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
2019	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2020	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2021	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2022	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2023	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2024	01	02	03	04	Not available yet

January 1

2007

Welcome to 2007, everyone. —UED77 00:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are in need of a State of the Commons address, but I am not the one to take up the job. Nonetheless, there are a few things I'd like to say. I joined Commons in December of 2005, and have seen a year of great things occur. The Main Page was wonderfully redesigned, along with the Commons:Community Portal, Commons:Welcome, Commons:First steps, Commons:FAQ, and several other pages designed to enhance communication with the casual visitor and to introduce newcomers into the workings of this unusually close-knit community. Commons:Help page maintenance was devised to coordinate the translations of these pages to better serve our multilingual community. (... long live split infinitives...)

New category schemes arose to provide order and organization to our content, and several projects such as Commons:CommonsProject Insignia were started to systematically improve the materials we host. CommonsTicker vastly improved the inter-project communication, the lack of which Commons was often criticized for. We have exceeded 100 000 files, and have turned into a venerable media resource. Things will only get better. Let us make the most of this new year, and may we all succeed in our personal lives and in our quest to propel Commons into new heights. —UED77 00:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, en:Category:1936 deaths. Jkelly 00:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, the strange morbidness of our work. —UED77 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! It took me a while to figure out the significance of that category. A nice message, UED77. :) My wishes for the Commons for 2007 are for SUL to be implemented and for some progress to be made on improving MediaWiki specifically for media (see my post here), including search and i18n (read: category aliasing/proper redirecting).

I also wish for Commons to keep growing and encouraging new contributors, and to develop the needed community infrastructure without the bureaucracy that can also occur. Setting up a wiki is one thing, growing it is a whole other kettle of fish. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok got, but took me a while to understand it :P

To everybody who uses the Gregorian calendar a happy new year, everybody who celebrates Eid ul-Adha a happy festivities, and all others a very nice day! -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! <dopeslapping self>. I didn't get that either :). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 18:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us a bit slow... can someone PM me the joke sometime? as for 2007 wishes, I want SUL more than just about anything... that and a reliable toolserver with a good, uptodate database dump. ++Lar: t/c 05:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lar: See this: ;) -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SVG for mathematical functions

SVG is better that PNG for plotting mathmatical functions. But SVG is still not as ideal as the mathematical function itself. The SVG files I saw were mostly a set of point with the points next to each other connecter by straight lines. Or even worse, squares at each point to they overlap with the squares of points next to them. This way the raster problem of PNG is only partly solved since these files are still based on sample points. So although SVG is called (Scalable Vector Graphics) there will be artefacts when you want to scale SVG files of mathematical functions, because mathematical functions are generally not primitivs of SVG (as far as I understood). The problem is not severe since it only occurs on large prints. One possible soultion would be a function plotting facitity within mediawiki, that can render the function to any size wanted. This would include something like <plot> XML tag, in which you could define the mathematical function that you want to plot like <plot width="300" xlabel="$\frac{1}{x}$">1/x</plot> Dirk Hünniger 19:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing for derivative works from public-domain sources

I've created maps (such as this) of the municipalities of Libya derived from this file, which has been released into the public domain by its creator. What kind of license do I put on them: {{Copyrighted free use}}? If I had created the map by myself, I would put it under the unrestricted public domain license, such as in this picture. Nyttend 19:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PD released works allows anything to be done with it, including sublicensing. So you can just release the work as PD. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can also release it under a CC licence or GFDL, if you want your modified version to be attributed. The original would still be PD, of course. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 23:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another copyright problem that I can't mark...

...the CAPTCHA system is still defective, so I have to ask here. Can someone review/remark Image:Michael Dukakis standing.jpg for deletion? It looks like a very blatant copyright problem to me as the site of origin is definately not one of the Federal government. In addition, it's a painting, which makes it (to me) even more strongly suspect. 68.39.174.238 23:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sign up for an account, and CAPTCHA isn't a problem ;-) At any rate, it looks like this was a painting by Gardner Cox (died 1988). The caption on one of the usages states that it is the official portrait. I'm not sure if the copyright would be owned by Cox or the Massachusetts government in this case. The terms of the mass.gov site are here; it says the image is part of the "public record" but says that some things by third parties are copyrighted. The current tag is definitely wrong, and it seems like a stretch to assume any free license. Maybe someone could contact the website and ask for clarifications. But this should probably be on COM:DEL. Carl Lindberg 02:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone start the process? I can't add {{Delete}} as the CAPTCHA thing comes up (For a template?!) and refuses my answers. 68.39.174.238 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

multi-lingual disambig-pages

Hi, is there any prefered method for multi-lingual disambig-pages. I was currently working on pages like Alexander I Alexander I. Alexandre Ier. There will be much more languages where Alexander I will be disambig.

