why I oppose, I would like to see a discussion about who we grant those rights and a policy draft before saying yes to something. Huib talk 17:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 Oppose Patrolling millions of revisions is almost impossible. Kwj2772 (msg) 15:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 Oppose: Not yet. I once had this right myself, and have to say that it's very good actually, not like these Flagged Revisions from de.wikipedia that scare new users off. It's like: "We still show anyone the new pages, and the patrolling is only for the users that they know it's unlikely that a white page is an out of project scope page or something." But I have to say no for the moment per what Huib said. There gotta be some paper where you can find some rules or guidelines in order to keep things structured. This doesn't need to be too big (something simple like Commons:Rollback should absolutely suffice). Also, I think that the patrolling shouldn't only be used for galleries, but also for other namespaces like Category, Creator and the like. On en.wikipedia they might not matter that much, but on Commons they do. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 Oppose per Abigor. Please create a policy, then vote about the implementation, not the other way round. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC) (changed -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC))
  1.  Oppose Nickpo (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    Please elaborate on your opinion. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 12:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
     Oppose I agree with what Lar said, in the discussion area below. Killiondude (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  2.  Oppose Insufficient motivation given, what is the problem we want to solve? Teun Spaans 04:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  3.  Oppose; in present form strongly oppose; to recapitulate part of what has been said above; this policy needs to be written first, in full, THEN voted on, not the other way around. the idea might have some merits, but the originator of this proposal didn't even bother to clearly define what they consider "patrolling" involves. i'm not going to consider supporting this until i see the text; then i might be open to changing my vote. (see abigor's poropsal on RFA, for the right way of doing this) Lx 121 (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    It's a technical term meaning to click a [Mark this page as patrolled] link, which tells other patrollers that the page is ok. This not like flagging revisions. It will not affect you if you aren't a patroller. How about giving us a reason why we need a policy? As of right now, I doubt anyone (except a couple of the supports) would notice if we let everyone patrol pages. It wouldn't matter much right now anyway since barely anyone patrols. It's frustrating that people are opposing simply because it's a user right and they want policy for the sake of policy. Rocket000 (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    no, the person who started this discussion wants to change wmc policy; but they haven't properly defined & written up exactly what it is they want, yet (...& god knows we have enough trouble consistently implementing the policy we have on here already!). when there is a proper, clearly written proposal, i'm willing to consider it fairly; but we need to see the exact wording. i'm not in the habit of handing out blank cheques; one person's idea of what powers are useful/needed for a patroller, or (ye gods!) a 'botted autopatroller, (or, for that matter, who should get those powers) may be very different from another person's. there is plenty of opportunity for disagreement on the exact terms of this "proposal/suggestion"; just reading thru the comments in the discussion here, one can find differing interpretations. also, with respect to rockect000's comment in the "approve" section above (re: voting & discussion): i rather like having the right to discuss & vote on policy changes (or pretty much anything/everything else) on here, thanks. that's sort of how a wiki works... when it's decided that discussion & voting are "not needed" @ wikimedia , i shall resign & join whichever wikimedia-fork looks most promising (& least totalitarian) ;P Lx 121 (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    This isn't a WMF policy change. As I said above in the proposal "This permission can be granted to users, such as rollback". See this for more info on how rollback is being granted to users. Plus, I find it weird to have a policy on how to use the patrol feature. It's fine to have a formal info page on it, but a policy seems a bit bureaucratic and unnecessary in this area. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 12:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    we seem to be getting into an argument about semantics here, somewhat off-topic; but, just to sum up my position in brief: you want to change the rules for how something is done on wikimediacommons, & to implement this change requires discussion & a vote. i would regard that as a "policy change". also; when you are granting new powers to wmcusers, i don't think it's "wierd" to have rules about how those powers should (& should not) be used. finally, with respect; i don't see why it is such an unreasonable request that you write a clear, detailed proposal before calling for a vote on it. there are a lot of changes i'd like to see made @ wmc too; but if i just did a one-line proposal, with no real definition of terms, and no details of implementation for what i was suggesting, then spammed for a discussion & vote on it, i wouldn't really expect it to pass, no matter how good the idea seemed to me at the time. i'm not shooting down your idea, i'm trying to tell you nicely that you need to write it up better, if you're serious about getting it approved. Lx 121 (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    {{oppose}} until I am provided with a screenshot or a link to a relevant help page of the Mediawiki software explaining what this is. Also I oppose that my edits are marked as "auto-patrolled" without my consent, as software-changing-people have done on the French language Wikipedia. Teofilo (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    Commons:New pages patrol--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    OK I'll change to "approve" then. Teofilo (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
     I gcoinne maraon le ChrisiPK. Ba chóir an pholasaí a scríobh roimh an vótáil. (Oppose per ChrisiPK. The policy should be written before the vote.) Stifle (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  4.  Oppose What Lx 121 has been saying, especially as it hasn't been addressed. "This permission can be granted to users, such as rollback" is way vague. --Elvey (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  5.  Oppose: The experience with COM:TOL and the sorry state the categories vs pages dispute (and other stuff) has left that part of Commons strongly argues against it. A "patroller group" opens the door to all sorts of mischief, power-gaming and so on, but competence cannot be ensured as long as Commons is the shoehorning "one size has to fit all or else" and at the same time hodge-podge piece of colourful mayhem it has grown to be. If such a group is established, Commons will go further down the drain, as sooner or later some "patroller" will be unable to resist the temptation to mess about with stuff they don't understand jack shit of, simply because they can. When Commons has a level and conciseness of organisation comparable to the better Wikipedias, such a group would not be a bad idea. At the present time? Sheer lunacy. We need to establish policy to patrol it; policy on Commons has not been established in a way that works (i.e., allows a casual visitor to use Commons to the fullest). Hence strongly oppose. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  6.  Oppose Write the suggested new policy first, then - afterwards - make the suggestion. Commons:Patrol is unclear because it has been developed while discussing. This illustrates exactly why this discussion would have been less messy and more constructive, if policy had been written first. Alfons Åberg (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    What is their to have a policy on? How to patrol pages? This is really where we just need an info/guideline page. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 10:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

  •  Comment I will keep it as simple as you kept it, my comment is why? Huib talk 17:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Because we (admins) could use more help from non-admins when it comes to patrolling RC/NPP, and the like. A small count of users, without the administrators bits, are helping in that direction (tagging as out of scope, vandalism, test, etc). This permission would indeed help their work. It would even help my work and other admins. Take a look at Special:NewPages. You'll see a bunch of unpatrolled pages that non-admins could assist us with. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 17:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I personally think we should have a discussion to determine what it is, why we need it, and how it will be applied before going straight to a vote. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Question Would this feature apply to files as well, or just gallery pages? Tiptoety talk 18:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a bit redundant on the file pages. As far as I know, you can only autopatrol files and not manually patrol files. Even if a file gets autopatrolled, it would show up at Special:NewFiles. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 18:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Question Why can't non-admins see Special:NewPages like admins can, anyways? On enwiki, everyone sees the same version, which is the version admins see on Commons. Killiondude (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, because exposing the patrol state to users without the ability to mark them as patrolled seems a bit silly and frustrating for the user who can not patrol the pages in question. Tiptoety talk 18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • ...which leads me to ask why we need a special right to patrol pages...? Can't it just be anyone who's autoconfirmed? Killiondude (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Autconfirmed does not necessarily mean trusted, I mean Grawp waits until his accounts are autoconfirmed before he vandalizes. Tiptoety talk 18:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Right, well maybe that's what we need to be discussing then rather than making a whole new user right for this. I know Commons is not enwiki, and people get touchy about comparing the two, but enwiki allows autoconfirmed accounts to patrol new pages, and there's been no issues with that as far as I know. Killiondude (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • But en.wiki also has autopatroller which allows trusted users page creations to be autopatrolled, making less work for patrollers and administrators. That (to the best of my understanding) is what is being proposed here. Tiptoety talk 18:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 Comment To all of the above opposers. Hardly anyone does new page patrolling on Commons. So there is a massive amount of unpatrolled pages (AFAIK still). So - folk who really know Commons (better than many admins) can be marked as autopatrolled - less work for those admins who actually do some work here. How on earthe can that be so controversial. There are people who's pages I used to mark as patrolled but having looked at so many of them (& some produce them at a prolific rate) why should we not let them be autopatrolled? --Herby talk thyme 18:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Herby on this one. Plus, what's the point with the added bureaucracy? (Discuss, draft, then a vote). If these kind of proposals works then they should be just as OK. This is exactly how it was done with the rollback proposal, AFAIK. The only different thing is that a drafted guideline was in place at the time. Plus, do we really need a guideline for such a small thing? Really? I would certainly not oppose this proposal just because it doesn't have a helpful page, with information on how this permission works. Instead, I would try to help the community by creating it. If it's necessary it'll most likely be made with the help of the community in due time. However, I don't see the point in opposing just because their is no guideline/info page for this proposal. You or other users can help with that. However, is opposing for it really necessary? It's such a minor thing, yet we create fuss about it. I'm rather surprised by the response to say the least. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 12:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Maybe we should move this back to the bottom of the page in hopes of getting a couple other voices here. Currently, I would say there are quite a few things to work out and consensus is not yet clear. Tiptoety talk 23:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and added a link to this discussion in the site-notice. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we need to go back to first principles, put forward suggested policy for usage, granting, and the like first, then have a discussion about whether there is consensus for implementation. This seems the wrong way round. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
There's about three people this affects (based on who patrols pages). We don't really need a policy. But here's mine: "Give it to people you trust. Take it away from people you don't. The end." Rocket000 (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - In the future, if a sitenotice is used so a ton of people are going to see it, you might want to describe what "patroller permissions" are. Especially in the first line of the proposal.--Rockfang (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • WTF? If any of you opposers actually do any work in this area (I've never seen you but the log's been taken over by bots, although I've seen some of the supporters) and this would affect you in some way, please state your concerns (or write your damn policy yourself), otherwise I think what you're doing is unfair. Things like this is why I've been thinking about leaving. People care more about making unnecessary policies than doing any work, and when some workers want a tool to make their job easier, they stand in the way because they don't understand the purpose. Great teamwork, guys. Rocket000 (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Great! At least we have found one person who "works in that area" and who may provide explanations about what all this is about. Is it about patrolling text or pictures or both ? Teofilo (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I have a grasp of what patrolling means, but so far I have never seen any documentation, button or exclamation mark in log files in Commons that could educate me before voting (it is no documented administrator task neither). No wonder that we see such diverse reactions. I have no clear idea what autopatrolling means neither. --Foroa (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Just for a basic idea, see w:en:Wikipedia:Autoreviewer. Maybe someone could make a similar "policy" here? Tiptoety talk 16:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The policy page does not need to be highly complicated, but please please please, people, why is it so hard to document what we are doing? This is exactly the reason why Commons is the mess it is: Small groups of people do stuff that only they understand and the rest of the world has no idea what is going on. If half the time, that has been spent on this "WTF, policies suck!" discussion had been spent on creating a simple policy page, we could probably have implemented the feature right now and the people willing to work with it could do so. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I did, it was in response to Lar right above this. It's not that policies suck, what sucks is when people oppose things for no reason. I have yet to seen a real reason for opposing. If they don't know what patrolling is this won't affect them. Rocket000 (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Documentation is different than policy. I don't oppose documenting it all (even MediaWiki would be a better place). Rocket000 (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 12:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
"Autopatrolled" is really a no brainer, there are plenty of people who creates pages who know far more about their subject than I ever did - why not have them marked as patrolled. For what it's worth I found myself autopatrolled on no wp - presumably someone realised it was a waste of their time watching my edits. That is all it deals with. --Herby talk thyme 12:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Policy is documentation of community consensus and how it is applied. What the feature itself is, should be documented at MediaWiki.org. The current policy reflects what we talked about and what we decided. This discussion will be archived and will be out of view; the policy page will not. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree that idea is good. It'll definitely save some time. However will be good idea to see to model of implementation. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I admit that it may not be the best choice to complain about a non-existent policy, and I want to apologize for this inconvinience. As such, I've created a draft of what I imagine under such a page. It may differ from your opinion about this, so please give me feedback or make adjustments to the page. I definitely think that there should be some documentation: to be able to refer to something, for linking and also for people who don't know this feature from en.wikipedia. Feel free to make suggestions or to edit the page, I don't reserve the right to be the sole contributor to this page. I hope we can find a better solution now, because as it currently is I have the feeling that this would get us nowhere. Thank you for your help and comments. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot for doing this. I suggest we start a vote on that talk page instead of the village pump (and not just transfer the votes over, since most of the opposers were actually concerned about the lack of policy), and update the site notice to link to that page. –Tryphon☂ 20:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment We had a similar discussion at enWS a while back. We have been able to keep a reasonable handle on our patrolling, however, it was getting to the point that there was so many good edits from trusted users that it was both frustrating and time-consuming to patrol what were going to be good edits, add to that it was hard to find the ugly uploads/edits in the noise of good unpatrolled edits. We now have autopatrolling installed and it was working wonderfully well. As part of implementation, it was decided to not get overly bureaucratic. We set a guiding principle, and admins are able to add people autopatrolled based on their assessment and review of edits across the WMF properties. Admins are pretty reasonable at detecting cluefulness, competence, alignment with existing policies. I think that the implementation would be very useful at Commons and I support in principle. I am less inclined to see a new policy as the bees knees for solving something that is reasonably obvious as needed, though I would like to see a guiding principle and rationale for why it is a good idea for Commons. -- Billinghurst (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Some people seem to think that when granting patrol rights to people, the whole of Commons will fall apart. I guesstimate that about 1000 edits per day are not patrolled, which must be most frustrating for the guys that try to do that in a systematic way. So any suggestion to improve on that is more than needed. --Foroa (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree with many opposes on this, everything should be written before any vote so everybody know what they are voting for, but it is not a big deal, many of autoconfrimed users in en-wiki already using this, I think we should give it for example to all users who have more than 500 edits (not uploads) with no abuse log but because only few users knows what they are doing on commons we should be very careful about that.
    After all I think it will not be very useful for Commons, as our main concern here is new uploads, not recent changes, we need something for controlling images not just edits in articles and image pages, a while ago I wanted to propose kind of flaged revisions for files but I didn't, I was pretty sure that almost all of you will oppose this idea!, but now maybe we can also use this also for files, and categorize all of not-patrolled files in special daily categories.
    Also if this discussion want be longer than this I recommend we take it somewhere else, like document talk page.   ■ MMXXtalk  19:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Site notice

Now that it's over, can we turn the "site notice" off? I know "[dismiss]" works sometimes, but it doesn't seem to stay off. -- User:Docu at 19:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


File:Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.svg

This cannot possibly be licensed under Creative Commons. It is the logo/crest/emblem/whatever of the UK's Supreme Court, as granted by the College of Arms. Delete, please, especially since there is a properly-licenced-and-used version locally on ENwiki. Thanks. 84.51.149.80 21:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's copyrighted: w:File:Supreme_court_crest_(official).svg and I have requested deletion.
Why can't it be licensed under Creative Commons? Is it not an original work of art created per the blason? The College of Arms grants the blason, but each interpretation of that blason is, is it not, an original expression of that idea and therefore attracts copyright in its own right? Of course, UK law may restrict the usage of heraldry by bodies other than that authorised to bear arms - but that is a non-copyright question, surely? Man vyi (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of copyright, but crown copyright works that way. And no, it does not qualify as original expression. --Beao (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Per Man vyi, of course the rendering can be considered creative work and thus you can put under a license - you may have a lock at File:UK Royal Coat of Arms.svg. The question is not the valid CC license. The question is if the design of the badge is in the public domain in the UK with other {{Insignia}} restrictions. --Martin H. (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Whoops. --Beao (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This is ‘still’ being discussed on the deletion requests page. Therefore, so this same conversation about blazons vis copyright does not get repeated every time a European crest of this type gets created for WC, could a polyglot add something like this guidance to the en: WP and WC. Les blasons et le droit d'auteur The coats and copyright Perhaps it ought to get included in the copyright guidance pages as well. Further, There appears no way to copyright a description of selection of elements and their spacial relationship to each other in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 as these are abstract ideas. Same apply with the futility of trying to patent abstract ideas. Otherwise someone would have copyrighted any 2D work of art that contains a figure of a woman with a child etc., etc. So it is clearly up to the artist to freely express his interpretation of the ‘abstract idea’ incorporated into each blazon.--P.g.champion (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
There is Commons:Coats of Arms -- could be written better, but is basically correct. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

may another user change my picture-pd-license?

Hi, i would like to hear your opinion. I am author of the simple drawing (File:Lichtabsorbtion_eines_buchenblattes.svg). Checking the other day, I recognized, that somebody made a new drawing from it (File:Engelmannscher_Bakterienversuch.svg), with some changes to the piture. He then published the piture under a cc-license. Is this possible? I really would like to maintain the pd license - even though i don't see the uniqui character of the changes, so that a copyright license would be justified!!! I wrote to the user (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matthias_M.#Image:Lichtabsorbtion_eines_buchenblattes.svg), but we didn't find a common compromise. What is your opinion? Lanzi (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

PD is not actually a license. After you release something into Public Domain anyboby can use your work for any purpose and release any derivative work under any license (the new copyright will only cover new original elements). Ruslik (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to ensure that derivative work is also available under a free license, I recommend the {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-de}} license, which also covers any issues related to your moral rights. Sv1xv (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The license on the new work only covers the portions authored by the other user -- your image is still PD. Another user cannot claim copyright over your work, only on the additions they make. However, being public domain, you also cannot control the license that another user chooses for *their* works, even if it partly incorporates yours. Moral rights still apply though in most countries, so attribution of your portion should still be maintained. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct english

Hey guys. I need your help for the correct of english. My question is about the M109 howitzer. Currently we have two categories: M109 howitzers in Israelitic service which is nominated for deletion and M109 howitzers in Israeli service. Which one has the correct gramma?
thanks for your help --D-Kuru (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Israeli. "Israelitic" I think more relates to the word "Israelite", not necessarily the modern country of Israel, which seems to be what is desired for those categories. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, "Israelite" and "Israelitic" refer to the Biblical Israel. -Nard the Bard 13:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
To avoid this type of problems, Commons naming would prefer something like "M109 howitzers used in Israel" or ""M109 howitzers in service in Israel". Moreover, that form is extendable, so one could imagine "M109 howitzers used in Nazareth" and "M109 howitzers used in Nazareth, Belgium" (Category:Nazareth (Belgium)). --Foroa (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
That would be a slightly different category... they aren't always used in the country where the army comes from (historical battle photos, joint exercises with another country's army somewhere, etc.). Maybe "M109 howitzers of Israel". Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I belive it's Israeli. Evrik (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
OK. M109 howitzers in Israeli service will be kept. Thanks for your help
--D-Kuru (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Patrol

Both the Patroller and Autopatrolled userrights have been activated. Users interested in having such userrights should apply at Commons:Requests for rights‎. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

License for File:IC10 BVHa.jpg valid?

File:IC10 BVHa.jpg

This image is from the Local Group Survey of the Lowell observatory (http://www.lowell.edu/users/massey/lgsurvey/IC10_BVHa.jpg). There is no indication on the web pages of Lowell Observatory that the images are in the public domain. I doubt that the {{PD-USGov}}-tag applies here, as the Lowell Observatory is a private research institute, no government institution. --Vesta (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. It was produced under an NSF grant, but that usually does not change any copyright ownership. It may have been a mistaken assumption by the original uploader. I would nominate it for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

GPS information template

Do we have a GPS information template? For example for File:Tamiasciurus_douglasii_6021.JPG the information below the information template gives the elevation, the GPS device and location name. This is searchable and produces some problems. Searching for Garmin GPSmap 60CSx gives the images located by the device but not an image of the device. Any solution in mind?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What should we do with File redirects?

Should file redirect pages be deleted after commons delinker replacement of all links or should they be kept? Wouldn't a bot that places all file redirect pages in a maintenance category for review by admins be useful? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I find them quite anoying and redundant, for example the image in the taxobox here[10] has been moved from Carnotuarus 2.jpg to Epachthosaurus.jpg, but the first file name (which is now a redirect) is still used in the article, but when you click on the image (or with checkusage), you can only see on what pages it is used with the filename Epachthosaurus.jpg, not Carnotuarus 2.jpg, therefore you cannot find everywhere the image is used regardless of name. Delete them all, I say, one of the worst ideas Ive seen on Commons, after one file galleries. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
You can click What links here on Epachthosaurus.jpg, find the redirect then click check usage. You'll find where it is used . I think every file redirect should be in a maintance category for admins to check and delete.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete as soon as nothing points towards them anymore. --Eusebius (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. I think we should keep almost all file redirects. Even if all usages have been replaced on Wikimedia projects, the redirect is still useful in two cases: 1. When viewing an old version of an article, with the old name; 2. Outside of Wikimedia, where we have no control on which file name is used. The only case where it's OK to delete a redirect is when an image was moved very shortly after upload, so that there is no way the old name was ever used. Pruneautalk 15:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Pruneau. Redirects should stay if the file was in use somewhere. I think we need a bot placing something like Template:File redirect on all newly created file redirects, files using this template should be checked by a bot for usage in other projects and sorted with a template parameter to Category:File redirects not in use and Category:File redirects in use. We can replace the used redirects with CommonsDelinker A text output with delinker commands for the used redirects would be nice. CommonsDelinker should place his Template:Universally replaced to file redirects where no replacement is possible so we must do this by hand, e.g. galleries on Wikipedias or Images in some Infoboxes are not so easy to replace. --Martin H. (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Addition: I just noted, that some wikis are unable to handle file redirects, so the fr.wikipeda with the redirect File:Citation a l'ordre de la division Maurice Dutilleul 73 RI 51 Div.JPG used in this article - I have no problem to include the same text on de.wikipedia but on fr.wikipedia the file is not shown up. --Martin H. (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Only temporary. --Martin H. (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So the only purpose of the redirects is to have them show up in older revisions? Isn't that too little and too late? FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Older revisions, external users, bookmarked pages, user upload logs (the page is moved, but not the upload log). Maybe more? --Martin H. (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons isn't just for Wikipedia. Breaking preexisting links from the outside web or from offline or from emails or from books or from ANYTHING ELSE in the world is being a TERRIBLE web citizen and it goes against everything Wikimedia stands for.

DO NOT delete redirects EVER unless there is an OVERWHELMING reason to do so -- 99.99999% of the time that's either because you're putting something else actually there at that name or it's a junk name from a rename vandal. Virtually EVERY other time you should leave the redirect where it is. --brion (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 Comment I think the answer depends on why the file was renamed. Currently, files are said to be renamed for one of the following reasons:

  • 1. Uploader requested or agreed
  • 2. change completely meaningless names into suitable names, according to what the image displays (e.g. File:22785u9ob807b3c4f4.jpg or File:DSC_1342.jpg to File:Pretoria_Venningpark_-_seen_from_tower_October_2009.jpg
  • 3. correct misleading names into accurate ones (e.g. File:Flickr_Main_Page_Screenshot_7_October_2009.JPG => File:Wikimedia_Commons_Main_Page_Screenshot_7_October_2009.jpg )
  • 4. change meaningless bio-names into binominal scientific names (File:Unknown_insect_02.jpg => File:Echinops_setifer_Japan.jpg )
  • 5. correct obvious errors in file names (e.g. wrong proper nouns or false historical dates, e.g. (File:Van_Gogh_portrait_1787.jpg => File:Van_Gogh_portrait_1887.jpg )
  • 6. harmonize file names of a set of images (so that only one part of all names differs), to ease their usage in templates (e.g. diagram symbols, scans of pages of a book, maps)
  • 7. Mere cosmetics

If a name is sufficiently misleading or undefined for the file to be considered needing rename, there first name shouldn't redirect to the new one either.

For some of the other reasons, if it's important to keep links to the existing file name, the file shouldn't be moved in the first place. -- User:Docu at 10:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really get the point. Files have been renamed for ages by uploading them under a different name. Never have ever has anybody after deleting the old file put a redirect in that place. Why now? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe there used to be technical problems; they caused issues in various places with the Wikimedia software so we had to delete them. But given brion's remarks above, those seem to have been fixed -- and so we should now keep them wherever reasonable. And we should probably add them when deleting duplicates as well. Some of User:Docu's examples above probably should not be kept (misleading names, especially if the old name could be used by another image more correct for that name), but even the nonsense names should probably redirect to show the history (and prevent future identical nonsense names from being uploaded). Redirects will let us do the harmonizing of a set of images without the massive fallout that we have always had from that. There aren't many reasons *not* to use them. w:WP:REDIR says However, in general, unless there is a good reason (such as vandalism or userfying recently created malplaced items) to suppress the redirect, it is best to leave it behind, as a useful entry in the history. This leaves a trail to help readers find the old article, in case a new article is created at its previous location. If image redirects are now just as functional here, we should probably have a very similar policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

 Keep all redirects. Removing them breaks all old references to the work (internal and external). This is *especially* true for Commons, as images are linked to in wikis other than just the Wikimedia Foundation ones, so there is no way to determine if all links are "fixed". As long as they don't show up in categories etc. I can't think of a good reason to delete them at all. Obviously we should fix all internal (and wiki project) references, but that can be done by bots. Also, Wikinews may have a "no modification" policy on old news stories so deleting redirects may break their old news articles. Redirects are never deleted on Wikipedia; why here? They were only a problem due to technical issues, which I assume are now being sorted out. I could see *maybe* deleting redirects when fixing bad names of *very* recent uploads, but not much else. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirects still have several issues.

