Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Help desk/Archive/2009/12

< Commons:Help desk‎ | Archive
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Some problem on this SVG file

There is a ploblem on this SVG file that the image show between wikimedia commoms and wikipedia are different.

月下凉风 (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Which language Wikipedia? On the English Wikipedia, the Commons file appears:
--Teratornis (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question

Here User:Richardprins asked a question regarding the status of several of his uploads. Unfortunately no one saw it because it's in the deletion template and there's no subpages, but I don't think it's a straight speedy request, either. I didn't think the location of the uploader mattered but I'm not sure about the author's... -- Mentifisto 06:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


Per the conversation here, a series of images were uploaded to Flickr wityh the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0. Unfortunately, the uploader over there did not have the permission to do so. I failed to realize that and uploaded them here. Another editor just caught it and some for them for deletion. I agree and tagged the rest. Would it be appropriate to redo all of the deletion requests with the speedy delete per copyright violation request or will it be removed pretty swiftly? I suck.Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone made a mention at one of the deletion discussions. Good reminder to be more careful in the future. :( Cptnono (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
It is not your fault, my suggestion is to add the user to Commons:Questionable Flickr images and arrange the images for speedy deletion. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
You don't suck, copyright sucks. --Teratornis (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with mass deletion request

(This query also posted at Commons talk:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request#Help, please)

Hi. I tried following the example Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request#Example in laying out a mass deletion request. What is the "il" where you (or I, anyway) would expect to have "File" or "Image"? And why the transcluding brackets {{ }} rather than the square ones [[ ]] ?. When I tried to use the example format it produced redlinks for the files, which surely isn't very useful? Eventually I made up a list using the following styling: * [[:File:Fale - Capo Mimosa - 310709 - 41.jpg]], which gave me clickable links that I could then use during the next stage of adding the deletion request to each individual image page. Where did I go wrong? SiGarb (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The {{il|filename}} creates formated imagelists with usefull links, see Template:Il. The "I" is a remaining of the file namespace previously called the image namespace. Of course use {{il|Fale - Capo Mimosa - 310709 - 41.jpg}} without the File: namespace prefix. However, the template is not necessarily required. Admins can use the Gadget delreqhandler that gives a "delete" and a "keep" behind every file listed on a deletion request subpage, all other links are not so usefull or I personally never used them. Using delreqhandler I have a small del/keep link behind every image listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Some images by Fale and I can keep the image (remove the deletion tag and mark the file as kept on its discussion page) or delete it with only one click. So create your list with *[[:File:...]], I do it the same way. You only mistake was, I guess, to use the {{il}} with an extra File: prefix. --Martin H. (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I tried both, and both gave redlinks, but I may be wrong. Anyway, thanks for your reassurance. If my current method works OK I think I'll stick to that! SiGarb (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Establishing a new category etc

I am a relatively new user mostly interested in architecture and I want to share some of my more unusual older pictures with the Commons community. I am not really familiar with the technical side of things though and I'm slightly frustrated when I get only BOT mail after committing a mistake.

My most urgent problem is a simple one: I want to establish a new category, i.e. Kromsdorf. This is a little village in the Landkreis (County) of Weimar, Germany, featuring an interesting renaissance castle and a wall with a lot of portrait busts mostly done in a mannerist style. I am not sure whether I should integrate it into the Weimar category, but I could easily upload 10 of the portrait busts alone.

I am usually uploading pictures that I want to use immediately in German Wikipedia and I would be grateful to find a kind of mentor who would help me not to commit too many mistakes.

Robert Schediwy (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This Kromsdorf? There is a Category:Municipalities in Thuringia already, with many subcategories, but no Category:Kromsdorf yet. Do you know how to create it? Also, if you are taking pictures of sculptures, how old are they? See Commons:Image casebook#3D art (sculptures etc.). --Teratornis (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not know how to create it. The statues in Kromsorf are about 300 yers old, so no problem. The statues in Mussolini's Foro Italico are part of Rome's architectural cityscape, so I see no problem there either. Robert Schediwy (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Take the other subcategories of Category:Landkreis Weimarer Land as examples, just create Category:Kromsdorf with adding [[Category:Landkreis Weimarer Land]] and maybe a description and some interwikis to it. Add images to the category with [[Category:Kromsorf]] on the image description. Creating a category is exactly like creating an article or any other page on a wiki. --Martin H. (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I created the Category:Kromsdorf page in case it was confusing to Robert Schediwy. To learn more about categories, read the pages linked from COM:EIC#Cat. The pictures in the category look nice. I don't speak German, but I copied the first sentence from de:Kromsdorf for the category description in German. Will a German speaker please check that to make sure I did not do something ridiculous. It looked reasonable in Google translate. --Teratornis (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How to document permission from the copyright holder

I have a page scheduled for deletion, but it contains an image and copy that I have been given permission by the copyright holder to post. How can I amend my page to reflect this?Annewisconsin (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

COM:OTRS. --Teratornis (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete upload?

Is there any way to delete your uploads? First I tried to replace one file with another, but then I noticed that the license of the new file was different... Then I decided to make a new upload, with the correct license... but now I would like to delete the first file... Can I do that?

Here is the adress for both uploads 1) 2)

Thanks for help


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carulmare (talk • contribs) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
See COM:D. You can link more cleanly like this:
Also, you might put some Babel boxes on your user page. --Teratornis (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes... but what about my question? The real problem is perhaps that I can't find a way to document that the new file, the new version of the picture, has a different license than the old one. How would you express that... and where? When I did the upload, using the form for replacing one version of a picture by one with better quality, I never saw the option to do that. So I came to the conclusion that I really should have made a new upload... (which I also did). Is that the right conclusion?

Please try to understand this. If I explain badly, because I'm new to these things, ask me some questions and I'll try to be more precise. I have read the standard texts about uploading, but I don't seem to be able to find the answer to this problem. --carulmare (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The first part of my answer was: see COM:D. Is there something you did not understand when you read that page? The page describes how to delete an image which is a duplicate or redundant. --Teratornis (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that was the very last thing I noticed, only after having returned to your message several times. To a newbie that little peace of information looks like something you just don't have to care about, some strange and meaningless combination of letters... Please take this the right way, as a suggestion on how to make Wikimedia Commons more user-friendly. I, for example, have wanted to contribute to Wikimedia Commons for years... but two things have stopped me. One is the strangeness of the interface, but that is really a minor thing. I can learn. What is much worse is that there is no way to immediately regret what you have done and make a new try. There is no Undo button. I think that there should be a few hours... perhaps a day... before your upload really goes into the data base... or at least such an option for newcomers.

Now to the things I would like to know about this special upload. 1)Was I right to conclude that this is a case for speedy deletion? (No, I don't really care about that. I would like to clean up this mess, no matter the rules. :-)) 2)When is this deletion going to happen... will I be notified when it is done? 3)Was I right to conclude that you can not replace one version of a picture with another, if the license is different?

Thank you for your time. Please be patient, because I think I'm addressing things that may be very important. I'm pretty sure many people that are new to Wikimedia Commons are experiencing the same difficulties that I do. And in your introduction letter you do state that you want feedback on what is important to know for newcomers. carulmare (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I not reviewed you contributions, but try to answer: I agree with you, an uploader should have the chance to rename or delete an image, both admin rights, seven days after upload, thats my proposal too. You questions: You replaced File:Lajos Gulácsy (1882-1932) Magic Varázslat (1906-1907).jpg with a different version and decided to undo this.
    • 1) No need for speedy deletion, you reverted yourself sucessfully and the image is the same as it was befor.
    • 2) You will not get a notification if something is deleted you nominated for deletion yourself. But like every other edit on the image also the deletion will appear of course on your watchlist if you watch the image.
    • 3) You better not replace the image with something different. You can of course replace it with an edited/improved/corrected version derivative of the original. However, in this case the license GFDL of File:Lajos Gulácsy (1882-1932) Magic Varázslat (1906-1907).jpg is incorrect. The painting was not created by the uploader but by Gulácsy Lajos, died 1932. So the painting is {{pd-old}}. Also the photograph was not created by the uploader but taken from a website, the photographic work is a slavish reproduction of the public domain painting and therefore also pd according to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. So the correct license is {{PD-old}} and you can ignore the license if editing or overwriting the image. However, besides this you can overwrite the image with your version, but it is a good idea to upload it under a different name because it is very different in collor. Commons is better with both versions :) --Martin H. (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with me about the 'undo thing', Martin. And it is a good idea! Only imagine how it would effect the probably very tiring work of answering the same question again and again from every new contributor. Then you could learn by doing things, you could correct yourself, be your own teacher. Now a very small mistake becomes the interest of a lot of people... and that is a very scaring thing to most people. I guess most people prefer to just forget about their mistakes, rather than to draw more attention to them by asking questions. I, on the other hand, is a librarian by profession... a rather orderly kind of human being. :-)

Being that, I have (at least) one more question. The Pataki Márta upload is now in the Public Domain... but my upload is not. When a visitor comes to this page, he or she must draw the conclusion that also my upload is in the Public Domain. Perhaps it should be, I have read the Wikimedia Commons statement about originality, but I chose, careful as I am, to go with the Flickr license, which demands a contribution to the Flickr member. I wonder... should, and could, I add something about that? If I try, it seems to change the information about the main picture, Pataki Márta upload, not about my upload...