What is the better method?

A) for each language a extra page with Text in this language, like the current Alexander pages
B) or ONE big disambig-page with Text in lots of languages, and redirecting the other variants to the "main-version". This could become huge and might be confusing.

I like to ask before I use more time to udate similar things. Thx in advance. --Jutta234 01:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jutta,

There is currently no rules about how disambiguation pages should be organised. I tend to think that method "A" is better, except all the languages should be on one page under subheadings. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore bot edits

Is it possible somehow to restore the massive bot-edits done one week ago, where all categories about "Villages" were dumbly replaced by categories on "cities" ? This introduced HUGE factual errors in the categorisation scheme set up by different people, and was done without any prior discussion. See also User_talk:Siebrand#City_cats, User_talk:Siebrand#Category:Cities_in_Poland_What_cities.3F or User_talk:Siebrand#Bulgarian_villages where different people express their concerns and show the errors introduced... Labelling small villages of less then 100 inhabitants as "city" is ... well, plain non-sense I'm afraid. --LimoWreck 01:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just ask Siebrand, I'm sure he can restore them if he made a mistake. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See his talk page... most people have raised their concerns, shown the blatant errors and opposed the botrecategorisation... As on the NL-wiki, I don't expect any reaction however :-( --LimoWreck 17:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fed up now..I want my images deleted..and this username..

This whole format is harder to understand than uploading to wikipedia..for some reason. Anyway, speedy deletion..apparently isnt too speedy..I dont suppose there is a quicker way to deletemy own images that are not in use? (Fethroesforia 12:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy deletion is indeed not speedy, since the toolserver is restoring slowly from illness. Why do you want your images deleted anyway? -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redundant taxobox for artist

Is it possible to superseded or mark as redundant this Template:Creator by this newer Template:Artist.Thx.--Patricia.fidi 12:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actully I don't see a big difference between templates. From other side, you could redirect all calls of Template:Creator to Template:Artist. But please discuss this change first. --EugeneZelenko 15:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eugene,

I thought about the design of the Template:Artist: it is more accurate to tag new uploaded files with this one because it's similar to actual templates. As somes obsolete PD tag: it would be interesting to aware people that the Template:Creator is obsolete. As you said a redirection is more interesting but maybe on this template.--Patricia.fidi 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox template for artists didn't work. I've made some corrections, now it's working as Creator template. Please see these pages: Category:Infobox_templates, Category:Caspar_David_Friedrich and Image:Caspar David Friedrich.jpg for any advices. Thx--Patricia.fidi 01:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ExtendedWatchlist

I have created a script that enhances your watchlist, or rather, installs a new watchlist. With this script, you can not only watch the way you are used to, but also watch users contributions. This is very handy to new images patrollers, as an upload by an user you are watching will show up immediatly in your watchlist.

Three drawbacks, it doesn't work in Internet Explorer yet, and not at all in Opera. There also some other small bugs when using Mozilla. The problem with IE is that clicking the "watch user" link does not work, but the watchlist itself works as expected.

Please see Commons:ExtendedWatchlist, and if it works and/or you like it, please give feedback on its talkpage. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It now works in Internet Explorer too. Opera is still not working, Konqueror and Safari not tested. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

PD, GFDL...

OpenClipart strongly recommend us to publish our draws with Public Domain tag. The page Commons:Copyright tags explain firstable how to use GFDL. It would be interesting to insert {{PD-self}} in the top of explanation... near the first {{GFDL}} tag. It is just to promote {{PD-self}} to wikipedians.
The screenshot of licence selector on Commons:Copyright tags is old. In my french version of Wikimedia Commons, when I upload a file and I want to choose a licence... licences for own work are at the top... Is it different for en: wikipedians ? A new screenshot sould be add to the page Commons:Copyright tags.