  • They break CommonsDelinker. I have mentioned this before and have mentioned it several times. Brion said to fix CommonsDelinker, but AFAICS nothing has been done.
  • They provide attack space for vandals. Why vandalize a fully protected image when an unprotected redirect points to the image and is widely used? Uploading an image over the redirect makes that images show up instead of the image being redirected to. We should have a way to protect redirects together with the image or have an "editredirect" right that we can restrict.
  • They don't fix hotlinks. Usually when linking a file, the link will look like (e.g. for today's POTD) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Sydney_Opera_House_-_Dec_2008.jpg . This is the link web developers will use to hotlink the image. Once we move the image, that link is dead, no matter whether we have a redirect or not. I just tried this over at test.wiki, check http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crane operator at TVA.jpg and http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crane operator at TVA moved.jpg. The old link, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/test/5/5b/Crane_operator_at_TVA.jpg , now gives a 404 error.
  • I recommend people read the discussion on bugzilla:15842, where those issues have already been explained and discussed.#

Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • CommonsDelinker sounds like it is an issue. The (far) preferable way would be to fix that tool, obviously. But if we have bots fix internal redirects, which seems to happen right now, that is mitigated.
  • If we have a bot fix the internal redirects, there shouldn't be any attack space for vandals either. But I could see protecting redirects along with the image they point to, sure, especially for uploading new images with that name.
  • It would be nice if hotlinks were redirected, yes, something which may be possible if we have the redirects. Deleting the redirects doesn't help this situation anyways, so it's no worse. However, hotlinks are not the only external usages -- there are specific instructions on how to set up any MediaWiki installation to use Commons as an image base, and those references should work through the redirect, I believe (and there is no way that CheckUsage etc. will ever find them).
Overall, I just think that the problems caused by deleting (long-established) old filenames outweigh the downsides in using them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: When protected pages are moved, both the page and the redirect will remain protected. See Commons:Deletion requests/box and Template:DRbox. So this shouldn't be an issue. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Proposal How about any totally unusefull and misleading name redirecets deletions? Redirects like DC120914 should be deleted after their wiki wide links have been replaced...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
"...after their wiki wide links have been replaced..." - do you follow the discussionb from the beginning? -jkb- (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

October 7

Image displays incorrectly

Hi - I have uploaded a file File:LamokaProjPoint.jpg. It replaces the original version that I uploaded. When you go to the image page, it displays correctly at the top (three points) but below it does not (two points). Furthermore, it does not display correctly at the Wikipedia page [11]. Any ideas? PAR (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes when uploading new files, the cached thumbnails for the image are not deleted and newly created. There is a link on top of the file pages, it says "purge". When you click that, the thumbnail cache is emptied for the image. Once you refresh the pages with the image on it in your browser, you should see the correct version. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

October 10

Mayflower search

The Mayflower search is broken at the moment. I would try to fix it, but I cannot find a copy of the source code anywhere. I am not a commons regular, but I thought you might want to look into this and fix it. User:TangoTango, the maintainer, seems not to be around recently. CBM (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Mayflower is probably broken because the user database server doesn't contain a copy of the Commons database anymore. Multichill (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent death of a contributor

User:Fg2, who I am told uploaded some 2000 photos to commons, has recently died. If any of you have had any messages you would wish to send to his family, there is an online guestbook here. Also, over at w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Death of a Wikipedian, there is some discussion regarding trying to do some sort of memorial for him. Any comments are more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

▶◀ Kwj2772 (msg) 23:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

October 9

Licensing question

I am uncertain whether I can upload two images in these papers: [12] [13]. The images were published in 1887 in Denmark by an author who died in 1923 [14] and reproductions were published in 1991 and 1993 in the U.S. by authors who are still alive. Can I take the images from the papers published in 1991 and 1993 and upload them as PD here? Thanks, Ucucha (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The official stance of Commons, as per out PD-ART policy, is that faithful reproductions of works in the public domain are not eligible for copyright. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll upload the images then. Ucucha (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Frame of video

Greetings. Can you tell me how to remove the video control border on File:McNutt-video.png? Thanks. That border does not appear in Apple Preview. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Save as" fixed it. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The oldest version with the control elements must be deleted. This control bar is not free, I mean its symbols and so on! An Administrator must delete this version! Greets,Peter
✓ Done. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Media from Nasa Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Nasa's NTRS contains over 1 million records including over 40,000 pdfs; tens of thouasands of images, and tens of thousands of videos.

Most of the content has no copyright, or is a work of NASA and is thus in public domain. Have the commons ever considered importing this database?Smallman12q (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you could request that at Commons:Batch uploading. We have uploaded a batch of the Greatest images of NASA before. Are the images any good? Could u give an example?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
There are tens of thousands videos, pdfs, images, sounds...etc. most without copyright. In addition, most of these have some kind of documentation making sorting them fairly easy.
As an example have a look at Fuel Cells:A survey, the pdf contains very detailed and useful illustrations and diagrams of fuel cells. (Something wikipedia lacks). Or this pdf which has Gemini fuel cell skematics. Best of all, these are essentially copyright free. The wiki commons has very few nasa diagrams/skematics. Hopefully that can change. I will copy this over to Batch uploading.Smallman12q (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I've created a request at Commons:Batch uploading/Nasa Technical Reports Server (NTRS).Smallman12q (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
You forgot to add the batch to this list but I did it for you, np. It seems like a valuable collection, however extracting images from PDF files need some really good scripters and we have a backlog on Commons batch upload requests. It'll take a while but it will eventually happen :) .--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Oops...I'm not really involved in the commons...thankyou. I do hope this comes to pass...there are at least a million records....so the commons would benefit greatly.Smallman12q (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
One problem with the PDFs you linked to is that they seem to be scans of printed documents, and the image quality is often not all that high. Some of the cleanest illustrations in those PDFs could be usable as they are, but to really make them useful most of them would need to be redrawn (preferably in SVG). Of course, redrawing a diagram from a PD source can be much easier than drawing one from scratch, so the PDFs are still valuable as sources. But you shouldn't expect someone to be able to just magically pull high-quality diagrams out of them without some redrawing effort. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
While the pdfs do contain technical schematics...NTRS also have tens of thousands of free videos and pictures...so pdfs aside, there's still a good 100k+ records that are free.Smallman12q (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

use of photos as reference for painting

I'm new to this site and just want to make sure that I'm not violating any copyright laws. I'd like to use a photo I've found here as a reference for a watercolor painting. I'd like to attribute the photographer, but don't see any way to contact them on their user page. How do I attribute a painting under GFDL or Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 rules when I can't figure out who the photographer is or contact them in any way? Or do I even need to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyigfu (talk • contribs)

You can attribute the images to them by using their Commons' username. If you're using the images in a format where linking is possible, linking to their Commons' userpage is also a good idea. You might want to read over Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. Killiondude (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, but I'm still not clear. I will be painting a picture on watercolor paper using the image as a reference. The painting will be matted and framed to hang on a wall, so I'm not sure how to do the attribution. It won't be on the internet or in electronic form, so I can't link it to anything. I've already read the info in the link you suggested, that's why I posted the question. Are the images here only for electronic use? --vyigfu (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I should've read closer, my apologies. No, the images on here can be used in print (non-electronic, I guess) form as well. I'm not sure where you would attribute with a painting, but you would use their username as who you are attributing. You can ask the user how they'd like to be attributed on their user talk page, or you can try emailing them using [[Special:EmailUser/<username here>]] (putting their Commons username after the slash), but that only works if they have email enabled in their preferences. Killiondude (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Np problem, I do appreciate your responses. This site is a nightmare to get around in. Even editing messages like this is so NOT straightforward! I wonder why they've made it so difficult to use? At any rate, I've figured out how to leave the photographer a question (he/she doesn't have email enabled) and I'll wait for an answer. Thanks again for your help.--vyigfu (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
"you would use their username" is not quite on the mark: if the page indicates the preferred attribution, you should follow that. For example, I prefer my attributions to use my actual name, not my Commons handle, and my image pages say so. - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Generally, this type of information would be printed on the plaque or caption accompanying your artwork. Contact the user for the specific attribution message you should use. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

October 11

Dcoetzee reinstated

Dcoetzee has been resysoped, because the dispute with the National Portrait Gallery is indefinitely suspended and has been so for some time. I reinstated the tools following the safety period and consent from the steward who desysoped Dcoetzee. Please ask if there are any questions. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 19:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff! Thanks for taking care of this, K. Welcome back, D. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
What happened to the dispute? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Same question as mattbuck. Diti the penguin — 20:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat and Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009Jul#Legal_threat_from_National_Portrait_Gallery. Kwj2772 (msg) 13:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Neither of those seem to explain the current status of the NPG dispute. Adambro (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I don't know current status. Maybe I have misunderstood their comments. Kwj2772 (msg) 13:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There has been no change in status regarding this dispute. Neither NPG, WMF, my lawyer or myself has taken any further action that I am aware of in the last 3 months. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

October 12

Log in trouble

I have been experiancing a great deal of trouble logging into wikimedia commons to upload photographs. I created the account last week and nine times out of ten the log in fails even with the correct password. Mysteriously the 'Email new password' link does not send anything to my registered email address even though I received an email when i created the account (and which I have of course verified by going to my email and clicking the vertification link)

Also, does one need to create a wikpedia account seperately from wiki commons ? Once again, my wiki common user id and password refuse to log me into wikipedia. All help highly appreciated.

Wikipedia and Commons accounts are created together nowadays.
Do you have cookies enabled? Is a spam filter intercepting the password reset emails? Stifle (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Finnish national library provides over 300 PD recordings in MP3. How do I convert them to ogg?

I found this site with over 300 PD recordings of music in MP3 format. What is the best way to convert them to OGG? Some of them are already on commons, but most of the are not, as far as I know. --Korall (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

On Linux, the standard command-line oggenc converter works pretty well. Apparently, you can get it for Windows too. If you'd prefer a GUI program, the open-source cross-platform sound editor Audacity can read MP3 and export Ogg Vorbis. Or, if you'd prefer a web-based tool, try mediaconverter.org. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You'd also want to include the meta data on the record listing, which is the fun part. Don't waste time doing this manually, someone with a little know how can script it. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The National Portrait Gallery’s twin brother?

FYI
Maybe the UK’s National Portrait Gallery Trustees have now noticed a potential ‘conflict of interest’ within their own organization. Their head of Rights and Reproductions is also the chair of the Museums Copyright Group, a positions one could use to act as a paid consultant to other organizations and to speak at conferences. To be in a position of being able to use the finances of one organization to further one’s profile as a consultant and not be accountable for costs should things go wrong, is surely an enviable position for a consultant to be in. However, whilst this NPG copyright issue has been going on there has been copyright - rights grab at the English National Trust. Something, I had not wanted to mention earlier whislt the NPG issue was still blowing hot.

Again, there appears to be a conflict of interest, as the person running the marketing arm of the National Trust is also the chairman for The Association for Cultural Enterprises. Another organization which it would seem, dedicated to claiming copyright to everything. [15] Again, there appears ample opportunity to raise one’s profile as a speaker and consultant should one want to. [16]

However, this year they seem to have shot themselves in the foot by informing would be visitors, that if they forget about the ban on ALL photography on NT property, then they might find themselves criminalised. Oh yes! For according to the National Trust (for England), landscapes and even photographs of plants and animals on open land, are criminal offences under a 1965 bye-law. [17] Naturally, the number of people visiting this years has fallen off.

This by-law claim is probable and almost certainly just FUD as the 1907 Act that created the NT (which is superior to any subsequent by-laws by it very nature) also demands for the preservation of existing rights for those properties brought into the NT fold. Since under United Kingdom law, one can do as one wishes unless the is a law to prohibit it, it looks like the NT does not have a leg to stand on in this respect.

WC has a growing Category:National Trust properties in the United Kingdom and only time will tell if these photographs too, get challenged. For up-loaders to WC within the UK, the NT may ague(as seems their habit) that the law is on their side and force the uploader to defend themselves. As stated in the link above, NT has already moved (at roughly the same time it appears) against a large and popular British photo library, forcing it to ‘remove’ photographs by independent photographers. Has since started to replace them with their own official NTPL photographs (was this a fate that was intended for WC depository regarding the NPG images?). But of course, this would affect more than just images in this NT cat, for how many contributors to WC realise that the White Cliffs of Dover also belong to the NT, as does much of the most picturesque landscapes in these Isles, donated by the owners for that very reason. Thus, the NT have become one of the largest guardians of the countryside in the UK and so it also means it is very difficult to take a photographs of any unspoilt view without standing on NT land. Still; after the NPG’s resent attempts and the feeling of ill-will generated by the marketing arm of the NT this year, I don’t expect to see anything too soon.--P.g.champion (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the details of this, but I suspect this may be a non-copyright restriction - if so, any violation is between the photographer and the state, and publication of the photos is not restricted by law. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Dcoetzee. Any violation is a matter for the photographer and the National Trust/UK government. The bye-law doesn't interfere with photographers' rights to their photographs; it renders the photographer liable to a fine if they use them.
Incidentally, the title of the section is "Hawking", so it would appear that its intention was to stop random people snapping pictures of passers-by on NT properties and trying to sell them there and then. Stifle (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this picture free?

Hi. I was thinking about uploading this poster of a 1914 film but I was wondering about the fact that it could be the DVD picture of it so that might not be free. What do you think? (and if it's OK to upload it, would there be a higher resolution somewhere else?) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a big maybe. The original screenshot is not copyrighted, but most likely elements have been added to this screenshot to create the poster - if those elements are eligible for copyright and not de minimis, it might be copyrighted. As for larger - the best way to get a high res version of posters like this is to buy a copy of the poster and scan it (in sections and stitch them). Dcoetzee (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
And that assumes it is an actual screen shot: posters often aren't. At the very least, the colors would have been added. If you have the DVD, it would probably be better to capture a frame from the film.- Jmabel ! talk 07:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

October 13

HotCat bugs

HotCat.js here at Commons has some bugs:

  • it doesn't respect that interwikis should be listed after categories, and it adds categories at the page bottom always
  • when it changes (replaces) a category, it doesn't respect the original placing of replaced category and moves the category at the page bottom always.

Seeing that both this bugs are e. g. at the Czech Wikipedia solved, I suppose it is possible easily and the problem consists on some local settings here at Commons. --ŠJů (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a bug, it's just that our version of HotCat doesn't care. The version at the English Wikipedia contains code that tries to place categories in the right places. But that's purely wikitext cosmetic, it has no effect on the rendered page, and thus this was not thought to be important here. Given that a replacement for HotCat is in the works (it's to be integrated in the core software), I won't invest a lot of time in HotCat anymore. Lupo 12:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank You for your answer. I hope the new software will be more perfect. --ŠJů (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Author Credits

I have uploaded some Files under the GFDL and CC Licences. The "Choose a License"-box in the upload mode listed this combination under the following paragraph allow commercial use, non--commercial uses and modification as long as others credit you and share alike. The two boxes here dont say anything about crediting the photograph, so could someone include this in the summaries in the templates as the crediting of the author is one of the conditions listed in the upload mode?

This situation is also a problem for people, who want to use this image, as they can't see the author-credit clause in the summary and wont notice it.

--Liberaler Humanist (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't understand your comment completely. I changed a little. CC-license and GFDL generally has Attribution clause, so users must attribute original author. I think you have misunderstood about it. Kwj2772 (msg) 13:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I think Liberaler Humanist does understand that CC licenses require Attribution. He says that this point is not clear in the upload form ; and that people could believe that Attribution is not mandatory and would not upload files because of this. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

My problem ist, that the License-Templates dont mention the Autohor-Credit Condition clearly.

The CC-BY-SA-3.0 Template looks like this:

w:en:Creative Commons
attribution share alike
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.


I think, that In short: you are free to share and make derivative works of the file under the conditions that you appropriately attribute it, and that you distribute it only under a license identical to this one. Official license

should be changed into: In short: you are free to share and make derivative works of the file under the conditions that you appropriately credit the author and the source', and that you distribute it only under a license identical to this one. Official license

I dont think, that the current template mentions the condition of crediting the user clearly. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If needed uploders can use {{Credit line}} template to specify explicit attribution requirements. --Jarekt (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Walter McClintock Glasss Lantern Slides

The Beinecke Rare Books & Manuscripts library hosts a lot of interesting material, among other things more than 1000 high quality images of glass slides ([18]). It dates them to "1874-1946", with no information on when individual slides were created.

Is that good enough for us to deduce that they are public domain and can be transferred to Commons? I want to make sure that they won't be deleted before making the effort of uploading them. -- JovanCormac 16:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is somewhat nebulous without more information, but ... they seem to be Magic Lantern slides, and so would appear to be published. Most of those slides would have been made prior to 1923, so that is what the claim would be I guess. That, and from the looks of it, publication without a copyright notice (though maybe that could have been on the back). The colorization would have been eligible for a derivative copyright, so Charlotte M. Pinkerton (judging by the example image in your link) would be one of the authors there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Is that a yes or a no then? There are about 1500 of those slides, and they cannot be extracted automatically from the page because of varying folder names. If I do a full manual, I want to be sure that they won't be deleted by some overzealous copyright paranoiists. -- JovanCormac 05:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Category not displayed

I have created Category:Tone-mapped HDR images by country and added [[Category:Tone-mapped HDR images]] to it, but it won't appear as a sub-category of Category:Tone-mapped HDR images. Anyone know why and/or how to fix that? -- H005 21:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you click next a bit it will show up as the last page. This is because some mediawiki error that doesn't split the naming of files from categories. I added |A to make it on the first page.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

TOC in galleries

Hi everybody!

Does anyone know why {{TOC}} doesn't work in gallery pages such as Police motorcycles by country and Police motorcycles by brand? What's to be fixed? Thanks, --Mattes (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it this only works if the Sections are only made of letters. If Australia becomes "A" the TOC works. If you remove {{TOC}} there would be a normal TOC that displays these sections.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It will work with {{Anchor}}. --Martin H. (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!
Resolved
--Mattes (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mathematics in Category:Cities in Piedmont

Can anybody explain to me, please, why in Category:Cities in Piedmont the cities present there as galleries are 8+13=22  ? Thank you very much! --DenghiùComm (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No clue what you're talking about. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The category contains 21 pages. The first page of the category contains 8 of those pages, while the second (click "next 200") contains 13 more pages. In total this is 8+13=21 pages. Yet the counters on both category pages say that the category contains 22 pages in total, not 21. --Aqwis (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Exact! This is the (big or little) problem. --DenghiùComm (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
DenghiùComm is right there is some problem --Jarekt (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a bug in MediaWiki. -- JovanCormac 17:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

WP: shortcuts

I noticed that there are a few WP: shortcuts lying around. Since these are on the wrong project, would there be any objections to deleting them? –Juliancolton | Talk 00:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't forget to replace them every page! Kwj2772 (msg) 00:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, WP:OTRS might be worth keeping, seeing as it is linked on several dozen files. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Deletion will remove context for those who don't know what these funny WP: thingys are, and is bound to raise a couple of editor's hackles here and there. Instead of deleting, you could simply add the missing "w:", cf. WP:COMMONS vs. w:WP:COMMONS. Same work, better result. Or add soft redirects, as in your example. Even less work. This also eliminates the need for future maintenance edits. Paradoctor (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Most of the links to WP:OTRS seem to be from a series of files uploaded by Sodakan in 2007, and should really point to COM:OTRS instead. I should be able to do a search-and-replace on them... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
...and done. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason to keep them, provided they aren't linked anywhere. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How about adopting "Featured galleries" and language shells for galleries ?

I've been long thinking it would be very nice if we creates a new system of "Featured galleries". While the primary purpose of Commons is a media repository, I think gallery function is very neglected on Commons. I consider galleries are equivalent to "articles" on language-based Wiki projects. One image could have a value worth 1000 characters, but could not be enough, so gallery with proper caption would be informative and educational for those who want to know some subjects with images. For example, I created and edited the gallery, Architectural elements (incomplete though) based on the glossary of architecture at the English Wikipedia. Not everyone could be photographers, or photoshop experts, and I think editors here are much fewer than language-based Wikiprojects, so some incentive carrots could attract more wide variety of editors for Commons.

However, one problem is that the space for captions are limited, so if the caption is over three lines, it looks very crowded, and not every language could be added into the space. So could we make a function like a language shell just like Template:Information/en and Template:Information/fr? What do you think? --Caspian blue 02:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

All discussion at Commons:Featured galleries welcome. Man vyi (talk) 05:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 Comment: You said that there's not much space for captions. You can use {{LangSwitch}} for this problem. Then, only the user's language or a fallback language will appear (though the disadvantage is that every unregistered user will see the English caption, as they can't choose another language other than adding ?uselang= to the URL). For example {{LangSwitch|en=English caption|de=Deutsche Bildunterschrift}} will appear differentl depending on which language you use. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sound, sounds and audio files

Category:Sounds is for narrow waters, as opposed to category:Sound. That doesn't stop various categories named "Sounds of..." from containing audio recordings. In addition, there is another category:audio files. I just created category:Traffic sound (for various audio recordings from road transport) and later discovered category:Rail transport audio files, which follows a different naming standard. In summary: the naming of categories for recorded sound is a big mess. On the other hand, the total number of sound recordings and their categories is still rather small. How should we name these categories? Any ideas or guidelines? --LA2 (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I recommand going to COM:CFD for this. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

October 14

Copyright Release on Size

This image is available on flickr under No known copyright restrictions (PD), they only uploaded a very small image to flickr under that license, but a much larger version is available here. Does the copyright apply for only the small image they uploaded or for also the larger image from their website? The Image on their website does not clearly state the license as PD as it does on Flickr, but if they state it's PD on flickr it would be PD right, even larger scans? — raeky (talk | edits) 05:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If an image is in the public domain as {{PD-old}} etc, this applies to all sizes.
This is not the case for recent images, for which the author may relase a low resolution image under GFDL or CC or whatever but keep the copyright for the high resolution image.
Sv1xv (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The image in question is from 1911-1914, would Australian copyrights expire during that time? — raeky (talk | edits) 05:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. The copyright holder may release small sizes under a free license or in the public domain and retain all rights on the larger versions. See the Commons:Bundesarchiv cooperation, see Commons:Flickr_files#Lower_quality_images. As you said, maybe this image is in the public domain for other resons than a release. --Martin H. (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
If you don't explicitly state the size of the image your licensing would any image size be under that license, Commons:Flickr_files#Lower_quality_images seems to indicate they have to be specific if they're releasing only a smaller resolution size? — raeky (talk | edits) 05:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Being specific always helps, but in general, you can only use works actually tagged with an appropriate license. If that is only the low-resolution version, then you can't assume the right to use a larger version if it does not have a similar license tag. That is not true of works where copyright has expired -- all versions are OK then. If the country of origin of the above photograph is Australia, then {{PD-Australia}} should apply to both large and small versions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, thanks Carl. Per COM:L#Australia the photograph is in the public domain. I not said this clearly because of the color of the image, are this images reworked and would a rework be in the public domain too? --Martin H. (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
These look like they're scans of prints, and the there is a darkroom chemical treatment to turn the print blue (similar to sepia), such chemical treatments would of been available back then I belive. The exact name eludes me, it's been a decade or so since I did this in my darkroom classes. Such a chemical treatment to turn them blue would of been probably ideal for these ice pictures at that time. — raeky (talk | edits) 06:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I have little idea about Australian law; if someone does a full colorization on a B&W photo, that would qualify as a derivative work in the U.S. But, for just some basic processing... doubt it, for the U.S. (and maybe PD-Art would apply). Australia though... not entirely sure. Straight scans wouldn't be enough, probably even there, but they do have some different ideas about "originality" (inherited from the UK). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The Archival record is here, the collection says nothing about reworks. So yes, PD-Australia would be fine. --Martin H. (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate images

Now duplicate images is deleted, But now admin can move images, duplicate images should merge, Not delete.--shizhao (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean 'merge'? There's nothing to merge for image files. GraYoshi2x►talk 23:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe they meant redirects should be left in place? Not sure there is much to merge (which usually means edit history) either. Unless images have different old revisions... maybe that is what is meant. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Topics

The media file File:Kennedy'sfounders.jpg is in Category:Topics, for no obvious reason. Could someone look into this? This, that and the other (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted as a duplicate of File:KennedyFdrs.jpg, which is in Category:Business (better, but could be refined). –Tryphon☂ 10:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The reason was malformed categorization, it had the text {{Category:Business}}, that includes the (textual) content of Category:Business and thats category:topics. --Martin H. (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Protecting files only from uploading, not from editing the description page

As you're probably aware of, we have a lot of files that are indefinitely full-protected. This is done as these are highly used, and it certainly would not be good if someone uploaded a porno image over our logo that's used on any Commons page. But, is there any reason that people can't edit the image description page. That they can't categorize the image, that they can't add imagenotes or that the bots can't localize the templates. I fail to see any reason for this. Thus, I'd like to propose an alternative protection for those indefinitely fullprotected high-use images, and only for those. {{Enwiki main page}} images and other temporary protections will not be affected by this. As I was recently told by Ilmari Karonen, a MediaWiki developer and also one of the admins here, it's possible to protect files from re-uploading, but still allowing people to edit the image description page. Non-admins can test this with this test image. As this is much more convinient to our users, I'd like to propose the following:

  1. Delete any full-protected images that are already protected by the Titleblacklist. It's just a waste of capacity to still keep those, as they can't be created anyways.
  2. Delete {{Prohibited name}}s and protect them from creation, as it's already done for many files. Tweak the message to reflect that they should use a better filename.
  3. Protect all full-protected files via the Titleblacklist, write a warning for the image description page and create a Titleblacklist warning that says them why they can't upload this file.
  4. Add something about the Titleblacklist-protection to MediaWiki:Protect-text so that admins are aware of this.