Also I'm gathering that it is better to make a new upload, when a picture is a little different, for example in color... or license? I think I had an opportunity, during the upload, to write some license information in the commentary field, but that was perhaps a one-time chance...?

Thank you very much for your detailed answer. I'm really trying to learn the ABC in this context. --carulmare (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll delete the image from the version history to follow your wish to attribute the flickr uploader. Yes, it is not possible to edit the comment listed in the File history, that entry is similar to the upload log of that file and as a log that is intentionally not changeable (except by the few WMF server admins but they wouldnt do it). The attribution to the flickr user is a courtesy, it is not required to attribute the author or to follow the Creative Commons license, the image is public domain (Notice that the flickr user also only scanned it from a book but not cited the book. A good sourcing would be to cite the book too). Of course Commons allows users to add their names as photographers, so adding the name is a good idea not to scare people offering good scans of public domain art or scare them not to license other works, maybe photographs they created, freely. --Martin H. (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the help - and yes, let's be courteous! :-) --carulmare (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Some undo features on uploading might help a few users, but on the Help desk we have many other kinds of repetitive questions. Adding more features to Commons has the side effect of making Commons harder to learn - more features mean more complexity, making it harder for a new user to notice the particular things he or she needs. See how my initial answer was confusing because I gave more information than was directly needed after "See COM:D." I don't think Commons can ever be made easy for everyone; see User:Teratornis/Why is Commons so complicated? (Note: I disagree with the {{Welcome}} template which says: "This is a wiki—it is really easy." Depending on what a user may want to do, Commons may be far from easy. Many things here are not easy for me. You have to be a lawyer to figure out some of the copyright issues for example.)
  • Something that might help: having a completely separate "sandbox" wiki, where new users can practice every aspect of editing on a wiki, including uploading images, without worries about leaving a big mess. For example, it would be useful to have standard tutorials for many different aspects of uploading, license selection, categorization, etc., in which we provide the images for users to practice uploading and walk them through the same exact steps, just as students in school work the same homework problems. The problem with practicing on the real Commons is that everything we do has to be new in some way - it can never be an exact repeat of something that is already here.
However, the simple fact is that wikis are built by experienced wiki users, and experienced users care more about their own needs (for more features and thus more complexity, usually) rather than training the new users. There's no getting around the need to read lots of manuals and take careful notes when learning a do it yourself system like Wikimedia Commons. Most things that are this complicated require classroom training, but there is no school we can attend to learn how to use Commons. So far. --Teratornis (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, Teratornis, and for the information. To the former I would like to say that wikis are not built by experienced users, but of users that gradually have become more experienced. That is probably going to happen to me, too! :-) But even then it is very likely that this kind of mistake is going to happen again and again. I do mistakes even though I know how to do things correctly. Things just happens. So I know what is wrong, but still I have to come here and try to explain how I think, I have to take time - and give time, time that both parts could have used in a better way... It is true that people ask about a lot of things, ask for information that they could have found somewhere else, but the 'deletion questions' are different. In those cases people have to ask for help, because there are no way that they can correct the problem themselves. Please think of this. If this is a trouble for you, it is the same for me... plus a rather humiliating experience. Don't you agree? --carulmare (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Betty Bangs.jpg

  Resolved – ukexpat (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Would someone more knowledgeable than I am please take a look at this one. The restrictions stated in the copyright release appear to be incompatible with COM:L. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

im going to delete that - again. See the log. Surprisingly the source now changed to a more correct source after it was first sourced to a blog... Seems like TinEye gives some evidence about the copyright holder, however, the selected licensing "provided that Online Materials are presented solely for the purpose of Entertaining users of this site in the United States and its territories, and for promoting programs, films, and other products." is not in COM:PS#required licensing terms. --Martin H. (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I knew it looked iffy. – ukexpat (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"Missing permission" reports

If you check my contributions you will see that I have tagged quite a few images as missing permission or possible copvios, one dating back to late October. Is there something else I need to do, or will those images be reviewed in due course? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion policy not familiar with it but it does say to list them somewhere ~ R.T.G 21:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Upload failure with 0GV movie : timeout after 10 minutes

I have tried 5 times unsuccessfully to upload a 18 meg .ogv movie clip, using the Commons upload page. I have a broadband cable connection. It uploads OK for 10 minutes then the upload is disconnected and the browser displays a blank page. This happens with Firefox, IE, Opera browsers. I have successfully uploaded other .ogv movie clips, but they are a bit smaller. Is there a timeout after 10 minutes ? My internet connection is capable of highspeed uploads but the maximum upload speed to Wiki Commons is 45 kilobytes/second and the average appears to be about half that i.e. 22 kbps. At that speed the upload should take about 14 minutes - yet it always times out after 10 minutes. ??? Rcbutcher (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you upload the video to Flickr? Maybe you can upload it there, and then use the Flickr to Commons bot to copy it to Commons (I have no idea whether it works on videos). Or someone else could download it from Flickr and upload it for you. Another option would be to reduce the resolution to shrink the file size. You could ask on Commons talk:Video; maybe someone there has an idea. --Teratornis (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

why not correctly reviewed  ?

please, can anyone tell why it's not correctly reviewed - and can anyone fix the reviewe proces,_soaked_in_the_mud_for_a_while.jpg

Reviewed --Justass (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

creating a bio page

Hello, my husband is a musician and I'd like to set up a profile page for him. How do I do that?

Thank you,

Kymberly Stewart

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 17:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
This is Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free content media files. We don't do biography articles here. However, if you have some freely licensed pictures of someone notable, you can upload them to Commons and create a gallery page for them. See Category:Musicians for examples of musician photos. You should probably not try to create an article about your husband on the English Wikipedia, because you would violate the conflict of interest guideline. But if you want to try anyway, read WP:YFA and WP:BAND first. Anyone can create a biography page about anyone on Wikipopuli or WikiBios. There are also several music-related wikis listed on WikiIndex that you might be able to use. --Teratornis (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Homemade Atlas

Hello. I've put up an educational website with thematic world maps and I want to upload it all to Wikimedia Commons. Is it OK to do that? And what should I do with the watermark? Ionut Cojocaru (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons is a repository of free content media files. Who created the maps you want to upload? What did they/you use as the base map(s)? The base maps must be freely licensed or in the public domain. If the base maps are not free, then neither are maps you draw on top of them (see: COM:DERIV). If your maps are free, then read Commons:WikiProject Atlas and consider joining it. Also read everything linked from COM:EIC#Maps. You probably need to communicate with some Commons users who specialize in maps, as the Help desk volunteers may not. See Commons:Talk page guidelines if you are unfamiliar with how we communicate. As for the watermarks, see Commons:Watermarks for our proposed guideline. I'd guess it would be best to remove your watermarks before uploading, and instead put links in the image descriptions on Commons that point back to your Web site originals. If you are new to Commons, read everything linked from the {{Welcome}} template on your user talk page. That will take a while because Commons is not simple. --Teratornis (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


I notice that a lot of files on Commons note that the file is public domain but have no information on who was the original creator, where to find the original etc.

I looked but could not find any policy page on "Attribution".

  1. What is the Commons policy on attribution?
  2. As Attribution is one of the basic requirements of the CC BY SA licence should we be doing more to encourage uploaders to give us any info they have?

Filceolaire (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Where did you look for policy pages? Be sure to check the Editor's index if you have not already. Can you give us a link to one of the images you refer to? See COM:REUSE and COM:L which should sort of address your question. However, there could be media files on Commons with various chunks of essential information missing, as we have a lot of users who upload files without reading the friendly manuals (Commons:First steps, etc.). --Teratornis (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Commons hosts a large amount of pd files, and yes, Commons hosts a large amount of pd files without good references to author and source. We do anything to encourage people to add correct, full and comprehensible source information to their uploads, a pd file also needs full source information to provide evidence that the file is public domain and (as images are included in articles) as a reference required by academic standards. However, people using Commons as a dump. They write beautiful articles with good sources and much efforts on research in Wikipedia but they upload images to Commons with incomplete or miserable sources and references. Thats the problem Commons suffers from, there are simply not enough active people working here to reference all the mess. --Martin H. (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, if something is in the public domain, it does not need attribution. The copyright has either been fully released or expired. So CC-BY requirements do not apply to public domain images. -Andrew c (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
See also Commons:Credit line. --Jarekt (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Covenanter Monument to John Hunter Devil's Beef Tub

Can anyone explain why the image File:Covenanter Monument to John Hunter Devil's Beef Tub.JPG will not work on the w:Moffat Hills page on Wiki? Scothill (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

  Fixed You had a typo in the file name ("jpg" instead of "JPG"). Filenames are case sensitive. --Jarekt (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how it managed to get upper case. Thanks Scothill (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary screenshot

I'd like to upload a screenshot from a de.wiktionary page for use on my userpage. Problem is, the logo is in it, and it is copyrighted. Will it be speedied, or is that a non-issue, i. e. "as long as nobody specifically objects"? Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all, just mark screenshot with {{Wiktionary-screenshot}} tag, it will place license tags in it, and will add to Category:Wiktionary screenshots --Justass (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Paradoctor (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to recategorize a batch of images?