Thx.--Patricia.fidi 10:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

80% width licence template

Hello, I addressed the issue already there, but I would like to address it also here: Why do the licence template have a width of 80% and not 100%? The licence template become more and more longer because of the language borders, although on the right hand side and on the left hand side is in each case 10% free space. In addition a width of 100% is more beautiful. sorry for my bad english -- San Jose 13:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I agree to his opinion.--Borheinsieg 23:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be done, I guess.

PS, don't worry about your English, it is fine.

Fred Chess 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Raymond ^Disc. 19:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At wich time should such a change be done? Is there a time at the Commons where the server loading is the least of all?--Borheinsieg 15:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wikimedia Grid Report: lowest server loading is between 4 and 6 UTC. --Raymond ^Disc. 19:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, all the wikipedias seem to use 80% as well, so this would make things a bit inconsistent. Just mentioning it in case there is value in the license tags being of similar format and size for users looking at local images versus commons ones (of course, if it looks much better, maybe all the local wikis would switch too). Carl Lindberg 10:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks a lot. :-) This is a small but very reasonable improvement. If one thinks about the reason why width:80% was originally used ... it was only because of problems with the EXIF box, which was formerly on the right side of description pages.

I tried something related once [1] after some other changes, but that was disliked ;-) So I hope this will stay now.

Btw: You may also want to use simply display:block instead of width:100% if something has to be changed there once again (only a slight improvement; but note the IE requirements for this). --Überraschungsbilder 07:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after I've asked a person with high knowledge of html/xhtml, width:100% is the optimal solution for the time being – no further changes needed :-) --Überraschungsbilder 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:NielsF/Arbitration

User:NielsF does not kept the schedule he specified himself.

Obviously, the acceptance of the procedure did not bind me for eternity, but only for the previous duration of this procedure, which had to be ended on September, 2006.

More three months have passed since, and I received this only message from User:NielsF. During this period, User:NielsF had a very reduced activity in Wikimedia Commons and the arbitration did not make any progress.

This situation cannot go on anymore, since the arbitration concerns important issues for Wikimedia Commons, and these outstanding issues are causes of disputes and waste of time for many users.

Consequently, I declare that:

I terminate the present arbitration, and I'll not recognize any further decision from User:NielsF about it.
I am not binded by any prescription of this arbitration since October 1st 2006.
I agree to begin a new arbitration in order to resolve the current dispute with user:Martorell (the present situation, not the situation in August 2006), with new persons, new arguments. --Juiced lemon 13:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of my last intervention in User:NielsF/Arbitration. --Juiced lemon 13:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't accept a new arbitration if this user didn't make undone all changes to the last version before this arbitration on Catalonian related categories, articles and images, as it's clearly a disruption of the content dispute problem. If he do it, I could accept a new person to replace User:NielsF, but with the same arguments and with the same situation, as the problems is still the same meanings. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For further info, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User_problems#Juiced lemon. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC) --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have threated to block me, that is strictly forbidden for an administrator implied in a dispute. Do you really believe that I'll revert my edits and edits from other users to add wrong informations in Commons pages? You dream. In spite of the arbitration, you have continued to edit pages regarding the dispute. So, you cannot criticize me to have done the same thing after you, because you violated the truce. --Juiced lemon 17:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All things that you disagrees, dislikes, disappoints, or get you upset are wrong things. Is it your basic viewpoint?. I've not modified any disputed pages (please, list those pages if exist), only in the case to revert to previous version before the start date of arbitration (that you modified, ie. Category:Perpinyà). About threatening you, I've already answered you about it in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes:

I'm not threatening you about blocking. I'm giving a time to any administrator to disappoint with me about blocking you. It's about behaviour. If here would be only one admin user disagrees with my intention, it will be enough for me not to block you. In spite of it, I'm also offering you a first chance: make yourself undone changes in disputed pages to previous version before the third party acceptance, and we can start to talk about arbitration. If you really want to solve this content dispute talking or via mediation, please, first make undone your disruptions.