I admit that this will be some work, but I think that we sholdn't always think of how much work something is, but rather concentrate that the users don't have so many problems. It's the community that makes a wiki good, not how easy it is for the admins. So, what is your opinion on this matter? I would be happy if you could tell me some suggestions or give me a general feedback. If there are still any questions left, feel free to ask. Thank you for your help. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  •  Support As The Evil IP address noted, I was the one who suggested the possibility of using the title blacklist for this purpose. I think this could be a good idea: while some files do need to be protected for various reasons, protecting the image description page is much less frequently necessary. Of course, the suggested implementation is just a temporary workaround, pending the addition of proper upload-only protection to MediaWiki (bug 6579). That might happen tomorrow, or it might take months or years. But the title blacklist trick is something that already works, and using it now won't in any way prevent us from switching to proper upload-only protection if and when someone gets around to implementing the remaining bits needed for it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment what does an admin have to do to protect image upload instead of both? Would it be a one button click or should an admin go through a long process to do this? Another question is that this bug has been filed 3 years ago. Isn't there any feedback by the developers regarding this feature? I would just wait for the new feature instead of doing all this work to each protection...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It requires adding one line to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Not quite just one click, but no more work than, say, posting a comment here on the pump. (And, come to think of it, it would be possible to do it in one click using JavaScript. In fact, it would be quite a simple script to write.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support this sounds like a cleaner solution then the one currently used --Jarekt (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good idea to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I think we should get some input on this from a person who is involved with Wikimedia servers. It is my understanding that an image name is matched against the entire titleblacklist every time any image is uploaded. So if we heavily fill up the titleblacklist, I assume we will significantly increase server load. I'm not sure that's the way to go. Maybe we should rather petition for a new "upload" permission to be protectable, just like "edit", "move" and "create"? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, you absolutely have a point here. If there are problems for the server, of course this shouldn't be used. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I very much doubt that matching a few hundreds, or even thousands, of anchored regexps against the filename on every upload is going to cause noticeable server load, especially not compared to all the other work that uploading a file already involves. Heck, just parsing this page takes more regexp matches than that. And uploads are, even here on Commons, comparatively rare — it's not something that would have to be done on every edit or page view. Of course, if it does turn out to somehow cause unreasonable server load, someone (probably Domas) will tell us to stop doing it. But until then, I wouldn't worry about server load. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As 1 and 2 are already in place, one could just do steps 3 and 4. -- User:Docu at 18:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Unidentified people and Patroller right

I decided to try out my newly granted Patroller permission, and found only one page needing to be patrolled. I see why others skipped past it.

What is the guideline for handling unidentified people? The most common method is to place the photos directly in Category:Unidentified people or a subcat (Category:Unidentified people of the German Democratic Republic, Category:Unidentified politicians of Germany, etc.). So why is there also a page for Commons:Unidentified people of Germany if there are already two other subcategories so similar?

The page that led me to this was Unidentified Russian people, which sounds very similar to Commons:Unidentified people of Germany, except for the namespace (main space instead of project space). So, which is the correct namespace? Or are either of these pages necessary?

Wouldn't categories work equally well? The two current German subcategories (very specific) could be moved under a new category of Category:Unidentified people of Germany (rather general). Not that either of the two current subcategories are very populated. But it is helpful to have an idea of the person's occupation (politician) or historical location (GDR). Maybe that's why the page was set up, so that more pertinent details could be added than a simple category can cover.

Back to the patroller right, should I mark a page that otherwise looks fine, such as this one, as patrolled, even if there is a whole lot of other confusion surrounding it? Is the patroller right just stating that the content of the page looks fine, even if the metadata surrounding the page is wonky? Thanks for the clarification. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” • “w:en” • “m” ) 08:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No responses? Hmmm. Either there's no obvious answer, or this message got missed. :-) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” • “w:en” • “m” ) 20:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Go for the first (no obvious answers, at least not for me). I have some (sparse) ideas, though:
  • questions and requests for more info on the subject(s) of a photo ideally belong to the photo's talk page, to avoid information dispersion;
  • but it seems to me that talk pages, for whatever reason, are less popular on Commons than in other Wikimedia projects;
  • the galleries official guideline requires using the <gallery> tag. Details and comments would have to be "squeezed" in the thumbnail caption, which is less than ideal for adding comments; also, galleries are for displaying and organizing content, not for discussing on content;
  • perhaps there should be a template (to be put in the file description) displaying a message to notify the casual viewer that there's a request for more info about the image content, with a direct link to the talk page of the image. The template should take care also of adding the file to a special category (example: Category:Requests for more info). Answers could then be copied from the talk pages directly into the file description, if appropriate. Think of this as a general mechanism for requesting more info on a file, not just for people.
As for your original question: in absence of a specific guideline on the subject, I wouldn't mark that as patrolled. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I agree about squeezing comments into a gallery thumbnail being inadequate. Talk pages are the most obvious choice, but I, too, have noticed they are mostly unused here. A template sounds good. It should point the viewer to the talk page specifically on Commons (since it will likely be replicated to all projects via the image description). I like the auto-categorization, too. Does it really need to be a new category? Or would Category:Unidentified people be sufficient? —Willscrlt ( “Talk” • “w:en” • “m” ) 23:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
At first I was for using Category:Unidentified people, but then, looking at it, using a template to ask for more info could also be used for other kind of requests (not just for identifying people: for example, someone could ask more info on a mountain/building/whatever seen in the background), so the first thing that came to my mind was to use a generic category for requests for more info. But we could also have different templates for different kinds of requests, or a parametrized template specifying the nature of the request, so existing categories could be reused where appropriate. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Good point. I like the parametrized template idea. It's flexible and, if designed well, could have solve quite a variety of issues. Basically anytime that there's a "Who/what is that?" question about an image, the template could be utilized. The most basic questions that would likely need answering would be, Who, What, Where, and When (Why is not really something I see needing answered in this case). The Who would answer the unknown people. The What could be for an unusual building, as well as a Where. And When could be used for a known person (like a celebrity or politician) but taken at an unknown time in the person's life. Do we further subdivide those basic questions down into more refined ones, or keep it deliberately broad, and thus, arguably, simpler? —Willscrlt ( “Talk” • “w:en” • “m” ) 11:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd stay basic, ({{Who}}, {{What}}, {{Where}} and {{When}} also make nice template names that are not currently used): the full details of the request could be put in the talk page by the requestor. Perhaps an optional parameter could point to the specific section in the talk page about the request. Something along the lines of 
{{who|category=Unidentified people of the German Democratic Republic|section=Man on left}}
or 
{{what|section=Mountain in the background}}
, with both the "category" and "section" parameters being optional (category defaulting to Category:Unidentified people for {{Who}}, and section defaulting to the whole talk page). If it'll ever be popular, buttons could be put on the file page to make easy for the casual viewer to ask such questions (that is: adding the proper template to the description page and a new section in the talk page). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
On a second thought, {{Who?}}, {{What?}}, {{Where?}} and {{When?}} (with the question mark) could be more appropriate template names. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Category name

I have created the Category:Esperanto mass in Liberec, 19 July 2009 and would like to upload several pictures there. Nevertheless, in my opinion the category name isn't nice, although I don't know how to improve it according to the routine of the Wikimedia Commons. Could please somebody help? --Petrus Adamus (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

October 17

Ghost Categories

I have found two pictures that have as categories Hudson River School. The question is why do they have that category? I go to edit the page to remove the category (there is a sub-category of Hudson River School they should be in), but I can't find the Category:Hudson River School tag/code. What am I missing?

Here they are:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsberzerker (talk • contribs)

It's the transclusion in the description of Creator:Asher Brown Durand that does that. -- User:Docu at 02:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I fixed it. Someone seriously screwed up the creator template. Fixed now. Multichill (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving Image

Could someone move the Image File:Panorma Donau Linz.jpg to File:Panorama Donau Linz.jpg. The current title includes a misspelling. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Leafnode 17:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

October 18

AntWeb batch uploading

Developer of AntWeb, User:Davethau hope to upload AntWeb pictures (about ~30,000) under cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL using bot. First, I blocked the bot because op-name was unspecifid at that time, but he requested for unblock by email. Also he told me he would request at COM:BRFA. I will unblock because he specified op-name, but I will request him to delay uploads until community consensus is constructed. Thank you. Kwj2772 (msg) 05:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If that is true this is the best piece of news I've ever heard on Commons. AntWeb has a large amount of high-quality images (not the low quality dreck that the Bundesarchiv "donation" had us categorize for free). If we could integrate that library into Commons and categorize it, Commons would become one of the web's major resources of ant photographs. -- JovanCormac 10:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The Bundesarchiv may not have been the highest technical quality photos, but most of them were of things where we otherwise had no free image at all, and no way to obtain one. You are simply not going to find any significant number of photos of (for example) routine events in mid-century Germany that are of the same technical quality as on a scientifically-oriented site from the age of digital photography. Even though Leica was making very nice lenses. Those images are not "dreck", and from the point of view of documenting history I'm damn glad we have them. - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Seconded. Jovan, I appreciate your appreciation of high resolution images, but I don't think that should diminish our appreciation of what must have been a very difficult decision for a federal archive to free up more than 100,000 photographs which wouldn't otherwise be available in any form in Wikimedia projects. I don't think using language like the above will help us to convince more organizations to partner with Wikimedia. I say this in the greatest respect for your own contributions to Commons. :-)--Eloquence (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
You are right, of course. I exaggerated a little there. My comment was designed to highlight how great the AntWeb donation is in contrast to the Bundesarchiv donation, of which I still think that we got the short end of the stick and which should not become a precedence case IMO (museums or archives "donating" piles of low-quality images while keeping higher-resolution ones and using our categorizing work to maintain their own high quality versions). -- JovanCormac 15:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
As long as the donations are still useful for us, I think they are great -- the more material available the better. Obviously we much prefer higher resolution, but copyright holders can choose what they want to license -- medium resolution is far better than nothing, so if there is a way which benefits both parties then great. But yes, this collection looks to be fantastic. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It's true. An example uploaded image is here: File:Boloponera_vicans_casent0401737_profile_1.jpg. Everything's under the cc-by-sa-3.0 license. I look forward to getting the bot approved. If anyone has comments about the metadata attached to the image, please let me know. Thanks! --Davethau (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey Dave. Thanks so much for your work with uploading these neat pictures. I do have to tell you that your bot will not be able to upload "one [image] a second" (like what you said on User:File Upload Bot (AntWeb)). Per COM:BOTS#Bot speed, one image every 10 seconds will probably be as fast as you should upload. You might also want to see Wikipedia's bot page (it's a little more descriptive about the topic of speed and stuff) on w:WP:Bot policy#Bot requirements. You also might want to use the {{bot}} template for your bot's userpage and maybe write something on your own userpage stating that you are the operator. Let me/us know if you have any further questions. :-) Killiondude (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) After creating an upload tool for AntWeb, I'm a bit sad to see that work will not be very useful, but I highly endorse Davethau's bulk uploads of this material. They're coming with in with full taxonomic data, geographic data if available, and the reference number to look up more info if you was so inclined. Having these references would definitely be a benefit to the project and motivate more people to create more ant pages on the various projects since we'll have reference images for the species. With ~30,000 of these images coming in, there might need to be a more elaborate system of categories to organize it all, but definitely we need to get these images. — raeky (talk | edits) 20:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Raeky, your tool apparently categorizes the images under every category from Formicidae down to the species'. That's a bit redundant, and makes it hard to navigate the Formicidae category. I'll remove the extra categories and leave only the species one, and I'd ask you to please change that in your upload tool.
What we need is to create the category tree, but that's very easy to do since Dave is adding the taxonavigation template to every image, which shows the correct hierarchy of categories for each one. --Waldir talk 08:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
My tool is redundant and not really going to have any use if he continues with his plan to upload the whole archive here, if he does then I'll just remove my tool from the web, if he doesn't then I can justify actually developing it further, lol. I only started to make it a few days before he e-mailed me about the bulk upload. The current form adds the image to the family's catagory, then genus catagory then "genus species", thats all I could easyly discover myself. Apparently his backend database has the full taxo tree, which if thats the case I would of built the taxobox thing that hes doing instead. Anyway, I'll put a notice that noone should really use my upload tool at the moment due to this pending debate. — raeky (talk | edits) 09:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there any way you could automatically generate the taxonavigation templates to add to the AntWeb images you've uploaded? That'd be very useful for the creation of the category tree. --Waldir talk 09:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I donno, the data hes using isn't publicly viewable that I've seen on the site, I'd need to find another site that I could easily search and parse via a script to do it. But if he continues with his uploads all my images will become duplicates and can be deleted solving the problem of them not having the taxonavigation template. :P — raeky (talk | edits) 09:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I thought of that too. Possibly that'd be the best solution.. --Waldir talk 10:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Sad that all that effort to make the upload tool is all for not, but at least it made coding the mushroom observer tool much faster, and is good experience for future tools. :P I'm more than happy to see that possibly my interest in AntWeb contributed to bulk upload of the data here, so guess it wasn't a waste of time. — raeky (talk | edits) 11:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It definitely wasn't! I thought it was an excellent idea, and I' sure it helped you learn a few things :) but since they're uploading the images themselves, it's best to have the whole set standardized. I'm keeping the promise to give you feedback on the other tool, I hope to do it tonight. Cheers, Waldir talk 14:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks nice. It looks similar to the Starr upload. I left my comments at Commons:Bots/Requests/File Upload Bot (AntWeb). --Multichill 21:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How do I know when community consensus has been reached? Davethau (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You can run when Commons:Bots/Requests/File Upload Bot (AntWeb) is marked as approved. Multichill (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI, the bot has been approved! --Waldir talk 18:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hooray! Thanks User:Waldir! The upload has commenced! Very exciting!! Davethau (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Which group is tasked with wiki software design?

Being active on several wikis, and using the beta version in all, several questions came to mind regarding the divergent implementations of the web pages in various wikis.

  1. Which group is tasked with the beta software design used in the English versions of the Wikipedia family, meaning which is the right forum to discuss design features and suggestions?
  2. Which group is tasked with reducing unnecessary variations and duplications across the English wiki family. For example: I found this handy template on MediaWiki, softredirect|en:User:Ineuw, which points to my original user page on English Wikipedia. This template doesn't seem to exist here, or at least, not by the same name. Ineuw (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that there's any group working with the beta skin. There aren't many groups here at Commons. I know that it's possible to use the skin here though several essential scripts like Twinkle and Navigation popups don't work with this skin. The best place for feature suggestions is the village pump here, where most discussion and feature requests takes place. To answer the second question, please note that Commons is not part of the English wiki family. Commons is a multi-lingual project by the Wikimedia Foundation that hosts images that can be used by all Wikimedia projects and external projects if they desire. We generally try to avoid copying templates from en.wikipedia (or any other wiki), because this has some problems: First, stupid upload bots. The upload bots who move images from other wikis to Commons copy all transcluded templates (even if they're used within a template) to Commons if they exist under this name here. So, for example, if {{File other}} would exist, then the bots would add the template to the image page on Commons. If they don't exist they just leave a note like <!-- Template:File other was used on the original description page, but doesn't appear to exist on commons -->. Secondly, we don't need every template that en.wikipedia uses. Stub templates are useless as Commons doesn't even have articles. Thirdly, we also don't want anyone to just copy the templates from en.wikipedia without thinking, which is why we try to make the templates not working when people simply copy and paste stuff from en.wikipedia. I've now always said when copying from en.wikipedia, of course this applies to copying templates from other wikis as well (we once had someone who copied the German NoCommons template over here, for example). I think for what you've asked, {{Softredirect}} might be what you're looking for. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You have no idea how grateful I am for the clarification. The [[softredeirect]] template was just a philosophical observation in general about the uniformity of features which are common to all English language wikis. I just wish to reduce the learning curve with the increased contributions on the various en. wikis.
Reading your reply two days late is a prime example of how I would like to simplify my accessing the different posts I make on different wikis. At the moment, I rely on memory and to be honest, I didn't look yesterday. Ineuw (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

October 16

Detroit Photographic Company - Licensing

I have used a purpose-built script to download the entire Detroit Photographic Company collection from the Beinecke Digital Collection to my hard drive (over a thousand high quality scans). According to Beinecke, the images date from 1897-1924 (DPC went bankrupt in 1924). Individual publishing dates of images are not provided.

Since this means that a very tiny fraction of the pictures might not meet the PD-1923 rule, I have searched the renewal records and found no renewals for any material by the DPC whatsoever. According to Commons:Licensing#United_States, this means that all of those images are indeed in the public domain.

My question is: What license tag should I use when uploading them? We don't seem to have a tag for material that wasn't renewed. -- JovanCormac 10:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  • You could use {{PD-US-not renewed}} for works after 1923 and normal {{PD-US}} for works before 1923.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    • As I said, there is no information about when individual images were published (except in those cases where there is a notice on the postcard; virtually all of those date from before 1905). The Beinecke archive just states that all of them were published between 1897 and 1924. This is a strange situation, because 99% of them probably fulfill {{PD-US}} anyway, yet using that tag on all of them might be untrue for a handful. However, using {{PD-US-not renewed}} on all is untrue for most of the images, since they weren't published between 1923 and 1963 as the tag states. Any more ideas on how to solve this? -- JovanCormac 11:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I guess in that situation you have two options, creating a special template for this collection or just add PD-US till a case can be found where it isn't so, then PD-renewal could be added...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
      • A special template that uses {{PD-US}} but acknowledges a small fraction of the images MAY be {{PD-US-not renewed}} due to the published date would be my vote, that way if anyone does find one that is published after 1923 they know what it should be under {{PD-US-not renewed}}... — raeky (talk | edits) 17:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Special template may be good... though really, the wording of PD-US technically covers a bunch of possibilities (PD-1923, PD-US-no_notice, PD-US-not_renewed). Probably the most appropriate -- most are pre-1923, which is what it says. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
          • There is a special template for photos from the DPC (which are hosted by the Library of Congress) - {{LOC-pchrom}}. That one uses PD-US and the LOC's notice agrees with that. I'd imagine same situation here.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Why not use both with a modicum of explanation text. J.smith (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Need help

There should be a little change on the site "Transfer a work from another Wikimedia project". I am missing some more examples, how to transform the licenses. For instande:

  • self2|GFDL|CC-BY-SA-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0

I cant figure out what license to take from the russian pictures File:Хохломская роспись1.jpg, File:Хохломская роспись.jpg, File:Заготовка для росписи.jpg. so, in this regard your instruction-page inst verrry helpfull, and potentially is scaring new people away.

The new commons policy is to prefer CC-BY-SA-3.0, so I would like to see at least an example for this on the page "Transfer a work from another Wikimedia project". --Politikaner (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you try CommonsHelper mentioned in Template:Welcome? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Am besten verwendest du den Move-to-commons-Assistent um Bilder zu verschieben. So stehts auch in der Welcome Box jeden neuen Benutzers. Die Projektseite die du ansprichst kenne ich nicht. Ansonsten bemüht sich Commons Weiterleitungen zu Erstellen um Kompatibilität zu anderen Projekten zu erreichen oder die Projekte übernehmen unsere Benennung. w:ru:Файл:Заготовка для росписи.jpg verwendet "{{self|CC-BY-3.0}}", das funktioniert auch auf Commons. w:ru:Файл:Хохломская роспись.jpg verwendet {{self2|GFDL|CC-BY-SA-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} - der Text funktioniert auch auf Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
@Martin H. - Danke für den Hinweis auf den "Move-to-commons-Assistent", den kannte ich bisher noch nicht, hatte ich glatt übersehen. Trotzdem sollte besagte Seite, die du nicht findet, etwas überarbeitet werden: Commons Startseite -> upload file -> It is from another Wikimedia project - führt zur Seite Transfer a work from another Wikimedia project
Und genau dort empfehle ich noch eine zusätzliche Erklärung, die etwas länger ist, als die bisherige. Insbesondere sollten dort auch Bespiele für "{{self|CC-BY-3.0}}" und für Mehrfachlizenzen stehen, z.B. {{self2|GFDL|CC-BY-SA-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}. Wir wissen doch, wie schwer und frustrierend es für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene auf Commons sein kann. Wie ich mit Erstaunen sehe, gibtes dort bereits ein Link zum Move-to-commons-Assistent. Allerdings sollte dann die Formatierung der oberen, blau hinterlegten Box geändert werden. Die funktioniert nur bei "normalen" Bildschirmauflösungen vernünftig. Ich dagegen vergrößere mir die Schrift am Monitor und schon rutschen die einzelnen Zeilen in dieser Box ganz unleserlich ineinander. Der Text darunter in der "License box" verhält sich dagegen normal und vernünftig. Deshalb sollte auch die obere Box so formatiert werden.
Die beiden Beispiele, die ich bisher auf besagter Seite finde lauten:
  • {{GFDL-self}} should become {{GFDL-user-w|projectcode|projectname|username}}
  • {{PD-self}} being converted to {{PD-user-w|projectcode|projectname|username}}
Meine logische Folgerung wäre dann: {{self|CC-BY-3.0}} should become {{CC-BY-SA-3.0|projectcode|projectname|username}}
Aber was wird aus: {{self2|GFDL|CC-BY-SA-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} ???
Es ist mir leider immer noch nicht gelungen die richtige Lizenz von ru:Файл:Хохломская роспись.jpg nach File:Хохломская роспись.jpg zu übertragen. Könnte das bitte jemand für mich erledigen? --Politikaner (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Search does not work properly?

I tried in the search field (left under the Wikimedia Commons logo) the word "Northeim". The result is zero and it is suggested that I can create a page about Northeim. However searching via the Wikipedia, I found that there exists a Category:Northeim. Is this normal that the search does not show up a category. Or is it that there should be a short description including the name Northeim with the category? Wouter (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just categorized a number of uncategorized images to Northeim and tried the search again. Now it shows up everything. Apparently there was a temporary problem with the search. Wouter (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Sometime search does not work. I can confirm that Northeim did not return any hits, not even files with Northeim in the file name or in the description. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
"Results 1 - 20 of 207 for Northeim". Some of them are more general related to category:timber framing than the city of Northeim. Do you have any settings made in Special:Preferences/Search opitions (Zoekinstellingen)? I search in Gallery, File, Help and Category namespaces, the standard settings. --Martin H. (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure, now it works, but it did not work this morning. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The search function seems to disappear a number of minutes on a regular basis (backup, reinstallation of new index file ?). When in doubt, I quickly do a search for a well known item, such as England. Not very professional, at least it should say when it is not available. --Foroa (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

October 19

Proposal to make certain files editable in-wiki.

First of all, I admit that I am not really familiar with Commons and am not sure if this is the right place to propose such a thing, and whether such a thing is even possible/feasible.

I think that we should make certain files (at least svg but possibly more) editable in wiki. This type of file is readable in raw format. Also we could make templates that create some part of an image according to certain parameters, e.g. we could have a graph template that would make a graph of a certain size and scale and then whatever else needed to be added to the graph could be put on after the template. This would make it easier to create mathematical diagrams especially. It would also be more in the "wiki-spirit" to have images editable directly on wiki. Again, I don't know what software changes would be necessary to implement this, or whether the technical challenges it would create would be surmountable, but I think it is an idea that should at least be considered. Any thoughts on if this is possible or desirable? Jkasd 09:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


I just want to point out that the main reason for this would be to use templates for re-use certain pictures, I doubt that many people can create an svg image without the use of an editor. Jkasd 10:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There's the Mediawiki Inline SVG extension, which allows inline SVG in articles, but I'm not sure that it would be appropriate on Commons: what would be it useful for? It seems to me that this is the sort of things that really belongs to Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects, not Commons, IMHO. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I mean: I'm not sure that having images parametrized via the template mechanism is appropriate or useful for Commons, since it would be used in higly descritive pages that IMHO really belong to Wikipedia, but I could be just narrow-minded. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be useful to be able to include parts of other images into new ones more easily. It's good to see that it seems possible. Maybe I don't understand the purpose of Commons, but isn't it supposed to be where image related things take place? Jkasd 22:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This is where they are "stored", not used. "Things" happen elsewhere.:)
I could have swore I saw something like you were asking for at one point, using overlapping transparent images and java-script, but I just can't remember where I saw it. Sorry. :( J.smith (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean English wikipedia's Template:Superimpose or Template:Superimpose2? -84user (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, so if this is where they are stored, wouldn't it make the most sense to have this here. What I am saying is that these templates would be part of a new image, one that potentially could be in any of the other projects. It might even make translation easier by having the main image part of one file and the text superimposed on a language specific file. Jkasd 01:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
For example, this knot table I created uses the word "Unknot" in it. This was translated into Italian by another user here. If my template idea was implemented, I could upload a version of the file with out the word "Unknot" and then for each language, that file could be transcluded onto a language specific file that would then have the information for displaying the word "Unknot" in whatever language it needed it in. Jkasd 01:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The way that kind of situation is normally taken care of is by use of language-neutral labels and a multilingual table of reference. This has a number of advantages... the image is less cluttered and easier to under stand, it's easyer to modify the image and does not require any special knowledge to provide a new translation. We have a few featured diagrams that uses this tactic: File:Floppy_disk_internal_diagram.svg, File:Personal_computer,_exploded_4.svg, File:Fortepian - mechanizm wiedeński.svg, etc. J.smith (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Invisible categories

Płaczliwe Żleby page has 2 categories in its Wikitext, but none of them show up on the page. Does anybody know what is going on? --Jarekt (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done It was a typo in the gallery-tag. --GeorgHH • talk   14:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question on photo

Just wondered if anyone knows what the copyright status would be on a photo of an Israeli Air Force pilot, taken by the Israeli Air Force, in 1948? Is it permissible to use such a photo? I wanted to check before uploading. Thank you. MarmadukePercy (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Such an image is public domain since 1 January 1999 and should be tagged {{PD-Israel}}. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty

It has been proposed to rename Category:Statue of Liberty as Category:Statue of Liberty (New York) because there are many other statues of Liberty in the world, as listed in Category:Statues of Freedom. Please comment at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/09/Category:Statue of Liberty‎. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Categorize and CatDiffuse

There exists a controversy regarding a purpose of {{Categorize}} and {{CatDiffuse}} templates. Some language versions appear to be intended for stable labelling of categories which should be a "main category" (i. e. images should be not inserted directly into it). But some users mean that these templates should be used only as temporary labelling of categories which are momentarily overfull and need one-shot assortment.

