Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2005/05

< Commons:Village pump‎ | Archive
Village Pump archives
+ J F M A M J J A S O N D
2004 Not available 09 10 11 12
2005 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2006 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2016 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2017 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12


Moving (changing the name of) an image file: how to?

The file name of Image:Tsunami by hokusai 19th century.jpg is misleading, and causes confusion. The source of the confusion is that the woodblock print by Hokusai does not represent a tsunami, but rather, an ordinary (wind-driven) wave. How can I change the name of the file? There's no Move button at the top of the page. A useful title would be the English translation of the title that the artist gave it: Image:GreatWaveOffKanagawa or something similar. This would also assist people in identifying suitable uses for the image. Fg2 05:03, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, images cannot be renamed. Just re-upload the file under a better name and put a request for speedy deletion on the page of the old file, like this: {{Deletebecause|Bad name, now at [[Image:new name.jpg]]}} -- Duesentrieb 11:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Fg2 09:15, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Pictures Image:GalanimKorb.jpg and Image:Puffspieler.jpg

Hi, someone told me, that these pictures are NOT PD. How can this be ? They come from the 13th century? If they are not PD , please delete them. Thanks --Peng 20:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

They are PD. Sometimes organizations that make scans of old stuff and put them online attempt to claim ownership on the strength of having done the work of scanning. However, if the scan is accurate, then there is no creative input, and thus no possibility for copyright of their own. So if anybody gives you trouble, just ask them "so that means the scan you put online is not an accurate representation? Mind if I tell the whole world about that?". :-) Stan Shebs 02:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I support your view, but you should notice, there are several - contradict - decisions by german courts about this. (interesting german text, see also w:de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte) --Avatar 06:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. This poses a problem, because copyright law differs world-wide.
AFAIUI, because the Wikimedia Foundation operates in Florida and is thus bound by Floridan (Floridian?) law, we take the US line on PD. However, this merely absolves the Foundation (and community at large) — uploaders are still liable for their actions where they conflict with local law (so, for example, a German user might be liable if they uploaded a modern scan of a thousand-year-old work). Caveat lector and all that, or caveat scriptor, rather.
James F. (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Just to confuse a bit more... German jurisdiction is pretty arrogant. So you can break the law even as operator, operating as non-german outside germany (and get problems if you visit germany). This is a horrible situation like in many non-democratic countries where you can get massive problems, because for example showing nude women in commons. For example an australian nazi propagandist get arrested and sued (I have less pity, but the situation sucks) while visiting germany, because he operates a website (server outside germany) where he offered German language hate texts about jews. The jurisdictional logic: "because the texts are in German, his main target group are germans and he has to be judged by German law" (ignoring that other countries use German as well). If every country uses this logic, there only survive a few pics in commons... (of course this is an extreme example - a non-german user most probable won't get problems, because he uploaded stuff which is PD in US, but in germany). --Avatar 09:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Just a note: I do not think this is in any way specific to Germany. See e.g. w:Dmitry Sklyarov. --Mormegil 10:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
My grade-school German is no doubt missing the fine points, but w:de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte seems to say that reproductions of old artwork are acceptably free. One of the lawyers on en: used to caution us against "copyright paranoia" - organizations routinely have their lawyers claim more than they're entitled to, and count on people being intimidated into giving up their own rights. So let's not invent restrictions on ourselves that don't actually exist in the real world. Stan Shebs 12:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree: plain reproductions of a flat surface do not entitle the creator to a copyright, so if the original is PD, so is the reproduction. -- Duesentrieb 13:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Sound files with special characters only works for some

Hello. There seems to be a linking problem from the language wikipedias (at least from en. which I am working at). Pronounciation files (.ogg) have been reported as not working for some. They get a 404 FILE NOT FOUND message.

I think this is because they contain special characters from the Swedish alphabet. Could this be true?

In my IE 6.0 this is not a problem, I hear the files.

I hope it is okay if I link to the pages that have these files, and you can try it out for yourselves. check en:Malmö and en:Gothenburg. They link to Image:Sv-Malmö.ogg and Image:Sv-Göteborg.ogg respectively.

-- Fred chessplayer

I am afraid this is the same problem as #Any limitation on filename-chars? above. I don't know if there is any workaround (besides reuploading the file with another name, which is obviously a bad solution). I believe the problem will go away as soon as the English Wikipedia will switch to UTF-8 (which should be, I hope, with MediaWiki 1.5, i.e. sometimes in the beginning of June). --Mormegil 18:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Blinking Logos

I recently found some blinking logos in Berlin and i totally dislike them; they disturb watching and reading on the page. User:Richie started a poll on Image talk:Lang-de.gif - it would be great to see some more opinions on that. Maybe it should be placed on another page? Thanks -- Schorsch 21:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, from Image_talk:Lang-de.gif, maybe some more users are interested in voting here. Please also take a look at Commons:Templates for galleries (en) or Commons:Vorlagen für Galerien (de) or Commons:用于画廊的模板 (zh).

examples: Template:Arab, Template:Portuguese (replaced: Template:Deutsch)

now i want to tell you the history of those templates: first at all, i made Koblenz. after i've seen the gallery page of Praha, i started to use flags and multilingual galleries. one day, it became to much work, and i creaded templates ([[1]]) with one flag representing the land from which the language comes from. i generated Commons:Vorlagen für Galerien and i displaced all the flags in galleries with my templates (praha wasn't the only page that used nice-looking flags in galleries) Nuno Tavares didn't agree with me and created the first animation. as you can see here, the dicussion on animations has already been started. 2 weeks down, the second animation was born and it's spreading! i think it's really nice if you see a flag representing your language instead of two letters. the point is that one flag can not represent one language. question now is: should we keep using animated nice-looking animations for languages that isn't spoken in just one country or only one flag (for the country from which the languages comes from)? another possibiltity is to slow down the animations. what do u think?

There were some remarks in the contra section, which I moved here. Please do not change votes of people by appending text or something. \u2014 Richie 18:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

this is a vote on animated langauge templates, not if we should use flags!!!!! Schaengel89 @me 16:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
and everybody is allowed to make a better suggestion - so there is no reason for this comment (no exclamation marks at all).-- Schorsch 17:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
but this is another question and doesn't help us to solve the problem Schaengel89 @me 18:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
So, what is the exact question now? Is it "do we use flags at all" or is it "now we use flags, do we want them to blink?". Or, rather, as i think flags are okay but blinking ones are not, where do i have to sign? ;-) --Magadan 10:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
the question is: use animations, yes or no? Schaengel89 @me 14:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
That is the original question - but if most of the voters also say iso-codes are preferable we will use iso-codes instead of flags. --Avatar 00:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
NO! we will vote another time why should we vote for/against amimations and in the end, we've gor letters? Schaengel89 @me 16:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote about animated language images

I would say that the vote started at 21:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC), so say it ends at 21:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC). \u2014 Richie 18:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a stupid question. Forgive me if it sounds innocent, but I do not come to commons very often. Since tehre are pumps in several languages on commons, but only one common page (such as Berlin), what would happen if at the same time that you hold a vote here, a similar vote was held in another pump and had the opposite conclusion ? How do you manage decisions taken by only one language in a multilingual project sharing pages ? Anthere 20:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

That's a good question - I don't know the answer but I suppose that, as with categories v. pages vote we would have to take a multilingual vote if there were serious disagreements between the different language communities.
PS: I believe the vote has now ended, and the consensus seems to be that animated flags are a bad idea.
-- Joolz 21:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Okay. I would be curious to see such a vote next time ;-) Anthere


  1. Schaengel89 @me 15:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Get_It 16:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC) Theres no problem if we slow down the speed of the anim. And also, this may start a war in some wikipedias, like:
    "No way! Our country was the first to use this language, so it should show our flag!"
    "Yeh, but our country has the most speakers."
  3. --E2m 23:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC) (and iso codes are better than one flag)