I don't dream. You seem to communicate with users only via reversions, re-reversions, and Nth-reversion. So you should re-revert yourself first. I won't revert any change of yours on disputed pages. Cheers. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New subject (specify; please, don't spoil other subjects)

Don't we have a Request for Comments here? Seeing the history of Juiced Lemon, this might be more appropriate. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, you may also comment here. I would be pleased to listen opinions from others. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there it goes: -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts Juiced Lemon has been involved in

Mac9 (talk · contribs): Categories or galleries [2]
Martorell (talk · contribs): Categories in English [3]
JdH (talk · contribs): Subcategorization [4]
Evrik (talk · contribs): Whether Romans were Italians [5]
Mac9 (talk · contribs): Category Florence [6]
MPF (talk · contribs): Redundant categorization [7]
Mac9 (talk · contribs): Categories in English [8]
Martorell (talk · contribs): Removal of categories [9]
Mac9 (talk · contribs): Provinces of Italy [10]
Several users: München [11] [12]
Kelson (talk · contribs) and MPF (talk · contribs): Redundant categories [13]
Reisio (talk · contribs): Western Sahara: [14]
Raphael.lorenzeto (talk · contribs): Rio de Janeiro [15]
Bryan (talk · contribs), Benjah-bmm27 (talk · contribs), Itub (talk · contribs): Non metal compounds [16] [17]
Ludek (talk · contribs): Renaming categories [18]
Several users from Wikipedia in Catalan: 1997 (talk · contribs), Pmmollet (talk · contribs), toniher (talk · contribs), Martorell (talk · contribs). About usage of Catalan toponym on categories and galleries related to Catalonia, specially with French Catalonia cities, as this user seem to be a French person. Also because of ideological viewpoints (he expressed negationism in VP). Exemple of an editwar with all these users.

Bryan's view

Juiced lemon (talk · contribs) has been involved with several conflicts during his stay here on Wikimedia Commons. All these conflicts were about categories. Juiced lemon tries to categorize images in a consistent way. However, his actions are very controversial and generally lead into revert wars. The issue is that Juiced Lemon generally first makes changes, which are then reverted, which are then rereverted by Juiced lemon, and a revert war has been born. What also doesn't help to stop the revert war, are the edit summaries given by Juiced lemon: He uses mainly edit summaries like simply rv or rv vandalism. Juiced lemon is not assuming good faith, by calling people with whom he is in a content dispute vandals.

It seems to me that Juiced lemon is willing to do the best for Commons. He is generally willing to discuss the changes he has made on the numerous threads on AN/D, AN/U and his talkpage. It is a pity that this however only after he has made many users upset and angry.

Other users

I cannot comment deeply into the users that were mainly in conflict with Juiced Lemon, Mac9 (talk · contribs) and Martorell (talk · contribs). If Juiced lemon's claims are correct that Martorell (talk · contribs) has undeleted pages he was involved with — a fact that I have not checked — then Martorell has clearly abused his admin powers.

Yes, I've undeleted Category:Perpinyà because JL moved all the contents that were under this category to Category:Perpignan, and tagged the first one it with {{Delete}} template after of the start date of the arbitration. I've considered it's a disruption. Do you think I shouldn't do it?. But I've undeleted it in wrong way because previous history is lost, sigh... But you can get an idea verifying the history of "Perpignan" category. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 23:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NielsF (talk · contribs) has tried to resolve the problem by an arbitration, which however has been canceled due to absense of NielsF. pfctdayelise (talk · contribs) also has tried to resolve the problem by posting numerous messages to Juiced lemon's talkpage, saying that he should discuss problems first.

Languages for categories

English for categories is a very controversial topic, and I suggest that we discuss this topic on an appropriate place.

-- Bryan (talk to me) 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this whole thing should be moved somewhere else. Topics on the Village pump move by too quickly and are hard to find again. But anyway - I think Bryan's overview is pretty accurate. There are a few additional points I would like to make. 1) Juiced lemon (JL) makes tons of edits that are not questioned by anyone. Therefore JL is not motivated by the desire to create controversy, although seeing their name again and again might make it seem like that. And creating consistency in the categories is useful work that not many people are interested in doing. 2) Also, not all of the discussions on JL's talk page are "controversies" or "disputes". Some are just legitimate "Why did you make this change?" queries, which are normal and not a sign of doing something wrong - just a sign of normal wiki interaction IMO. 3) My feeling is that many of the "disputes" with JL are caused by their approach rather than their actions per se, that is: some of them (at least) could be avoided. JL tends to edit quickly and does not devote a lot of time to convincing other users that their opinion is the most sensible and reasonable option. In many cases, JL invites comment (for example, on the VP) before making changes. Few people are interested. But the discussion can be revived (and the editing should cease when discussion is taking place) any time anyone questions the reasoning behind a systematic change.