We should distinguish this two purposes and assign one template for the first purpose and other one for the second one. --ŠJů (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading the template documentation, it seems to me that {{Categorize}} should be used only for the first purpose (stable labelling), while {{CatDiffuse}} should be used only for the second (diffuse on a per-need basis, and remove the template when done). Are you proposing a variant of {{CatDiffuse}} (let's call it CatDiffusePerm for the sake of the argument) meaning "diffuse on a per-need basis, but don't remove the template when done"? -- IANEZZ  (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to contribute here, but I don't really know what. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Cwbm, if You have nothing to say, I suppose You will stop to remove these templates and revert me repeatedly and stubbornly. --ŠJů (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Ianezz, the problem is that the texts of both templates have almost selfsame meaning. Differences between two language version of one template is somewhen greater than differences between {{CatDiffuse}} and {{Categorize}}. I'm proposing, either both templates should be merged, or their texts should be adjusted in order to express only one purpose of both. --ŠJů (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm for the second one (adjusting the template text to explicitly say what's in the documentation), specifically the text of {{CatDiffuse}} (in both the English and Italian versions it is not clear from the text that it is meant to be temporary, as stated in its documentation): it could include some text on the lines of "Remove this template once this category does not contain any more files" (again, just for CatDiffuse). {{Categorize}} should be permanent, it could contain text among the lines of "The absence of files in this category is not alone a valid reason to remove this template" (I'm sure native English speakers can find a better wording for it). Of course, that's also a matter of policy: some consensus is needed, otherwise we'll all be here again in two months discussing everything again. --  IANEZZ  (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I will keep removing spam. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way you could correct the text of the cs version of {{CatDiffuse}}. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
@Cwbm: please read the texts of templates and the discussion and express your opinion competently instead of diatribes and hard-nosed reverts. --ŠJů (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
@Ianezz: You are right, the documentation distinguishes both purposes clearly, but texts of both templates don't conform to the documentation and have identical meaning in substance. {{CatDiffuse}} says "this category has become too large" instead of "this category contains too many unsorted files at present, which should be organized". {{Categorise}} says "this is a main category or subcategory requiring diffusion" instead of "this is a main category requiring periodical maintenance". (The next text of both templates is and should be identic for both in principle.) --ŠJů (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

See also User talk:ŠJů#Catdiffuse. --ŠJů (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Almost all cats that have subcategories need diffusing. It is not because you stick a diffuse or categorize label on it that it will change anything. It just distracts us with unnecessary change logs. Moreover, a lot of those diffuse cats are close to ridiculous because the category does not contain the necessary subcats. In my opinion, it would be better to improve the various meta categories and improve the documentation on that instead of filling up many categories with all sorts of ugly useless boxes. --Foroa (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I find that {{Categorize}} and {{CatDiffuse}} both help in getting categories cleaned up somewhat. Versus before the templates were added, and less diffusion occurred, and occurred less often. {{Categorize}} helps people find related subcategories and categories with this statement: Search for more categories here and here.

I think those 2 templates should be combined. Maybe redirect one into the other. I don't think there is really a need for these 2 separate categories:

Either a category needs diffusion or it doesn't. So this is enough in my opinion:

Preventive use of the templates confuses things. Maybe that should be stopped.

{{MetaCat}} is a great template for categories that have enough subcategories. Of course, the problem is someone has to initially create many subcategories.

For all the templates, I think one thing that can make them annoying is if they take up too much space due to all the language links. I think the language links could be put into a show/hide collapsed section of the box. On Wikipedia some navigation boxes are set up with some sections initially closed.

Many noobs are baffled about how to create subcategories. It is not intuitive. They may successfully add a new subcategory name to an image or other media file, but then can't figure out how to make it not be a red link. They also can't figure out how to make it show up as a subcat. So a How to create subcategories page would be helpful to link to from the new combined categorization template. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I should clear up a situation which caused controversy now. All geographic categories of Czech churches are categorized up to district level. Categories of chapels have been categorized only up to region level until recently. But now chapels in 2 from 14 regions are categorized by district already. This stand causes that users who categorize by rote and by exceptable category names will don't notice this change promptly. That's why just these two region-categories requires special maintenance now. Churches and chapels belong to most photographed objects of the Czech country. --ŠJů (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Category:Non-empty meta categories is a disaster for maintenance as the parameters have to be adapted manually in function of the available subcategories. One week ago, it was completely empty. I think that proper documentation in each category what you want will have more effect than this "lazy" {{CatDiffuse}} things that nobody reads and hinders access to the real interesting information. --Foroa (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I think {{CatDiffuse}} is better than nothing. {{Categorize}} is better in my opinion because it actually provides some useful links too, such as this: Search for more categories here and here.

I agree with ŠJů that both templates should be merged. I prefer that {{CatDiffuse}} be merged into {{Categorize}} since "categorize" is actually a word, and so it is easier to remember. I can start a page How to create subcategories and link to it from the merged template. We can remove all the "temporary" and "permanent" stuff from the template. Let people use common sense. Or we can decide on a number of uncategorized images that allows use of the template. It would be really good if a robot automatically added and removed the template from all categories.

Maybe a robot could do the maintenance for Category:Non-empty meta categories. It is insane that it is done manually.

Here is a possible merged categorization template below (from User:Timeshifter/Sandbox 3):

how to create
subcategories

This is a category or subcategory that should list very few (if any) images or pages directly, and should mainly contain subcategories. As many pictures and media files as possible should be moved into the right subcategories, even multiple subcategories. New subcategories can be created. Search for more categories here and here.

languages
Alemannisch ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Boarisch ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ interlingua ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ Nordfriisk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ ქართული ∙ हिन्दी ∙ অসমীয়া ∙ বাংলা ∙ தமிழ் ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ +/−

--Timeshifter (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

  • From my point of view the usefulness of the template “CatDiffuse” stems mainly from the category being put into a maintenance cat. People can thereby point other people towards the maintenance issue. The actual text of the template is helpful to newbies only. The use of the template “categorise” is already questionable. The people that know commons also know which categories have to be looked after from time to time. Plus categorizing requires familiarity with the topic. To most people the information that for example the Category:Chemistry is a main category and requires frequent maintenance is pretty useless. To me the main use of the permanent template is, that it prevents people from regularly adding and removing the template “catDiffuse” from such categories and thus saves edits. Therefore I oppose remerging the templates.
  • I don't see the problem of the category “Non-empty meta categories” being a sub of cat “requiring diffuse”. I share Foroas concerns about the usefulness of the template. But the point is that these categories solely contain files because of “CommonsSense”. If one could make “CommonsSense” more intelligent not to put files into metacategories that problem would be solved.
  • Concerning SJjus Czech church cats: None of these three templates is meant or able to address these specific problems. Therefore as Foroa already pointed out, it would be much better to add proper description to these categories.
  • I also think it is not a good idea to encourage people to create new categories. Newbies tend to create redundant and the naming conventions violating categories. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The new merged categorization template would put the category into a maintenance cat. The new merged template doesn't say anything about removing it. So if people want to leave it on many categories as a preventive measure then that is OK by me. There are almost always some images left in the category where it is placed that need to be subcategorized. So it would still be a category in need of maintenance.
Newbs learn by trying to create subcategories. If newbs did not try to do so, then far fewer images would get categorized correctly on the commons. It is a cost/benefit analysis. The cost is that newbs make mistakes, and people have to point out their mistakes. Everyone has to go through a learning process. The benefit is that in the end we have many more experienced editors, and far more images get put in subcategories.
I haven't looked at the SJjus Czech church cats. But in general I agree that additional descriptions at the top of categories are usually very helpful. As long as the descriptions are concise and clear. Long, complex descriptions can sometimes cause more problems than they solve.
When does a category become a metacategory? I guess that happens when people create enough subcategories that there is little excuse for images to end up at the top level of a category. When the images have been cleaned out of the top level of a category, and enough subcategories have been created, then we can remove {{Categorize}} and {{CatDiffuse}}. Then we can add the {{MetaCat}} box. Of course, the category description needs to be made as clear as possible too.
I guess I can live with having both {{Categorize}} and {{CatDiffuse}} if that is what others prefer. But I don't have the time to do the maintenance of removing {{CatDiffuse}} when all the images have been subcategorized. I, and most people, also don't have the time to put categories in Category:Non-empty meta categories as needed. We need another solution. A robot that automatically removes {{CatDiffuse}} when all the images have been subcategorized. Another robot that automatically puts categories in Category:Non-empty meta categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I oppose strongly against any more bot activities (to be watched), especially if they only do marginal useful modifications. It makes no sense to activated robots to do things that are flawed to start with. --Foroa (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Foroa, you complained about Category:Non-empty meta categories. That is why I suggested a bot help out. You wrote "Category:Non-empty meta categories is a disaster for maintenance as the parameters have to be adapted manually in function of the available subcategories. One week ago, it was completely empty." I never use that category. I also never use {{CatDiffuse}} because it is flawed and offers little help. I use the more useful template, {{Categorize}}, that offers more help in finding and adding subcategories. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed a couple of wrong meta categories because only "xxx by country/type/region/..." are meta categories (it still remains a flawed implementation but noone cares to maintain it systematically, which proves that it is flawed and against the design and implementation spirit of category system). The text in {{CatDiffuse}} is applicable for all non-end node categories and is the core job of commons. I prefer not to waste valuable top-page category text space for general statements or because someone is getting nervous because "his" category needs diffusion; all categories with subcategories are "main" and need diffusion on a regular base. --Foroa (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Where are the rules for when {{MetaCat}} should be used? Otherwise this problem will repeat itself in an arbitrary manner. I don't see any discussion. The talk page for the template is redlinked. I will start the talk page. Template talk:MetaCat. I will suggest there that the box be shortened from top to bottom. The Commons is not "my" commons or "your" commons. It is our commons. Therefore anything that helps our commons get better categorized is a good thing. Not all categories have the problem of too many files in them that need to be categorized in lower subcategories. In fact, only a small percentage of categories. As I said before, I have noticed that {{CatDiffuse}} and {{Categorize}} seem to help in getting more files categorized better. {{CatDiffuse}} needs to be rewritten to be as helpful as {{Categorize}}. It looks like that is beginning today. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems with {{Categorise}} and simmilar templates is that it can be really hard work to clean up a category. The longest time it took me to clean up a category was about six hours. There are not so many user (and especially newbees) out there who want to spend that much time on a clean category they actually don't care that much about. If I knew that it would take that much time I don't think that I would have cleaned up this category.
I once created {{Categorise}} because I thought that it would tell newbees to not categorise in that category but to use a subcategory. Well, this was gone when a robot started to categorise images who does not care about that template. I also wanted to create a short basic tutorial for all those who never categorised any file before and also for those who know basics but not that much. I also thought about creating a video and uploading them to Commons and maybe YouTube as well, because there is so much to read on Commons for new user and that can really suck if you just want to upload some imges. I didn't have that much time and then it vanished from my to-do list in my head. May I'll have a second 'try' even there actually was no first one.
The different statements from different language are because the template get modified several times and some languages got updated and some not.
--D-Kuru (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

D-Kuru. Maybe you can start with something like this for {{CatDiffuse}}. See Template:CatDiffuse/en.
short
tutorial
This category should list very few images or media files directly. Files should be moved to subcategories where appropriate. New subcategories can be created. Some files need to be moved elsewhere. Anybody can help. See category search. The main categories are found at the Main Page and here. See also the category help. Please remove or replace this tag after moving the files.
languages
العربيَّة ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

--Timeshifter (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is auto-translation that allows the removal of the language bar from the template. See
Template talk:CatDiffuse/layout#Auto-translation --Timeshifter (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

D-Kuru. You wrote: "I also wanted to create a short basic tutorial for all those who never categorised any file before and also for those who know basics but not that much. I also thought about creating a video and uploading them to Commons and maybe YouTube as well, because there is so much to read on Commons for new user and that can really suck if you just want to upload some imges."

Some experienced editors do not realize that new and fairly new editors need simple instructions to do basic things like create a new subcategory, or search for categories. See category search. Both Wikipedia and the Commons depend on millions of new, fairly new, or anonymous editors doing many things. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Magic words

A magic word that just counts media in a category could be help for these templates .. -- User:Docu at 10:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Could a magic word trigger when a category is put in one of these categories?:
For example; when there are more than 10 files in the category that need to be subcategorized. Or 20 files, or 30 files. Or whatever people decide. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Uncertain authorship

I've noticed that some users are using "This media file is missing essential source information" template ({{Nsd}}) to indicate images marked as "own work", in what they don't believe. While I agree that some cases are obvious, like glamour or publicity shots, but for instance I really don't know why all uploads of User:Pedro.gnr18 were marked like that. I think that using template stating "The author and source of the file must be given" with author and source given, and notifying uploader that "If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source" for images tagged with 'own' template, is abuse and could scare away users, abandoning properly tagged files, which eventually would be deleted because 'unknown source/author' tag.

My proposal is:

  1. tag obvious cases of 'uncertain authorship' (glamour/publicity shots) with {{No permission}} template
  2. create a new template for personal uncertainties, stating something like "we are not sure that this is really picture you made; to make sure, please send in written permission to OTRS" - while sustaining "7 days to delete" rule.

What do you think about it? --Leafnode 11:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I like no. 2, although it needs to be worded really nicely to avoid scaring users away. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
"ATgAAA" is the typical filename prefix of images from Orkut, the main social network in brazil. For that reason the images marked as "missing source". --Martin H. (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
{{No permission}} is a good option for cases where there is a HIGH likelihood that the uploader is NOT the copyright holder (celebrities, etc..) For other more dubious cases another less harsh template should be made I think. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I dont think so, {{No permission since}} says, that an author and source is given and the image is missing evidence of permission - in fact that describes not the problem. The problem is that an author is given but their is certain doubt in the accuracy of the authorship information. {{No source since}} fits better to the problem but, agree to the initial posting, it is not satisfying. We also have {{Disputed}} which at the moment not have any consequences but perfectly describes what is wrong. w:en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files in category form? --Martin H. (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I like the second option, because it's just not so rude. :) -- deerstop. 23:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.martinforeman.com/images/eaglehnt.jpg

could someone find a liceanse for this. KSLaVida (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Old_sculpture.jpg

from this file a licease is needed. KSLaVida (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The image is clearly in a museum in France, tineye found some other photographs of the sculpture in people's flickr streams. As for copyright, depending on the age of the peice and laws for COM:FOP in France for artworks like this, the artwork it's self may or may not be in the public domain. As for the actual image of the artwork, it appears to be copyright to Martin Foreman with no indication it was freely licensed, thus is a copyright violation and needs deleted. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Les chasseurs d'aigles name of piece and this website tells more about it other for martin foreman maybe someone could contact him before time on this file runs out...? http://www.insecula.com/salle/MS01475.html thanks KSLaVida (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

New section

Why did my welcome instructions disappear from my page? Mr. Unsigned Not worth it (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

When you edited that page, you removed a few characters that broke the welcome message. I fixed it for you. Wknight94 talk 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Emirates HQ pic and freedom of panorama

I see a section at Commons:Freedom of Panorama stating that the United Arab Emirates doesn't have freedom of panorama. If not, then is this image allowed on the Commons: File:Emirates Headquarters 183.jpg ? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There may or may not be an issue here, depending on whether the architecture as depicted in that photo is creative enough to be eligible for copyright. The logo is probably de minimis. I suggest nominating it for deletion. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I did that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emirates Headquarters 183.jpg - Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

License for trivial military Insignia

Hi there

I'm doing some research for my work in cleaning up Category:PD tag needs updating, and I've noticed that there are many images, which were previously marked with {{Military Insignia}}, could be tagged as {{PD-ineligible}}/{{PD-shape}}. My proposal is to use PD-shape for military Insignia depicting only simple shapes, like some rank epaulettes. For instance, File:Naramiennik Kapitan land.png would be PD-shape, while File:Naramiennik Marszałek land.png would be the subject of other acts or bills, depending on the national laws. Any comments? --Leafnode 07:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  • sounds reasonable as long as PD-shape/trivial gonna be applied to real trivial Insignia, like simple stars and stripes. And I assume that 90% of military Insignias would fall under -trivial. And I dont think it's gonna cause any major copyright violation. so  Support Masur (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support sounds reasonable --Jarekt (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unartistic and unscientific works

In many countries, only artistic (including literary) or scientific work can be a subject of copyright. There exist many kinds of documents, prints etc. which haven't such purpose as the primary one, but not all of them "consist entirely of information that is common property". There are many such cases that templates {{PD-text}} and {{PD-ineligible}} aren't suitable. Please, could you analyse this problem worldwide and propose some more suitable templates? --ŠJů (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The template {{PD-because}} is available where none of the existing templates adequately cover the matter, but we're not lawyers (or most of us aren't anyway) so it would be hard to create a template for something like this without an idea of what country/law you have in mind. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Offering access to histology images (public domain)

I have equipment and access to government histology and pathology slides, and can provide public domain images of most tissues and many common pathologies at large size and good resolution on request.

I would be delighted to provide as many images as possible to this and other interested projects, but I don't have the time to check individual talk pages across many projects. If you'd like microscopic images of tissues, please send an email to histology.request@gmail.com with the request in the subject line (ex: "artery wall" or "tuberculosis granuloma"). Happy regards, Glacialfury (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Private Abuse Filters

Why are there abuse filters that are not viewable to the public? It seems to me that there cannot possibly be an acceptable reason for this, besides the idea that obscurity leads to security, which is widely considered to be false. -- JovanCormac 09:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In general it is security through obscurity. I can't say what the filters in question do here, but on enwiki where I'm a sysop we have a few hidden filters for long-term vandals, where many of their common activities are blocked. Revealing those would make it much easier for vandals to circumvent the filter. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. This has nothing to do with a lack of trust to the community, it's only that some filter would be useless (for example, some block vandalism edit summaries, if the people would see the filter and then change one letter so that the edit is ok, this would be pointless.) --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Security through obscurity doesn't work, but abuse filters are not about security in the first place (data integrity does not count since everyone can edit almost everything on Commons by design). Abuse filters are about helping people enforcing policy. It's a pity that ordinary users have to trust administrators on the actual content of some filters, because that makes the group doing peer review of the filters smaller, and help in spotting/correcting errors is consequently reduced, so the number of private filters should be limited to the very minimum needed, but not necessarily zero. Disclosing a rule of thumb to spot potential vandals just helps real vandals to stay under the radar by circumventing that rule. In theory, full disclosure for everything could work if all filters could be made perfect by subsequent refinements. In practice, this don't work because some filters can really be just rules of thumbs at most (so it's better if they are not widely known). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The main problem is that pseudonyms using obscurity like -- IANEZZ  (talk) can easily test the filters by using yet another sock, while people who don't need to hide are hampered by "filters" which they can't check. If contributors are new to wiki[mp]edia, they will leave it to the scriptkiddies. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Lots of people have access to check them if you need help with something in particular. Security through obscurity does have value despite it's drawbacks. J.smith (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't need help, wiki[mp]edia needs help by people and kids like you are driving them away. Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I've done to deserve that kind of abuse. J.smith (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't take it personally. He's been blocked three times in the last few weeks and apparently still has more steam to let off. Wknight94 talk 20:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, pseudonym with the sock Wknight94 talk, that "still has" is false. The more you all hit the kettle, the smaller it becomes. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(<-) I strongly urge you to remain mellow in this discussion, or you will likely find yourself blocked. If you can't contribute to a discussion with civility, it's best to back out. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Badagnani

This user has uploaded a lot of flickr images that are not free licenses but hes conversed with the owners of those photographs. In some cases he asked for specific free license releases others not. The e-mails are posted in the image descriptions but they're not complete (complete headers) as required by OTRS. It seems an admin started to request OTRS e-mails for all his images and it got him mad and he didn't complete those requests and stopped contributing due to it. But there is still MANY images he uploaded with out OTRS and no proper license on Flickr. I marked some as copyvio's but decided to bring the issue up here before I continue. Without proper OTRS these quoted conversations are not enough legal proof that the copyright holder released the image under a free license for use here, correct? — raeky (talk | edits) 11:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please make one deletion request for all problematic images. Maybe someone else can arrange proper permission for these images. Multichill (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
They're not all the same author, seems he cherry picked one or two pictures from one author, asked for permission, and did that with a bunch of authors. Do one delete request for them all even with lots of different copyright holders or one per copyright holder? — raeky (talk | edits) 16:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Why on earth would we delete these images? This is a documentation issue and the appropriate way to handle it would be to get the needed documentation. These were obtained in good faith with permission. Deleting the images is very damaging. Frankly, the lack of a header could be overlooked in this case anyway since we're dealing with a trusted contributor who is always scrupulous in getting permission for images so there's no reason to doubt the authenticity ofthe permissions. 76.94.123.227 17:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, buddy, welcome to Commons :-) Caspian blue 17:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
"Deletion" may seem harmful, but it's less harmful then it might seem. Deletion is more of a "hidden from public view" and is very easy to reverse. --J.smith (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Without OTRS confirmation these "e-mails" posted in the images could be made up, not saying they are, but we have specific rules in place for image release documentation, that includes full e-mail headers. These do not provide that, thus can't be considered adequate documentation for a copyright release. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of images from Wikimedia in flyer

I am putting together a flyer for a San Diego, California nonprofit I belong to. I want to use 3 images of Carl Larsson's paintings I found on Wikimedia. File:Julaftonen_av_Carl_Larsson_1904.jpg, File:Blomsterfönstret_av_Carl_Larsson_1894.jpg and File:Köket_av_Carl_Larsson_1898.jpg. The information says that these pictures and the photographs of them are no longer copyright, but some people in my organization say that I cannot legally use them in the flyer. They also say I need to credit the source (Wikimedia Commons?) in the flyer. Any help with this would be appreciated. I know nothing about copyright law or publishing standards. This is just a little 4 page flyer about our Swedish cottage.

Those people are wrong - most likely, they're accustomed to dealing with freely-licensed images, rather than public domain images. The images are out of copyright and you do not need to attribute the author or the source. You may wish to attribute the author for informational purposes, if there is space. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
See Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs, the paintings are in the public domain due to copyright expiration, a reproduction of 2D art acquires no copyright protection, so also the reproduction is public domain. Giving Commons the credit (such as "Source: Wikimedia Commons") is nice but not required, the images are public domain. You can also consider to use a complete byline such as "<author>, <year>: <title>. <museum>, <city>." - accurate but also not required, especially not in a flyer. --Martin H. (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
If you publish the flyer in Sweden, you do have to credit the author by mentioning his name. In Sweden, the right to be credited does not expire. Nillerdk (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there no public domain then in Sweden? For me, public domain means "you can do whatever you want with it, no limitations". -- JovanCormac 14:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

collapsible boxes for rarely read texts

I've seen some file descriptions which contain history logs for media. I think these are just for documentary reasons and really used rarely. So I came up and made such sections as a collapsible (hidden) → File:Lufthansa Airbus A320-200 econ cabin with PAX.jpg (diff.).