  1. Richie 19:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Schorsch 14:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC) (I am so free as to add him here \u2014 Richie 19:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)) - yes, it's right - i'm contra on this! -- Schorsch 21:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. --AndreasPraefcke 21:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC) Flags for languages are as wrong as can be. There will always be discussions, avoidable by simply not using them at all to indicate languages. And a big NO to anything blinking.
  4. Put toys on your website but not on a serious project. --Paddy 21:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Arnomane 21:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC) ISO-language code as proposed earlier is sufficient. We don't need to win a price for beeing fancy. It just needs to be practical and easy to read. Update: And of course descriptions can be sorted alphabetically after ISO-Code, which is very helpfull if you have 10 or more different languages on one page. A flag does not give you this quick visual orientation. Arnomane 21:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. If there have to be multiple flags, than use transitions at least. But I strongly prefer non-animated images. --Avatar 21:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. --:Bdk: 22:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  8. --Baikonur 23:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC) As I already said at the Village Pump, I prefer ISO language codes. Please stop these animated images!
  9. --Aka 06:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  10. extremely distracting -- Duesentrieb 12:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  11. ISO language codes are far preferable. — Dan | Talk 15:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  12. Jebur 16:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  13. Animation is cute, but distracting. If USians can deal with a Union Jack indicating English language, then Brazilians can deal with a flag of Portugal, Austrians a flag of Germany, etc. This is a webside standard that is good enough for us too. Stan Shebs 16:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  14. I'm against using flags to represent languages, i'm even more against using annoying animated ones. -- Joolz 21:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  15. I, too, am against using flags to represent languages, and animated ones... eurgh. James F. (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  16. This blinking is really annoying --Denniss 00:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  17. Grenavitar 22:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC) - I'm for using flags... I don't like animated ones... but I do like flags, much more recognizable.... who memorizes ISO codes? O_O
  18. W\u03b5Ft 17:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC) on fr.wikipedia we use these symbols fr:Image:Symbole-en.png fr:Image:Symbole-fr.png
    Those look really nice -- Joolz 11:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  19. --FloSch 11:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC) Animations are a big no-no in my opinion....
  20. --Magadan 15:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC) Flags: yes, animations: no. I appreciate Schaengel's intention to represent all nations using a certain language, but in this case this kind of political correctness seems exaggerated. Flags are a good language symbol, but let's follow worldwide standards, as Stan Shebs said before.
    No they are not a good language symbol worldwide, there were already a lot of discussion about that on some wikipedias (sorry I dont remember the exact pages). If they were so good, they would be used by mediawiki. --FoeNyx 10:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    Perhaps when this vote has ended we should have a discussion on whether flags should be used at all, and what alternatives we have available. -- Joolz 19:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  21. --FoeNyx 10:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  22. notafish }<';> 19:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC) (still on time?) yeah, forgot it was UTC. And I am against all form of images. ISO codes are perfect.


I've created a few templates based on the system already in use on the en:wiki and fr:wiki (see above and en:Gerhard Schröder for examples in use) for people who don't want to use flags to represent languages. The ones I've created so far are: Template:en_icon, Template:fr_icon and Template:de_icon (so far). -- Joolz 23:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks much better than the flags and it's neutral: no german speaking swiss/italian/other user may be offended by having a german or german/austrian flag representing his language (used as example). --Denniss 01:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I think, we should discuss this laster, after this vote finished. \u2014 Richie 16:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the policy on whether to use flags at all should be discussed after the vote has finished (see above) but I was merely providing an alternative for people to use if they don't want to use the flags. -- Joolz 16:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I think this creates a problem of international recognized character sets. Flags are recognizable in a way that Romanized characters aren't. Grenavitar 01:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


I have been noticing that alot of the images on the Commons are not at all categorized. How does one go about finding the images that aren´t in a category? They don´t show up on Google search.--Orgullomoore 06:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Every image should be in a license category at least. They don't need to be in other categories, if they are in articles, which are categorised. To fix things, there is Special:Uncategorizedpages and there once was Commons:Really_unused - but the data is old now. (see discussion at User talk:Andre Engels#Really unused, Duesentrieb will help) --Avatar 09:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Our search engine should be enabled, just like the ones at WP:EN and Meta. :> -- Get_It 17:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

If the files have good, real-language filenames (that is, "Paris Eiffel Tower 2005.jpg" instead of "IMG2389742394.jpg"), you can also try Special:Imagelist for searching them. --AndreasPraefcke 18:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Can we get Google to search the text in image pages? Fg2 00:25, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Somebody pointed out a while back that because our image description pages are called "foo.jpg" etc, Google probably has to assume they are binary files with nothing worth indexing. This is why we have to get after people to choose good names and put their images in gallery articles or categories or both; an orphan with a gobbledygook name is effectively nonexistent. Stan Shebs 12:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
One good approach would be to encourage people to put at least one category to their pictures, related to the subject as close as they can. From my experience, in each category some expert will look and do a more detailed categorization or add more details to the text sooner or later. -- Quistnix 23:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
This is what I and some others have been trying for mons, but there is no end to the flood of "lost" images, see Special:Unusedimages. Please spread the word and tell people to always put their files into categories or on galery pages. If you know a good way to encourage people, please tell us, or better still, just do it. Thanks! -- Duesentrieb 20:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Make it:
  • Mandatory (upload fails without a category)
  • Easy (autocompletion on categories, and suggestions based on images with similar descriptions)
AlbertCahalan 17:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Using Ultimate Wiktionary for Commons


A growing problem with Commons is finding the stuff that is there. Image:Konik-etalage1.JPG is hard to find unless someone adds a category horse or konik or whatever. Even when you speak English you will not find it when you search for "Pferd" or "paard". The proposal that I wrote on Meta tries to fix this aspect of the problem. So yes, we still have to add categories, search words and what have you. This will make it easy for people who do not speak English.. (Yes, there is work involved)  :) GerardM 14:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Should media count include MarketDataBot and WeatherBot?

In preparation of the 100K media press release, I've taken it upon myself to update the media count (Template:NUMBEROFMEDIAFILES). Thousands of uploaded images are the work of User:MarketDataBot and User:WeatherBot (market data and weather info for Wikinews). Indepdendently of the question whether these bots should be as prolific as they are, I'd like to inquire whether you think their uploads should be included in the media count. I'm inclined to say no, since they are of very limited usefulness beyond their one-time inclusion on Wikinews, and also because it would buy us some additional time for the press release. Your thoughts?--Eloquence 13:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd say "no", too.
James F. (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I say no as well. Arnomane 14:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
it would also be good to exlude those uploads from the new-image-gallery, they are flooding the thing. -- Duesentrieb 14:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
ACK --Baikonur 15:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
no to the media and weather charts, yes to the new images from directmedia - these are images which would anyway be uploaded in the long run (if available) and they are usefull not only for a few days. -- Schorsch 00:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
This seems like a good place to say that I really hate those two bots. They fill up the Special:Newimages page with repetitive and uninteresting data. AlbertCahalan 17:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

New free image resource site

Hi all! I hope this is the correct place to post this, please accept my appologies if it isn't. I've been a longtime fan of wikipedia (et al) and done some minor contributions in the past; unfortunately, writing has never been my strong point.

Since web design and programming are more my strength, I present to you: This is a search engine that indexes various public domain, Creative Commons and other similarly licensed images from throughout the web. You can search several different image resources (including stock exchange, en.wikipedia and commons) at one time.

It's still beta, but currently contains over 50,000 images for your wiki'ing pleasure. Enjoy!

Hey thanks dude. :-) This is a nice web site. You should also include and other wikipedia sections as well (if you haven't done it already, as de.wikipedia's image policy is the same as in the Wikimedia Commons and far more stricter than en.wikipedia and there are lots of free images).
Maybe you wanna include also web pages of US-GOV agencies, e.g. NASA, as their content is within public domain according to a nice US law (I wish we would have in europe such an nice law to... ;-) ). Only some photogalleries:
Another field are collections of artwork that have expired copyright. Although the website disclaimers in most times don't tell it (or even the opposite) the scans of such images are without restrictions and within the public domain, e.g.:
Keep up the good work. Arnomane 09:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Arnomane, I definitely will be adding a lot more images over time, including most of the US-GOV/NASA ones. As for, it's definitely a great resource I'd like to add. Of course the problem is that the indexer uses the text description on each image page to create the keywords (Like Google etc) and those pages are of course in German. What I'd like to do is index the site and then use a commercial translating software to convert the text to English. Of course the result won't be perfect but might be good enough for this purpose.

I find it strange that sites like can claim copyright over some these old images because like the Smithsonion images, they should be in the public domain.

Thanks for the feedback and the links.

Photos of attractions and other constructions

I wonder about the photos of constructions and other attractions inside the Asterix amusement park (north of Paris, France; private property).

These are photographs focused on specific recent architectural works and statues and, thus, as far as I understand French law, the designers of the Park own some rights to them.

What do we do? David.Monniaux 09:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Does the United States recognize whatever provisions of French law are causing the problem? Either way, I say let's keep them unless we get a complaint. Let's avoid being overly paranoid about copyright. Dbenbenn 15:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
It could be argued that constructing exact copies of the attractions would infringe on copyright. Does taking photos of same attractions infringe on copyright? I don't think so, not more than taking photos of cars. Thuresson 00:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

In most countries, photographs of artwork are not free unless the artwork is free (this may also apply to architecture). But, in most countries, this is not the case if the artwork is in a public place / the photo was taken from a publically accessible spot. France (and Belgium?) is an exception as photos of protected artework are not free there, even if the artwork is publically accessible (like for instance the lighting of the Eiffel Tower at night).