The wiki may benefit from asking or forcing JL to adopt a detailed, structured procedure for systematic category change. e.g. Create record of intended changes on a certain topic, with explanation of benefit of the changes, in a user subpage. All edits relating to the topic should contain a link to the user subpage in the edit summary. Once questioned, JL should stop editing on the topic until the other user is satisfied as to the change (or else, a third party is satisfied that the concern is not important or not relevant). In addition, JL should observe a stricter version of the 3RR. (Note: Commons does not have 3RR as an official policy, but the principle of don't disrupt the wiki applies.) The stricter version relates to what is essentially the same edit (eg: adding/removing a category) on any number of pages, instead of any one page. Even if JL was 100% right in every decision they made, no one should do as much reverting as they do.

regards --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We, and Catalan-speaking users, are putting seriously in question a very specifically edits made by Juiced Lemon that are completelly biaised by ideological reasons. These edits are related with Catalonia things. I know that these edits are very few if we compare it with all his whole work here. He's doing a very nice job. But these very few controversial edits become to be very, very, really very big, not only because of a lack of communication ("everything I disagree are vandalistic wrong-things") and behaviour ("revert and nth-revert") from him, but also because he expressed here clearly his negationism over Catalonia, in the sense that it's a country overlapped between France and Spain. Note that he's a French person. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 00:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia, in Commons Category:Catalonia and in the English Wikipedia en:Catalonia, is the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, which is NOT a country, and user:Martorell knows that perfectly well.

Anybody can check on a map that every square inch of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia is in Spain. Look at the history of Category:Catalonia: Martorell systematically reverts edits he dislikes, from various users. You can also read this comment Catalonia is not and it has never been in France. Martorell's ideological vandalism. by user:Joan Puigbarcell.

I agree with this last opinion: Martorell is a vandal, which is in the category sneaky vandal. With some other Catalan users, he decided to rebuilt in Commons a former territory, the Principality of Catalonia, which lose its northern part, called Northern Catalonia by Catalans, on 1659. “To rebuild” means categorize everything which regards a location in the Principality of Catalonia, grounds to the area before 1659.

To add more mix-up, user:Martorell categorize the pages directly in Category:Catalonia which is designed for the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, not the Principality of Catalonia.

What would you do if some neo-Nazi group would decide “to rebuild” the en:Third Reich in Commons? Could you admit Vienna, Prague, Gdańsk (Danzig), among other cities and villages on this map

, categorized in Category:Third Reich or Category:Germany?

In my opinion, we cannot admit such sneaky propaganda. Categories about former territories are only useful for historic issues; so, they must have a limited contents, not the same than current territories (countries and disputed territories). --Juiced lemon 20:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, do I understand correctly, this content dispute is whether Catalonia refers to the Autonomous Community of Catalonia or the Principality of Catalonia? -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no uncertainty about this question. Category:Catalonia, and most of its interwiki links unambiguously concern the Autonomous Community of Catalonia. The Catalan Wikipedia has three separate articles, ca:Catalunya, ca:Comunitat Autònoma de Catalunya and ca:Principat de Catalunya. User:Martorell deliberately maintains the mix-up for politically-related grounds.

However, the basic issue is that Wikimedia Commons is not a place to revive former territories, and to build structures which:

don't exist in any serious Wikipedia project

AND

are not useful for finding media files or for maintenance.

is inappropriate. --Juiced lemon 11:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read a few lines in the ca:Perpinyà (Catalan Wikipedia):

Perpinyà (en francès i oficialment Perpignan) és una ciutat catalana capital del Rosselló, a la Catalunya del Nord

That's not the reality. There are some guys who are in the skies in the Catalan project, and they built a Fantasy world like Middle Earth. --Juiced lemon 12:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juiced lemon's view

Bryan, can you explain why you use the village pump to initiate personal attacks against me? --Juiced lemon 17:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not initiating personal attacks against you. I try to express my view, why you have been engaged in so many conflicts. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You initiated the subject, though you know perfectly well that we cannot properly discuss about these so-called conflicts in the village pump.

Wikimedia has an user edit counter. The page ends with this short story:

A novice was once curious about the nature of the Edit Count. He approached the Zen master and asked, "Zen master, what is the nature of the Edit Count?"