I just recently upload ~300 images with the Commonist (gallery) that went to Category:Rhodes (city); today I discovered that (due to improper category structure, which I fixed) there is a better subcategory for 99% of them - Category:Medieval city of Rhodes. Please tell me there is some easy way to recategorize those images other than manually editing those ~300 pages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

We have COM:AWB. There is also a gadget called Cat-a-lot but that's pretty slow too. Or we have a few good bot creators. Docu (talk · contribs) and Multichill (talk · contribs) come to mind. Docu already has a category mover so maybe he could temporarily adapt it to get only yours. Wknight94 talk 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
   Done I moved all the ones listed at gallery. -- User:Docu at 06:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll go back and change a few that were correctly categorized (just a few, you saved me a ton of work - thanks again!). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsure about licensing (new)

I would just like to add to discussion on the anticoagulant drug Dabigatran and cite a NEJM article from today.

William H. Davis, MD

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilbobone (talk • contribs) 04:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not clear what page you want to edit. A search of Commons shows two images which have the drug name in their titles:
Do you want to change something in either of those images? If you want to add a reference to the Dabigatran article on the English Wikipedia, see WP:CITE, WP:CITET, and WP:FOOT for instructions. If you don't have time to read all the instructions, you can type a suggestion for the article on its talk page (Talk:Dabigatran) and wait for another editor to incorporate the information in the article. --Teratornis (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

DSLR vs Easycam

Hi, I don't know if you mind general questions but probably the folk here know a lot about photgraphy. Obviously a DSLR is easier to hold steady than a 3inch Easycam. It takes monster lenses and tripods, will usually have superior gadgetry, perfect preview, etc. etc. Apart from that though, if you hold it steady enough, is the actually photo capture electronics on a 10 MP Easycam going to be the same quality as a 10 MP DSLR? ~ R.T.G 22:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea, but your question showed me there was no "Photography" entry in the Editor's index to Commons, so I am adding one now. Maybe I will find a link that could lead you to someone who can answer your question, if you don't get an answer here. Note that sometimes a given camera model can have different names in different parts of the world, so to make your question understandable to the most people who could help, you should link the camera names to Wikipedia articles or other Web pages that define them. For example there is a Digital single-lens reflex camera article on the English Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, they don't really cover the quality of electronics on the wiki. It's confusing with point and shoot because even 5MP cameras might be more expensive than 12MP from good the big names with similar features. ~ R.T.G 00:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Personal pages of some Wiki-photo-editors discuss our hardware, which in my case is an upper middle priced compact en:point-and-shoot camera. Any DSLR is too monstrous for my drive-by shooting style. People who get halfway serious about this or other hobbies develop similar quirks of taste that limit the benefit of imitating us. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
My understanding (which admittedly is mainly based on second-hand information) is that if you take a modern mid-to-high-end compact digital camera and compare it with a similarly priced dSLR + a good general-purpose zoom lens, the results are likely to be pretty much the same. Of course, the big difference is that with the dSLR, you can take off that general purpose lens and replace it with, say, a wide-aperture prime lens for low-light shots, a fisheye lens for panoramas, a big tele lens for long distance action shots, a telemacro lens for snapping photos of flying insects, a tilt-shift lens for weird perspective tricks or whatnot. But the general-purpose lens will go pretty far, and if you're not interested in the kinds of photography that would require specialized lenses (or find secondary lenses sufficient for them), then the compact camera will do just fine.
Anyway, megapixel counting hasn't really been a very useful measure of digital camera quality for many years now. What matter more are the optics, the software and the signal-to-noise ratio of the sensor (which tends to increase with physical sensor size, and can actually suffer if one tries to cram too many pixels into a limited area). To put it simply, there's little point in having a sensor with a bazillion pixels if the optical resolution of the lens in front of it is lower than the pixel resolution of the sensor. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Megapixel count never mattered for me, but it depends on the purpose. I only take pix for Web, not for prints, and only on the road, not in a studio, and usually in daylight, so sharper optics and more megapixels and odd lenses make little difference. Signal to noise sometimes makes a difference. Ruggedness, lightness, quickness, and a working geotagger are what suit a camera for my methods. Longer zoom and higher SNR will probably persuade me to buy a new camera, but not next year. Other purposes may entail more reason to hurry and spend.

It's like Yogi Berra said, 90% of this game is mental. The other half is physical. I produce bad pictures because of a small mind, not a small camera. Occasionally my mind is powerful enough to propel the hardware properly. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it just lets me know that it is down to optics and software, the general quality, rather than the SLR component itself so thanks for explaining. I just didn't find a comparison that made it clear like that on Wikipedia or elswhere, thanks. ~ R.T.G 21:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice if I made something clear, but my own view is more extreme. Optics and software are nearly as unimportant as megapixels. Amateur work is spoiled by bad workers, not by bad tools. $90 cameras that fit in the palm of a hand already have marvelous optics, sensors, software and electronics. The main thing they don't supply is a photographic mind.

This summer I borrowed a good photographer's ten times bigger, ten times heavier, ten times more expensive DSLR with many more buttons and dials and manual zoom and other dandy features. It made a couple good pictures, several mediocre ones, and scads of crummy ones, same as the cheap little camera. That's because I only borrowed my friend's stuff, not his mind except for a few minutes of explanation. If you're as ignorant as me, buy cheap. After making and studying a few thousand shots with the cheap camera teaches you to take good pictures, you might get even better ones with a fancy kind. But if you don't yet have the understanding you need to power the camera, don't waste your money. Learn cheap. Jim.henderson (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Another option might be to take a photography class, or read some photography books from the library. Maybe there are instructions on the Interwebs even. I don't know because I don't even have a camera yet. Yes, I'm lame. I just upload images from Flickr and other sources to Commons. The easiest way to take a picture is to take a picture from someone else. But at least now I know when I'm ready to actually start taking my own photos, I will start with a cheap camera. Another point - we have some categories for photos taken with specific cameras on Commons (such as Category:Photos taken with Canon PowerShot). This might give an approximate guide to what the various cameras can do, without attempting to control for photographer skill. --Teratornis (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, considering the skill level of most of us Wikiphotographers, it's a little like comparing the quality of pictures you can make while wearing a different colored jacket. Web sites have that hints for the ignorant include Ken Rockwell's, especially his why your camera doesn't matter. Yes, go to the library, the bookstore, the local photo club, the community college art course. The photo shop may offer books or courses; just nevermind the pretty cameras they also want to sell you. Learn, baby, learn.

Jim.henderson (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You could turn the question around and say "I have the same camera as my friend but his pictures are always better than mine". It's much more the photographer than the camera. However, ask various friends which make/model they've got, ask how easy it is to use, whether they're happy with it, etc. My brother bought a Canon IXUS 960IS; on that recommendation, I bought a Canon IXUS 860IS - I don't miss the absence of a viewfinder, but I'm better off by GBP 100.00
Consider: if you buy the same running shoes as w:Usain Bolt, will you become the fastest runner in the world? Basically, it's all down to choosing and then using the equipment which gives you the results that you desire. There are no best or worst cameras - it's all shades of grey [or, rather, graduations of colour, ha ha]. See if your local camera shop will allow you to try out a few for a day or so each (small shops are better for this than the big chains); they will probably ask for a deposit, but you don't lose out by asking. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
RTG, there will be little difference in picture quality between a compact camera and a DSLR if the subject is still and light is plenty. With compacts, there is a small lag between the moment you press the trigger and the moment the camera actually takes the picture. Also, compacts suffer from photon noise because they cram lots of pixels on a tiny sensor. As a result, your pictures will be noisy when there isn't much light: indoors, overcast weather in winter, etc.
In the end, it all depends what kind of pictures you intend to take. If you intend to shoot at a fast pace or in somewhat dark environments, a DSLR will serve you better. If not, a compact will be fine for you.
Also, a DSLR is all the most useful that you are willing to experiment with speed, aperture and so on. Using a DSLR allows you a lot of control over the final result, but it only matters if you are wishing to use it. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 22:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I second that wholeheartedly, those are the exact same lessons I've learned from my own humble efforts. I'd like to add that noise is not much of a problem with still lifes. I once took a set of 100 exposures in a totally dark room, the only light coming from the power indicator on my camera. Each single frame was black with some apparently random noise. Combine them in with a HDR tool, et voila! Noise gone, image appears. The only real drawback is that you can't do action shots in low light, which also limits your ability to capture targets of opportunity. Paradoctor (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
HDR tool? Mother of Mercy, are we advising someone who knows a HDR tool doesn't cut tenon joints for cabinetmaking? I thought we were advising the stone-cold ignorant, on what their first camera should be. That's the situation I was in, 28 months ago, except my decision had already been made by a relative throwing away her broken obsolete 2 Megapixel point-and-shoot. After partly repairing it (zoom still didn't work) I went around snapping poor little snapshots. At home I examined them, figured out what made them poor, and went out again to reshoot. That, I figure, is the main path for beginners. Formal classes might be a better road to learning, but a fancier camera is not.
Action in low light? Shutter lag? Extreme closeup? Telephoto? Experiments in aperture? These are all advanced topics. It took me a hundred shots over the course of a few months to get a decent picture of en:William J. Worth's monument while it stood still in the sunlight. The poor little broken camera was completely adequate to the job, and the exercise eventually strengthened the poor little mind to a similar level of adequacy. Someone who has mastered simple daylight operations will also understand what kind of more powerful, versatile hardware to buy next, with little need for my advice. Some advanced amateurs do five or ten kinds of photography, and should have two or three kinds of camera to do them, but a beginner should start by training a simple mind to make simple pictures with a simple tool. As for me, now that my ignorance no longer totally obscures my path, my next camera will probably be a Motorola Android. That's a different direction than you more experienced photographers are indicating, and I won't advise it for others, but such a tool better fits my somewhat odd desires. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the upload form working ok?