I belive we should respect the copyright laws of the country the picture was created in - that is, we should not allow images of artwork from france, no images of architectural features from germany (unless publically accessible), etc. -- Duesentrieb 16:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

This is becoming very difficult. How do we seperate artwork from... well, non-artwork? What about cars? What about cars in France? What about building details? What if the building details are works of art? Commons have several pictures of the pyramid outside Le Louvre, Image:LouvrePyramide.jpg, are they OK?. Thuresson 04:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, I would suppose it would be best to consider the most obvious things: images of structures created as artwork (skulptures, monuments) are not allowed in france (unless old). For buildings, there are a few well known cases which are considered art, like Eifel Tower at night, said Pyramid in from of the Louvre, the Atomium (in Belgium, I known, but I belive the law's similar there), etc. For "normal" buildings we probably have to delete images when we are told that those are "art". Note that in Germany, architecure is AFAIK considered are by default if not trivial, but images are OK if taken from a public spot. Images of the interior are not free if the building not very old and the images show architectonic features (this does not applie to a blank wall, etc). But IANAL... -- Duesentrieb 10:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Meta Data again

I have a few day off work, so am looking at ways to add medium specific meta data to the Image Upload process.
Modifying the mediawiki PHP code does not look too bad, although I don't know how relevant the changes would be to other wikis. The main problem would be deciding on what meta data is relevant or not. A quick search of the web turns up a few projects looking at the same problem for musuems, image libraries, etc. One idea is to catalogue both the original work and the works based on it (e.g a building and images taken of it at different angles or times) (see VRA Core 3.0 at Visual Resources Association). A similiar approach is taken by the USA's NISO with the NISO Z39.87-2002 Technical Metadata for Digital Still Images. For Video/Audio there is the MPEG7 standard -- 'The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from'.
I think we could just ask for the most relevent technical data and embed it in the picture's text (in some reserved format), then later we can generate different meta-data formats. Any thoughts?. wombat 04:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Please note that by the next version (1.5) of MediaWiki, EXIF data will be extracted from jpegs and shown on the description page. This type of thing could probably be done for a few other formats, too. -- Duesentrieb 11:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Thats great. However there are still a few fields that will not appear in EXIF data: such as Location, Photographer, etc. There is also the case of scanned photographs. There should be some way for data to be entered for these as well?. wombat 23:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Well as long as there doesn't exist a structured solution within MediaWiki there is a solution with a template with variables (the content of the variables then can be automatically converted to a structured system directly in MediaWiki and the Database when it is available). The template solution "works right now" (TM) and helps many uploaders a lot in adding their Metadata right (thafor it is very easy and generic and does not have very special variables as exposure time for photographs but you can add it also in the description in a structured list). Have a look at Commons:Criteria for inclusion where this template and its usage gets described. Arnomane 10:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Thats great, I've switched to using that template. However I created a second one for purely photographic information (Template:Photo_Information) with exposure and camera details. Perhaps a few more could be created for different mediums?; e.g. Scanner_Information for scans, Audio_Information for sound file, etc. -- wombat 00:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
As told you by a few people already: it contains the useless variables "other versions" and the "license". The Photo_Information template is a good idea, but I'd like to propose using only one variable for "Make" and "Modell". And I'd like to have a variable for "lense", because this is very important for (D)SLR cameras. Finally, for film cameras the film information could be put into the ISO variable, because today most cameras are digital and dont use films anymore ;) -- Aka 07:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I really don't think the camera info matters, except as a curiosity. Things might be different if people were posting raw format files. Really, what good will the camera info do? The image may have been processed greatly since the camera made it. Things that come to mind: cropping, chromatic abherration and lense distortion correction, color correction, motion blur removal, perspective correction, correction of light fall-off near the edges, panorama construction... and that's not even getting into the artsy stuff that people do. AlbertCahalan 17:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
More useful: as I type keywords, the software suggests completions and alternate keywords. So I can categorize as "Meat" or "Meats" as needed, while getting suggestions like "Pork" and "Beef". AlbertCahalan 17:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


Moin, i thought, would it be possible to do a call for photos of all cars? I think it would be great, if everybody would go out and take a picture of each car and soon we would have a great collection. After cars maybe it could be electronics or buildings or so.. -- da didi 09:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Copyright status of stamps


  1. Stamps can't be put under GFDL licence only because we scanned them. Either there are copyrighted, then we may not upload them here, or they are in the public domain, and them merely scanning them doesn't allow us to claim a copyright of them, so they must be in the public domain.
  2. We can't claim what we deny to others. Moreover since we deny others to claim copyright on scanned public documents, we can't do that ourselves.
  3. Copyright status for recent stamps is at the minimum controversial, and uploading recent stamp scans here is in many cases probably unlegal. The case of French stamps is quite interesting in that regard. They may be in the public domain according to some informal discussions I had, but the French Postage Museum says that the copyright on all recent French stamps belongs to the drawer and the engraver upto 70 years after their death. We should get things right now about this. Regards, Yann 11:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
You are absolutely right - but it should also be noted that the stamps of some countries are public domain (because work of the government), while in others they are not (unless thy are so old that the copyright has expired). It's important to know for example that US stamps are not PD, because the US Postal Service is not a government agency. The same is true in Germany, for instance. I have no idea about france, but we should look closely at the situation in the individual countries. -- Duesentrieb 11:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I've been slowly researching this, with the goal of writing a definitive "postage stamp copyright" article for en. The formal rules are completely chaotic, while in practice dealers and philatelic writers freely reproduce everything old and new, postal admins being happy to get the free advertising. I suggest that for the time being we only act to delete in clearcut cases, such as US stamps from after 1978. Beware of postal museum claims, get a citation of specific case law if at all possible. Stan Shebs 17:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

You really want big images, hmmm? Sure?

Looking elsewhere on this site, it seems people want really big images. Uh, OK, I can do that...

One of the justifications is some imaginary printed version of Wikipedia. Besides defeating the whole point of hypertext, such a beast would be enormous.

So, anyway, what should I do with my government-issue standard slice of bacon? It's given in lame DPI (why do people do this?) measurements for an undefined paper size which is I guess 9 inches by 6 inches. At 300 DPI, we get a 2700x1800 slice of bacon. Yummy! That's 1 MB. If we are cutting kilobytes though, we can eat the smaller 150 DPI slice of bacon. That is 1350x900, or about 350 kilobytes.

I suspect that the bigger slice of bacon will take longer to scale down to thumbnail size.

AlbertCahalan 00:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

(responding on wikibooks too would be appreciated)

It will take longer to scale down, yes, but it's only done once per thumbnail size - the results are cached. Morven 06:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
This is unhelpful unless the cache is very very large and long-lived. The popular images will be cached, sure, but most of the time people are looking at stuff other than the wikipedia front page. If images must be scaled half of the time, that would be awful. AlbertCahalan 02:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Well the printed version of Wikipedia is no longer imaginary. It already happened if form of excerpts - the so called WikiReader in de-Wikipedia. These are collections of articles to a certain topics that gets layouted in a book style (and can also be bought in two cases). The second step of the evolution are now "handbooks" to a certain topic that will be published by Directmedia (a company in Berlin, Germany). And of course de-Wikipedia also exists in an offline DVD-version (of course there aren't all images that get used in de-Wikipedia simply because they don't fit all on the DVD). Arnomane 10:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep in mind that technology is changing too, and when in a few years everybody is using 300dpi or even 600dpi screens on their home machines, they'll be grumbling at shortsighted Wikimedians who only contributed tiny pictures that have to be scaled UP to be visible! Stan Shebs 11:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Is that so bad? I note that the larger image has 4x the area, but only requires 3x the storage space. Thus, I conclude that it is somewhat more blurry than it should be, but still offering a bit more. It just doesn't seem worth having such high-resolution images. Actually, 1350x900 is overkill. 405x270 is enough to illustrate bacon. AlbertCahalan 02:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Use the highest resolution version, which is alas only 2700x1800. The biggest image I'm aware of here (anyone have anything bigger?) is Image:Africa satellite plane.jpg, at 8460x8900. Dbenbenn 14:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
screen display is about 75 dpi so if we want to print at full quality and same size on a 600dpi output method we could really do with images 8 times thier size on screen. assuming the widest any pictures will be used in wikipedia is 600px that means we really want 4800px wide images in storage where possible. Storage is cheap tracking down an images creator to try and get a higher quality version may be very time consuming or even impossible. Plugwash 18:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Screens are often above 100 dpi now. Laptops go up to about 150 I think, and Apple's huge desktop displays are at 100. AlbertCahalan 02:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
My laptop, which has a 14.1" screen and is just XGA, is 91 dpi. Imagine a 12" screen with maybe 1280x1024, and you're easily reaching more than 100.
But bear in mind that the creator may not be willing to release higher-quality versions under a Commons-compatible license in any case. There's a 2k×3k version of Image:Rhode Island State Capitol (north facade).jpg, but only the 640x480 version is licensed for reproduction. 121a0012 06:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I believe that we should consider what display technologies will be like in 15, 20, even 60 years. We need to have the highest technical quality possible, since we're in it at wikimedia for the long haul. --Zantastik 08:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Following what you write here, I uploaded the largest image I could find of Image:Carta Marina large.jpg, 5000x3700, 72 DPI, just over 5MB, and got the automatic recommendations that images shouldn't exeed 5 MB. So what is it? --Fred Chess 04:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is fine :) Now smaller image is needed. --Raymond de 10:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Language Templates

There has recently been a discussion here about whether to use animated images ( ) showing flags in the Templates for galleries. The overall vote was 3 pro and 22 contra, so this practice is deemed deprecated. However, there has been quite a lot of concern about using flags as language indicators, because languages are not unique to a single country \u2013 which is represented by the flag \u2013, e.g. English is the official language in about 30 states, German in about 10 etc. The main alternative that has been proposed are ISO 639 language codes, either in text form (en) or as an Image (language symbol e.g. in French Wikipedia).