"The Edit Count is as a road," replied the Zen master. "You must travel the road to reach your destination, and some may travel longer roads than others. But do not judge the person at your door by the length of the road he has travelled to reach you."

And the novice was Enlightened.

So, when you speak about “so many conflicts”, I don't think that you want to enlight other users. --Juiced lemon 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not posting this because I want to publically humiliate you. I posted this because I think there is a problem, and that problem needs to be solved, because these conflicts affects the whole community. My posting was never meant to be attacking, and if you find it attacking, I will probably have to apologize for the fact that I might have been to direct. The content however is still there, and I stand behind it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right when you say “there is a problem”, because I am not happy to dispute with other users about recurrent issues, especially when there is an obvious solution (example: obvious surcategorization).

We need a structure to resolve such problems, i. e. problems which can be solved with simple rules. Look at this talk page Category talk:Deers in heraldry, about a spelling issue: must we accept that users create categories with mispelled names?

If not, we must force users to respect spelling, if necessary. Wikimedia Commons is not a kindergarten. --Juiced lemon 00:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons is not a personal photo-album of yours where you can remove everything you dislike. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 00:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really proud of this sentence?

Do you know somebody who removes everything he dislikes, in Commons or in the real life? In particular, administrators delete a lot of media files. Do you think that administrators enjoy, when they remove pictures from Commons?

They do it because it have to be done. I don't act differently. --Juiced lemon 18:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

Interlingual problems

There are few effectively disjoint communities on Commons, centered on this page or the different language equivalents (the French Café and German Forum for instance). The purpose of the VP and those pages is two-fold. One segment is the "Hi, I want advice, what do I do?"-type threads and the second relates to proprosals, announcements and the like. Obviously, English-speaking users are not going to be that much use at answering a simple query in German, but when policy proposals develop; that impacts on all the lingual groups here and it would be best to have a central place to discuss these tasks. We have COM:AN for administrative attention now, which is good, but we could do with a general announcement page for those discussions that are important to all.--Nilfanion 13:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal. However, how will you announce the setting up of the general announcement page? :-). --Juiced lemon 18:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full support as well, though there's Commons:Community news which could be re-activated and promoted. Two such Annoucements pages which are working can be found on m:Template:Information_thread and fr:Wikipédia:Annonces, if you want to find inspiration. le Korrigan →bla 19:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. / Fred Chess 01:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Russian coa 1917 vrem svast.gif - official symbol or artist impression

I changed the description of this image. It stood as it were an official symbol of the Provisional Government (1917) in the transition period between Imperial Russia and the USSR. However it could as far as I know only be found at bank notes. Rex Curry (yes, the one) has some info on it, if someone might want to read his views on it (search for 'How Stalin, Mao & Hitler and the USSR & PRC & NSDAP were influenced by socialists in the USA' on google (his website is on the spamlist)), but I couldn't really find any info on English websites about the official use of the swastika during the period of the Provisional Government. On vector-images the description says on Russian 'Россия, изображение двуглавого орла со свастикой на деньгах Временного Правительства, 1917 г.' (translated as: Russia, the image of a two-headed eagle with a swastika on the money of provisional government, 1917). If anyone has more info on this, then it may be added to the description of the image. --Hardscarf 14:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least one thing is true: the 250 rubles note of the provisional government of Russia of 1917 did indeed feature a swastika. See e.g. this image, or also this Latvian site that also has an image (both recto and verso) of that bank note and that states that the designer of the banknote was Rihards Zariņš (or Zarriņš, 1869–1939), a Latvian who was at that time technical director of the Russian State printing house that issued the note. According to that Latvian site, Zariņš used the swastika in other designs, too. Lupo 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For instance on the 1,000 rubles note (see [19]). It appears Curry's image is a crop of that bank note. Lupo 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing it up! --Hardscarf 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, it just occurred to me that I didn't actually answer your question. In any case, it seems to me that the combination of the double-headed eagle and the swastika as used on these banknotes is not an official symbol but only incidental. The designer of these bank notes used the swastika as a decorative element in the background of the note; the eagle is placed (in black) atop of it. So I think unless one could show that this combination of eagle and swastika was used officially and as a single entity elsewhere, one should not consider it an "official symbol", and Image:Russian coa 1917 vrem svast.gif is actually a misrepresentation because it mixes the symbol (the eagle) with a basically unrelated decorative element from the background. Lupo 08:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

Image:EU_location_GER.png

I believe this map and the others from Category:Locator maps for EU countries are licensed with an unfree license. They are tagged with {{EU location}}, which actually uses {{Copyrighted free use provided that}} containing the following sentence:

"Newly created maps based on this material may only be used together with the original images if they stay in line with the corporate design scheme and its intention."