Is that a good idea?
Could we improve the style (color, text, etc.)? I presume, this could be done a lot better :-/

Thanks for your comments and help. --Mattes (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

 Support I like the idea and I can't see any way this could cause any harm. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 Neutral I don't see a point. Upload history is on the bottom of the page, so you have to scroll to it if you want to see it. If you don't - don't scroll. Now, even if you don't intend to check upload history, it might catch your attention that some image has been replaced by totally different one. --Leafnode 06:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 Support Great idea, some files' histories are overly long. I don't care for the brown color used in the example, though. -- JovanCormac 14:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

License section - where to put it

In which position should the license information be placed? Below the categories (initial position at upload) or above the categories? The latter position is probably a reminisence of the time prior to the hidden categories (so that PD blah appeared last in the categories of a file). I would prefer to have that question settled and placed somewhere in the Commons or Help namespace (Commons:MOS later on) ... --Mattes (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The license templates goes into the {{Information}} or below it. If it's below, it can be preceded by a section header (Commons:Guide to layout#File description pages). As for the categories, Mediawiki has no preference where on a page categories they are placed, it can read them from any location. -- User:Docu at 21:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but the guideline is not really helpful. It does not state where to place the sections. Maybe we can reach a consensus where to place the section headers. The reason why I'm posting this is that some user go ahead and change the license section headers. Also, it would be great to have guidelines for such basic issues. We're talking about a file amount of more than 5 m which have to be managed in some regulated way. Maybe this would help to solve the really chaotic state of the Commons inventory (formatting, sorting, descriptions, etc.). BTW Some people use the {{Information}} line "Permission" for the license tag but for me, a permission is an OTRS ticket, not a license ... --Mattes (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a general rule on commons not to worry about colors of signatures and the like. For your specific question, I don't quite see where the current solution is problematic. Sections headers are optional and frequently not needed, so there isn't much a issue where to place sections. It is important to use {{Information}} (or another description template) and the applicable license tags. -- User:Docu at 01:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

License categories

Is there a way to find all images that are for example public domain in Saudi Arabia, or the US? And instead of having to put such images in such a category, wouldn't it be nicer to have images with that license inherently categoried as such? FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It already works this way: the {{PD-Saudi Arabia}} license tag puts a file in Category:PD-Saudi Arabia, which is an hidden category (just enable viewing hidden categories in your preferences). But I think that's not exactly what you had in mind. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that's exactly what i had in mind! Is it like that for all license categories? FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, it is. Just start browsing at Category:Public domain or Category:Free licenses. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Just turned hidden categories on, see it all now... FunkMonk (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Disasters at Commons

A request was posted to upload some photo's from FEMA. I expanded the request and am now uploading all the images from the FEMA site. I'm probably going to upload about 20.000 images. The images will all end up in Category:PD US FEMA. It's quite an impressive collection of disasters in the last 15 years. Most images were taken in the USA, but not all of them. Of course these images need to be categorized. To assist in this process my bot added one or more temporary categories. For example Category:Images from FEMA, disaster New York Terrorist Attack (DR-1391) is the temporary category covering the 9/11 attacks. The contents should probably be moved to Category:9/11 (or subcategories). This can be done by adding {{Movecat|Images from FEMA, disaster New York Terrorist Attack (DR-1391)|9/11}} to User:CommonsDelinker/commands (admins) or User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands (all users). A list of temporary categories can be found here. This won't get all images properly categorized right away, but it will cover a couple of big chunks. Categories already filled this way are Category:Hurricane Andrew aftermath in Florida, Category:Effects of Tropical Storm Allison in Louisiana, Category:Typhoon Paka and Category:Hurricane Fran. Thanks for helping out, Multichill (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, very awesome. Kaldari (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I added another bunch of US federal sites to Commons:Batch uploading so probably even more coming up. Multichill (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The rights page at that site indicates that there may be occasional photos marked as copyrighted... just be a bit careful I guess. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
It's so clearly indicated that my bot crashes on it ;-) Multichill (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
It may be a little late now, but would it be a good idea to create a FEMA-library source tag, just passing the ID, and let the tag make the full URL to the image page? That way it may be easier to fix all the images if FEMA changes its URL scheme or something. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing when I started this upload. I guess you didn't notice I created {{FEMA Photo Library}}. Multichill (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Nope, didn't have the typical source-box look :-) Very cool. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
here we go, good batch again, Multichill! --Martin H. (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Again? ;-) Already linked to that page, very helpful. Thank you, I'm very happy with this batch too. See above, probably even more coming up. Multichill (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
My bot just finished uploading! In total the bot uploaded about 20.000 images. Multichill (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that help with categorization would be greatly appreciated :) –Juliancolton | Talk 01:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Special:Categories/Images_from_FEMA gives an overview. Most categories about specific states/disasters could probably be kept together and renamed to something closer to our usual topical category names. -- User:Docu at 14:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This might take a while, but even more images at #In the navy!. Multichill (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

October 15

Identification help

Does anybody know, who is shown in this image, that has been used for (likely) vandalism of en:Defamation ? --Túrelio (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

TinEye isn't any help. "Hottubdefense" doesn't seem to come up with anything related on google. I don't think this person has been in the news lately. J.smith (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. As obviously nobody can identify this person, the image is of no use and I will delete it. --Túrelio (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

October 22

Two proposed policies

Hi everyone, Commons:Language policy was shoved around a lot. Last week I changed it to be a short policy page to outline our policies and to link to the detailed policies. Any remarks/improvements/rants/something else? If we don't get any significant changes in the next week I would propose to make it an actual policy. As part of better structuring these policies I created Commons:File naming. Same goes for this policy. Multichill (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for CAT:Unknown

Hello. I have a proposal that I think would benefit admins who work with CAT:Unknown. I think we should code each template (Template:No license, Template:No permission since, and Template:No source since) to place their respective transclusions into different subcategories of Cat:Unknown. This would make a longer category tree (once date categories are then added to these proposed subcategories), but I believe it would aid in the site's maintenance in the long run. When Commons was a smaller project (less images) the current system worked fine, but as it is growing, I don't believe the current format is the most efficient. I'm not exactly sure how to code everything, but I can try to if needed. I just wanted to get other people's opinions on this. Killiondude (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. You could either build a tree in Category:Unknown or replace it all together. You should at least remove the intermediate step like Category:Unknown as of 6 October 2009. Multichill (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I've started to work on stuff on my userspace, to test things out. I think I'm going to keep the Category:Unknown as of 6 October 2009 (date) step, and remove the Category:Unknown - October 2009 (month) step. I'd like to keep the date in the title of the category, as a clearer way of letting admins know when the files in it were added to the category (so they can know when to safely delete). The new names will probably be Category:Files without sources, Category:Files without licenses, and Category:Files missing permission (appending the whole "since (day) (month) (year)" at the end). I have a feeling I'm going to get tons of orange bars when I make code changes to actual templates though. :-/ Killiondude (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest Category:Media without a source, Category:Media without a license & Category:Media missing permission. Multichill (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
That's sounds good. I wasn't too attached to the names I came up with. Killiondude (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Killiondude's proposal seems reasonable and well-thought, and I support its implementation as soon as possible. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Do it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

←Okay, I just did it. I created all the categories before I made the changes to the source, license, and permission templates. Please double check what I've done, if you have some time. It is a bit late here, but I've tried to focus so I don't make any careless mistakes. The only thing I don't know about, is how things will work if people use those templates without giving a date. I didn't want to use a "month" step category (like I said earlier), maybe Mulichil or Evil IP has an idea about how to deal with this? Killiondude (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I was just going to ask User:Tizio if he could possibly fix his bot (DumbBOT) to work with this new category structure, but he hasn't edit enwiki in almost two months (see w:en:Special:Contributions/Tizio)... I guess I could email him and hope he gets it. I can do that tomorrow... Killiondude (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I recommand using [[Category:{{ParmAnd3|1={{{day|}}}|2={{{month|}}}|3={{{year|}}}|4=Missing source as of {{{day}}} {{{month}}} {{{year}}}|5=Unknown - no timestamp given}}]]. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I went ahead and made the changes to the templates using that code. I made the "no timstamp" categories as "Missing source as of unknown date" (changing the first few words as needed to match the categories I made last night). Now I just have to figure out the whole bot situation. Killiondude (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay on acting on this. The bot is now programmed to create the new categories (and not the old one). Please take a look at User:DumbBOT/CatCreate. I choosed the names of the category started in the usual way (by adding "subcategory started" to the cat name. Plase consider protecting these templates (they are linked from User:DumbBOT/CatCreate). Tizio (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Internationalisation at upload time

I noticed the bot User:SchlurcherBot is internationalising the Summary and Licensing headings inserted by the upload form. This is pretty silly - can't we just modify the upload form to insert the correct templates when it creates the image description page? I thought maybe there was some Mediawiki namespace page or pages for this, but I couldn't track them down. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

+1. --Iotatau (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Strongly Support — raeky (talk | edits) 21:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 Support. We had several discussions in this for example here or here. We all agree that it should be done at the upload time, but there seem be be insurmountable technical difficulties preventing us from doing so. There seem to be 2 different problems: one to use {{Own}} and one to add international version of the headers. We should probably add this to COM:FAQ. --Jarekt (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't imagine it's insurmountable, maybe the correct people in charge of that aspect of the project wasn't notified. If it's an issue of programming of the software than wouldn't it get better traction at wikimedia's pages than here? Seems logical those are handled by templates somewhere, wouldn't make sense to hard program those upload forms. — raeky (talk | edits) 21:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks like {{Own}} can me added at MediaWiki:Upload.js. Not sure where to find the headers. Multichill (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I would also love this, but the headers unfortunately are added by the servers. So you would have to ask Bugzilla to change them, which might be problematic, as {{int:}}-stuff is considered a bug over at Bugzilla. --The Evil IP address (talk) 07:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
You'd just open a feature request, then link the feature request here and we all can go there and comment bumping it's priority up. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
We can customize about anything, but this is hard-coded? That's strange. Multichill (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Something I do not get. If the all int: is a bug, would all headings break once it is "fixed" ? Then, would it be better to use a template like {{Filedesc}}, just like {{Own}}? Wouldn't it be easier to apply some new solution later, or is it just the same? Jean-Fred (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Is [bug 14404] at Bugzilla the only report related to this issue? If so it do not mention upload form. --Jarekt (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Please note that template with automatic translation (like {{Own}}) all rely on int, so replacing int with those templates is not really a workaround. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The trick we're using with MediaWiki:Lang is an unintended feature and some people consider it a bug. Maybe someday mediawiki gets proper localization support, but until then we just use this trick. Multichill (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Should we have bug report (unless there is already one) about automatically adding {{Own}} and international headers to newly added files ? If there are concerns about international headers using {{int:}} construct than we can create {{Summary Header}} and {{License Header}}. That way in the future, if there is a better way to do localized headers without using {{int:}} construct than we can change one or two templates instead of few million files. --Jarekt (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a link to what exactly has to be modified? Multichill (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me that function getInitialPageText() in includes/specials/SpecialUpload.php would be a good starting point. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

October 20

Nightvision

Is it possible to get Wikipedia Pages with BLACK BACKGROUND AND WHITE LETTERS? NOWADAYS THIS PC LIGHT UP LIKE A FIREHOUSE. nowanight anyway.

Yes, with a JavaScript monobook which you have to design. --Mattes (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Look in Preferences..Gadgets. That works on en.wikipedia, but not here; to make it work here, Mattes is right.--Elvey (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Copy the text of [19] on your monobook Platonides (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

October 21

Help

Could someone please tell me how to delete these pictures I have added [20] and [21]. Thank you. Piccadilly Circus (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You should provide a reason why you want them deleted, at least for the second one that seems to be fine. --Túrelio (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki links for Village pump, Welcome etc

I created a common page for interwikis for every language version of Village pump, Commons:Village pump/interwiki, and replaced the interwikis in all the language versions with {{Commons:Village pump/interwiki}}. Considering there already was a template which is included in every language version of Village pump, that was not productive. That template is {{Lang-VP}}. What do you think of putting/including the interwiki lists in such language link templates? I'm pretty sure it's OK, but will they still be "language link templates" after that? Will it have to be renamed? Maybe a new common template which would include those and the interwiki links would be better? Thanks. --AVRS (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A good idea, because we then only need to change one template to add, change or remove interwikis. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

October 23

Pre-WWII Japanese government photos

As can be seen here, the Japanese government apparently regards pre-war images taken by governmental entities—military, etc—as in the public domain. See also page 27 of of this Japanese language source. Could a template be created to reflect this? —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

{{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} It applies to all photos, not just governmental ones. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
But that requires the pictures to not have been published for ten years after their creation date...hence me asking for a different template. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
No, that applies to all photos published in Japan before 1956. It also applies to all Japanese photos taken before 1946, as those were either published before 1956, or unpublished for 10 years before 1956, as in either case photos became PD. The only cloudy ones are photos taken between 1946 and 1956, where we don't know if they were published or not. There is nothing special to government photos; that part of their copyright law applied to all photos in Japan. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Then what does he mean by "The copyright protection period of photographs was 13 years after their creation/publication under the old law."? I'm confused. :/ —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you see that? In the old law, photographs were protected for 10 years after publication, or, if not published with 10 years, then 10 years from creation. Thus the maximum time was nearly 20 years after creation, if you wait almost 10 years after creation to publish, then get the further 10 years. At some point (I assume 1966 or so) it looks like that was extended to 13 years, which was probably a temporary measure until a new law was enacted which extended terms further. However, works which had already expired remained in the public domain -- i.e. images published more than 10 years before that (before 1956), or photos made more than 20 years before that (1946) are still public domain. Thus pretty much all pre-WWII (and WWII) Japanese photos would be public domain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
OH. I did not realize the part about they would only be protected for 10 years after publication. It's all clear now; many thanks. —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

File renames

Hi all, some assistance would be appreciated with clearing Category:Media requiring renaming. There is currently a substantial backlog, however the work required is really more tedious than difficult. Thanks! –Juliancolton | Talk 03:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, what do you want me to do? -- User:Docu at 03:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You can always help with Category:Incomplete media renaming requests. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 03:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok :)
I looked at its subcategories:
Yes getting all renames cleared would be nice. The job is to check with Commons:File renaming and if it is not ok to move then the template should be deleted. You do not need to be an admin to do that so feel free to go ahead :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, we don't need to be three to do them, no? -- User:Docu at 10:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
No if you two can do it alone it is fine ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I think all or most of the numerous rename requests by user:Kintetsubuffalo do not fall within Commons:File renaming guidelines. Removing his rename requests do not help since he adds them right back again: ([22], [23] or [24]. What is suppose to be a process for rejecting rename requests? --Jarekt (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You did the right thing. You made a link to the guidelines and explained the problem. Hopefully the user will not add the rename again if you remove it or the user will explain the problem in a better way. I does not understand what "Harcerska_Poczta_Polowa_piecz" means but unless it is misleading there is no reason to rename. --MGA73 (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Category:Media renaming requests needing confirmation almost empty now. But still a lot of work to do. So any help is welcome. --MGA73 (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status of modified PD images

Could this image (based on images made for Wikipedia) be uploaded to Commons (read accompanying text): http://opendino.wordpress.com/advertise-the-odp/ FunkMonk (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If they can give us a license that works with the Commons, sure. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I was rather thinking whether the image was in the public domain by default, even if the site owner's potentially claimed it wasn't, since it doesn't seem to have been modified enough in relation to the original images to be copyrightable. FunkMonk (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
This is what {{Modifications-ineligible}} is for - it's arguable whether it applies here. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
By looking at what's currently marked with {{Modifications-ineligible}}, I don't think it applies here. Background terrain had to be erased by hand from the Styracosaurus image in order to extract the outline used in the logo. Quite an easy job, but less trivial than a crop, resize, color rebalance or change of the image format (but that's just my opinion). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Se, that's what I wanted to know. So in theory, we should refrain from uploading that image? What if I for example made the same edits on those PD images and the end result was identical to the logo version, would that be a copyright violation? FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that an email asking politely if they want to release that logo under a license suitable for Commons wouldn't be a bad idea. They were nice enough to cite the original author and link to the original images, even if they weren't required at all to do so (the original images are PD). I'm sorry if that doesn't answer your questions. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the outlines are copyrightable anymore. Erasing a background is not a copyrightable thing to do -- the expression seen is still the same as the original. Colorizing it like that wouldn't count either. However, the choice of picking which dinosaurs to combine, plus the relative size and placement of each, probably would qualify -- so I still think separate permission should be required. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Ianezz, Im' only asking what we should do in theory, I have no plans of uploading it, it just seemed to be an interesting case, because the original PD files were found on Wikipedia, and then modified in a way that anyone could do. FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I missed that completely (thanks for the clarification). I believe the point is in answering the following question: at which point a work that is a composition of other works becomes original in itself? Merriam-Webster defines "original" as "not secondary, derivative, or imitative" and "being the first instance or source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is or can be made". Let's assume for a moment that the logo image qualifies as original, thus copyrightable: taking the same PD images and composing them so the result is essentially the same as the logo would qualify as an imitation of the logo if done on purpose. Since the probability of that happening by chance is small, I'd say that it's the job of the "allegedly imitator" to demonstrate that it actually happened by chance and not on purpose. As for the initial question: Carl Lindberg made a good point, and in truth it cannot be said that the peculiar composition in the logo lacks any originality (on Commons even the way light is reflected by a coin is considered original enough to be copyrightable): considered as a whole, it isn't just a copy or reproduction of its elements, in the same way that a facade is copyrightable even if none of its single elements are. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of parens in filename e.g. (username)

I have seen some users using "(username)" as the last part of their filename. Is this a usual thing to do in WikiMedia or is it just a peculiarity of some? thanks GloverEpp (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Like these? That are bot accounts, "(username)" is usually the user running the bot. Multichill (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It's an act of uploader (vanity or security?) - nothing in the software requires or cause it to happen. I think it's tacky to add your name to the image name, but the worst is when someone adds it to the FRONT of the image name. Screws up category sorting. J.smith (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
But that's just my opinion - feel free to ignore me. :) --J.smith (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. --Aqwis (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh right, wasn't paying attention. Sometimes it might be helpful with big uploads to prevent naming collisions (two files with the same name), but you shouldn't be doing it with your own username. Multichill (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
If that's done just for searching purposes, user categories are probably a better choice. The current file naming policy neither suggests nor forbids putting usernames in file names, and I believe it should stay that way. Personally, I find them slightly annoying (expecially when put in front of everything else, as if the author or uploader of a photo was more important of the subject being depicted), but if some vanity helps in bringing good photos on Commons, why not? -- IANEZZ  (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I always do it since 4 years or so, just to prevent naming collisions. -- aka 21:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Tyabji

Possible copyright violations, could someone else take a peek at this users uploaded images and render an opinion. Many different sizes & sources & subjects. Obvious video captures & other images that make "Own work" seem suspect. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Current EnWP PotD

The current (October 24) Picture of the Day, File:Mirror writing2.jpg, on the English Wikipedia looks very bad when viewed in Firefox 3.5 (see [25]). I don't think Firefox is able to handle the colour profile ("Phase One P Product Flash") - it looks fine in other browsers that don't pay attention to colour profiles. I also opened it in Photoshop, which handled the colour profile fine. Considering the popularity of Firefox 3.5, this should probably be fixed. --Aqwis (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A great icon set

I found a beautifully designed icon set called "Farm-Fresh Web Icons", and it is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Is there a bot which can upload the set for us? --百楽兎 (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: two lines below the link to CC-3.0-BY, text reads "The icons may not be resold, sublicensed, rented, transferred or otherwise made available for use. Please link to this page on FatCow.com if you would like to spread the word." I don't think that people at FatCow.com fully understand the CC-3.0-BY license, or some better clarification is needed. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
No. "Resold, sublicensed, rented, transferred or otherwise made available for use" are against license CC-BY 3.0, so of course not allowed. --百楽兎 (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
What he said is the two statements, being CC-BY-3.0, and "Resold, sublicensed, rented, transferred or otherwise made available for use" are in conflict. Thus we'd need better clarification, either they don't know what that license really means or they have some old wording below the license that should be changed but was overlooked when they added the license? Someone's got to e-mail them to get clarification. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
They are not in conflict. Everyone can use the icons under and only under the license CC-BY-3.0, and this also means that it is impossible to "resold, sublicensed, rented, transferred or otherwise made available for use" without other different licenses or contracts. --百楽兎 (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The bit about "other different licenses or contracts" can't be read anywhere on that page. I'm not a native English speaker, so I could be wrong, but the meaning of "The icons may not be resold, sublicensed, rented, transferred or otherwise made available for use." doesn't seem too open for interpretations. Some clarification is needed: the icon set is either released with CC-3.0-BY, allowing commercial use as stated in the first paragraph (thus allowing reselling, sublicensing, renting, etc. all within the constraints of CC-3.0-BY), or it is not. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thats the conflict, CC-BY-3.0 allows you to use it commercially thus allowing you to sell, rent, sublicense, etc.. But they state you can't do that, so that statement is in conflict with the license they picked. Thus someone needs to have them clarify what they mean or it couldn't be uploaded to Commons. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me like they want the individual icons to be free for any use but they don't want other sites hosting the full collection. Of course that does contradict their "any use" provision, but I think that's what their intent was. (The question is, how would one go about allowing the use of individual icons but prohibiting the rehosting of the full collection?) Powers (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, "Resold, sublicensed, rented, transferred or otherwise made available for use" are all the activities which need to write other lincenses in law. For example, John rents the Farm-Fresh Web Icons to Mary under CC-BY, then does Mary have to pay money to John or does John have the ownership of the icons? Both of the answers is NO, thus the renting of the icons does not happen under CC-BY. One more important point which needs to be cleared up is the difference between the "Original Works" and the "Derivative Works". This is difficult to explain briefly. So please read the details of the license CC-BY 3.0: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/legalcode . Especially 3. License Grant & 4. Restrictions. --百楽兎 (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're failing to grasp the copyright concept here. First a copyright license isn't a law, you can hand craft/write your own using whatever wording or restrictions you want at any time, no problem. Secondly a CC-BY-3.0 license like the first paragraph states these icons was released under means I can take those icons, put them on a cd and sell the cd's at $100 a pop, and they can't stop me. So long as I say on the cd that I got them from them, i'm good. The second paragraph seems to indicate you can't do that, thus it's in conflict with the CC-BY-3.0 license. Thus our concern. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course the license is not a law. I never said it is. And after reading your opinions carefully, I think I can say that you seem not read the details of CC-BY 3.0 yet. I also think I have to give up explaining this issue here. I will try to upload the icons by myself. --百楽兎 (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
IANAL, but it seems to me that the relevant sections of CC-3.0-BY are 1.d (definition of the word "distribution", which may happen trhough a sale as it is explicitly stated), 3.c and 3.d (allowing "distribution" as defined above of both the original work and adaptations if any). Section 4 just subjects the permissions granted in section 3 to giving proper attribution. Stating that sublicensing is forbidden is OK (CC-3.0-BY says that as well). Stating that the (original) work cannot be sold is conflict with what is explicitly granted by CC-3.0-BY (that's why CC-3.0-BY-NC exists, BTW). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
In addition to that: if you search on the web for the expression "may not be resold, sublicensed, rented, transferred or otherwise made available for use", you can find out that's boilerplate text used in licenses not allowing further distribution. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Please also note that I'm making reference to the Unported version of CC-3.0-BY [26], which gives an explicit definition of "distribute". The US version [27] (which is legally equivalent to the Unported version in the United States) is less explicit. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
So despite the fact that three individuals have all disagreed with Πrate's opinion, we're all wrong and he's going to go and upload the icons anyway. Lovely. Powers (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're all wrong indeed. Ask yourselves why and how can you resell or rent the icons under CC-BY 3.0? Both of activities has definition in law. A license is not a law, but it is protected and also restricted by laws. --百楽兎 (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the CC-BY-3.0 license allows commercial use, which is reselling/renting the icons. To upload something to commons you have to release it for commercial use, as in someone else making money off of it without giving you any. If they're willing to do that, then they can be uploaded here, but as we've said MULTIPLE times their wording in the second paragraph seems to limit commercial use, which isn't acceptable for images on commons. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Doh, anybody can take CC-3.0-BY files from Commons, burn them on DVD and sell it, provided attribution is given. Are people being silly for buying something that's available for free (free as in you don't have to pay money)? Probably. Or it could be packaged in such a convenient way for the buyer that he's actually willing to buy things instead of downloading them from Commons. See here for an example (for Wikipedia). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Commercial use" of course includes "reselling/renting"? Tell me if John rented the icons to Mary under CC-BY, then Mary should pay money and return the icons to John someday? "Burn them on DVD and sell it" is of course OK without speaking. The second paragraph doesn't say NO, too. It is not the focus at all. Tell me how can you "resell the icons"? --百楽兎 (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You assume that the subject of the second paragraph is "The rights on this icon set". I'm saying that may not be the case. Aksing politely for some clarification on the subject before mass uploading 1000+ images is a good idea, IMHO. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
As for renting, put them in a video (dvd) and rent the video, put them in a Xbox 360 game and rent the game, you can rent digital media, it's commonplace. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I think your confused Πrate, but I think it might be a lingual difference. The CC-3.0.BY license permits someone, for instance, including the image in a book and then selling the book. The phrase "The icons may not be resold" would not permit someone including the image in a book. We aren't talking about re-assigning the rights over the image from one person to another. We are only referring to a physical or digital copy. When we talk about the "icons" we are referring the images themselves and not the intellectual construct of "ownership" that surrounds it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.smith (talk • contribs) 18:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No. The icons does not include DVDs or books. They are different objects even if you put one into another. You made a DVD or book with putting the icons in, then you have the rights to your DVD or book, but you still don't have the rights to the icons. This case is as ridiculous as saying "reselling/renting a public domain work to somebody" IMO. --百楽兎 (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You are still implying that "The icon set" can only mean "The rights on this icon set", because every other interpretation conflicts with the release under CC-3.0-BY. I'm saying that the phrase in the second paragraph is boilerplate often found in licenses not allowing commercial distribution, and that asking FatCow.com for a clarification on their actual intentions is needed. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Search not updating

The internal search doesn't seem to be updating for a few days. Would someone look into this? -- User:Docu at 09:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

At http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Server_admin_log there is something about stopping and restarting "search incremental updates" on October 19 and 21. That is probably related. /Ö 09:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Resolved

Thanks. -- User:Docu at 16:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

<rainman-sr> i've been doing some index rebuilds that needed incremental updates to be turned off for a couple of days, but now everything should be back to normal
--MZMcBride (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The stop made it difficult to search for the new Navy files. BTW it seems that the preferences setting for the number of search results is broken. -- User:Docu at 10:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying to upload a photo from Flickr

Flickr2Commons once again wasn't working, so I tried Bryan's tool, but this time it doesn't seem to have worked either. Anyone know what I can do with File:John Brockman at DLD.jpg to get the photo here? As I've said before, it would be so much easier if this stuff was built into the uploading process so I didn't have to use these unrelibale tools. Richard001 (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Commons does not like HTML in the META data of a picture, I just went to Properties in windows and went to the Details tab and deleted anything with HTML then saved it and uploaded. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Richard001 (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

October 25

Gary Beers

Um... Is this acceptable on Commons ? (look under the summary). Sémhur (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Commons is not Wikipedia. Also, the image is likely a copyvio (obvious scan from printed media, the license field says "no" instead of "see below"). Text seems not copied from elsewhere, but completely made up (just search for the book titles: the page on Commons is the only result). Not sure if it qualifies for speedy deletion, but it should. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

October 26

In the navy!