I would like to start a voting an this matter later and this is why I would like to ask you to add further alternatives that come to your mind. My aim is to collect all (sensible) alternatives so that we can decide which one is the best.

I'll wait 10 days for proposals (end: midnight 25 May 2005), so there's plenty of time to ask non-English language speakers as well. \u2014 Richie 15:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said in the discussion above these language indicators should be strictly neutral. I think the idea used in the french Wiki is great and should be used here, too. --Denniss 15:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
By the way, they're not just used on the french wiki, I've seen them on the english wiki too. -- Joolz 17:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
It was mentioned at one point that the main problem with ISO 639 on Commons is its reliance on roman letters. Seeing that commons is supposed to be as linguistically neutral as practically possible, its seems this is not a good idea. I'm a bit at a loss as to a practical alternative other than to suggest that roman letters be used for languages using the roman alphabet and that others use an identifier from their own characters if possible. This should be easy enough to do. Peregrine981 12:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I mentioned that romanized letters were not linguistically neutral method. Flags, although admittedly not perfect, are universal. I know that if the commons used Cyrillic characters to represent language I would be at a complete loss. Flags are universal symbols that are commonly associated with countries and when you use the US or British flag (either) it is then associated with English. I think this only runs into problems with languages like Gujarati where no flag is associated with it since the Indian flag would be associated (probably) with Hindi. I am open to suggestions, but I don't believe ISO codes are less POV or more accessible Grenavitar 13:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I personally don't see a problem with roman characters, but I do understand that there are people who are not used to them. You'll never get the Commons completely multilingually. Take for example the logo which contains "Wikimedia Commons" in roman letters. You'll not be able to get e.g. a cyrillic version in the near future. However, ISO 639 is an international standard. I also think that flags look better than text, but as said above, languages are not unique to a single country and vice versa. \u2014 Richie 16:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
The way I see it is that there is an inherent bias in either way (romanization or flags) and therefore we should attempt to easy accessibility. I think flags are far more accessible and the negative side of a Belgian uprising against seeing a French flag is trivial. I see no problem with doing this English (eng) and adding the ISO 639 code to the description, but I think the POV argument is bad for removing this useful tool. Grenavitar 18:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why the symbols can't be used with the same alphabet which the text that is written beside them is in. -- Joolz 19:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Using national symbols for human languages is wrong. Please, stop promoting this "feature". It has nothing to do with accessibility, it is a political issue and we mus avoid it. If you think ISO code are a problem, use the native name of the language as we do it for interwiki links: English, Español, Français, \u65e5\u672c\u8a9e --Keichwa 20:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

When do you finally understand that the language templates and the solution of using flags to indicate the language are two independent things? The language templates can be easily adapted to a new solution (after community consensus) and we should therefore continued to advertise them, because they are very useful. But this section is intended to collect proposed solutions in order to start a voting on which one to use later. \u2014 Richie 16:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the flags. Americans still call the English language "English", after all, the Quebecois still call French "French", and I'm assuming Brazilians and Angolans speak "Portuguese". The fact that there would be an English, French or Portugese flag associated with these should no pose any greater problem. But if we're going to do this, we should apply it consistently. No American half flag for English. Use the Union Jack. -- Kowey 19:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Up to now, I could extract the following proposed solutions:

  • country flags (current system, controversial), e.g.   or File:Japan flag 20px bordered.png
  • ISO 639 language codes as text, e.g. en or ja
  • ISO 639 language codes as image, e.g.   or  
  • Native language name, e.g. English or \u65e5\u672c\u8a9e
  • Abbreviated native language name, e.g. Eng or \u65e5\u672c\u8a9e

\u2014 Richie 16:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add abbreviated native language name as image, just to make that a clear option. Peregrine981 03:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I second. Aoineko 10:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The "French-speaking world" (francophonie) have its own flag (white with a multi-color circle). What about "English-speaking world" (anglophonie) ? Aoineko 09:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so, unless you count the Commonwealth of nations, but this is far from representing all of the English speaking world, and also represents many non-English countries. Peregrine981 03:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
In fact, only few French speakers know this flag, so even if it exist, this don't help much our concern. Aoineko 03:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • when i see the union jack, i know :
    • it is written in english
    • it is more international than british ;D Alvaro
Use the native language name or nothing. I can hardly think of situation in which I need to be told which language something is in, either I know (if it is English or Japanese in my case) or I don't care.
Something more useful would be to use lang attibutes, and to give a wiki access to these. Then let the software add images or whatever. This would need some media wiki changes. It would let search engines (ours or google/yahoo/msn) index better.


The main page mentions video clips, but I can't find any other information about uploading them (e.g. preferred format, size, how to incorporate them). Are they wanted? Markalexander100 03:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Videos are currently allowd in ogg-theora format only (I hope this will change soon). They can be used just like audio files. As to size, I don't know what the current limit on upload file size is, you will have to try it out. Have a look at Category:Video for some examples. -- Duesentrieb 15:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Which video formats do you suggest? David.Monniaux 21:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, actually, I would like to drop most restrictions on file content. I actually have a patch in the queue that would allow us to do that without risking viruses and trojans. At least, I would like to allow the following: SVG, SXD and TIFF for images, MP3 for audio and MPEG for video. I'm aware that MP3/MPEG are not completely "free" formats and Ogg should be preferred to those. But they are the defacto standard (and "open" and well documented); they play pretty much everywhere, so we should allow them. Free and open formats are a recomendation, not a requirement, and I hope it stays that way. -- Duesentrieb 22:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
For SVG and PDF, we'd probably need to filter Javascript out. MPEG and AVI are "vague" formats that can use a variety of codecs, some of which are highly proprietary and incur fees just for compression (I'm not sure whether, for instance, making some file available on the Web that was encoded with a "pirate" encoder, would result in us being liable for paying royalties.). Plus, MPEG, by itself, does not "play anywhere" — it plays on the machines that have the codecs use by the file installed. David.Monniaux 05:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
The JavaScript detector is one of the main parts of the patch I'm working on (see bugzilla:898). It's true that MPEG, AVI etc are container formats that could contains just anything - but the same is true for OGG. In any case, we should have an eye on suche media to make sure at can be viewed without having to pay money. -- Duesentrieb 10:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps more to the point, some of the proprietary formats (including MPEG-2 video last I checked with MPEG-LA, although this was some time ago) charge patent royalties for every copy encoded using that technique. Theora is patented, but the license allows royalty-free use and distribution. I don't know what the various audio codec people are asking for—which makes is good policy to use a non-proprietary codec like Vorbis or FLAC. 121a0012 05:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies! I downloaded the codec for theora and managed to play one of the clips, but at the end an error message popped up saying "catastrophic failure". Scary. Markalexander100 03:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Shell script for image usage in Wikimedia projects

Hello. I have written a small quick and dirty Bash shell script that looks for the usage of a certain image of the Wikimedia Commons within the different Wikimedia projects and its language sections.

It has two modes: One mode for looking of the usage of a file uploaded at the commons and another mode for looking for forgotten local file duplicates of a file uploaded at the Commons (so that they can be found and marked with NowCommons).

The usage lookup mode is interesting for those that want to delete a picture within the Commons, so that the broken references don't stay within a text for ages (and that the images don't get uploaded again by people that didn't realize why the file was deleted).