Today I uploaded an image. I am 99% certain I added the category "Schools in Queensland" in the upload form but it did not show up. Instead there is the red category "Exif model: Canon EOS 1000D". Is everything ok with the upload form? Is anyone else having some troubles? This also happened for other items I uploaded today, I have re-added categories for them.--Commander Keane (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about upload form but camera model category may be related to Commons:Village_pump#How is camera type categorization done? experiments --Justass (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The red category was a test I did. It shouldn't have (had) any effect on the other categorization. -- User:Docu at 12:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
@CommanderKeane: we had a bug some time ago in the upload script that dropped categories, but it's been fixed long ago. Please try reloading your browser's cache to make sure your browser has the latest version of the upload script. If the error then still occurs, ping me on my talk page. Lupo 12:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Fixed long ago? I uploaded File:Alinka illustration.png just a couple days ago, no camera information, and it lost the categories on upload.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Was certainly dropping categories when I last did an upload (2009-11-20). The successful upload which exists was (I think) the third attempt. To get the categories to stick I found that having chosen the categories, I had to go straight for the "Upload file" button and skip the "Preview" stage. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, I think the original problem may have just been due to me not hitting "ok" once I entered the category. Perhaps there could be an interface prompt (eg at lease a note or something) to remind people to click ok otherwise the category won't show up on save.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the problem was indeed another bug in the interaction between HotCat and the upload form. Back in October, I fixed one reason for category dropping, but now I've found another one. Should be fixed now. If it still happens to you after having gone to the upload form and then reloading your browser's cache, tell me. (But you must reload the browser cache while you're on the upload form. Otherwise the upload script will not be updated.) If you don't reload your browser's cache, it will take up to 30 days until you get the correction due to the caching period for Javascripts. Lupo 13:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

File Replace

Could you please delete the two previous versions of the file File:Topiramate2.svg and then replace File:Topiramate.svg with it? The structure has been cleaned up.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by UnicornFightClub (talk • contribs) 00:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
After you get autoconfirmed in two or three days, you can upload a new revision onto File:Topiramate.svg, then put a {{Duplicate|File:Topiramate.svg}} template onto File:Topiramate2.svg to mark it for deletion. --Teratornis (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

file upload

almost the same here:

except the only difference I see is file size, all the rest shos same as original.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BubikolRamios (talk • contribs) 10:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Press "Purge" button in top tabs to clear server side cache and Crtl+F5 to clear your browser cache, I see second image correctly --Justass (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So I edited copyright info fort this, as I was warned that the file might be deleted otherwise.

By my logic, this is unnecesary as the statement in Permision section applays to all derivates as I see. Is this OK ?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BubikolRamios (talk • contribs) 19:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Would you please stop uploading your retouched versions over the originals? Your "cloning out" of background objects is technically terrible, your versions are full of visible cloning artefacts and blurriness. If you must, upload your retouched versions under new names, but do not overwrite existing files. Thank you. Lupo 20:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


OTRS specifics?

  ResolvedUser:TheDJ added the OTRS information to the image on Commons

File:83principality-taykc.gif is transferred from en:File:83principality-taykc.gif, taken from a website with permission granted via OTRS. The copy here has no OTRS notice; could someone who knows what they're doing add a proper OTRS template to the image? Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's there now. --Teratornis (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding a license to the upload form's dropbox

I do a lot of uploads from US military sources, and all of the branches have their PD license template in the dropbox in the upload form except for the Marine Corps, which is the one I would need to use the most (as you can see, this creates extra work for me). How would I go about adding Template:PD-USGov-Military-Marines to the list, or where would I need to discuss this? Bahamut0013 (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add it. Lupo 20:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Done. May take up to 24 hrs until it appears. Lupo 20:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, great. Thanks! Bahamut0013 (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Google Earth Screenshots

Under what license does one upload a Google Earth screenshot for use in an article?Nolween (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

All content from Google maps and software Google Earth is copyrighted by Google, thus Commons don't accept any Google screenshots. If you want to use maps, you may try to find source with public domain satellite images (like from NASA) or use for street maps --Justass (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, got itNolween (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A folow-up question: where is the best place to get NASA satellite images? I couldn't find World Wind working anywhere.--Commander Keane (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned World Wind, also is a source I bookmarked. File:Mohammed V International Airport ISS005-E-10903.jpg is a file I uploaded from there, you have to wait a feaw minutes to get the high resolution image. --Martin H. (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for deletion

The file listed below is not public domain and need to be deleted. It is the work of the United Service organization not the Federal Government. I am confused on how to recommend deletetion of this item and informto poster of his error.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinRJoneZ (talk • contribs) 03:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
See the instructions in COM:D. --Teratornis (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
As Teratornis said for the process, here {{delete|reason}} is the correct "tag" to place on the image. However, the reason is clear here, en:United Service Organizations is a private and not a federal government organisation, also the sources and authors are not listed. --Martin H. (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Are they licenced correct?

Photo File:38er Langrohr1.JPG and File:38er LangrohrMuni.JPG in the category 380-mm Geschütz Max E are for my understanding with {{PD-old}} not licenced correct. With which licence would it be possible to keep them? -- Хрюша ?? 08:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Find the author (or his legal heirs)/the holder of the copyright and get a free license. There is - in my view - no other possibility. Körnerbrötchen » 15:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Uploading image from a book?

Hi, I would like to know what licensing an image uploaded from a book would go under. It is a Zond 3 (frame number is either 1, 2, or 25, but don't worry about that, it is only one image), from a book that when cited in MLA format, would look like this; Moore, Patrick. "Space: The Story of Man's Greatest Feat of Exploration." Garden City, New York: Natural History Press, 1969. Print. I did the scan of the image directly from the book and would like to upload it. If you check the link, the original image is from the U.S.S.R. space agency, and it was from the Zond program, mission 3 to the Moon. So how would I license this? Thank you for your time.--Aeaige (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, such images is not in public domain yet, so you can't upload them on Commons. Will be after 70 years after creation. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
If you don't want to wait for decades, you can write to the publisher and ask for permission to release the photo under a free license. In the unlikely event that the publisher agrees, follow the procedure in COM:OTRS. --Teratornis (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The photo was not created by the publisher, it is one picture of the Moon taken during the Zond 3 mission. Patrick Moore has died and is considered one of the greatest amateur astronomers in the world. This is one picture that appears in his little known book from 1969, about 40 years ago. How come these pictures are in the public domain, like any NASA picture, Zond 3 images and go to Zond 3 section. Since the picture is already in public domain and appears in some books from the 60's, that does not mean it is not in public domain. I only cited the book to show that it comes from a reputable source, because it is an original unedited image that you could say shows something interesting. You will see it after I upload it. So most likely, to rephrase the question; for example, what license do NASA images go under? Thanks.--Aeaige (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
NASA is part of the U.S. government which cannot create copyrighted works. Zond 3 was a Soviet mission - the copyrights to its images now belong to the Russian government. In the 1960s, there may have been no enforceable copyright on the image but there may be now. Rmhermen (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
So what should I do, ask the Russian government? Please if you can be clear and tell what licensing it goes under and if I can upload it or not, I would really appreciated. Can I cite the book and the Russian program to include the image? It is a really old image, and because of what it is, it should not be given this much weight. Thanks again.--Aeaige (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The instructions in COM:OTRS should be clear. You must contact the copyright holder and ask them to release the photo under a suitably free license such as {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. The copyright probably belongs to the Russian government now. You could also contact the publisher of the book and ask them to clarify what permission they originally thought they had to publish the photos. The images you linked to may or may not be in the public domain. It is often difficult to determine the copyright status of random photos on the Internet, and many Web sites contain copyright violations either accidental or deliberate. It is much less aggravating to upload photos we know to be freely licensed, for example photos you take yourself of objects having no copyright restrictions. For a primer, read all the pages linked under COM:EIC#Copyright. In general, we follow Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle - assume a media file is not free content unless we can prove it is free. The reason is that on Commons we declare that all files here are free content and encourage other people to download and reuse them. --Teratornis (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to the above, Patrick Moore has not died; somebody did put such information on English wikipedia, but that edit was reverted a few weeks ago and has not been re-added. If he was dead, the BBC would have announced it; but the website for his The Sky at Night programme still shows him as scheduled to present an edition on 6 January 2010. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh thank you! I can not believe I fell for it, when I was on Wikipedia, I remember it said he was dead, sorry everyone. I can not find anywhere on the internet were it says the Zond images can not be used freely, am I missing something? So does this mean I have to contact him or his site for permission?--Aeaige (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
First check the book to see what credit is given to the photo in question. That is the party who should be contacted. Sometimes the photo credits are not adjacent to the photo itself, but gathered together at front or back. If you cannot find one, the publisher (Natural History Press) should be contacted; or their successors, should they have been taken over. Since the Lunar flyby was 20 July 1965, 44 years ago, public domain is unlikely. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Nominate for deletion" button

The "Nominate for deletion" link that normally appears in the toolbox when viewing an image appears to be missing. Is it just me? Powers (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What image? I see the link on the first image page I looked at. --Teratornis (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It's there now. I swear it was missing this afternoon. =) Powers (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Who knows, maybe it was missing. mw:Manual:Interface/Sidebar describes how it is possible, if someone with enough privilege had been messing around at the time. --Teratornis (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
No, the "nominate for deletion" link is added by a JavaScript. It's got nothing to do with MediaWiki:Sidebar. Lupo 08:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I made a mistake !