After all the disasters at Commons I'm now uploading around 60.000 (maybe more) images from the US Navy site. All files will end up in Category:PD US Navy and in one of the temporary categories at Special:Categories/Images from US Navy, location. Images for which my bot couldn't extract the location will end up in Category:Images from US Navy, location unknown. Please help with getting all of these images properly categorized! More info about this batch upload at Commons:Batch uploading/Navy News Service. Multichill (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WE LOVE YOU :-D Thank you for all your uploads. --MGA73 (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice to see my work is appreciated. More to come (looking at US Army now). Multichill (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I have an email in my inbox concerning the difference between "Official U.S. Navy photograph" and "Naval Historical Center photo". "If it is credited as "U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph", the image is either old enough to have made its way into the Public Domain before the copyright laws were changed to eliminate the old 27 years + 27 years rule, or because the image appears to be an "orphan" where copyright is concerned, or appears to have originated with an official source but we can't be sure." IMO, if the Historical Center thinks they are okay for all use, I think we're alright. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Ed, what are you talking about? What has this to do with my batch upload? Multichill (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
There have been debates before about whether "U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph"s (ex. [28]) are actually PD (this is opposed to "Official U.S. Navy Photograph" or "Photograph from the Bureau of Ships Collection in the U.S. National Archives", ex. [29]). I'm assuming you are uploading from http://www.history.navy.mil/ ? —Ed (talk • contribs) 19:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Answer: no you are not, it is from http://www.navy.mil/view_photos_top.asp . Never mind! :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
There will be A LOT of duplicates, but those can be dealt with later, I've personally uploaded quite a few from there. Would be a welcome addition. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think there's going to be a lot of duplicates? Multichill (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I've uploaded alot of images from that site and noticed A LOT of other people also have, so I predict theres going to be a few hundred dupes at least, maybe many more. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Does your prediction take into account that my code contains dupe checking? Multichill (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course not. :P — raeky (talk | edits) 00:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

U.S.C. Title 18, Part I, Chapter 33, § 701 provides fines and up to six months' imprisonment for unauthorized use of US gov't Insignias. The USFWS website's "Digital Rights, Copyright, Trademark, Patent Laws" notice page, citing restrictions published in the Federal Register (Vol. 49, No. 30, page 5387), says that any use without permission is prohibited and that the logo may appear only on official FWS documents (and that §701 provides for enforcement). Nevertheless, the USWFS logo is widely used on WP and other WM projects (the Commons image file page includes an explanation of the restrictions on use). Should it be?

I understand this is not a copyright issue as the Service logo is in the public domain. But, for example, w:Wikipedia:Logos#U.S._government_agencies states that "[u]se restrictions of such logos must be followed and permission obtained before use." Should it be removed, for example, from Template:PD-USGov-FWS and Template:FWS Image (which I created)? Rrburke (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I was at first going to say "Of course we can use the logo" but now after looking at those links I'm not so sure. The limitations they place on the logo (and seem to be backed up by law) amount to almost the same thing as copyright protection except that it has no expiration date. --J.smith (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
If the logo is public domain them simply produce a derivative from it that clearly shows this is a wikimedia logo and that we are not trying to pass off our documents as official USFWS publications --Tony Wills (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Eh... the law seems to be more specifically about duplicating ID badges or anything else federal employees use for identification... though, it is often cited to protect many uses of federal Insignias (this type of restriction is what {{Insignia}} is referring to). "Use" in that case I think is a bit more narrow than copyright's meaning, more along the lines of trademark (not referring to duplicating, but instead having it imply or signify some sort of relationship). Putting it on those templates could be considered a "use" I suppose, though it is just being used to mark USFWS documents/images, and I don't think it implies any kind of relationship between Wikimedia and the agency. That said, they do provide another image (File:Usfws_a.gif) which they specifically ask to use on websites if you need to link to the USFWS web page. {{PD-USGov-FWS}} has at times used that (been changed back and forth a couple times). I don't think it's all that big a deal but using that other image should also be fine and may be preferable (and it should be easy to make an SVG version, using bits from the USFWS logo SVG). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I had a brief exchange with Mike Godwin, whose opinion is that the risk of prosecution is small. Wikimedia has no position on the issue because Wikimedia doesn't need one: such liability as there might be rests with the uploader or user who, say, adds the logo to a template, not with Wikimedia. The risk is remote but not non-existent: "It seems theoretically possible based on my reading of the statute that you might face some liability if the government for some reason decided to track you down to prosecute you for having posted or used [the logo]."
Still, maybe the risks and potential consequences -- even if they're only theoretical -- ought to be featured a little more prominently. I doubt many users have read Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, and I doubt they're aware that fines or imprisonment are possibilities, even if very unlikely ones. Rrburke (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't see any reason not to switch the template (back) to using File:Usfws_a.gif - the template and the image pages it is transcluded into, are not USFWS publications. We don't need to settle the question, of whether any of our uses are legal, to accept that it would be prudent not to use it when we have an alternative. An explanation to the editor who inserted it would seem appropriate too. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I inserted one, so I'll notify myself and replace it :) But the larger issue is that the same problem applies to any use of a US federal government Insignia or logo, and there are plenty kicking around. On the other other hand, it appears to be a small problem: possibly technically improper, but unlikely ever to result in any consequences.
Of course, that's something you could as easily say about the kind of technical copyvio that would never be likely to face any challenge -- but these get deleted all the time anyway. The difference in cases like that would appear to be that in the case of copyright violation Wikimedia is potentially liable and so has a policy, whereas for violating Title 18, Part I, Chapter 33, §701 only the individual user is potentially on the hook (but, in practical terms, probably wouldn't ever be), so the corresponding non-policy appears to be caveat uploader. Rrburke (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The statute seems more intended for physical ID items which are used to identify federal employees -- there should be no reason to duplicate those, and "badges" are a type of "Insignia" -- but it wouldn't be the first time a vaguely written law was used in far wider circumstances than originally intended. The USFWS says the official logo's use is reserved for official publications or other products of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -- and really, that is what we are using it for, to mark USF&WS products. Their alternate graphic page seems mostly concerned with making sure there is no implied endorsement by them -- a trademark-like issue. Still, they have gone to the trouble to provide alternate graphics, and have a specific request -- so I don't see the harm in respecting that and using them. I made an SVG version of their alternate graphic at File:USFWS alt graphic A.svg in case that was a reason to avoid using it, so that can be used instead if desired. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Inoperable return

When I attempt to upload some duplicate image, the message "Return to the upload form and choose a different name" appears. Howewer, this button doesn't work. It send me to a blank page, not to the upload form. This bug persists number of months. --ŠJů (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed and reported as bug 21288. Lupo 23:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

October 24

Simple English Wikimedia Commons Proposal

I think it would be a great idea for esl people seniors younger children and disabled people to look at the images and anyone can contribute to it. Just a simpilar way of uploading free content images. Support or Oppose iam taking votes. Seabanks (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I understand the reason why you want to make it simpler, but our processes are there for a reason - to make sure people understand what they're doing (if they read it). I'm not sure we can really state the copyright issues in simpler words. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Matt thank you for at least letting this run its course to see if it gets accepted or not. copyright issues in simpler words i think this can be done just needs to be alot of support on this new project if it happens. Seabanks (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is a multilingual project. I think we use simpler English than English Wikipedia. Kwj2772 (msg) 00:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Which bits are wanted in simpler English? Commons information pages can be translated, templates can be translated. The content is meant to be pictures, with multilingual descriptions. The main problem I would have thought was discussion areas - difficult to regulate language complexity there. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

 Comment the proposal is too complex for me to understand. Can you try to put in a few simple words? -- User:Docu at 10:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Voting

 Support - i vote for Supporting this idea... Seabanks (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose - This is a multi-language web page. ViperSnake151 (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose Unlike other Wikimedia projects (mainly text, not multilingual), Commons is a multilingual project that has to deal a lot with copyright issues (inherently not easy to understand) on media (not as easy to search unless proper information is provided). Help pages should already be made as simple as possible (in every language), and if the text on the upload form can be made simplier, well, it should be made simplier for everyone without a separate simple insert your language here version. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose, there is no separate Commons for French, German, Irish, etc., so it doesn't seem useful to run one for Simple English. Stifle (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

 Neutral. There is no separate Commons for any language, and nothing stops you from creating Simple English versions of the existing pages and descriptions. I believe there is nothing to vote about, and the problem of time is no bigger for Simple English than for other languages (especially minor ones). As it wouldn't be a separate project, I think nobody will consider deleting all of it for general inactivity like the Simple English Wikibooks. --AVRS (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

 Neutral - There might not be multiple versions of Commons, but many page elements are already multi-lingual. That's what {{int}} is for. I would support translations of that template and similar ones into simple-English to co-exist with "used in the real world"-English. --J.smith (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Stifle and others. Killiondude (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose Forking Commons (a multi-lingual project), is a bad idea. MBisanz talk 03:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose, we are a multilingual project. –blurpeace (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Orrery small.jpg

Any idea how this file has slipped through? It's non-commercial on the Flickr page. Was it uploaded before much checking was done? Richard001 (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It didn't slip through. It was checked by FlickreviewR over two years ago, and was cc-by then. I guess it should be tagged {{Flickr-change-of-license}} but the licensing is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Search broken (<50)

Is this temporary, a problem with the interface or a bug? I can't seem to get more than 50 results. -- User:Docu at 12:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it's a feature .. Bugzilla: 21287.

Burning Man photos

There has been heated debate in the last few months as to the status of photos taken at Burning Man. (See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burning Man 228 (241613953) crop.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Allys a rubbin (1421413596).jpg, and no doubt others.) I think it would be worthwhile to come up with an agreement on these photographs and what can and cannot be used.

We can assume for the purpose of the discussion that the photographer/creator of the photographs consent to their use under whatever free license; otherwise we couldn't use the photograph anyway. There are then three main issues that people have come up with.

Admission conditions restrict photography to personal use

The conditions of purchase of Burning Man tickets (currently available at [30]) include:

"I UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THAT NO USE OF IMAGES, FILM, OR VIDEO OBTAINED AT THE EVENT MAY BE MADE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM BURNING MAN, OTHER THAN PERSONAL USE. I understand that I have no rights to make any non-personal use of any image, film, or video footage obtained at the event, and that I cannot sell, transfer, or give the footage or completed film or video to any other party, except for personal use, and I agree to inform anyone to whom I give any footage, film, or video that it can only be used for personal use."

Two counterarguments:

  • This is an issue between Burning Man and the photographer, see Commons:Image casebook#Museum_and_interior_photography, and does not affect the rights Commons has to use the image.
  • A person who receives a ticket from someone else has had no opportunity to read/accept the conditions, has not had the conditions brought to his/her notice, etc.

Copyright assigned to Burning Man

The conditions of purchase, and the agreement which must be signed to receive a photography tag at Burning Man [31], include:

"I agree that, in the event I post, or allow to be posted, any images (still or video) on a personal website or a website controlled by a third party, that (1) in the event Burning Man notifies me that any such images must be removed, for any reason whatsoever in Burning Man's sole discretion, I will promptly remove or cause to be removed those images; and (2) I will place, or cause to be placed, on any website in which such images are displayed a notice that the images can be used only for the poster's personal use and not for any other purpose and that downloading or copying of the images is prohibited. I further agree that, in the event any third party displays or disseminates any of my images in a manner not authorized by this agreement, I assign to Burning Man the copyright so that Burning Man can enforce against the third party any restrictions concerning use of the images, and I appoint Burning Man as my attorney-in-fact to execute any documents necessary to effectuate such assignment."

This may suggest that participants at Burning Man do not have the right to release their images under CC-BY-SA or any other free license.

Three counterarguments:

  • The assignment may not be legally valid.
  • Per the above point, a person who receives a ticket from someone else has had no opportunity to read/accept the conditions, has not had the conditions brought to his/her notice, etc.
  • A person with a stills-only camera is not required to have a photography tag.

Photographs of identifiable people

COM:PEOPLE states that photographs of identifiable people taken in a private place shouldn't be used without consent of the subject. I don't think there is any serious dispute that the people in question are identifiable. Equally, I don't think there is any serious dispute that the taking of the photographs is legal.

The COM:PEOPLE section on public vs private places states that "a private place can be considered a place where the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy; and a public place is a place where the subject has no such expectation". This raises a valid question: is the site of Burning Man a place where a subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy? --Stifle (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC) (Opening thread post diff)

Discussion (early)

I would say so, first because there is clear evidence that it is considered a "private" event.
• Burning Man describes itself in several places as a private event on public land [1][2]
• The U.S. Bureau of Land Management issues a "closure to public use in the area including and surrounding the event [3][4] and the event is surrounded with a fence with teams searching for people trying to enter with out tickets.
• Even in the debate similar to this on slashdot, [5] those commenters who had actually attended the event referred to it as a private event when defending the policies
Even if this is not in precise concordance with Wikimedia's broad definition of "public," it is the definition that described the expectations of people being photographed. They were far from as one commenter described "in the middle of the street"
Further, many sources indicate that any still or moving images from the event.

a) be restricted to friends and family - or - b) will be taken with a camera that tagged to indicate that there will be review by Burning Man prior to use in any public or "commercial" context, with due consideration of whether permission was given.

• An 8-by-4-foot sign reading "No Commercial Use of Cameras Without Permission" is posted at the entrance to the event.[6]
• The ticket back specifies that photos only be shared with friends and family unless permission is recieved
• Burning Man successfully sued Voyeur Video [7][8] over the use of video from the event, leading to a settlement where all unsold copies of the videos were destroyed.
• A handout at the entrance [9] indicates that Media "are required to register with us and comport themselves in accordance with an agreement designed to protect your right to express yourself freely. We require that they ask permission and offer you a model release to sign before filming you. ...Media Cameras are clearly marked with large colorful tags" (the reference gives 2007 and 2008 examples; before that, this information was in an official newspaper)
• Burning Man confiscated videos shot by MTV staffers without permission[10]
• The Burning Man website includes an extensive set of press and image guidelines[11] which include: "If you are shooting still photography, video or are recording audio for any reason other than to show your friends and family, you must register, preferably in advance of the event, with the Media Team."
"Before members of the media can make any use of the images recorded at the event, other than for personal use, they must obtain written permission from Burning Man. Such written permission will be limited to the particular project described, and may be subject to restrictions. Written permission can be granted only by Marian Goodell, Mistress of Communications."
"You may use any images that you obtained at the event only for personal use. No commercial use whatsoever may be made of any such images."
"You have the right and responsibility to ask someone to stop taking a picture of you, recording your image or recording your voice in any way if you desire. However, keep in mind the nature of radical self-expression, capturing expression is a form of self-expression. You have the right to know what someone plans to do with your image."
"Burning Man reserves the right to disallow the use of Burning Man-related imagery and recordings of any kind for commercial or unapproved editorial use, particularly if we determine that such use(s) may undermine the personal expression and privacy of participants or the integrity of the event."
Says legal scholar Daniel Solove, "The Burning Man case illustrates that a claim of privacy is not the same as a claim of absolute secrecy... The Burning Man participants thus had nuanced expectations of privacy-about how their information would be used withing a limited circle of people. [12]JKPrivett (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Solove refers to the fact that while cameras were present, participants were given a clear expectation that use of photos would either be by registered media and approved explicitly by event organizers and demarcated as such or more often shared only with the photographer's friends and family. This would not include Wikipedia - the third highest Google hit for Burning Man - or any commercial site that repackages it.
Most, if not all of the Burning Man imagery in the commons appears to come from participants who were not registered media, but shared their photos via a flickr account or personal webpage, and the images were collected by a bot. Subjects have expectation that if they asked for removal of a photo from such a personal page, the photographer would have the ability and authority to remove it. In the case of the most contentious image, the flickr version has been restricted, but the photographer's request for removal from wikis has not yet been granted.JKPrivett (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
If the deletion request comes from the photographer (as opposed to Burning Man), those are handled on a case-by-case basis, but I would hope would be granted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
As for "privacy"... it certainly doesn't seem to exist there (at least the traditional kind, unless people are inside of tents or something). We don't make up our own definitions; they come from law -- see w:Expectation of privacy. If you are arguing for some new legal ground (not impossible... it is an interesting situation), you can't really rely on traditional protections either because it is not the same thing. Your own terms make very clear that participants should expect to be photographed, and without compensation to them at all (a pretty hardcore condition, that latter one). IANAL, but that would seem to pretty much eliminate all traditional notions of privacy (if they would even exist otherwise which is doubtful), and also any reason for Wikimedia to delete images for that reason. The other reason we care about is copyright, but if these images were taken by people who did not assign their copyright in writing and signed to Burning Man, which you state above appears to be the case (they are not the official photographers there), then the photographers still own the full copyright on the photos and can license the copyright as they wish. Obviously personality/publicity rights still exist, but those would not apply to Wikimedia's actual use (they are Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, which should be noted but are not reasons to delete). The "commercial use" part of the licenses refers to the copyright specifically, which generally means something completely different than "commercial use" in a trademark or publicity rights context (which is more for advertizing). That type of use is still restricted; a copyright license alone can never cover that and is not claimed. It may be a good idea to make a template which notes some of the specific expectations that Burning Man participants have, so potential third-party users are aware of potential issues. Any other type of deletion is basically a case-by-case thing based on very specific circumstances; requests from pictured people (or the photographer) are often respected though. I would think there would need to be a reason which resonates with other people as well though, not just automatically granted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

In case you hadn't already picked it up, my opinion (which changed over recently when I determined that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy) is that photos taken at Burning Man are good for us to use (once properly licensed by the photographer, obviously). I would like to see if we can come up with an agreed guideline on this. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If the transfer of copyright clause is legally enforceable than we'll HAVE to respect that these images are not compatible with Commons. Since we have no way of telling if the photographer was a ticket holder (Bound to contract) or not someone who snuck in without a ticket (not bound to contract) we'd have to treat all images of this event the same way. If the transfer of copyright clause is NOT enforceable or not legally tested than we'd have to treat it as any other photograph. I think this is more likely something the legal team for wikimedia would have to weigh in on, do they want to test this or not? — raeky (talk | edits) 13:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Note that only ticket purchasers are presented with the conditions, not holders. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
FALSE. Photo restrictions/conditions are printed on the ticket.--Elvey (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
That would depend on the terms of the contract, if it's printed on the ticket, or whatever, but lets just make a differentiation between a person legallythere (has a ticket) and one that does not have the ticket, but for our purposes we can't determine that status if they entered that contract or not, just that the phtograph is of an event that attendants should be under the contract of entry and if that contract is enforceable or not. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't speak for the USA, but here in Ireland the contract would be very likely to be ineffective, as instruments creating a power of attorney must be executed as deeds, and the conditions are very likely to fall foul of the European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulations, 1995. The conditions don't include a choice of law, so someone buying a ticket in Ireland could claim Irish law to apply... Stifle (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
In the US if there is wording on the physical ticket about a contract you agree to by using the ticket, would MOST LIKELY be legally enforceable. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
On the back of the ticket you have: "Use other than personal use of images from Burning Man ...is prohibited without prior written consent of Burning Man" [13]

Any release to any public license is a use that is not just personal, and thus a violation of that contract. Also, "You appoint Burning Man as your representative to protect your intellectual property or privacy rights..."JKPrivett (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright transfers are tricky. They can't automatically transfer the copyright to Burning Man: "A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent." I don't think a court could even force them to: "Involuntary Transfer. — When an individual author's ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, has not previously been transferred voluntarily by that individual author, no action by any governmental body or other official or organization purporting to seize, expropriate, transfer, or exercise rights of ownership with respect to the copyright, or any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, shall be given effect under this title, except as provided under title 11." (Title 11 being entitled Bankruptcy). (Quotes from US copyright law, Title 17, Chapter 2.) That is, if I'm interpreting that right, and IANAL, the only way Burning Man could take the copyright if the photographer didn't want to give is to win sufficient damages for breach of contract to force the photographer into bankruptcy and claim it as spoils in the bankruptcy court. Given the standard argument that the GFDL is irrevocable, and the fact that the photographer has the copyright at least up until Burning Man intimidates him into giving it up, I'd say they're fine for Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

WHAT COPYRIGHT TRANSFER? IT SAYS "You appoint Burning Man as your representative...", NOT "You transfer copyright..."! --Elvey (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The terms state I further agree that, in the event any third party displays or disseminates any of my images in a manner not authorized by this agreement, I assign to Burning Man the copyright so that Burning Man can enforce against the third party any restrictions concerning use of the images, and I appoint Burning Man as my attorney-in-fact to execute any documents necessary to effectuate such assignment. Copyright assignment is a copyright transfer. That absolutely about transfer. And assigning power of attorney via a ticket back without a signature either? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
So they do. I had been looking at different copy or section of the terms. You're right.
Ugh, this is fairly complicated. In the U.S., copyright transfer requires a *signed* document; terms on a ticket purchase cannot do that. Per the above, getting a "photography tag" (which allows for video too) does require a signature, but also per the above participants do not need such a tag to just take still photographs -- meaning the copyright to all of those photos still remains with the photographer regardless of what the tickets say. That would then be a choice of the photographer to violate the terms on the ticket by uploading them.
It gets even better, of course. The terms also include the following bits:
10. I acknowledge that the Burning Man name and logo are the property of the Burning Man organization, and I understand that the Burning Man organization controls all rights regarding the licensing and reproduction of any imagery recorded at the event . I agree that I will not use the mark or logo of Burning Man or likeness of the Man on any website or in any commercial manner.
11. Holder's image may be captured on film, video or photographs without holder's consent and without compensation.
12. Holder hereby appoints Burning Man as his or her representative to protect his or her intellectual property or privacy rights, recognizing that Burning Man has no obligation to take any such action.
That means that a) The ticket holder gives away all privacy rights while attending the event, b) gives away all personality/publicity rights while at the event, c) agrees to protect the Burning Man trademark far further than even trademark law requires (the agreement says it cannot be used on "any website" in any manner, even if such use does not violate the trademark). It basically attempts to have the Burning Man organization do whatever it wants with photographs taken there -- even if objected to by the actual pictured participant, Burning Man has attempted to remove any legal possibility that they could be liable. And, of course, they want to control what anyone else wants to do with such photos too.
Furthermore, a requirement for privacy rights is an "expectation of privacy". That can sometimes happen in somewhat public places, like nude beaches, where there is an expectation of no photographs. However the Burning Man terms make very clear (number 11 above) that there is no expectation of that whatsoever, so I would think that no privacy rights can be violated by photographs taken there (despite that supposedly being one of their central reasons for wanting such complete control). I guess since they technically may not be able to use that, they want copyright control as well so they can use the DMCA to issue takedown notices. The EFF posted an article critical of their terms; Burning Man responded. They may want such complete control for (what they see as) altruistic purposes, but... that will stifle anyone's opinion except theirs. They claim in their response that they have only "issued five successful DMCA takedown notices" -- but they are also claiming that every single other image you see out there (unless given their explicit approval) is a copyright violation, and can be taken down in the future if they ever change their mind. And I wonder how many unsuccessful DMCA takedown notices happened. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Says one legal scholar, "The Burning Man case illustrates that a claim of privacy is not the same as a claim of absolute secrecy... All-or-nothing notions of privacy fail to grasp the central difference between fellow festival goers and commercial exploitation by pornographers. The Burning Man participants thus had nuanced expectations of privacy-about how their information would be used withing a limited circle of people. [14]JKPrivett (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Given that a copyright transfer has to be in writing under American law, I think that makes it pretty clear-cut that the terms aren't legally enforceable. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" bit is also looking fairly shaky. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
But has such a transfer as this been legally tested and upheld invalid? If not we can't just immediately state the contract null and void for copyright transfer. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
And why not? Stifle (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The idea is to protect Wikimedia and ultimately the end-users who take images from Wikimedia sites believing they're freely licensed for use from lawsuits. If these specific examples of copyright transfer by these kind of contracts (use the ticket and be bound to a contract) is legally tested and upheld in a court then there is potential litigation that could be levied. Just because you believe these are not legally enforceable contract clauses does not mean they are. Some legal clarification would be necessary in my opinion for their use here. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
In at least one case, when Burning Man sued Voyeur Video claiming violation of the ticket rules and participant's privacy, Voyeur protested ticket language as "Contract by ambush" and that the event was not private[15]. However they later settled out of court, turning over all copies of videos for destruction and accepting a permanent ban. [16]JKPrivett (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to add, these kind of contracts I have issues with, it sounds very similar to a click-wrap agreement (which have been legally upheld in the US). But I can equally see the argument that IF the ticket states (I'm not sure it does) that use of the ticket binds you to the contract and/or the process to buy the ticket states that the use of the ticket binds you to the contract, signature or purchaser or not, then you can argue in court that foreknowledge of the contract should of been known by the participant and their participation/entry is consent of a legal signature (as is click-wrap or other "use this software and you agree to these terms" contracts) therefore you gave signed/informed consent of copyright transfer. In US courts signatures are not necessarily a physical ink-on-paper signature, agreement to a contract can be entered into by use which is just as good as a signature. Basically what I'm saying is this is a very gray area with their contract, EFF has issues with it. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't fathom any way a ticket back can transfer copyright. Click wrap licenses are somewhat nebulous; I have heard of at least one getting upheld but also one getting struck down. However, the copyright law is very very clear on this point; per 17 USC 204, A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent. Even if click-wrap licenses are valid, they can't comply with that. That said, to get a "photographer's tag" at Burning Man, you apparently *do* have to sign an agreement. Someone above though said that getting such a tag is not required for still photography. For people who signed that document, there may well be an issue; for people who took in a camera without signing it, there is almost certainly no copyright transfer. It is pretty hard for Commons to know the difference; we may have to rely on good faith of the uploaders. There is nothing we can do to protect against lawsuits from overreaching copyright claims (say by a site who thinks they own a copyright because they scanned an old work); but we should use good-faith best judgment. There is a reason why we have Commons:General disclaimer though; we are probably not always right. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
See above for the ticket-back text that restricts participants from releasing images to the general public without permission. Bear in mind, in relying on the "good faith of uploaders" for some of these images, the uploader was a bot who's talk page says "If some image with questionable copyright was uploaded, don't come to me. I (most likely) didn't upload it, and I don't know any more about it than you do. If it's evil, just nuke it."JKPrivett (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The ticket-back text has no bearing on the copyright status, which is Commons' primary consideration. Legally, distribution rights are usually controlled by copyright. If an uploader wants to put up a picture anyways, it is their responsibility, and it is a contractual (if that) situation between Burning Man and the uploader. See Commons:Image casebook#Museum and interior photography. There may well be legitimate legal issues for uploaders -- and maybe Burning Man is far overstepping their legal rights (in particular, they do not own copyright just by virtue of the ticket terms). The question is if we should delete every single Burning Man photo for fear of that. Agreed that uploads by bots from nebulous sources are problematic, but that is true of any image. If the bot was uploading from en-wiki, then that user is the real uploader. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, it would be a pretty overreaching judge to state 17 USC 204 is satisfied by a click-wrap kind of contract. As for the people who signed the photographers agreement thing, how do we know the source image's author did or didn't sign that if we pull images from flickr feeds or other similar sites where the uploader marked it as a free license (maybe out of ignorance). Just assume if it's marked free license that they must not of signed and go BAU? — raeky (talk | edits) 16:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

← That's roughly what I would be suggesting. In any case, we haven't even considered the fact that someone might have signed for a photography tag and given the camera to someone else. I think that if a photographer has uploaded an image under a free license, we should not, under normal circumstances, be asking him to prove that he hasn't signed away the copyright. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Burning man is a private event, according to any reasonable reading of our own Commons Policy : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Photographs_taken_in_a_private_place and the ticket terms create an expectation of privacy.