You can find the script code and usage explanation at User:Arnomane/Image usage. I hope it is helpfull (and that I found all bugs) and that now the comments like "hey you forgot to edit my local Wikipedia..." get reduced. Have fun. Arnomane 18:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

This sound a lot like the work User:RCBot is supposed to do. \u2014 Richie 20:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes I'm aware of your bot, but I think the scope of both are a bit different. The features that this script provides could be integrated in this bot but there are some problems with it: The bot needs an account and is only operated by one person and I couldn't find its source code. This script is easy and can be used by everyone out of the box. It is primarily thought as an assistance tool for people that delete a picture and that want to remove image links of an image in different Wikipedias (as far as I can see it this removal task is hard to do fully automatically as there are several ways to embedd an image in a page and side effects of layout and some other circumstances need to be respected) and for cleaning up image duplications which do exist in large number (in about 50% of the moves people forget to tag the image with the NowCommons tag; this task also can't be done automatically as there can be e.g. images with the same name but different content). So the edit parts of both tasks of the script aren't that easy to do by a bot. Arnomane 22:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
one other suggestion as an addition to the deletion policies might be to determine the wikipedias where an image is in use, check out thier fair use policies and if appropriate upload the image there before deleteing it here. Plugwash 00:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Well this can be done by people that re interested in fair use images. It's simly not the job of an Commons admin to save fair Use images. It is about creating free content. I myself don't need fair use images and would be happy if en-Wikipedia would finally do the cut and restrict Fair use to what it was meant originally. Arnomane 00:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Protecting images from vandalism

More and more of the Commons images are used on the main pages in the various projects and it has been suggested that these images should be protected during this time, e.g. images used on the en: main page. But protection also means that the image description page can not be edited which is a shame since the general public probably has interesting background information to contribute while the image is being exposed.

Since there are pros and cons to protecting images I'd be interested to know from others how a sensible policy should look like. Thuresson 13:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

heres the policy i would suggest:
make a template something like.

Padlock symbol
This image is being or soon will be used on <link to page> which is considered to be at a high risk of vandalism. protection was requested by <name of admin on project using image> and was performed by <name of commons admin> if you have any information to add about this image please add it on the talk page
it would be up to the admins involved (one from commons one from the project using the image) to coordinate how long the image remained protected for and it would be up to the commons admin involved to move new information from the talk page back to the image description page. Plugwash 14:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
further to my previous suggestion the image description page should be copied to the project that is using the image and protected so that a vandalism image can't be locally uploaded. Plugwash 14:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I would do it on a case by case basis, after a problem occured. Is vandalism in en-wikipedia on main page really so problematic? In de-Wikipedia we only protect the page and some important templates. As security by obscurity works often we don't need to protect all main page templates. We had occasionally trouble with some vandals on main page but this was everytime sorted out very quick. Arnomane 22:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Arnomane, protect when necessary. If it is necessary to protect images displayed on en or other main pages just do it. There is no need to be to bureaucratic. -guety 00:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I believe images on en:wikipedia's main page were often targets of vandalism (and see above request on here for evidence of that) so as a matter of course these are pre-emptively protected now. We do need to have some sort of protection request procedure so we have a proccess to protect pages when they need to be. -- Joolz 13:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Well a wiki is too slow for such kind of interaction. I want to avoid yet another policy if the problem can be solved easier and faster in another way. What about IRC? Joining #commons.wikimedia at and asking for protection of a vandaled page should help. As there is currently no way protecting only the image this would be the best solution that also avoids blocking of large parts of the commons. So our "policy" should be: "For protection requests join the IRC channel and ask for help.". Arnomane 13:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism on the main page of the English-speaking Wikipedia was a problem until the page, templates and images were all protected. We have had several very tasty cases. David.Monniaux 20:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
mmm its all very well suggesting irc but that means we actually have to have an active irc channel for commons which is not something we appear to have right now.
maybe a better way would be to make an admin from any wikimedia project that requires such protection services an admin here and let them handle it themselves. Plugwash 01:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Yorck Project: Requests for improvement

Hello, I started Commons:10,000 paintings from Directmedia/Requests for improvement just to prevent many unnecessary or worsening trys to improve image quality. Please also have a look. You´ll find the main discussion about the 10,000 images at this talk page. --:Bdk: 09:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Import of 10,000 paintings finished

See my announcement on commons-l.--Eloquence 02:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

We have to exercise our freedoms of speech here

If any right isn't exercised, like a muscle, it becomes stiff and unusable. The below deletion request quoted a U.S. government directive which is a blatant challenge to our freedom of speech and press; "No person may, except with the written permission of the Director.... knowingly use the words \u201cCentral Intelligence Agency".

The fact this is even being quoted by one of our admins in a deletion request shows the abysmal condition of this site.

I think you should just close down the image section because the admins here are much too controlling over contributions and much too compliant and submissive to governments; to the point of even quoting illegal government directives such as ones like this saying :"No person may, except with the written permission of the Director.... knowingly use the words \u201cCentral Intelligence Agency" which is an obvious breach of the freedom of speech which is guaranteed by the overiding U.S. constitution. The fact that directive is even quoted here shows how some of the admins here have gone "over the top" in their application of their administrative authority and are not doing anything at all to stick up for our collective freedoms of speech and expression in this site. 12:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, its luidicrous,as a global site, to be restrained by any country's imagery laws. Suppose an Islamic "Taliban controlled" type country has a law against showing a woman's face or a bible, are we going to obey their law? Then why would we obey a German law against showing a swastika??? If we succomb to any country's censorship laws we must succomb to every country's censorship laws. 16:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
People should be aware of the quotation in full: No person may, except with the written permission of the Director, knowingly use the words \u201cCentral Intelligence Agency\u201d, the initials \u201cCIA\u201d, the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency, or any colorable imitation of such words, initials, or seal in connection with any merchandise, impersonation, solicitation, or commercial activity in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Central Intelligence Agency. - To give anything other than the full quotation, as you did, is wilfully misleading. -- Joolz 16:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Joolz, please stop the Strawman deflections. I checked the deletion request.[[2]] Perhaps you might have a look if you haven't done so. Are you saying it was "wilfully misleading" for that quote to be used as a reason for deletion in the deletion request? If not, then what part of that verbose "bull baffles brains" government directive applies toward deleting one of our images? 23:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm in no way saying that Thuresson's use of the quotation was misleading, I'm saying that when you quoted it here you chopped it down in such a way that it meant something else, which is misleading. I've made no judgement on whether it's lawful for the U.S. government to claim that the image is copyrighted, and yes, I have visited the deletion request page. -- Joolz 00:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, Here is a simple explanation for the legality related to any U.S. federal government logo.

1.The USA has a constitution which vests all federal government power to the people; thus the expression a government "of the people". Our government doesn't own anything; the people of the USA own all the stuff that the government manages for the people.

2. Therefore the people own the logos of all federal government agencies,departments,armed forces etc.

3. Public is another word for "the people"

4. Therefore any US federal government logo is automatically in the "public" domain.

So, please just get the corks out and quit imagining the government has more power than it actually does. 05:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This line of argumentation is dubious (Most democratic countries have constitutions that vest all government power to the people, and still their governments do not put everything into the public domain. US state governments also are governments "of the people" and not all put their work into the public domain. Etc.)

Comment; I said "federal"; I don't know about the various states' constitutions; and I am only referring to what the employees and elected officials of the USA produce. 12:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the US government does hold copyrights to various works. The US government, by law, cannot copyright what it produces (i.e. what its employees produce); however, it can buy copyright from contractors, or be assigned copyrights by contractors. An example is the reference manual for the ADA programming language, which is copyrighted by the US Department of Defense (yes, this is written on the manual). David.Monniaux 05:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
You're mixing up copyright law, and laws (akin to trademark law) which restrict the use of some emblem or name in order to avoid people misrepresenting agencies, corporations or other individuals. David.Monniaux 06:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
As long as the server is located in the US, Wikimedia would be well advised to play by the rules, regardless of the limitations. Also, you reasoning is flawed. Just because an item is owned by a collective ("the people of the USA") does not mean that anybody inside or outside that group can use that item as they see fit. It would not be unreasonable (or unusual) that the collective elects a group to protect the item from being used in certain ways. Thuresson 06:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but using the CIA logo in a manner that implies a (nonexistant) association with the agency for monetary gain DEFINITELY souds like fraud to me. Raul654 07:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

  • No one here is condoning using any logo in any way that implies anything not true nor for monetary gain; another deflection from the issue.