I am trying to use an image I found in Commons in an article of fr:Wikipedia

On my first try, I got the following message :

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 14:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

On the second try I mistakenly loaded the image upon itself, changing the name of the author to mine.

I put a message for help on the French site, no answer yet, to get the right procedure.

Sorry for the snafu.

--AnTeaX (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like the image in question is File:Intérieur de cabine d'un Fairchild Metroliner.jpg? Did you take the photo yourself? If so, you need to specify a valid license for your image. You can do so by adding the appropriate copyright tag to the image description page (just use "edit" at the top, not "upload a new version of this file" at the bottom). Thanks for asking for help; this can be a little tricky until you get the hang of it. Powers (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Photos from a 1887 book

Hello, I am new at Commons. I wanted to upload pictures I took of pages of a 1887 book (an annual of a 1887 UK magazine), but the page about uploading my own work stopped me telling that photographs containing other copyrighted work are not permitted. Now, having passed more than 120 years I'd say there are no copyright concerns, but I would like to be double-sure. Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

See the rules in Help:Public domain. The book sounds old enough to be out of copyright by now. You can use {{PD-old}} for the license unless there is a more specific license template. --Teratornis (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
There are works published in 1887 in the UK that aren't in the public domain; the first works of George Bernard Shaw, for example. Without knowing the death date of every author shown, it's not PD-Old.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sigh*, good to know. Since knowing who the authors and when they died are is practically impossible by now, it seems I have to refrain from uploading. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
    • To be clear, per Template:PD-1923, the work is unambiguously in the public domain under United States copyright law. Unfortunately, Commons requires works to be public domain (or otherwise freely licensed) both in the United States and in their countries of origin. Powers (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to know, would they be OK for en.wikipedia? --Cyclopia (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they would be ok, tagged with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} and {{Nocommons}}. Sv1xv (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I've received messages about uncatagorized photos, but cannot figure out how to navigate to find and change them. You've done such a good job of having so many instructions that I can't find my way through them. Any simplified answer to help me?


— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 14:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Categories #quick guide section is a short instructions. You can add categories by editing the image description page and add [[Category:Categoryname]] to it. Browse the category system for applicable categories and look at other images how they have been categorized. You may have a look at Category:Rockefeller Chapel. --Martin H. (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagore, Rabindranath

Archival material ie., photographs documents etc. on Tagore, Rabindranath

25/4A, Anathnath Dev Lane, Kolkata : 700 037. INDIA

Dated the 16 December 2009.


Subject: Appeal for Photographs and papers of Rabindranath Tagore.

Dear Sir,

This is in connection with a project of mine, the subject matter of which is Pictorial Biography of Rabindranath Tagore. The first volume covering the first forty years of his life is already published in

2006. The second volume is under preparation. In this relation I am in search of Tagore photographs’ and any other visual object related to him.

For this I seek your cooperation and help of any kind that you can render to me. I shall be glad if you mailed me a list of your possession of Tagore photographs and papers with conditions, if any, regarding my using them in the forthcoming volumes of Tagore’s Pictorial Biography.

Thanking your,

Yours truly,


-- Abhik Kumar Dey 25/4A Anath Nath Dev Lane Kolkata - 700037 Phone: 033 25328433/ 25566463 (R)

(Lol) This is a free file project created by volunteers, this is not a stock photography service where you can make orders. If you want publish something outside this project you should search for images yourself. You can reuse images from Commons, see COM:REUSE and you can find images using the search function or the Category tree starting with Category:India. --Martin H. (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Preview

The file:

File:Battle of Thermopylae and movements to Salamis and Plataea map-en.svg

isn't previewing the current version but an older version with spelling mistakes. Can this be fixed?

Please reply at my talk page.


oksmith (talk)

Thats only a temporary problem, if your last upload was the correct, fixed file it will update in the preview soon. Maybe this is related to the server or it is related to your own browser cache, so maybe bypassing your cache already helps. --Martin H. (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How to Validate Picasa Images

I uploaded the image of Porto Seguro Lighthouse from Picasa Web Albuns with a Creative Commons license. As I do not found any specific "Picasa" template, can I use the "Flickr" template to have the image reviewed by an administrator? or the validation is not needed?--JotaCartas (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There is {{LicenseReview}} you can use. The template is not much developed, it can be placed on the file with all parameters but it can not be used to request review or robot reviews and all the nice features the flickrreview has. I reviewed it. --Martin H. (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to thank you--JotaCartas (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Using Images on Commons


A fellow Associated Content writer recommended Commons for me to use the images to help get my articles featured.

Does this cost? It looks like that the permission is already granted. Is this correct?

How does one actually copy the image?

I only know how to copy and paste images into MS Word.

Thank you for your help.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 18:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick Response:

  • Have Word open in one window, have Firefox or any browser in another.
  • In your browser- find the image on Commons- you need to see the picture and the permission statement.
  • In your browser- place the mouse over the image and right click. There is a menu now -choose Copy image (or Save image as..)
  • In Word Ctrl V to paste it.
  • In Word Type Photograph by ??????. The copy the licence statement that you find beneath the description, and mention Wikimedia Commons. (You can then place this wording with your acknowledgement at the end of your paper.)

There are other ways to do it. But this will act as a starter.

Finally- If you do try to resize the image. Hold down the Shift Key while your mouse drags the handles, and it will stay in proportion. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


Unfortunately I uploaded a copywrited image and would like to remove it. How can I do that? Its the Belarc_logo.jpg

Thanks, Sumint (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Already done. See Commons:Deletion guidelines on how to have an image deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Import check

Hello. Using commonshelper for the first time, I imported File:Ur Leica.jpg, from de:Datei:Ur_Leica.jpg. I'd like to verify that I've done things correctly and everything is where it should be, both here and there? Please and thank you :) Quiddity (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess nobody sees any glaring problems. I wondered about the 1914 date, presumably that is the date of the camera in the photo rather than of the photo itself. But that seems to have been in the original image file page on the German Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct permission

New permission has been adding after a request, is the permission ok now? [1] or will there need to be contact from the photographer? Off2riorob (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What request? Does the requester approve now? To be absolutely sure, follow the procedure in COM:OTRS. Also see my diffs. --Teratornis (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Right thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

How do I remove a metadata information of a picture

I wanted to remove the metadata information from a picture I just uploaded. How can I do that? Have any suggestion? --Rochelimit (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:EXIF. I guess you have to edit the EXIF data on the image file on your computer, then upload a new version over the version you just uploaded. I guess the image page will display the EXIF data from the latest version. But I don't know as I have never tried this. I don't think there is any way to edit the EXIF data for an image through the Commons interface, as you would edit wikitext on the image page. If your account is new, you have to wait a few days before you can upload a new version of an image over an existing image. --Teratornis (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

this file needs to be removed

Can someone please remove this file: [2]. I don't know how to do that myself. Citypeek (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No. It's a perfectly fine file, and there's no reason to remove it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I upload an image of a Swarovski crystal set?

I want to upload an this image (which I took myself) to Wikimedia Commons. However, I believe that photographs of commercial products are considered questionable, and they may or may not be appropriate for Wikimedia Commons, unless the product has a simple design. Would an image of a Swarovski crystal set be appropriate in this case? --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

See COM:CB#3D art (sculptures etc.) and COM:CB#Utility objects. You did not specify whether the object is mass-produced or a (unique) handmade work of art. That might matter if it is a utility object (is it a utility object, or purely decorative?). If you suspect the object's creator may hold copyright over images of it, try to get written permission from the creator and follow the instructions in COM:OTRS. --Teratornis (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It is a mass-produced set. However, I also suspect that it is a limited edition item, since I could find no mention of it on the Swarovski website, which suggests that it has been discontinued. --Ixfd64 (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Read the various cases on COM:CB. Photos of utility objects are OK, photos of copyrighted artworks are not. I can't tell by looking at your photo which case you have. Maybe someone else can tell. Again I ask, is this crystal set a work of art, or is it a utility object? That is, does it just sit somewhere for people to look at, or do you use it for something? --Teratornis (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it's intended as a work of art. I guess that means it can't be uploaded here unless I get permission from Swarovski. Thanks for your help. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bills or notes used as size comparison.