The ticket terms specifically say Holder's image may be captured on film, video or photographs without holder's consent and without compensation. I don't know how that correlates to an expectation of not being photographed. See also w:Expectation of privacy; it is far more narrowly defined than that. I can't see any reasonable reading of our policy that would regard this as a traditional "private" place. There is some expectation that photographs won't be exploited commercially, so I would tread lightly, but it seems to me that all this is (highly) aggressive from a legal standpoint and I do not see a reason to assume that Burning Man itself holds copyright on all of these photos (nor assume typical privacy protections). But, I would be fairly respectful of requests to delete from any pictured people (especially involving nudity) and of the photographers themselves. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting the ticket. This is a private place in the official rules of commons sense; the terms of attending make clear that attendees should expect photographs to be used for personal use only, or where the organizers approve, but that the organizers aren't liable if photographs are used otherwise. The bit you're using is not intended to eliminate privacy expectations; that is clear from the context.--Elvey (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
And I think you are misusing the word "private". For the protection of usual privacy laws you need to have the objective w:expectation of privacy, a specific definition, which I can't fathom how it would apply here. It is not in force just because it may be termed a "private" event by some other definition (i.e. one which requires tickets). This blog entry goes into some of it. Furthermore, it would be a "public place" as defined in copyright law (any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered, which definition would be applicable in a couple of narrow circumstances), and apparently other law: A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose. Burning Man does not seem to fit that description at all... there is no objective expectation of privacy (which would mean the subjects should be able to suppress any and all photographs taken), unless they had secluded themselves away from the other participants. I would agree this is a somewhat nuanced situation, and photographs involving nudity may well have further implications -- there is probably greater protection there (see this blog entry, although that involved secret videotaping). Commons certainly respects (traditionally-understood) privacy rights, but unless validated by court decisions by judges, I don't think we would automatically accede to any new legal theory. This may break some interesting ground for sure, but the rights claimed seem pretty overreaching to me. That said, the one deletion request I have seen (which involves nudity) is a pretty reasonable request, and I think it should be taken down. I can respect what Burning Man is trying to do, but I don't think the ends justify the means -- if at all valid, then any other company can use the same tactics for incredibly abusive and destructive purposes in other situations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Sorry, but I've read your argument and followed your links and I just don't agree. http://www.photoattorney.com/2008/09/reasonable-expectation-of-privacy.html seems to, if anything, support my view. Perhaps you misunderstand what Burning Man is. It DOES meet the description of a private place as I read the descriptions you quote. I see you saying above that it's a public place because there's no expectation of brivacy, and there's no expectation of privacy because it's a public place. Your logic is more than a bit circular. http://www.google.com/search?q="Burning+man+family" = 21,000 hits. Burning Man is a private event, social, and a gathering, hence it's a private social gathering.--Elvey (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia article, "anyone who can afford a ticket is welcomed and there are no prerequisites to be part of Burning Man." If you're out someplace where your grandmother or your boss or absolutely anyone could come walking by unexpectedly, then it's not a private place. There are more people at Burning Man and fewer restrictions to get in then there for the nation of Liechtenstein.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
No, Burning Man is not "social acquaintances". That is stretching the term beyond all recognition. There are some other pages on privacy here, here, here, or here. There is always gray area, and nuances can differ between states, but I don't see an absolute right to control any photo taken there. The ones involving nudity may well get more problematic, as those would tend to be protected further, but there is little legal guidance that I'm aware of. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"Commons certainly respects (traditionally-understood) privacy rights" - I hope so. I think relying on claims that both a clickwrap license is invalid and a private event is public because it is big is a reliance on a novel legal theory. Contrary to your claim, I don't think I'm proposing or relying on any novel legal theory. (I have no problem with folks relying on distasteful law that exists (DMCA, clickwrap licenses, etc.) to achieve laudable ends. I think a lot of people do, but only because haven't thought it through.)--Elvey (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Mainly because if legally valid, those same means could then (just as legally) be used for terrible ends by others and there would be no defense against them. If anyone can transfer copyright etc. by use of an w:adhesion contract, tons of companies would. That is one of the reasons the 1976 Copyright Act changed to make the act of transfer very, very explicit so there is no question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
OK. In any case, your claim that a private event is public because it is big is a novel legal theory, even if the copyright part isn't. I think we have to agree to disagree on this one, as both sides have presented their case, and I don't expect new evidence or argument will convince either of us in the near future. BTW, in terms of the art there, surely you do concede there IS an clear right to control images of that, don't you? (You just said otherwise...) --Elvey (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
No, my claim is that it is an outdoor event with 40,000 people open to the public. It is not a situation which invites expectation of privacy whatsoever. It has no relation to a private home, a restroom, or other similar private spaces where participants expect no photography at all (or at least personally knows everyone present). Whether there can be any legal rights simply because of certain expectations of not using photos for particular purposes, that is novel legal ground. As mentioned by that one legal scholar you quote, it is pretty much at odds with privacy as it has been traditionally practiced. He is arguing that privacy shouldn't be as black/white as it typically has been, but that is not the way it necessarily is. And if there in fact is a nuanced right of privacy (not proven), then protections are probably also considerably limited/nuanced (probably to the point that hosting them on Commons would not be an issue, as we use them for educational purposes only). As to the art question -- yes, of course, if there is copyrightable artwork there, then photographs may well be derivative works and therefore controlled by the author of the artwork. Some things like folk art really aren't copyrightable, but I'm sure a lot of what is at Burning Man would be copyrighted. There are things like de minimis which can apply to some photographs (i.e. ones showing an entire scene, which happens to include artworks, as opposed to photos of an individual sculpture). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that the "public" has a presence at burning man - on-duty police officers, BLM officers, Tribal officers, etc. 40,000 people at an outdoor event on public land. The site of organized like a city, with a post office, roads, etc. How much privacy would a reasonable person expect in those circumstance? None, except within the confines of an enclosure/tent/vehicle. The spirit of the law is the expectation of privacy. --J.smith (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Carl: I recall you argued that it's public because it's big. Are you now arguing that it's public because it's held outside? That sounds equally novel. --Elvey (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually if you read these pages linked here, you'll find that virtually all of the examples of a private setting are enclosed in four walls that the general public doesn't have the right to enter. The only example that comes to mind as an exception is that a photo of a woman in a corner trying to discreetly read the label on her prescription in a mall, such that it would reveal the nature of her medication, would be invading her privacy. Outside, by its nature, is visible to a wide variety of people. Even if Burning Man did have an exclusionary entry policy--again, this is less of a narrowly selected group of people than the nation of Lichtenstein is--it's still visible from nearby heights and from airplanes and helicopters. Moreover, the mere presence of police implies that it's not a private place; they can't enter a private place without a warrant, and the presence of police tends to break up any expectation of privacy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

J.smith, Carl, Prosfilaes: I think I said it already, but if not: the photo wasn't taken outdoors! It was taken in a (sunlit) tent with a floor. Oy! Carl? There's no distinction under the law between a photo of this woman's performance and a photo of Jimbo at a meetup, except we have permission of the subject in the latter. There's a 'feeling', or 'hunch' or 'bias' in the minds of some editors that the former is public and the latter is private, but it has no basis in law. --Elvey (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no "the photo". This section was talking about all photos taken at Burning Man. The tent doesn't necessarily make it a private place; like a mall, if it's open to all comers, then it's public. I haven't noticed you making any answers based on the law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not the one who claimed that the Burning Man 228 photos were taken outdoors in an argument. Others were. Arguments based on a fiction aren't sound arguments. Got it? --Elvey (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
You haven't been paying attention. There's a right to privacy under the law. J K Privett argued that at length above. I argue and have been arguing respect for that, among other arguments. The photos in question were taken in a (sunlit) tent with a floor and walls.
It's pretty clear that we have consensus that, under the law, if you take a picture of art at Burning Man, you need the permission of the artist(s) (or copyright owner(s)) to upload it to commons. Legally, it it consistent does it make sense if you can take a picture of a naked person at Burning Man, without permission, and upload it to commons legally? A subject who, it's pretty clear based on survey and the subject's own comments (unless you don't AGF that it is the subject who is claiming to be the subject), had an expectation of privacy.--Elvey (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
You keep trying to bring in other topics and cloud the issue. The issue here is Burning Man photos as a whole, not any particular photos which should be discussed on their particular pages for deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright of Artists

Some photos in the commons are of works for which Burning Man has copyright, including the Man, and streetlamps and recognizable structures. These are candidates for deletion as well, as may be those of others' art works.

Streetlamps are utilitarian and not subject to copyright. Photographs of structures and buildings are not derivative works (in the U.S.). Photographs of sculpture, such as the Man, probably are issues. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely agree; any images of artworks, made by Burning Man or not, are deletable. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

CC licensing is non-revocable

(I'm sorry if this has come up already... Let me know and I'll close the section)

"I assign to Burning Man the copyright so that Burning Man can enforce against the third party any restrictions concerning use of the images"

I would like to point out that even if we assume the above is legally binding, releasing something under the CC license is non-revocable. Maybe the Burning Man people would get the copyright - however, they can't un-ring the bell. --J.smith (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue is did the person who put it under a CC license have the legal copyright to do so. If you accept that "I assign to Burning Man the copyright so that Burning Man can enforce against the third party any restrictions concerning use of the images" is legally binding (and general consensus here I think is that it isn't) than the photographer/poster didn't have the rights to release it in the first place. You can't take a copyrighted image you don't own and release it under a CC license and "ring the bell" as you put it making the original owner unable to revoke that license. But if you don't accept that overreaching legal clause as enforceable then the photographer does have the copyright and can release it under CC even though Burning Man wishes them not too. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
It says "in the event [that ...], I assign to Burning Man the copyright". Thus Burning Man doesn't have the copyright; they aren't, even if you buy their wording, the original owner. I suspect courts would choke on the "making Burning Man your lawyer in fact" clause, too, otherwise I'm going to put that in every contract I write. "You want to sue me for violating the contract? I'm really sorry, I don't think we have a foot to stand in the case against me."--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as Prosfilaes said, the change of ownership would not change until after the release into CC has happened. J.smith (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that a conditional transfer of copyright ("in the event that...") is legally valid, Also, in most jurisdictions, a contract between two parties (here Burning Man and the photographer) is void if its outcome depends on actions by third parties (here Commons) that are not also signatories of the contract. --Latebird (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Mike Godwin's answer

FYI Mike Godwin has answered these questions during Office hours: m:IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2009-10-15. Yann (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Putting relevent remarks here, so others doesn't have to dig it out of the irc log — raeky (talk | edits) 19:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Oct 15 09:09:10 <mnemonic1> with regard to "Burning Man" -- the issue there properly is whether Wikimedia Foundation feels obligated to police photographs on Commons or elsewhere that were taken in violation of the Burning Man rules
Oct 15 09:09:25 <mnemonic1> the short answer is, no, we are not party to that contract or its obligations.
Oct 15 09:09:57 <mnemonic1> so long as we don't encourage or collaborate with people who choose to violate their ticket contracts by taking unauthorized photos, we generally don't face legal liability for publishing them
Oct 15 09:10:11 <mnemonic1> the answer with regard to IOC is essentially the same
Oct 15 09:10:35 <mnemonic1> there's no copyright violation with regard to those photos, since the copyright is held by the photographer
Oct 15 09:11:02 <mnemonic1> it should be noted that WMF has not received any complaints from Burning Man or IOC during my tenure
Oct 15 09:11:25 <mnemonic1> and i've now been with WMF for more than two years, which shows you how much time flies when you're having fun

I think you cut that a bit short. --Elvey (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC) A bit later, Mike Godwin~ writes:

Oct 15 09:57:10 <mnemonic1> tgr, i think that formally free licenses aren't revocable, but as a practical matter we occasionally allow contributors to revoke their licenses, because it's easier to let them do it then to fight with them about it. we don't want to be in a position in which WMF is on ongoing conflict with contributors over stuff the contributors created.
I don't think he did answer the questions here. He wrote: "[W]ith regard to "Burning Man" -- the issue there properly is whether Wikimedia Foundation feels obligated to police photographs on Commons or elsewhere that were taken in violation of the Burning Man rules". And so I think his answer addresses a much narrower question than the one here. A 'violation of the Burning Man rules', as Mike puts it, is hardly the only justification presented here for a need to delete the images. For example, and I don't think anyone has brought this up before, under Nevada law, it is a crime to distribute an image of the private area of another person if there's a reasonable expectation of privacy. I think this suggests a WMF legal exposure issue Mike hasn't addressed and of which he may not be aware. Here's another cause for concern:
Multimedia WMAZ, Inc. v. Kubach, 443 S.E.2d 491, is a case where the publication of a compromising image that was already shared within a large community resulted in a finding of liability.
Because, as Mike Godwin says, "we don't want to be in a position in which WMF is on ongoing conflict with contributors over stuff the contributors create," we should be deleting some more of these photos. I'm thinking of asking Mike some pointed questions on his talk page.
If I am in the changing room of the W:Metropolitan Club and snap the photo of some nude senator, the situation is the same. Like the naked performer at Burning Man, the senator has an expectation based on shared societal norms that makes the photo illegal based on privacy rights.
In the bigger picture, not only is 'violation of the Burning Man rules' only part of the legal question, all legal questiosn are only part of the question at hand. Respecting our current policy is also part of the question. --Elvey (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ http://www.burningman.com/press/
  2. ↑ http://blog.burningman.com/?p=4599
  3. ↑ http://blackrockdesert.org/friends/maps/2009-burning-man-blm-land-closure
  4. ↑ http://www.burningman.com/preparation/blm_stipulations/blmstipulations.html
  5. ↑ http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/08/15/0328219/Burning-Man-Responds-To-EFFs-Criticism-of-Policy,
  6. ↑ http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/26/ctv.burning.man/
  7. ↑ http://afterburn.burningman.com/03/admin/legal.html
  8. ↑ http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/05/us/a-festival-with-nudity-sues-a-sex-web-site.html
  9. ↑ http://www.burningman.com/preparation/tip_sheets/
  10. ↑ http://www.brooklynrail.org/2003/12/books/sparks-in-nevada
  11. ↑ http://www.burningman.com/press/pressRandR.html
  12. ↑ Daniel Solove, The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet (Yale University Press 2007), pp 168 available at [1]
  13. ↑ http://bxiieq.wordpress.com/2007/03/07/451/
  14. ↑ Daniel Solove, The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet (Yale University Press 2007), pp 168 available at [2]
  15. ↑ http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/26/ctv.burning.man/
  16. ↑ Daniel Solove, The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet (Yale University Press 2007), pp 161,162,167,168

coreboot logo license

Hi, can somebody please fix File:Coreboot_logo.png for me? I copied the full license text (source) into the page, but it seems there should rather be some template for the license? But this is a custom license and I have no idea how to mark it as such. Please fix the page as needed, thanks! --Uwe Hermann (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like a free enough license. It asserts copyright then the only grants the right for anyone to use it to "refer to the coreboot project" and then it lists a few (non binding?)suggestions "we encourage ...", "Please...". If I can not use it for any other purpose than refering to their project it is not a free image. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Personality rights template

Is it supposed to add {{Personality rights}} to all living people photos (including famous people)? If yes, will it be acceptable to use a bot to add this template to a 'human-made' photo list (where mistake rate is very low)?--OsamaK 17:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never considered that spamming our images with templates to warn people about laws that may or may not apply to them and the particular image, is particularly useful. There are probably a near infinte number of ways that people can use various images to offend various local laws, I can't see that it is our responsibilty to research each one and tag our images as such. If such a warning is not needed on each image for copyright reasons, or in the country where the images are hosted, then I would say don't do it. It would be more appropriate to have such a disclaimer as part of a more general disclaimer on the front page, or somewhere prominent, that stated that there are all sorts of local laws that may be infringed by publishing any particular image (eg censorship laws, religous laws, nazi symbol laws ...). --Tony Wills (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I find it useful to add this template in certain circumstances. For example:
  • Request by the subject of the photo
  • Amateur photos of a professional model
  • Photo of a performance (though I don't usually do this with, for example, musicians)
  • Nude photos
Other than that, I generally assume that it's the re-user's job to be familiar with the law. - Jmabel ! talk 04:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
@Tony Wills, the important difference is, that the personality-rights tag is added to warn the re-user of potential problems in "regular" use of such an image, but also, may be naively and futile, to deter bad-meaning re-users of abusing such an image, e.g. for the purpose of defamation, smearing the subject, etc. As we offer such images and thereby enable others to abuse them, we have at least this responsibilty. --Túrelio (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Belgium and Freedom of panorama

Commons:Freedom of panorama says that Belgium does not have freedom of panorama. Would the building in this image File:HPIM1924.JPG be considered to be architecturally unique? If so, should it be moved to EN? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd call that one a strong maybe. Nominate it for deletion and we'll see what others think. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks pretty architecturally unique to me. Kaldari (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
As per the advice I nominated it - Hopefully it can be determined whether it remains on the Commons, or goes on EN. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Concern over collusion on voting

Members of this community may be interested in reading my post here. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories not adding

I've uploaded two files recently and filled out categories in the upload form, but when the image gets uploaded, the categories are not listed. I have to then go back, edit, and manually add the categories. Is this an overall problem or a "I'm using a stupid web browser and need to go switch up" problem? --Mukk 00:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You have to click on the OK button to tell the uploader yes, that's my category. You're not alone; I used to fail in that way frequently, but then learned to put in at least two categories per upload. That way at least one of them gets properly registered, almost always. Usually both (or all three or whatever). Jim.henderson (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed the same problem: I thougt I had added cats on the upload form, but something went wrong, and some time later a got a message to the effect I hadn't added cats. Lesson learnt: after I have uploaded a file, I go to the recent files-page, open the file, and check whether the cats are there. If not, add them manually. MartinD (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Known bug, was fixed recently. See Commons talk:Upload#Category-bug in upload form for what to do to get the fix. (If you don't do anything, your browser will get the fix automatically in at most 30 days.) Lupo 20:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The upload form is so complex that I'm unable to upload things via it anymore

I was trying to upload a new version of an image here on commons. I tried using the standard form and specified that I was uploading a derived work which sent me offsite to some Toolserver project. Since I knew the feature I wanted was available in the standard upload form I found that I could use that directly.

However when I tried to upload my image it whined that I didn't specify a license. My filename was equivalent to the existing file here on commons so I shouldn't have to, it's already there! Also the "Ignore any warnings" checkbox which I put into MediaWiki explicitly to avoid this sort of stupidity didn't work for the JavaScript code.

Eventually I was able to upload by using the basic upload form and a browser that doesn't support JavaScript (w3m). The software finally got out of my way and allowed me to upload a modified version of the image.

Please forward this to whoever's responsible for this new upload form. It's a pretty sad state of affairs when a MediaWiki programmer can't figure out how to do something as simple as replace an image on Commons due to artificial constraints that have been put into place. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please specify exactly which file and filename you used. Also, did you use the reupload link on that file, or did you to the normal upload form? Lupo 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The file he's referring to is File:McDonaldsWorldLocations.svg. Bjarmason, the documentation is available here: Commons:FAQ#How_can_I_upload_a_new_version_of_a_file.3F. There's a link to upload a newer version on the image page you want to replace. It won't ask for license or description fields. mahanga (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Images of users -- Imágenes de Usuarios

I'm sorry, my english is too bad. Quisiera saber si hay alguna política sobre utilizar este proyecto como album de fotos personales y/o familiares. He encontrado varios casos de muchas imágenes de un mismo usuario. Tengo un ejemplo con 7 retratos!! --LadyInGrey (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Commons is not to be used as a personal photo album. mahanga (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete picture / Bild löschen

Dear Wiki users,

I am kind of new to editing aricles on wikipedia and have a question on the deletion of pictures. Some weeks ago I set up my first English article ("Business Research") and also modified the German version of it. As I wanted to use its logo I uploaded it. Unfortunately, I knew I had to have the permission to use it but wasn't aware of the fact that also everyone has the right to use it. Hence, I have to delete it from Wiki Commons. Unfortunately2, I do not know where to find it and how to delete it.