Also, if we are going to "play by (U.S.)rules" then please drop any reference to this being a global site and put an acknowledgement that this is a site playing under their rules(USA's) on the home page; and what will you do when/if U.S. rules become even more restrictive? 12:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a global site. However, almost all our servers are physically located in the state of Florida, USA; so is our main bank account. This means that if we do something that is illegal with respect to US law, people, agencies or corporations can sue us there and possibly have our Internet connection cut or our assets (including our main server farm) seized.
We already also have servers in France, and we're installing some in the Netherlands. We will then have to sort out intellectual property issues, probably. By the way, we also have legal experts.
That's also why I think we should avoid "pushing the envelope". It's one thing to talk about free speech; it is another to risk seeing the service that we provide temporarily suppressed, and greatly disturbed, just because a court may decide to step in. David.Monniaux 05:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

then put an acknowledgement that this is a site playing under their rules(USA's) on the home page 18:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Even if the servers weren't based in the USA the position on the CIA logo would be unchanged. -- Joolz 20:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
What is that position, exactly? The above discussion, and that at Commons:Deletion requests/Archives03#Image:Central Intelligence Agency logo.png, seems to indicate that 1) the logo is PD, and 2) there are restrictions on its use. (Of course, similar restrictions hold for a lot of images here, including Norwegian coats of arms and any portrait of a living person.) Yet, I find that Image:Central Intelligence Agency logo.png has been deleted. Does anyone have the image to re-upload? Dbenbenn 21:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I've asked User:David Vasquez to re-upload the logo; hopefully he still has a copy. Dbenbenn 21:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I didn't specify the position because I didn't know what it was (I hadn't checked to see whether it was deleted) nor did I want to presume a position. The idea that something can be in the public domain (under no copyright) and have restrictions on it's use seems to be contradictory. The CIA Act of 1949 seems pretty clear that it's not in the public domain. You're argument is that this law is unconstitutional, and that therefore we should ignore it. However, as I understand it, the only body that decides on whether a law is constitutional or not is the Supreme Court, and they have not ruled that the act is unconstitutional, and therefore the wikicommons is (until such law is ruled unconstitutional) bound by it as a) the server's are in the USA and b) it concerns an image originating in the USA. Thus, if such image is uploaded to the commons, I shall request that it be deleted. -- Joolz 22:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Let's ignore the anonymous troll, please. No one else is arguing that any law is unconstitutional.
Consider Image:David Benbennick.jpg, a GFDL photo of me. Although the photo is free, there are still restrictions on its use. For example, it can't be used commercially without asking my permission (as the person depicted in the picture, not as the copyright holder) because of privacy laws.
Thus, it isn't a contradiction that the CIA logo could be public domain and also have restrictions. Note also that the restrictions on the CIA logo are the same as the restrictions on the letters "CIA", or any image that contains the words "Central Intelligence Agency".
Regardless, this is the kind of thing that should be discussed before deletion, not after. I just hope someone has a copy of the deleted image. Dbenbenn 16:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I have given this some more thought and re-read what the CIA extract says, and I now agree that it doesn't take the image out of the public domain but puts restrictions, as your example describes, on it's use which aren't related to any copyright issues, therefore I can see that it's still compatible with the commons. -- Joolz 00:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Forget about DV; he finally got fed up with the thought/image/article policing.

Even this 'anonymous troll' can see that given the lack of dedication to protecting the freedom of the wiki here that the momentum is toward gradual submission to arrogant control and censorship,from within and without, to the point some authorities here don't even follow the rules themselves as Dbenbenn so timidly observed;

Also, since David.Monniaux said;"almost all our servers are physically located in the state of Florida, USA; so is our main bank account" as some kind of excuse for your decisions;then I insist the front page of wiki commons state clearly that the laws and directives of the US government have final authority over every thing in this site. 21:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  • And by the way..why do you think Jimbo allows us "anonymous trolls" to have input???

Maybe its because some of the "regulars".. just like "Norm" at 'Cheers'(run for cover; its another copyright infringe)..have been sitting on the stools and gazing at each other's navels for so long that they can't even think (or communicate) logically any more. Have another beer Norm; and delete that photo of the constitution because somebody somewhere told you to. 22:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for image description

Modified after Arnomane & Richie comments...

I created 4 test templates to illustrate my proposal (don't care about their names, it's just temporary). The main ideas are:

  • Harmonize description layout (using only a common template) ;
  • ability to filter which languages to display (via CSS).

Here is an example...

{{ar|هذه الجملة عربية{{
{{en|This is an English sentence.}}
{{fr|Ceci est une phrase en français.}}

...that will produce:

العربية: هذه الجملة عربية
Français : Ceci est une phrase en français.
日本語: これは日本語の文である。

Each template has a common class (description) and its own class (ar, en, fr, etc.). Then if you want to display only English and Japanese description, you just have to put those lines into your personal CSS:

div.description { display:none; }
div.description.en { display:block; }
div.description.ja { display:block; }

Actually, display all languages is not really a problem, but when each information will be translated into 100 languages we will need something to filter. I would like your opinion about this idea. Aoineko 09:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to support something of this sort. I've been wondering lately about the usefulness of the current template system on pages, since once you have more than a dozen or so languages, they start to overwhelm the page a bit. Also, I wonder why there is a different language marking system on article pages and on administration pages? For example, the main page has a less intrusive system than the templates. Peregrine981 11:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Please do not re-invent the wheel. There are already language templates available, please use them instead of including the image on your own. However, I do understand the the point you want to address (hiding languages using CSS) by putting the description in a div which is quite a good idea, altough the syntax is messy. Do not use IDs since the language templates could be used sevral times on one page which would violate the HTML standard, use classes instead (e.g. <div class="description english">). If you need any further help, feel free to ask. — Richie 14:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Good remarks; I modified my proposal. Aoineko 16:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I like the idea of unified layout but please keep in mind tht flags are not wanted as language symbol in the Commons. There was a voting here only some days ago as someone has do such a thing already. The result was: Please only use ISO-language codes but no flags, as a language often gets spoken in different nations. Arnomane 16:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I personally also prefer ISO codes, but I just wanted to illustrate the fact we can have the same rendering as actually with those templates. Aoineko 16:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I would say that there hasn't been a community consensus yet. A few people said that they would prefer the ISO language code, but there hasn't been a voting about this yet. Please also read (and contribute to) the section about Language Templates above. Just use these language templates and they will be changes after a consensus has been reached. We do not want two completely independent systems to do the same job. — Richie 18:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

CSS cannot be only used to filter, but also to customize the comment rendering. For exemple, by puting those line in your CSS...

div.description { 
} will see that:

ar: هذه الجملة عربية
en: This is an English sentence.
fr: Ceci est une phrase en français.
ja: これは日本語の文である。

If you have some good CSS knowledge, you can even succeed to add a flag to the description (if flags use languages ISO codes). Aoineko 17:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a very good point, I'd really like to that in action. This way everyone can use what he wants (flags or codes or both etc.). I modified the template to encapsulate the actual language code in a <span> which is quite useful for CSS purposes. — Richie
I add a class language to your span and created a new text span to allow text description customization (text size, color, italic, etc.). Aoineko 10:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Okay, this all seems to make sense, but seems unnecessarily complicated to me. How many commons users are likely to have knowledge of CSS? If we want a system to become widely used it has to be as simple as possible. Is there a simpler way? Peregrine981 03:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I think it's reasonably simple to tell Commons users: if you want to only display English, copy the following file to User:You/monobook.css. It's not like each user would have to design their own CSS file. Dbenbenn 04:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Peregrine, an important point in my proposal is that all is optional. By default, you will have the same layout than actually, but you are allowed to use filter or customize the layout. I think it's also important to site maintenance to use a common template for layout (we can then change all template layout changing only the common's one). Aoineko 10:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Okay, but I think it should be made far more obvious what CSS is, and how it can be used to alter your language preferences. I have been here several months, and this is really the first I've heard of it. Peregrine981 02:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
CSS is a temporary solution for filtering. What we really need for future is a software solution where users just have to check some boxes in its "preference" page and software make automatic filtering on page content (all language in same page) or select the right page (1 page per language). If we adopt the temporary template solution, I will create a page to explain how to filter or customize the language contents. Aoineko 03:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Language filtering support is desperately needed. Filtering with CSS sounds like the approach of Oddmuse wiki, a language extension. I agree that a software solution would be handier, but I am already happy, when it is possible to use a stylesheet for filtering. -Hapsiainen 21:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
One more observation: there are currently templates Template:en, Template:nl, and possibly some others, which are used to create links to the Wikipedias in question. So the naming issue ought to be resolved. I don't think that it is useful to have such interlanguage link templates because they are prone to problems after a page gets renamed here. Also, they are used only occasionally, so you'll never get accustomed to them. They confuse more than aid anyone. -Hapsiainen 21:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I copy across the CSS file to my userspace to display only English description would there be any way, when there is no English description, to display all templates as well as the message "There is currently no description for this media file in English. You can create one."? -- 15:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


map of France with location of Paris marked

I've begun some work producing quality maps using the Generic Mapping Tools, using free gridded databases from NOAA. It's still somewhat experimental and I don't quite master the tools well (I'm writing the scripts).