I know there is a template for flagging an image that uses a coin for size comparison (NoCoins). Is there a similar one for images that include a bill or note for a size comparison? An example being File:Viewfinder-cutaway-comparison-dollar.jpg ChrstphrChvz (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

{{NoCoins}} says: "This image has currency in it to indicate scale." Currency refers to both coins and banknotes. The template name should really be NoCurrency it seems. --Teratornis (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. The template doesn't include a list of banknote sizes, it would be nice if it did though. Should the image be tagged anyway, without a coin size?ChrstphrChvz (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The main function of {{NoCoins}} is to encourage Commons users to use rulers instead of currency for size comparisons in photos. The list of coin sizes in the template is merely a convenience and does not cover all coins anyway. The template cannot hope to determine the size of every type of currency that might appear in a photo. Also on Template talk:NoCoins a user mentions other objects such as matchboxes for size comparisons. I suggest adding the {{NoCoins}} template to File:Viewfinder-cutaway-comparison-dollar.jpg. If that is a problem, some other user can always remove it. You could ask again on Template talk:NoCoins if you aren't sure. --Teratornis (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted file

Hi! I don't contribute here much (I'm mostly on en.), but I did just tag a file for deletion here recently. However, I've forgotten what it was called. Can anyone take a quick peek at my deleted contributions to remind me? Thanks! Tnxman307 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

16:10, 19 December 2009 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:Mitchell Davis.jpg (tagging)
Regards, --Martin H. (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Tnxman307 (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

May i upload following pictures

Hello, may I upload following pictures: EU-Council. It says here No commercial use. Credit " The Council of the European Union"

No, non commercial restriction is not compatible with Commons Licensing policy, all images and other media files must be usable by anyone, anytime, for any purpose including commercial --Justass (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you update the iphone map?

I added Israel to the countries who have iphone.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TFighterPilot (talk • contribs) 16:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Your question is unclear. Where did you add Israel? What do you want to update? Who created what you want to update? Why not ask them? --Teratornis (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to add a link to the original picture. Here it is It's the map of the regions where the iphone is available. TFighterPilot (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You should ask the person who uploaded it. Commons is not a mapmaking service. It's a repository for maps and other images someone somewhere made. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like he did update it, but wasn't autoconfirmed at the time. He should be able to upload over it now though. -Nard the Bard 15:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to upload to here or Wikisource.

I have a djvu file of the commissioning Pamplet for the USS Taurus. I added it to Wikisource but didn't know if I had to add it here also to use it on WikipediaBigroger27509 (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons is the shared file repository of all Wikimedia projects (Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, Wikilabs, ...?), files here you can use on every project in every language. Files uploaded localy to one project, Wikisources in your example, can only be used on that project. To use your file on both projects you can either upload it on both projects localy (-) or you can upload it directly to Commons (+). Thats less work and your file will benefit from the category system on Commons (Category:Pegasus class hydrofoil here?). --Martin H. (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot of Songbird

I created a new Screenshot of Songbird. But my account is to new to change the current screenshot. Maybe someone can move Songbird_screenshot1.png to Songbird_screenshot.png. Thank you. --Papiermond (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Your new filename suggestion is already uploaded and used. You can suggest another one, since it is a recent upload and meets the standards for renaming. For future reference, you can use {{rename|newname.png|reason to move}} for files that you would like to rename, IF it is eligible. ZooFari 20:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


How would I go about uploading;jsessionid=CC550AEA820AA0222E1B49D6035DB2A0.worker4#? I found this by using Joe Chill (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The link has expired. If you know that the image has a licence compatible with Commons, you can use the upload form linking to the source for verification. ZooFari 22:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Scanning paintings

I've got a small stack of art books from which I plan to do some scanning of PD-Art material. Right now, I've done File:Tremont and Boylston Streets by ACGoodwin.png and File:Sibirskai Surikov.jpg, and I was hoping for recommendations about how to scan these best, both technically, and for Commons. (Note that one is a PNG and one is a JPG; I'm guessing the space saved is worth more than pixel-exact copies of the scan.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Few recomendations:
Hope this help --Jarekt (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

SVG rendering problem

I have a problem uploading the image File:Bicycle diagram-tr.svg. It looks fine on Inkscape (I saved it as "plain SVG") but after uploading the last line in the set of labels in the lower left appears unaligned and in italic. Could anybody help please? Am I doing something wrong or is there a bug in the Wiki software? --InfoCan (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  • the last line reacts to the grey box. Make the grey box bigger, i.e. enlarge it downwards and everything will be fine (I tried it myself). Citypeek (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

how can I find an article i uploaded

I uploaded a file . I want to know how I can see this file . I want to know if it was uploaded properly. also, I chose a license but I want to make sure it is ok.

another question- I wrote an article about Cash in a flash in slow times website. i am an affiliate for Cash in a Flash in Slow Times.

i used a link to the Cash in a Flash in slow times website. Did I chose the right license?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Falba (talk • contribs) 20:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
See your contributions to see what you have uploaded. You appear to have uploaded this file:
which appears to be invalid in some way. Note that Wikimedia Commons is not for uploading articles. See Commons:Project scope. Further, if your material is promotional, read WP:ADVERT and WP:PEACOCK. --Teratornis (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

SOA pictures

Hoi, a long time ago I asked for and got almost a hundred pictures of what in English are called STD's or sexual transmitted diseases (in Dutch sexueel overdraagbare aandoeningen SOA). All these pictures have the same source and share the same license.. They were given by a Dutch organisation that deals with STD for this purpose. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a question? --Teratornis (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

How to nominate an article for copyright infringement?

This picture has no permission, how do I nominate it for deletion or investigation? Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion policy: use {{subst:npd}}, this will lead to uploaders reaction or deletion. Additional we have regular deletion requests ({{delete}}) if the case is more complicated or requires discussion. --Martin H. (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
That file does have a template {{Self}}, correctly or not. Placing a {{Copyvio|uploader has admitted to not being the owner of the copyright}} without such evidence and without notifying the uploader (Mr1001) via {{Copyvionote}} seems not to follow procedure. Deleting the image may well be correct, but it seems to me the way Off2riorob went about it is not proper. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes thanks, I asked at en wiki how to go about it and was told to tag it like that, should I notify him here, or there? Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
He made the declaration that he did not hold the copyright on wiki en, anyway all his uploads have now gone from here and wiki en, so that is fine and he has been told how to correctly notify if he wants to get correct permission he knows how to do it, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


You can also link an image like this.

Did I do this right?: File:Spotted catfish.jpg. Joe Chill (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

--Teratornis (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
You could add an entry to List of freshwater aquarium fish species. See my diffs to the Wikipedia article you started. --Teratornis (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

New version of image

I have a feeling I'm missing something and being a prize idiot here. I made some edits to this picture and uploaded the new version to the same filename to overwrite. This was done yesterday. While the file page shows that a new version has been uploaded, the image is exactly the same as the original, not my updated version. Am I missing something? Wexcan (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

See Purge and Bypass your cache. --Teratornis (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Wexcan (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Help pages on Commons are not as complete as on the English Wikipedia. Unless you have read a lot of help pages here and there, it is very difficult to connect the symptoms you saw with the solution. The symptoms by themselves give no clue about the particular word ("purge") you would need as a search key to find the solution, since no error message appears. Perhaps the single most complete guide to the documentation on Commons is the Editor's index. --Teratornis (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

image(s) from ganfyd

Is it ok to upload images (and use on wikipedia) which are used on ganfyd? Specifically the image found here: [3]. From what I see in the relevant license (here) it seems it's okay to use it as long as it is attributed. Correct or no?Radeksz (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, that license has two restrictions that make it unacceptable on Wikimedia Commons (see COM:L#Acceptable licenses):
  • Noncommercial.
  • Only licensed medical practitioners can make derivative works.
--Teratornis (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
However, the data in the graph is not copyrightable (see: Idea-expression divide), so you could draw your own version of the graph if you can find the same data, and license your graph with something suitable for Commons such as {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. --Teratornis (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
See the links under COM:EIC#Graphic. --Teratornis (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Want to edit picture

So, I added this image of musician Ari Hest, and everything seems fine. I cropped my copy of the image using Microsoft Paint (didn't change anything, just cut of a bit of the background), but I don't know how to upload such an edit. Also, what kind of license would the edit have? I'm lost.

The original pic had a Creative Commons desription on it (from Flickr), so I think that pic is properly done. Cousin Kevin (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I think that I can work it now. Cousin Kevin (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Advice about digital cameras

I asked for some advice about the quality of cameras above and I got good advice. I went ahead and bought a Canon Powershot SX120 IS which is one of the top range compact cameras, 12MP 10x optical zoom DIGIC4 which is the sofware on Canons pro cameras. Here is an example of the kind of results it is giving me. Anyone know why it is producing such a crap picture? Jim Hednersons 2MP broken zoom camera picture is much better quality.