I dont't think this is a free license as required by Commons:Licensing because it restricts the requirement that "publication of derivative work must be allowed." Any opinions? --Dapete ばか 07:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be indeed non free. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we ask the contributor for his reaction? He might want - I hope - to change the license.Electionworld 13:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped him a note on his german talk page. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was the discussion at his German talk page:

Deze kaart en anderen uit deze categorie, heeft u gelicenseerd op voorwaarde dat de afbeelding voor niet commerciele doeleinden gebruikt wordt. Volgens het beleid van Commons (COM:L) is dat onvrij. Mijn verzoek is daarom om hem onder een vrije licentie, zoals de GFDL of de CC-BY-SA te licenseren, anders zullen deze afbeeldingen helaas verwijderd moeten worden van commons. User:Bryan 14:57, 5. Jan. 2007 (CET) (Note: if you prefer english, you can also answer in English)

Well, it seems that you somhow misunderstood my licensing tag. Commercial use IS allowed. So there is no problem.

See >"Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted." in the license tag. --David Liuzzo 23:17, 5. Jan. 2007 (CET)

I am not very sure whether this also applies to Commons, but I don't know whether this condition is free enough:

if the copyright holder gets informed about it..

-- Bryan (talk to me) 18:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like "notification". Notification of use can be requested but it cannot be required. That's where we draw the line between free and non-free. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I'll ask the uploader to relicense his files or have them deleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

Please review SMPTE image for appropriateness

The image Image:SMPTE_RP-133.png was created by me, in close accord (several extensions) with a SMPTE specification. I believe a senior editor needs to decide its appropriateness. The specification is copyrighted, but SMPTE does not sell images itself, just the specs. I think it is shareable on the theory that if I buy plans for a house from an architect, and build the house with my own resources, I own the house even if the architect still owns the plans. Also, I linked the image to Category:Test_patterns and the system has failed to make a thumbnail for it in over 24 hours. Dozen 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a senior editor, but unless the specification leaves zero room for interpretation, I think you're right. Copyright only protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself -- sort of like the difference between a w:blazon and a w:coat of arms. If the specification is copyrighted, it would just mean the text of the specification itself is protected (i.e. no one can reprint it without authorization), but anyone can use the ideas it writes about (unless of course they are patented). So, unless the image itself (or major portions of the image) is copied from example images, I think you're all right -- you own the full copyright (unless you sold the rights, or it was a work for hire).

As for the thumbnail issue, according to Commons:First_steps/Quality_and_description for .png and .gif (not .jpg) there is a 12.5 megapixel limit where the servers will not generate thumbmails, which your image is a bit above. This seems to affect category and gallery listings (which need the thumbnails), though regular image thumbnail links work sort of, as wiki will generate HTML which causes the whole image to be downloaded and scaled by the browser instead. Carl Lindberg 03:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One note though -- I don't see a license on the image page. You would need to explicitly mark it as released to the public domain, or pick one of the by, sa, or by-sa Creative Commons licenses, or GFDL, or something similar. Without a license allowing anyone else to use the image (including commercially), we can't use it here. Carl Lindberg 03:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that I forgot to select a license; it was the first image I uploaded. When i try to edit the page, the dropdown which lets me select the license is absent. How do I select a license once the image is already uploaded? I'd select the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license if I could. Dozen 06:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just edit the page, and insert the text {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} in there. That will expand to the license description. 68.98.152.184 08:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it -- thanks! Dozen 08:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just uploaded an extraction of the first, which is a much smaller, yet still basically compliant version. Its applicability here is the same as the first. Dozen 18:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coats of arms for (Italian) towns or communes

The issue is the following one :

On WP:it, each town or commune has its own coat of arms.

Either the picture belongs to WP:it: in this case, the licence is fair-use. See an example.

or it belongs to Commons with GNU Free Documentation License. See an example.