Examples include

I can map any area on the globe. David.Monniaux 06:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

WOW :) cool. notafish }<';> 12:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
de:Benutzer:Captain Blood has published an example script at de:Bild:Brasilien topo.png you might want to look at. -guety 12:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
You may be interested in the en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps project too. -- Joolz 15:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

(I'm doing maps of France because I know what they're supposed to look like...) David.Monniaux 08:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


map of France with location of Paris marked

I've begun some work producing quality maps using the Generic Mapping Tools, using free gridded databases from NOAA. It's still somewhat experimental and I don't quite master the tools well (I'm writing the scripts).

Examples include

I can map any area on the globe. David.Monniaux 06:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

WOW :) cool. notafish }<';> 12:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
de:Benutzer:Captain Blood has published an example script at de:Bild:Brasilien topo.png you might want to look at. -guety 12:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
You may be interested in the en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps project too. -- Joolz 15:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

(I'm doing maps of France because I know what they're supposed to look like...) David.Monniaux 08:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote on language signs on gallery and other pages

People still produce flag templates although they were declared deprecated in a recent vote and ISO-Code were prefereded. As this is denied by some people here a vote that want's to clarify if we use plain ISO-Codes and/or plain language names only. And of course it is no good IMHO if I need to change my CSS in order not to get rid of the the flags (it must be the other way round: Code as standard and flags only for the people that want them). I hope we can avoid this silly voting in future and people don't insist on fain grained distinctions (e.g.: against flags is not in favor of ISO-Codes). Please give only the option you like an approval and no dislike vote. The one with the most approval votes has won. Arnomane 10:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: The vote lasts till Saturday 28. May. 12 a.m. UTC. This should be enough time. Arnomane 10:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Aren't the CSS things and the flags seperate issues? Also doesn't this poll overlap the aims of the poll listed higher on this page, that is currently collecting alternatives to flags?Peregrine981 11:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
The terms of this vote are flawed. The "complicated CSS-stuff" doesn't effect whether flags or ISO-codes are used. The previous poll didn't decide on whether to use flags or anything else, it was about whether animated-flags should be used or not. -- Joolz 12:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
PS: The options on the poll are biased - refering to one option as "complicated CSS-stuff" doesn't appear to me to be neutral. -- Joolz 12:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I knew that this would come... Well it's changed. Beside that: If we simply vote about everything we will have soon problems as en.wikipedia. You can clearly see out of the comments that a lot of people are in favour of ISO-Codes. And of course this project is about creating a media database not about making nice pages as in Wikipedia. Indeed the CSS-thing looks nice (I have no knowledge about CSS and couldn't do it) but it's not easy to handle. So an easy approach for language markup is enough. We should concentrate on high quality media content and a good navigation and description of this content and not on fancy side features. But well let the votes speak... Arnomane 14:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I really do not agree with this kind of votes which take place on a local village pump without any notification on the project. Is it too complicated to make a Commons: page for the vote and put a notification on the main page of the main languages? I had believed it was an international project... WεFt 15:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Arnomane, what you denigrate as a "complicated CSS-stuff" is not a proposal about but how to render language indication (flags, ISO-Codes, etc.) but how to encapsulate language specific text to help site maintenance (and, optionally, allow customization). I really don't understand why you think *'''en:''' This is an English gallery page text. is so pretty and {{en|This is an English gallery page text.}} is so "complicated". Don't mix up what we have to do (use a template) and what we are allowed to do (filter & customize via CSS). I recommend you to read #Language_Templates upper in this page then I hope you will understand the issue of language indicator is not the issue of the template proposal. At last, as WεFt told you, Commons is an international project and vote concerning the whole community mustn't take place under the counter of the English Village pump. Aoineko 15:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhapes both of you could have checked that I'm no native English speaker. I'm German. So I'm aware of "other" languages and find them equally important to English. If you have a problem with this vote here in this special village pump, why don't you fix it by yourself as proposed by you? Instead there is a large debate ongoing what I did wrong. Come on this is a wiki, why should this be in a vote different? In the end by collective authorship the result is better than in the beginning. But now to the CSS: One of your motivations building this template is that you don't need to scroll through 100 languages in a gallery page. Fine. But this "hiding" idea according to your language interface settings doesn't work. What if there is only a German and French description but no English one but you have set your interface to show the English one? And of course these 100 languages are seriously no problem. Most of the gallery descriptions in a language are one line long. So no serious problem with site maintainance ever, even in future (for deeper descriptions to a gallery exist the interwiki-links to the relevant Wikipedia articles). And beside that your template can't be used on image description pages that use a template for image description. There is a inability in MediaWiki software that way that you cannot embedd a template in a variable of another template and exactly this feature would be needed. I have tried exactly this by myself and in the end I said to myself: Well don't make things more complicated as necessary care about your pics and that they have a good description and don't care about nice layout, put an ISO-Code at the beginning of a descriptive text and everyone knows what it is. I don't want to make your work bad it looks really nice but it simply doesn't work as wanted. Arnomane 18:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
See my answer below... Aoineko 02:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Please stop this voting! I was preparing a similar voting by asking for alternatives first and this is ending tonight at midnight. I planned on starting a voting about which language representation to use shortly after that. Apart from that this voting is not fair because of several reasons:
  • It sabotages my preparations for a similar poll.
  • It's 2 votings in 1: Templates: Yes or No; Flags or ISO?
  • What about the other alternatives?
  • It's running for only 3 days.
Please stop it. — Richie 19:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I talked to Arnomane and we agreed upon the following: He will stop this voting and together we will start the voting I planned tonight, which will be announced here. — Richie 20:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

As already said by Richie we have agreed on a more accurate voting. I apologize that I didn't recognize his effort. So I added some of the ideas into his already well prepared proposal and this vote here is thatfor closed. Arnomane 21:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I hided the informal vote (still present in page source). Aoineko 02:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Some explanation about template proposal

The first point is that the only thing authors have to do is to use, for example, {{de|Dies ist ein Satz in Deutsch.}} when they want to write a German language specific information (de is just an example of template name and may be something else). Not so complicated I think.
The second point is maintenance. The proposal is about embedded the contents into a common/main container. This is useful when you want to make change that will automatically apply to all data. For example:

  • Change the language sign (if community decides it);
  • Add a category to list pages in a specific language;
  • Change template to wikisyntax (one day, language feature will have to be managed by the software).

All those tasks can be made simply by changing only the main template. Without template, we will have to use a bot to change manually all pages.
The last point is about optional customization. The use of template allow people who want to do what ever they want regarding the language specific information layout. I think is a pretty good solution to avoid interminable discussions about "which is the best layout". I agree that hide language like English may seem senseless, but hide language you definitively can't read (ie. العربية, ગુજરાતી, עברית, हिन्दी, 한국어, etc.) make sense for me. Moreover, the CSS filter is a manual process and has no link with language interface settings. If you don't add any code into your personal CSS, you will have no filter. One more time: All the CSS stuffs are OPTIONAL.
Finally, as embed or not language specific texts into template is an other problem than choose what we want as a default layout, we will have to vote on two separate questions:

  • Language layout: Flags, ISO-codes text, ISO-codes icons, Full text (in native language), etc.
  • Embed texts into template: yes, no.

If some people use template to write description, the use of subst: prefix may solve the problem. As image texts don't need to be dynamic, I don't see any good reason to put them into dynamic template.
Aoineko 02:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Voting about language representation

I already announced that I was preparing a voting about the language representation to use in the language templates like {{English}} and {{Deutsch}}. Arnomane and I started it on Commons talk:Templates for galleries. Deadline is 2005-06-05 12:00:00 UTC, please vote. — Richie 07:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I translated the news on French and Japanese village pump. Why don't vote in the same time to chose to embedded text into template or not (just need to add a yes-no question). Aoineko 09:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for translating the news. This voting is about language representation and should be kept as simple as possible. It's not about which templates to use for language tagging. — Richie 12:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Have you read: Using Ultimate Wiktionary for Commons ?? This is about localising the pictures themselves. This would create some genuine localisation and, that is really helpfull. GerardM 12:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Why adminship should be a big deal

Jimbo has famously said that adminship should be no big deal.

There are two things admins can do that are not easily undone: page history merges, and image deletion. History merges can be undone with care and effort. Images, on the other hand, cannot be undeleted.

I'm worried about this. It's only a matter of time until some disgruntled admin (or some compromised admin account) starts a deletion rampage through Special:Newimages. Note that admins can unblock themselves, so the only way to stop such an attack would be for one of our three bureaucrats / stewards to de-sysop the person, or for a developer to do something.

The more admins we have, the sooner this will happen.

Especially since the Commons is all about images, I think we should be a bit cautious in promoting admins until we get an image undelete feature. (Full disclosure: I am admin number 52 out of 62 currently.)