Pretty crappy, have a close-up look at it
Jim Henderson said he took this with a 2MP camera with a broken zoom that he refurbished himself

~ R.T.G 12:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You zoomed to much. Avoid the digital zoom. (The image reports a digital zoom ratio of 4.) Just use at most the real zoom supported by the lens. Note that it gets harder to get really sharp pictures the more you zoom when shooting freehand. Also, you shot the image with a rather high ISO setting (320); pocket cameras tend to produce "noise" in the image above ISO 200. Jim Henderson's camera, if it was a Canon Powershot A570 IS as indicated in the EXIF data, has 7.1 Mpixels, he didn't zoom, and he used a much lower ISO setting. Lupo 12:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Nice in large but still muck at full size compared to JHendersons snap of the monument
Another SX120 shot by someone else and still looks mediocre to bad with ghosting and distortion all over the place
Here is an example without digital zoom. The camera is on the "easy" mode where the camera picks out the "best" shot itself. It's better but still absolute muck at its full size. Marking it as 3648 x 2736 pixels is a bit ambitious. If you put on full manual it is complex. Obviously I have no experience but I thought an expensive camera would be close to 35mm quality. I will have to think about the iso but it's a pity that DIGIC4 didn't choose well. It is capable of 80 ISO up to 1500 but on auto settings I think it is out of your hands. ~ R.T.G 13:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The main difference between Jim's picture and yours is that Jim enjoyed a good light, so his picture looks contrasted and nice. On your pictures, the light is "flat". Also, there isn't much light (somewhat cloudy weather + winter time), so your camera has to use higher ISO to allow for a short exposure time. As I told you before, noise in low light is inevitable with that many pixels crammed into a tiny sensor. My advice would be not to use speeds higher than 200 ISO.
File:Maison de l intercommunaté.JPG: I've seen worse barrel distorsion. Most cameras (even DSLRs) are affected by purple fringing on high-contrast boundary areas.
File:Back Legs of Bilberry Goat(BQ).JPG: the main problem is noise. The subject may be out of focus, but you can't tell much.
File:Sx120 Nightmare.jpg is suspiciously awful. I don't think it's characteristic of the camera's performance. Your hand must have shaken. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought it just had a problem with processing the grass and shaggy hair of the goat. There was beautiful light this morning but I would have had to wait an hour for it to break the hills. Should have come along later on and to be fair there is a setting for "foliage" on the camera I didn't see. Maybe I will be happier with it and learn the settings the next day but really poor first go off it for a top of the range camera. I just would have expected it being very next to the G series but a ways off that. Maybe if CHDK is ported to it and bypass the DIGIC software. ~ R.T.G 19:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

From the Instruction Manual for this camera: "To turn off the digital zoom, press the Menu button, choose the Camera tab, and choose [Digital Zoom] and the [Off] option". I would recommend turning off digital zoom, you can achieve better/same results by cropping on the computer. If you have some time try to match Jim's settings - an open aperture, fast shutter speed, low ISO. I would do this by putting the camera into Aperture priority (Av on the dial), spin the other dial until you get F4.0 or F4.3 etc. Set the ISO to 80. The shutter speed will be worked out by the camera, hopefully there will be plenty of light and nice fast shutter speed like 1/500 will be used. Then you can resize to 2MP and compare to Jim's monument image.--Commander Keane (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Goodness, am I to be an example of how to take good pictures? A frightening idea. Anyway I'll make a few comments. This particular Worth obelisk picture was the last and best of dozens, and it only came after I replaced the 2007 broken 2 Megapixel camera with the 2008 not broken camera, but the camera is not what made it best. What happened was, I studied my earlier bad pix and understood that this target needed a simple background and contrasting planes of stone. So, I arrived earlier in the day than for the bad pix, and on a cloudless day. This gave me bright but strongly contrasting stone surfaces. Then I walked around, stepping close, stepping farther, placing the obelisk against the various available backgrounds. This camera had 7 Megapixels and a working zoom, but I didn't use the zoom and the additional Megapixels don't show on your screen, so none of that is important. The important things is, I had the correct light for this target. Since the Sun doesn't much obey me, the picture required understanding the Sun and guessing correctly when it would do what I wanted it to do. And then shoot, shoot, shoot all the angles and hope one of the many pix comes out well.
A fancy camera is versatile. That means, when propelled by a powerful mind, it can do good things under unusual conditions. Not having a powerful mind, I don't pay the price of a versatile camera, because in ordinary conditions of sunlight, a big versatile camera will produce just as bad or good a picture as a cheap little one, depending only on what kind of mind is propelling it. Perhaps I should say a bit more about this in en:Wikipedia:Photograph your hometown. This particular cheap camera had a full automated mode that was particularly good at choosing the correct settings for the kind of pictures I take. The low ISO and other settings were set by the robot, not by my little mind which was fully occupied in finding the correct background to make the obelisk look good.
Yes, pretend your zoom is broken. I started learning with a broken zoom and started getting good results after studying my first hundred or two failures. Now with a working zoom, I use it in about 10% of my pix, but usually the right way to get closer to a target is by walking to it. The most dreadful examples you show are at a 60mm focal length, which is ten times my usual unzoomed fl. Such a long zoom cripples your sensitvity and magnifies every shake and other problems including your uncooperative sunlight. Don't zoom until you understand non zoomed working. Or, since your sensor is larger than mine, zoom maybe to 10 or 15mm where probably you'll get lesser geometric distortion without the problems of very long zooms. Long zoom illustrates the downside of the great versatility of a fancy camera. It lets you attempt bad things that simpler equipment can't.
Same with flash. Turn it off. Flash can do good things when propelled by a more powerful mind than mine. Shoot downsun to illuminate everything evenly. Shoot cross-sun to get stark contrast between lit and shadowy places, as I did with the obelisk. Experiment with shooting upsun after you learn to do well downsun and crosssun.
Learn with cheap tools. The 7 Megapixel Canon Powershot A570 IS cost me $130 and I wore it out with 8,500 shots. After I dropped it from my bicyle twice in the South Bronx and operated it in freezing temperatures in Astoria, the lens assembly started jamming and I replaced it with one of thrice the price. The 2009 camera is in some ways better (almost twice the pixels; slightly more zoom; a bit less blurring in dark underground places) but in 2009 my mind is slightly less feeble than it was in 2008, and that's what makes the real difference.
I duplicated a picture of en:Bethesda Fountain that was taken 150 years ago and spent hours studying what made that old picture of a construction site prettier than my pic with all the greenery and so forth. Turns out, it was a matter of positioning and timing. The good pic was taken from a place 10 meters further downhill, so the arches under the stairway opened in a more inviting manner. That's a matter of composition. Also the ancient photographer did his shooting a month later in the year, and an hour earlier in the day, so he got a better Sun angle. That's light. My tiny, rugged, highly automated modern equipment made my work wonderfully quicker, but the major difference is that all the photographers 150 years ago were smarter than me because photography was so difficult and expensive that only smart people bothered with it.
Study your pictures. Imitate the masters and figure why your pix still aren't as good as theirs. Compare yours to inferior pix someone else made of the same place, if you can find them in Commons or elsewhere, and learn why they are worse. Reshoot. Compare your bad pix to your better ones. Better camera? Phooey. en:Lance Armstrong titled his autobiography, "It's not about the bike". Right. It's about the mind. As for the camera, study it. Photography, like sculpture, requires banging together two things: stone and hammer. Sunlight is your stone, and the camera is your hammer. Everything else is in your mind. Jim.henderson (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
That's great but I am asking, would you jump over a 7 foot barbed fence and walk over to wake up a big cold dirty sleeping wild goat with 3 or 4ft long curly horns about as thick as a good iron bar? Neither would I!! Maybe on a sunnier day I will have a look and get a more valid opinion of the camera. I did take a half decent File:Madeline overlooks the Suir.JPG but plenty of "artifact"ing in the water and colour distortion all round. Jims pics are fairly good. I think that the new SX is not orders of magnitude better than the 2008 A series although I got it very cheap and experience is good as anything. If I was just snapping some fun pics I wouldn't have any high hopes like that. Obviously the proper pro-cameras are the only ones capable of producing pics without lots of little flaws but still holding out for the CHDK and see what can be done with a RAW file. They seem to be halfway through "porting" it. Do you use CHDK Jim? BTW take a look at this full size shot taken with a Powershot S80 a 2005 8MP DIGIC ii camera. I am guessing that CHDK makes a big difference being able to tweak RAW files before they are saved JPG. ~ R.T.G 10:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
If the EXIF data is right (9:50 am, December) than poor colours are inevitable. Harsh winter morning sun, not mitigated by clouds, will skew the colours on any camera, usually beyond repair. If possible, wait for afternoon hours hoping that some clouds will pop up. NVO (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I never heard of CHDK until a minute ago. A look at en:CHDK shows it to be irrelevant to my purposes, since it's a way to take greater control over the camera to make it do motion triggering, USB shutter release, and other tricks for photographic minds more advanced than mine. It's an answer to various questions I don't need to ask. RAW files allow advanced retouching. This year I have come to understand Adobe Photoshop slightly and Google Picasa less, and might perhaps benefit from starting the photoprocessing with more color depth but my present Nikon P6000 can already produce RAW; it's mainly a matter of training my mind further to take advantage.

Yes, if you can't walk to the target, you need telephoto, but that means you need to combine good basic photo understanding with the long lens. If we're missing one of those ingredients we get nothing. Yes, all these cameras are about equal when powered by inadequate minds, which is the kind I'm using, so it matters little which one we buy. The Manhattan picture of various buildings, one of them half a mile from where I'm sitting, was taken from a mile from here, in mid-afternoon of a summer day. This is an excellent time for solar alignment with the local street grid and building walls; some of my best Manhattan shots are at that time of day and year. If you know the Sun it gives you much more power than any powerful camera can.

The boat pic is indeed pleasant, shot almost exactly downsun, with a low Sun producing a few specular reflections for highlights. My pic of the en:South Orange, New Jersey Village Hall was with a higher Sun, thus lacking such highlights, but still its merits and demerits are similar. These compositional elements are what make a good picture; the camera's artifacts can't do much to damage the overall scene. We are painters; if we concentrate on whether our brushes are too soft or too hard or are missing bristles, we risk failing to see the picture.