Can anyone help? Thanks in advance, sina — Preceding unsigned comment added by SinaHenningsen (talk • contribs) 00:13, 28 oct 2009 (UTC)

It's not on Commons, but on the german Wikipedia, see here. I believe you have to ask there. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

October 28

Helen Anne Petrie

There are a number of new images by painter Helen Anne Petrie which may need attention. See Special:Contributions/REUTERS and Special:Contributions/Standardbanklondon. Both of these usernames may be misleading (is there a policy on this?) More interesting is this article in The Times saying that "All the website entries about Petrie, including one now removed from Wikipedia, can be traced to a Glenn Strutt, a South African in his late thirties." and "All the evidence, or rather lack of it, points to this being the early stages of ‘seeding’ a non-existent artist to build up a track record so, later on, works can be sold on the back of it." If that's the case, isn't this an abuse of Commons for self-promotion, which is not allowed according to COM:PS#Examples? Zaian (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Just delete the whole bunch. BTW, he tried to pull off that stunt already in May: Special:Logs/A.o.strutt. Lupo 15:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

I was browsing categories lately, and I noticed about 20 images under the "Ashley Taking a Shower 01.." series. This is in the "People in showers" category. The problem is, it looks more like spam, as it is 20 images of the same person. I really know that we like photos here, but this seems like overkill. Also, one user even uploaded all of them, making me suspicious that this might be a creation of theirs. Any suggestions on if the images should remain? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about File:Ashley Taking a Shower 01.jpg and friends. Yes, one user uploaded all of them from Flikr, though I see no reason to assume that there was any Flikrwashing going on here. Nor do I see any evidence that they're spam; there's no watermark or external link to anywhere but Flikr, nor commercial information on the Flikr links. They're not the most useful pictures in the world--you could make a case they're out of scope--but it's not an argument that I would feel like making.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)\
Yes, I am. I investigated further, and realized that the whole set was loaded on. I don't find them questionable, what bothers me is the amount of coverage of one girl doing one thing. This is the most of the same topic that I've ever seen on this site. I'm sure that there are others, but this is almost half the category. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It's probably excessive, but at the same time, it's difficult to pick which ones we'd keep because we don't know what our projects might want to use them for. Powers (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd support the deletion of similar-looking images. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • When looking for a picture to illustrate an article people want to have a choice. Looking over the tekst might be a reason to choose a picture. I don't see any harm in this pictures, as they differ sufficiently. Have a look on numberous portraits of famous people like film- or soapstars, that doesn't give extra value. I saw more items with a lot of files of the same object. e.g. Category:O.152 Aran. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It's very questionable whether these are within COM:PS, in my opinion. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I can imagine educational uses for them, such as illustrating an encyclopedia article on showering or bathing. Powers (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll agree with Stifle there. I can see why they might be used, but a thinning out of the files would have a benefit. Some of the images look sexual in nature, while others we could do without. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
A benefit how? A benefit to whom? It's expensive, man-power-wise, for us to thin out files, because it's a very subjective decision. I see little cost in any sense in leaving them there. In a decadent world, where the emphasis was on polishing the Commons to a perfect collection, thinning would be de rigueur; in our world, where the emphasis is on handling an ever-growing collection of mixed quality, there's no point.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I see your point there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Page gives error when trying to edit

File:New_Mexico_Locator_Map_with_US.PNG

If you try to edit this page (or upload a new version), it says "The requested URL could not be retrieved". Kaldari (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I just tried both and it's working for me. Maybe a temporary problem with one of the servers??? Rsberzerker (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I had the same recurring problem with some pages while others worked just fine. --Jarekt (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Using ImageAnnotator guideline

Hi, I created a new guideline (policy?) page for use of ImageAnnotator, based on Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator#How_to_add_informative_notes section. Please review and comment to ensure that it reflects "standards or behaviors which most editors agree with in principle and generally follow"1. --Jarekt (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Filenames not with Latin alphabet

Hi, I'm ru-wiki user and often see filenames with Russian cyrillic alphabet, sometimes with Chinese or Arabian. And usually I'm adding the requirement of renaming: because Russian encoding is not very comfortable - in some cases (for example if you are working outside Russia) the name of file is converting in things like D1%83%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB% or [][][][][] like if it was Chinese or Japanese filename. This is screen shot from my comp - almost all Russian letters are OK, exept some filenames. (If I'm adding it not in wiki-article but in my blog, the code is looking weird). What I think also - if somebody (from Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia) uploaded picture with filename in на кириллице, or some Jew with his אָלֶף-בֵּית עִבְרִי, or with Arabian أبجدية عربية - he is doing it only for people of his culture. If it is done with Latin - it became universal. This is why the names of categories here at commons we do in English. I think for pages-galleries native alphabet it is OK (like Иван IV - for tsar Ivan the Terrible), but nor for filenames. It's like file description - if info is only in minor alphabet you as Admin not always can understand who is author, is the lisence and source OK, etc. (using Google translate can be bored with many files) - and if English description is added - you can check. The English names are not required, but I think the Latin alphabet is. As I'm Russian for me it is nothing related to politics, only usability. So I suggest the recomendation to use Latin letters in filenames. --Shakko (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What about people not knowing the latin alphabet at all? Will they just start using random names? -- IANEZZ  (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a wiki. You do it as good as you can. If it is not right others can fix it. --MGA73 (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
How do redirects work here? If the filename is "אָלֶף-בֵּית עִבְרִ.jpg" could someone come along and add "something.jpg" as a redirect and BOTH names work to display images in the wikispace? That might be a workable solution, people who use non-latin filenames, someone who can translate can come along and add a latin equivalent alias to that file. Then again most modern operating systems (I'm using Vista at the moment) natively display those non-latin characters correctly... — raeky (talk | edits) 21:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an international project, non-latin script is just as valid as Latin script. We shouldn't add a preference of one script over another. Multichill (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It's an international project and Latin is far and away the most common script internationally, and the only one guaranteed to be supported by any computer. Personally, most scripts don't phase me, but the bidirectional algorithm can do things pretty unexpected when Hebrew and Arabic and any other RTL text ends up next to neutral punctuation and number; it can make it difficult for the naïve user to even cut and paste the text. I think Latin text should certainly be preferred over other scripts, as all of our users have at least basic familiarity with it, and it's the easiest to use cross-wiki and cross-user.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm.. An user having only a basic familiarity with the latin alphabet probably can't do anything meaningful with it, unless he also knows a language using the latin alphabet, or he knowns how to transliterate his own writing using the latin alphabet. That would furtherly restrict Commons' userbase, IMHO. Allowing uploaders to use their own alphabet in naming files let them upload the file with a meaningful name that can be translated (and categorized, at this point) later by someone else. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
For the people using our media, a Latin script filename is virtually always an advantage, with the exception of cases of purely local media being used by locals. I would expect that virtually all of our users could give a rough transliteration for a name, and the name is a lot less important than having a good description which, unlike the name, is easily multilingualized. In some cases, a completely random ASCII name would be more useful than an Arabic or Chinese name. It wouldn't be difficult to offer links to transliterators or have a local transliterator on site for most scripts besides the Chinese or Japanese, and most Chinese and Japanese learn a transliteration (Pinyin and Kunrei, respectively) in school. I'm not interested in a mandate, just suggested best practices.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, then I'm fine fine with strongly recommending it as a best practice (and I'm stupid for not having thought of online transliterators...). I just fear that making that mandatory, the next step would be furtherly restricting the set to ASCII (as in "can't use àèéìòùçßöüñ and so on in filenames"), and that would be unacceptable for me. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Transliterated text is not easy to read. There are many different standards of transliteration.
Some users transliterate Russian using German, but sometimes change or simplify that or make typos.
A person who does not know the language could guess what language a text is in and put the text into a translator (maybe not for Korean, had a bad experience with a short text written in Korean script) or ask the appropriate person. But if the text is transliterated, it may be worse for most people.
Some people who spoke no ASCII-compatible languages, having been forced to use an English description, were putting text in their native language into a translator and not providing the original on the file page ("to save time"). To understand the result, you need to, at least, understand both of the languages, and preferably have some experience with machine translation between them.
It is OK to recommend ASCII file names, but be careful not to confuse people into thinking it is prohibited to use anything but English, or that not providing English description and file name will inevitably get the file deleted.
IMHO, RTL is OK; worse is if there are combining or narrow characters which are easily missed during selection. Another difficulty is remembering or distinguishing file names. Neither the bug displayed at the screenshot cited (it should be fixed), nor the inability of some web browsers to copy-paste (if the browser is supposed to be internationalized, it will be) seems a problem serious enough to me.
--AVRS (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
If an image is only used on a local page I agree there is no reason to demand "English name". If some Japanese user do not speak English it is also not a good idea to demand that he/she tryes to translate. But lets say someone has uploaded a file with a Japanese name and someone would like to translate it to English. Is that ok? If the Japanese name is ok but nok brilliant would it then be ok to translate into English?
Commons is also a wiki and a wiki can be changed. Now that we can move images should we allow more renaming? Personally I can live with Japanese, Chinese etc. but when someone suggest a rename I'm lost since I can't read Japanese or Chinese. I can judge if new name is ok but not if old name was. That is not a problem if a lot of admins help to take care of file renaming. But there is not. So some renames are 6 months old. I would find it nice if we agreed that translating is not a must but it can be done in some cases if new name looks good. --MGA73 (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggested rename of some COA

It has been suggested to rename a lot of COA-images. Examples:

An other user strongly diasagree with this rename request and find the new name is even less understandable than the old ones or find that they are only cosmetic changes. Maybe there is some good reason for renaming, so I think it should be discussed before all the files are renamed (or not). --MGA73 (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Significant amount of work without any improvement. --Foroa (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 Oppose To me, suggested new names seem even less descriptive than the current ones, and still too generic (please note I'm not the cited "other user"). Unless they follow a specific naming scheme (I don't see any) to allow some special usage in a template, I really can't see the point behind this. At least in one case (File:StKp 1.LLDiv.jpg) it goes straight against the guideline/policy (.jpg to .png: filename extensions should match the file format, but that's probably just a mistake). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 Neutral There actually is a good reason behind the rename, so I'm going neutral on this. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 Oppose Those seem like worse names to me. Is there another reason behind the requests? If not, then the suggested names are far less descriptive than the old ones, which could be better but are at least decent -- I can figure out they pertain to German subjects at least, and wouldn't even know that if renamed that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The requested names are the official terms as used by the German Armed Forces, but however, there's always people that knows it better in each case - no matter what it would be. FORGET IT!!!! „End of statement“--Erwin Lindemann 07:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Just expand it to the full name, like 3rd Panzer Division. That is what the users are trying to say. Speaking of which, on a related subject, is Coat of Arms of Foo or Coat of arms of Bar more proper? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 SupportWell it's the official abbrevation of the German Army. Thus, all rename requests are strictly logical (mistakes happen) and help to show these files sorted in categories etc. First part of the name is the abbreviated name of that unit, the second part is the number. Both divided by <space> (like File:1.PzDiv.png --> File:1. PzDiv.png) Now, it's simply hard to find. E.g: looking for the coat of arms of TankBtn 123 is hard when it may be TankBtn 123.png or Panzer Btl 123.png or Panzerbataillon 123.png or PzBataillon 123.jpg or Tank bataillon 123.png or COA GE TankBtn123.jp, or, or, or. In addition it seems so unlogical to abbreviate just parts of the full name, like FeldjägerBtl 760.PNG.
That's why I porposed to rename all files in a consistent manner. Another alternative scheme I thought about was the offcial long name + COA, coming up with filenames like: COA Panzerlehrbataillon 93.png or COA Raktetenartillerielehrregiment.jpg or COA Luftlandefallschirmpanzerabwehrraktenbataillon 49.jpg or COA leichte Aufklärungs- und Verbindungsstaffel.png. Well, I've to admit that I like these wonderful miles-long prosaic german terms, but It didn't seem to be suitable for a short description that could be read just below the thumb in categories. Or is this maybe the way you prefer, longer names? If so, I'm reworking my requests. If it's too much work to rename all (cant't really judge) let it as it is, but please don't say it's somehow inconsistent, cause it is not and don't say you can't understand the proposed names cause their naming scheme should be understandable for those who really apply these names in articles. But as I said: you judge based on the arguments made... --TUBS 10:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
PS: If you like longer names better, I'd prefer the german name (opposing names like 3rd Panzer Division, see, Zscout's comment) cause, I can't relly tell what the English appropriate terms are, some units lack an english, american, etc. “sister” unit making it even more disputable...--TUBS 10:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
TUBS, it doesn't have to be in English, just wanted to get my point across. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 13:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
That was sort of my point -- you have to inherently know they are referring to Germany Army units before the names make any sense, but someone just looking at the names wouldn't know that. They only make sense with your current frame of reference. Using the long names is better (and yes, German names are fine). The other option would be to use a common prefix (whatever the corresponding phrase for "US Army" would be) to at least indicate they are relating to the Germany Armed Forces, at which point the abbreviations would at least make more sense. A filename like "ArtS" could mean almost anything once you expand the possible subject matter to everything else on earth. Longer names will also show up better for people searching for those names; you probably aren't going to get every uploader to follow the same naming pattern, so making them consistent now probably won't help for future uploads -- it is generally a better idea to properly categorize them, and have people find the categories via search. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If some can't find the images now, it's probably due to the fact that these aren't properly categorized or described (e.g. File:Ausbildungszentrum Heeresaufklärungstruppe.jpg). If one thinks that the abbreviation should be in the filename, one should at least bother to write a corresponding description. -- User:Docu at 10:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I think you made your points. I do truly understand your critical view on this issue. I still like to see a consistent naming scheme here, though. Can we then come up with a better, joint approach of how to name these files? Is it sound to name all files like: COA Bw Panzerbataillon 212.jpg, COA Bw Panzertruppenschule.png COA Bw Stabskompanie 1. Luftlandedivision.gif, COA Bw leichtes Transporthubschrauberregiment 27, COA Bw schweres Pipelinepionierlehrbataillon 120, COA Bw Gebirgs- und Winterkampfschule, COA Bw Gebirgsfernmelderegiment 901.png, etc. This eliminates all abbreviations in the units‘ names, but adding a prefix COA Bw as a hint that we deal with Coats of arms of Bundeswehr. The disadvantage - just to repeat myself- is perhaps the long filename, making it virtually impossible to see the units number in categories just below the thumb. Please refer to [[::Category:Coats of arms of the Panzertruppe (Heer of Bundeswehr)]] to understand waht I mean, where it is know kind of easy to find, let's say the unit with the number 291. Is it safe to assume that you like that better? I could change the rename request in that way, if you don't mind. I just want to add that there's much working coming up for the admins among you. I just want to warn you. I will extend my naming request to those file that were (to me) perfectly named like File:PzBtl 151.jpg (→COA Bw Panzerbataillon 151.jpg). Is there an admin willing to work through this? What do you think in general? --TUBS 17:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
If it is possible to find some names that would make (almost) everyone happy I don't mind the work. We just have to be sure that who ever needs the file will understand the naming convension. Maybe some additional info on the category page would be a good idea (Bw = Bundeswehr, etc.). --MGA73 (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh Lord, what a waste of time --Erwin Lindemann 06:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't give up. Just say what you think is best, second best and what you find not acceptable. --MGA73 (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I would „always“ prefer the name (abbreviations) given from the German Armed Forces Administration to the units for the daily use. (StKpPzGrenBrig 13 - the term Stabskompanie Panzergrenadierbrigade 13 you'll find normally only on buildings gates or in the letterhead of „very“ official letters!) It cannot be, that anyboy who is uploading a COA create his own arbitarily and maybe scary term. (I wish this could find an end - however) --Erwin Lindemann 13:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm currently working on Template:COA Bw which could bring at least some relief with the file description. Currently, it adds a autotranslated
coat of arms Internationale Ferspähschule (FeSpeS) of the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Germany). → Remarks on naming and categorization scheme
tag to the file description when inserted. I'm still in the progress of thinking it through. Maybe you have some input for me? --TUBS 11:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that this is a case where a gallery could be useful. Pruneautalk 11:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support If this template should work it needs to have some naming convention. If template is fixed and if some info is added on the category and maybe also a gallery I think that a rename would be ok. --MGA73 (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you please specify what you mean with "some naming convention". Do you talk 'bout an extra site explaining some abbrevations, asking for common scheme filenames based on these abbreviations, requesting to use german names, containing maybe also a table of how to translate the units' names into other languages? --TUBS 11:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that a table is put on the category page. That way others can see that St=Stabs, Kp=kompanie, Pz=Panzer etc. --MGA73 (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Luftwaffen-Kraftfahrzeug Transportumschlagstaffel
What's about the 200 or so files like this (LwKfzTrsp UmschlStff) ? --Erwin Lindemann 06:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
@MGA73. Check, will do my best. @Erwin: is that a made up tactical sign or did this really exist? It's scary how tiny and sweet german word becomes mutant snakes by merging them again and again. --TUBS 08:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the sign is a real one. --Erwin Lindemann 09:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming new search feature ? for categories

Bugzilla: 21276

This might allow to search for "holy grail" in all subcategories of Category:Media needing categories, e.g. Special:Search/"Holy Grail" incategory:"Media needing categories"*. Currently Special:Search/"Media" incategory:"Media needing categories" gives just 8 results. -- User:Docu at 20:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It is news to me that the qualification "incategory:" exists at all in searches. It is the sort of useful option that one might expect to be available under the advanced search function. What other options are available in searches? --Tony Wills (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There is "prefix:" that can be used for, e.g.

Namespaces could also be searched that way. Maybe there are some other options, but mw:Lucene doesn't have much info on this part. -- User:Docu at 16:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh documentation is such a wonderful thing, if only you can find it ;-). Notes extracted from the SVN OVERVIEW.txt (not exact quote, just selected bits) :
- stemmed words are boosted with 0.5, so that exact match is favored

- Titles are not stemmed, to even more favor exact matches and reduce
  overhead, as words from title usually appear in the article

- recognizes subset of QueryParser syntax: AND, OR keywords and
  +,-. Phrases enclosed in "". Supports wilcards with * in end.

- introduces namespace prefixes ''namespace:query'' to limit search to
  certain namespace: e.g. ''help:inserting pictures''. Note that
  ''help'' prefix is valid until the end of query of some other prefix
  definition: e.g. ''help:editing project:wikipedia'' will find all
  pages in help namespace containing ''editing'' and all pages in
  project namespace containing ''wikipedia''.
  
- searching categories. Syntax is: ''query incategory:"exact category
  name"''. Using logical operators, intersection, union and
  difference of categories can be searched. Exact category is
  needed (only case is not important)

So one can AND OR elements and "+" include "-" exclude elements including categories. So it can do lots of things the mayflower search did, but us mere users didn't need to know :-). I suppose someone will add those features to the so called "advanced" search panel one day.

The only problem is that categories included via templates aren't seen ... I'll be doing a bit of substing of categories I think. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I hadn't thought of that last point. At least we can still search for the template that adds them. BTW where did you get the overview.txt from? [32]? -- User:Docu at 17:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Here I guess --Foroa (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I think I found it here[33], all sorts of interesting bits in the code, but I'm not sure if they can be invoked from our interface. Eg there seems to be facility to do exact case matching in searches. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

October 27

When deleting duplicate files

I suggest that the admin(s) responsible for the deletion of one (or more) duplicate files should also include the name of the duplicate that remains in Commons in their deletion summary. It makes a whole lot more easier to find an accurate replacement, especially true with the icons and such stuff. --Tve4 (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Admins must always include the duplicate file in the deletion summary. Multichill (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW, if it's some tool that adds the edit summary "Dupe of ", could it be changed to the more explicit "Exact or scaled-down duplicate"? -- User:Docu at 17:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Another thing that ought to be done is to merge info (eg description, categorization) of the two instances otherwise deleting the duplicate actually takes us backwards (we loose people maintenance work and loose information and gain not a byte of space). --Tony Wills (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Category help

I was poking around in the Category:Water in art and I noticed that there are three circular subcategories. Category:Seas in art and Category:Seascape in art are both subcategories of Water in art. Nothing wrong there, but both are also subcategories of each other. In addition, Category:Oceans in art is a subcategory of Water in art AND Seascape in art. What is the best way to re-categorize these three categories to eliminate the circular references? Also, shouldn't Seascape in art really be Seascapes in art? Rsberzerker (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes a muddle. As far as I could see all the files in "Oceans in art" should be elsewhere (eg Seas in art) no one seems to differenciate between painting a picture of an ocean or a sea. Following the way landscapes are organised, I have reordered things (no doubt mucked up something), including moving most images from "Seascape in art" to the subcat "Paintings of seascapes" ("Seascape in art" may also contain etchings, sketches etc - this is the structure of the landscape cats). So I have left Category:Oceans in art redirected to Category:Seas in art and the structure is Category:Water in art <- Category:Seas in art <- Category:Seascape in artCategory:Seascapes in art <- Category:Paintings of seascapes. Yes, I think it should be seascapes, but there is a bunch of other singular seascape categories (eg by country), that would also need renaming. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
That was a quick followup renaming of categories ! Now the question is, was that whole exercise the right thing to do? (This is usually the point where someone points out the obvious logic of the previous organization ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Added duplicates of image by accident - where do I place the Speedy Deletion tag?

I have uploaded a new version of a guitar chord diagram where I removed the text to allow any user to use his native language to name the chord. The problem is that now there are three versions of the file on the same page. Two are incorrect in that they have the original chord text. Where do I place the Speedy Deletion tag? The one I want to keep is the image without the text. Here's the link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A7_chord_for_guitar_(7th_on_high_E).png

Thanks --Sluffs (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem. When someone uses this image in an article, the latest version shall be shown. Usually we don't delete old versions unless there is some good reason. Sv1xv (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I was uploading the images repeatedly because the thumbnail didn't change or the original image was still appearing on the Wikibook about the Guitar that I'm working on. I thought it was either a buggy upload form or I needed to empty my browser cache. Then I spotted the purge tab on the Commons image page and clicking that seemed to work. Just thought I'd mention it in case anyone else has the same thing happening. --Sluffs (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

October 29

Add a Note makes Internet Explorer sluggish?

Since a couple of days, Commons image pages are very slugggish in Internet Explorer. I suspect the "Add a Note" feature. Anyone? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Which version of IE are you using? mahanga (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Version 8. (well, 8.0.6001.18828 to be precise) Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Possibly. Recent update may cause this. Am investigating, but so far I am unable to reproduce this. One other user has reported a similar problem on IE8 (sluggishness when scrolling while mouse pointer is on image). To better track this down, I'll need answers to a couple of questions. Feel free to answer here, or at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js, or by e-mailing me.
  • Does the problem persist after refreshing the browser's cache?
  • Does the problem persist after the following procedure?
    1. Go to some page X without images, e.g. my user page.
    2. Then manually clear the browser cache. (In IE8 under "Tools→Internet options", "Browsing history", the "Delete..." button; make sure only "Temporary internet files" is selected in the dialog that appears.)
    3. Then (still on page X) refresh the browser's cache.
    4. Then go visit a file page.
  • What exact browser version are you using? ("Help→About Internet explorer", the full version number, like 8.0.6001.18702 (which is what I have, no problems there) or 8.0.6001.18828, or...)
  • What operating system are you using? (Mine is Win XP/SP3, no problem there)
  • What skin and interface language settings do you use?
  • Which other gadgets have you enabled?
  • Does it occur on all image pages, or only on specific ones?
I am looking into it, but so far I have no clue yet what might be causing it (given that I cannot reproduce it at all). Works perfectly fine in all browsers for me, also from my non-admin test account User:Lupo Test. If anyone who has this problem and knows how to use the IE8 debugger finds anything, I'd really appreciate any leads. Lupo 13:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: I am currently downloading the Vista/IE8 Internet Explorer Application Compatibility VPC Image; if I can launch that on my XP machine, I'll test this on IE/Vista to see if that might have something to do with this problem. Lupo 13:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I followed your procedure to empty the cache, and I must say, it solved the problem. Do you still need the details of my system? Thanks anyway. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I followed your procedure to empty the cache, and I must say, it solved the problem, but only untill I try to add a note. I will collect the info you want, and send it to you. Regards Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Allright. I got the Vista Virtual PC files and managed to run them. Turns out it's a Vista SP1 with a 6001.18702 IE8. After installing KB971961 and KB972260, IE8 now shows version 6001.18813. Still no problem that I can see (though that whole VM is a bit slow. Running Vista inside a virtual machine on an old XP machine with 1.5Gb RAM is not exactly an nice experience). I'm now downloading SP2, let's see if installing that on that virtual PC gives me a 6001.18828 IE. If not, does anyone know what to install to get an IE8 with version number 8.0.6001.18828? Lupo 17:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Chances are that it is bug in the Add a Note software, because it only started to occur yesterday or the day before yesterday. I can give you some more information. I was trying to add a note to File:Willem_Blaeu_-_Tabula_Magellanica_1635.jpg, and I could not. Then I used Google Chrome and could add the note without any problem. But then when I tried to add a second note with IE, it worked fine. So it seems to be some sort of initialisation problem. Adding the first note with IE to this file is problematic, the second works oke. Maybe you can try with this specific image. Ciao. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Could this actually be a feature to reduce spam and test edits by kids who are probably trying to add image notes using the default browser that comes with the machine ... on the assumption that serious users use a serious browser (and operating system) ;-) ;-) ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that onMouseMove events are being added to the image at an exponential rate... the script checks if the browser is IE and adds an onMouseMove call to check_hide(), which when fired calls show(), which adds another onMouseMove call to check_hide() on top of the first one, so when the mouse is next moved both events add more onMouseMove events... I think you can see where this is going. :p Hence the debilitating slowdowns.

The culprit is probably the block of code that starts at line 1267 of ImageAnnotator, marked in true Murphy's Law fashion as "// Actually should never occur." Fran Rogers (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I can confirm that if you delete lines 1267 through 1272 (the entire else block) of ImageAnnotator, it works flawlessly, no slowdowns. Fran Rogers (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Indeed I had traced it down to that code block before seeing your analysis, but I hadn't determined yet why that event occurred at all. It really shouldn't. But that unwanted recursion explains it. The real problem was a missing check in show to add that move handler only if it wasn't already added. Anyway, here's the fix.
✓ Done People using IE and experiencing extreme sluggishness should reload their browser's cache. If that doesn't help yet (IE sometimes has problems properly reloading its cache), try the procedure I've outlined above. If that still doesn't help, please report a bug (here, or at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js, or on my talk page.) Lupo 09:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Works like a breeze, thanks. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Category discussion concerning interfaces between latin Taxonomy and common category trees

People interested in global categorisation problems might be interested by the discussion in Commons_talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Interfaces between TOL taxonomy and "common" category trees. --Foroa (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Need help...

How do I download an image for inclusion into an e-mail? I would like to download two images of "purslane" to illistrate Wikipedia's article to e-mail friends. Yours truely: Ignorant. Shir-El too (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Click on the image, it will take you to a full size one (if it's not full-size already). Right click, save as, then attach them to an email. Or just send your friends the links. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Wintry symphony.JPG

My uploaded oil painting called "wintry symphony" has indeed never been exposed elsewhere.--LINKELS Josy(talk) 22:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

But, then why did you include "This painting has been published somewhere else." when uploading the image? --Túrelio (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
If you don't like the image description a) you appear to have written it and b) there's a handy edit tab at the top of the page where you can change it. By the way, nice work, we appreciate it when artists contribute original work under a free license. Thanks. -Nard the Bard 15:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

October 30

Confusing file histories

en:File:CannabisLeaf.jpg and local File:Feuille de Cannabis.jpg are identical images uploaded by different users, but each uploader claims to be the creator of that image. The en: image was uploaded more than two years before the Commons image, so if one were taken from the other, Commons was taken from en:; but I'm concerned that perhaps both are taken from a third source. How should we resolve this? Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Tineye finds other sources as well. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
My first reaction was to speedy both images, but that probably isn't productive. Stifle (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be problematic, since they're used on A LOT of pages, most likely a template. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

How do I fix the category?

On this Category:Category: Eumunida, the word "Category" is repeated, which puts it in a new category "Category:Category". Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done --Túrelio (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

PORN CONTENT

Is this permissible and if so why?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia

Yes, because Commons isn't censored. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

October 31

Category merge

Could someone please merge these two categories? Category:Created with Persistence of Vision, Category:Povray. Thanks. SharkD (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

November 1
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009/10&oldid=285891916"