By the way, does anyone know how long an image has to be here until it is "safe", i.e., it's been mirrored or backed up somewhere that it can be restored if it gets deleted?

Dbenbenn 00:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

A big deal I don't know. You're right, pictures can't be undeleted. On the other hand, who would be mad enough to delete a picture local copy on the basis that an upload to Commons has been made ? Even in case of deletion, you can re-upload the stuff, so ... Anyway this provides me a good opportunity to announce once more the current poll about admins criterions at Commons talk:Administrators#Poll about minimal criterions for admin requests until June 10. villy 10:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
This problem weren't so big if the picture-dump download on will be reactivated - someone should ask Brion about this. --Avatar 22:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Adminship should be a huge deal -- all it takes is one rogue admin, after all. --Zantastik 19:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

image on wikimedia commons, explicitly labeled as copyrighted?

There's an image at Image:Albert_Einstein.jpg that is explicitly labeled as being copyrighted. Am I not understanding something? Shouldn't it be removed?

Please always sign (using ~~~~) when you write something. Some anonymous user modified the description page, I reverted it. — Richie 17:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
(Note to myself: Always preview. — Richie 17:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC))

hmm... the description page states that "The copyright on this image has expired". But it also sais the image was taken in 1948 by Yousuf Karsh who died 13 July 2002 - so the image is indeed copyrighted until 2072! Or has it been released into the public domain by Karsh? I fear this very good picture is indeed a copyright violation. -- Duesentrieb 17:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I have restored the image description as created by the anon IP - I belive it was probably the copyright holders themseves who wrote this. I also marked the image as a copyright violation. I'll also notify the uploader. -- Duesentrieb 17:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

It was indeed camera press themsef who wrote this. From the whois for

inetnum: -
descr:        Camera Press
country:      GB

so, the image will have to be deleted. -- Duesentrieb 17:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a photo from the Yousuf Karsh collection at the Library and Archives Canada who claim that there are no restrictions for this photo [3] WikiCommons has more images from the Karsh collection, e.g. Image:Winston Churchill 1941 photo by Yousuf Karsh.jpg. Thuresson 18:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
This is utter rubbish. If the Library and Archives of Canada, who have acquired the Yousuf Karsh Collection, state that the copyright was expired, then that's good enough for me and for Wikipedia.
See [4] Lupo 19:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC) copyied here by Duesentrieb 19:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
See also [5], where LAC states that they acquired the Karsh collection. Camera Press shall sue LAC, if they dare, or send an official DMCA takedown notice. I'd ignore spurious copyvio claims by anons. Lupo 19:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, archives have been known for putting incorrect labels on images. The claim that the copyright is expired seems false to me, I don't know of any law that could cause the copyright of an image taken in 1948 to be expired today. The image may be PD for other reasons, though. It would probably be best to ask both, LAC and Camera Press, for clarification, so they can duke it out... -- Duesentrieb 19:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I would think it highly unlikely that the LAC labelled all their images of Karsh wrongly (c.f. the Winston Churchill image). If you insist on asking for confirmation, I'd just ask LAC. A commercial company like Camera Press that makes money by providing images will of course tell you that they hold the copyright and Wikipedia should either pay them or take down the image. But verifying their claims might be hard. Ask LAC, and if they admit having made an error, then think about taking it down. If they confirm the PD nature of the image, just ignore Camera Press. I really think that Camera Press would have sent a formal DMCA notice to the Wikimedia Foundation if their claim really held up. Lupo 07:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Hint: CANADA. Upon what country's law did you base that 2072 year? I'll guess the copyright expired in 1998. AlbertCahalan 02:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I checked again, and we seem to both be wrong: in Canada, copyright expires 50 year after the death of the author as by the Berne Convention, which means in this case 2052, because Yousuf Karsh died in 2002. -- Duesentrieb 02:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Might it make a difference that the archives are owned by the government? In any case, I'm inclined to accept the statement made by the archives. Canadian law probably has an equivalent to the US "estoppel" concept. Also, it would seem completely contrary to the goals of the Canadian archives to even be bothered by use of the photos. So accept this one as stated until told otherwise. AlbertCahalan 03:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The interresting question here is wether the Canadian Government just bought the physical collection or the copyright to it, or both. As far as I know it would not make a difference if the work is owned by the governemnt (it would not make a difference in the US either), because only works created by the government are PD automatically (at least in the US). If the government actually bought the copyright, they may have released to contents into the public domain, or they may not. In any case, the statement that the copyright expired seems false to me. I don't see what estoppel (see here for a more understandable definition) should have to with this, btw...
Please understand that I'm not pushing for the deletion of this image - I'm just saying that the situation should be clarified. It would IMHO be a good idea to ask the LAC for a statement, so we have something to point to in case Camera Press gets nasty... -- Duesentrieb 10:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All right, did anyone contact the LAC? Lupo 11:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

when inactive, this discussion should be archived at Image talk:Albert_Einstein.jpg for future reference -- Duesentrieb 10:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I'm interested in what provisions have been made for geotagging? I've searched the site and as yet not found any evidence of geotagging images. Is there a Wikiworld map for tagging images to the planet? Maybe use worldkit?

Maybe a utility to help people tag the locations of the image? For example: lat/lon 25.2522222,55.28 geotags geo:lat=25.2522222 geo:long=55.28 geourl <meta name="ICBM" content="25.2522222,55.28">

This would be for images in in the UAE, Dubai. --Dgd 17:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

This is already realised in wikipedia but up to now not in coomons. Thus I have created Template:Coor in Commons and used it for demonstration purpose on Image:Hannover - Altstadt Altes Rathaus.jpg. I think it is a good idea to tag images with Geo information. --Heidas 20:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Cool! I like it! I'll give it a shot with some of my photos. Question though. Which of the myriad of map servvers is most friendly to displaying the link to the image in the map so that user will see that there are images there?--Dgd 20:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
It´s a good idea and it works. Now you need only a Digicam with GPS and EXIF. :-) Kolossos 09:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Web based Check-Usage

At the moment there is no (easy) possibility to check if media on commons is used throughout the wikipedia projects included into mediawiki.

Wikipedia Check-Usage is a web based tool which can be used to check where commons media is used throughout the wikimedia universe. Also it is able to find "local" duplicates to commons media.

Check-Usage is strongly inspired by Arnomane's - a unix shell script doing mostly the same job. Because this script has several preconditions to run, like shell access to a unix/linux system and several programs installed on this machine, I though of writing a small web based interface. After short consideration I decided not to write only an interface calling Arnomane's script, but to re-code it completly. Check-Usage is written in PHP using libcurl.

So if you are interested where 'your' pictures are used - give it a try.

And commons sysops can use it before deleting files which are more than a few days old. In the past it was often problematic deleting/moving a file on commons, because doing this the included pictures in other wikimedia-projects were broken.

Regarding the traffic load: only the text of the chosen image-page gets transfered. --Avatar 00:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a really good tool, much easier than checking things manually :) One suggestion though, when running a usage check it would be good if it would say if there's a local copy which is being used. Also, I've just noticed that if you search for 'Euflag.png' on a 'check for local duplicates' search, it doesn't say that the one on is a local copy of the same file, even though it is. Other than that, this is gunna be really useful -- Joolz 14:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I will copy this to User talk:Avatar/Check-Usage to have all talk about this at one place. At the moment you can only choose between check usage and check for local duplicates, but there shouldn't be a problem to merge this two functions. The local Euflag.png on wp-en is ignored because it already has a NowCommons-Template. Because the check for local duplicates is meant to find "accidental" duplicates, all duplicates which have the NowCommons-Template will be ignored. --Avatar 22:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Are morguefile images OK here?

An image I uploaded from was tagged as follows:

Terms of use: [6]:

All materials within this site are property of the morguefile and its contributors. By using this site you agree to comply with and be bound by the following terms of use. This license is issued only to the person or organization that downloads these images. This agreement may not be resold or reassigned, distribution and or resale of the archived compilation in part or whole is prohibited. These images may be used for any other commercial or personal use. Credit for this use is appreciated but is not necessary.

Are images from this website allowed here or not? If not, then there are quite a few images that should be removed. Lupin 19:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

No, those images are not allowed, as Commons has to allow commercial use. Korrigan bla 19:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Read carefully. Commercial use is allowed. Other of the site's terms may cause problems, but that is not one of them. Morven 20:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Woops, sorry for that ! I'm used to read "not for commercial use", I should be more careful... Korrigan bla 21:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
The site does, however, seem to prohibit redistribution, which might be problematic. Morven 21:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
It isn't clear whether the Commons counts as distribution of the "archived compilation in part". Perhaps someone could just ask the site's administrators? Dbenbenn 00:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)