We can do anything if we can see. A ten times more expensive camera differs slightly in its ability to record what we see, but no camera produces anything good if we fail to see. What's good about modern photography is that it produces bad pictures very cheaply. Making and carefully studying a hundred bad pictures per week gives even as dim a mind as mine a chance to learn to see, over the course of a year. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Practise, practise, practise. Take lots of photos of the same subject; whatever the camera type, you should expect a low proportion of good photos to less-good - don't be disheartened, even the professional photographers don't expect a good photo every time. The capacity of your camera's memory card might be limited, but it's reusable - you can always delete the duff ones; unlike film cameras where you spotted perfect light conditions just as you got to the end of the roll - and with no means of deleting the 24 unwanted pics you'd already got, it could get expensive. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I just have to congratulate Jim.henderson on his concise advice. Excellent. Previous to this, I would say read some photography books from the days of plate cameras- the eighteen ninetys to the nineteen fifties. The advice then was 'get close'. There are photographs that you can't take. To get the shot you want of your goat- you must get close. I know you were joking about pole vaulting a barb wire fence- either you persuade them to approach you or approach them. By all means use a zoom, it won't help here, but buy a tripod first.
The Nikon seems to take a good picture judging by the South Orange pics. After looking through again I thought File:Madeleine overlooks the Suir2.JPG came out okay and uploaded it but lighting is much better in the summer. If they all came out at that quality it would be okay. Not as good as some of the featured pics but the detail is there. ~ R.T.G 22:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, South Orange; I remember it well. After pedalling 12 miles through en:The Oranges getting good pix and mostly bad, I was becoming hungry and tired but then this big white and green tower shouted "I'm beautiful; shoot me!" and I did, and it was. The Presbyterian Church up the hill came out second best; the rail station was miserable and the fire station hose tower sort of acceptable. That's what I do; geography that's within a daytripper's slow bicycling distance. The camera doesn't much matter; last year's Canon would have done about as well except that I had to replace it when it broke under heavy use. This Nikon has other problems; in shade its pix are too blue and blurry. The former is because I don't understand how to adjust its white balance, and the latter is a combination of too many pixels and too unsteady nerves. Which is to say, both problems are mostly me, not the hardware.
All cameras, in my limited experience, are good until I wear them out and break them. Mainly just the nut behind the viewfinder is always coming loose and requiring constant adjustment. I adjusted myself properly when snapping the lead picture of en:Brooklyn Museum. Its position gives it good sunlight for only a few minutes before sundown in midsummer, so I spent an hour there, shuttling back and forth and across Eastern Parkway to get all combinations of camera angle and sun angle from too early through too late. Several came out well; one I eventually chose for the article. The bridge picture in en:Bayonne, New Jersey on the other hand was plain luck, not diligence or calculation.
Commons:Photography critiques has good advice for those whose ambitions run to producing champion pictures. It is somewhat less useful to me, because that's not my goal. What I want is a few thousand pix that can illustrate the mass of unillustrated or badly illustrated local Wikipedia geographical articles. For that, I need a smaller, handier camera, a more reliable GPS source, and mainly, a great deal more learning. Prominently, one of the failures of my recent illustration of en:South Brooklyn Railway is that I don't understand white balancing under cloudy skies. I guess that's my next assignment; read the camera manual about how to do that job, and study some old photography books about how to do it well. Jim.henderson (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

File:MS Alexandr Pushkin

I recently uploaded a vacation image (1970) of the MS Alexandr Pushkin to Commons. This ship is mentioned in the page describing the ship as it is now - The MS Marco Polo. I thought this image would be a good link to that page. However, I was unable to create a link to the article. Anyone who has ability is welcome to do so. Thanks, J.W.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodyhowie (talk • contribs)
Thanks! I just added it to the article on the English Wikipedia. See here. Killiondude (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

how to contact a user directly?

Hello, i found a picture in wikimedia commons and i desprately need one of higher-quality, so i wanna to ask help from the user who uploaded it. Is there anyway i can possibly contact with him/her directly? Thanks a lot~

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzyscichen (talk • contribs)
The users talkpage every user has or, if the user left an email, the email option. Example: Your talkpage User talk:Suzyscichen, your email contact Special:EmailUser/Suzyscichen. --Martin H. (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick Question

Sorry if this seems glaringly obvious but im not sure. Im wantint to add photographs to some wikipedia pages. Mostly it is to articles about Theatres and pieces of musical theatre. I took a photograph of the Adelphi theatre in London with the marquee for The Rat Pack: Live from Las Vegas. Would this count as a free image or not because although I took the photograph of the building, somebody else obviously designed the artwork for the show. I have lots of photographs or different theatres with different shows artwork on them so wanted to know before i started uploading them.Mark E (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's actually far from obvious and depends on each individual photo. In some cases, the photos may be fine to license freely, claiming de minimis inclusion for the depicted show advertisements. In other cases, especially if the ads themselves are the main motives of the photos, a de minimis argument could not be made, and such photos would not be OK to license freely. It's a gray area. My personal take using some random photos of the Adelphi theatre would be this: OK, not OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK. Something like this (not the Adelphi...) would be "not OK". ("OK" or "not OK" is just for the de minimis thing; these photos are not free!) Other people may of course disagree with this assessment... We also have File:AdelphiTheatre.png. Lupo 13:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok I think I get it. So the ones that are OK would be able to be used as an image for instance "The Adelphi theatre in 2000" or whatever year it was? And would those images also be allowed to be used in the articles for said show, for example the first one of Chicago next to the productions section "Chicago at the Adelphi Theatre in 20XX" ?Mark E (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't edit image info

This is very odd. When I click the "edit" button on this image page to edit the "Description" summary, all I get is some text with a template and some categories to edit. Where the heck has the description and all the other info gone? Gatoclass (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Inside that template, evidently. Lupo 11:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, why didn't I think of that? I guess it just didn't occur to me anyone would want to put all that info in a template. But thanks for the tip, I guess I will just have to remove the template as it really doesn't provide enough information. Gatoclass (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
You can override the description field of {{Scans from 'New Catechism of the Steam Engine', 1904}}. --Teratornis (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

new version only shown in full resolution, but not in standard resolution or thumbnail

I uploaded a new version of [4] yesterday. However only the full resolution shows the new picture; the standard resolution and the thumbnail of the old version persist. Purging didn't help either. How can I fix this? Thanks, --KilianPaulUlrich (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Issue is fixed. Thanks if someone did it ... :-) --KilianPaulUlrich (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Niels Klims underjordiske reise.djvu

Pages 22-23 are duplicates of pages 24-25. Being technically challenged, I do not have the ability to change this: My DjVu Solo can't handle the DjVu-files with OCR texts, while my DjView cannot remove images from the middle of a file, it can only crop away pages at the start and end of a file. What do I do? This is important, as I recently uploaded a new version of the file, with OCR text layer, after having started writing off the text on no:s:Indeks:Niels Klims underjordiske reise.djvu, so the deouble page, in addition to being unnecessary are spoiling the page alignment of the text. Thanks. V85 (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I will be impressed if anyone answers this question here. You seem to be asking a technical question about an external tool (DjVu) which is not part of Wikimedia Commons. There may be some Commons users who have the specialized technical skill to help you, but they may not be reading this Help desk. (Of the 7,102,082 registered user accounts, perhaps only several hundred follow this page.) If you don't get help here, I suggest:
--Teratornis (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

setting up multiple image galleries on user page

I've successfully used the gallery tag to set up small image galleries directly on my user page. But a larger gallery (one of 3 I'll need) that I tried to set up as a link is very clearly done wrong - see User:Dcrjsr and User:Dcrjsr/gallery_of_protein_structure. There seem to be indications that what I want is a "subpage", but I couldn't find an explanation of exactly what that amounted to or how to format it. What's the right, or a better, way to make a setup like the ones used for image subcategories in the main galleries? Thanks! Dcrjsr (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've transcluded your subpage onto your userpage, if that's what you wanted. You just add {{User:Dcrjsr/gallery_of_protein_structure}}. Feel free to undo what I did if that's not what you wanted. I'm also going to leave you another note on your talk page about a separate issue regarding one person to one account. Killiondude (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Gallery problem?

What seems to be the problem with my gallery view? As can be seen on the link, the photo I uploaded apparently has no tags and is orphaned, however the file view contradicts this as I always categorize and license my work. Interestingly, the file in question isn't showing in its categories. What's up; is there a server problem? Can this be fixed? Jared Preston (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

By adding a category to the picture, the rest seems to have fixed itself. Anyone know what the problem is/was? Happy 2010 to everybody! Jared Preston (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what problems were before, but now everything seems normal. Maybe problem tags were issued by toolserver because of simple lag between the servers. Hapy New Year --Justass (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Ačiū labai! Jared Preston (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't "Categories" field show up?

Does anybody have an idea why the field for Categories doesn't show up on my upload page? I have to add them after the image is uploaded. On the edit menu, I have activated all functions under Experimental functions, as well as "Use new upload form logic", "Use new form layout" and "Resize gallery and category widths to fit screen"; and under Tools for categories, I have marked Cat-a-lot, Hot Cat and Categories above content, but below image on file description pages. I use Mozilla. --Årvasbåo (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)