Our Italian fellows have discussed at length about permission for coasts of arms of towns. See, for instance, this page. According to them, we have to ask each town or commune for using their coast of arms with a GFDL license. Someones (within WP:fr) consider that is too pernickety.

-

All the Italian towns or communes have been migrated to WP:fr. At the moment, we (WP:fr) can only see coats of arms from Commons. At the migration, all fair-use coasts of arms have been hidden.

Recently, I worked with Castelforte article. Of course, on WP:it, the license of its coast of arms was fair use. However I found on WP:en a picture with a GFDL license.

Immediately (too fast!) I uploaded this picture into Commons.

But…. It is not so easy….

My question is: What have we to do with coasts of arms of (Italian) towns? Are they already free or have we to ask permission. In this case to whom? And with which relevant points?

Can we clearly solve the issue? Thanks in advance. Kindly. jpm2112 23:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the two images above seems to be that one of them is a copy of the official coat of arms whereas the other is a user created version based on the blazoning. As it says above "Copyright only protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself" so a user created version based soley on the blazoning should be free (asuming that the user licens it freely). The conditions in {{Insignia}} would still aply though. /Lokal _Profil 00:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid misunderstanding: Which picture are you talking about?

To which picture do you want to apply {{Insignia}} (as, for instance, Ravenna)? Regards jpm2112 08:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After asking WP French Village pump, this issue is maybe solved (surely Lokal has the same point of view):

The main point is to know the creation date of the coast of arms. It is not a heraldry issue, only a drawing date issue. Therefore, with Commons, each coast of arms has to be studied, one by one.

What particularly occurs with our picture? Regards and thanks jpm2112 16:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to differ between the blazoning (description of the Coat of arms in words) and the actual coat of arms (artists interpretation of the blazoning). If the coat of arms (not the blazoning) is old enough then it can be used freely. If the coat of arms has been done by a user who has based it on the blazoning then it is also free to use.

As far as I have understood it any official coat of arms (user created or otherwise) should bear the {{Insignia}}-tag in addition to a copyright tag but I'm not 100% on this./Lokal _Profil 13:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lokal. If I have undersood you: if I focus on Image:Castelforte-Stemma.png, there are two parts :

the coast of arms
something added by the town: the two oak branches + the ribbon + and maybe the armorial motto

Well, 1) is free - 2)we have to add the {{Insignia}}-tag. With which WP? With Commons or whatever else?

It's possible to scan 1) or create a new coat of arms by drawing from 1) => GFDL is enough

Right? jpm2112 15:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I really get what you mean. For the image Image:Castelforte-Stemma.png I've gathered that it's user created (or otherwise created and GFDL licensed). So it should be ok copyrightwise. But since it's based on the blasoning for Castelforte municipality it should have the {{Insignia}} tag. In theory the insignia tag (or something similar on WP) would be added to the image independently of where it's hosted. However if the image is already on Commons then it should be enough to tag the Commons image. I hope that helps/Lokal _Profil 21:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 7

Forts and fortresses

Commons has both Category:Forts and Category:Fortresses. My English is not good enough so that I could tell if it makes sense to have both of these. (The images look damn similar.) If there should be only one, I suggest we move all the content to fortresses. -Samulili 11:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From en:Fortification: "Many military installations are known as forts, although they are not always fortified. Larger forts may class as fortresses..." I'd suggest that most fortresses could be described as forts, but only a minority of forts as fortresses. Man vyi 12:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Missing images

Hello,

It's my first post here! Just to tell that the Category:Missing images is a little messed-up : bad name not in english, images not translates, images duplicated and need of creating other generic joker like Image:Missing map.png for example. I can add that maybe, other images aren't listed here.

How can we clean up this category? Xfigpower () 18:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I created this category some time ago, and I didn't have any better idea for its name - sorry about this, I thought some clever chap speaking a better English than mine would correct it :-) le Korrigan →bla 10:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Category:Missing image placeholders is more appropriate. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 15:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going in the right direction, but try just Image placeholders. Alternatively: Placeholders for missing images. It's not the placeholders that are missing. ;-) —LX (talk, contribs) 18:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Image placeholders seems good and short enough. le Korrigan →bla 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Siebrand 07:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

tagging -convert to svg-

Hi!

I have a question: Is there a consensus about svg in the commons? I have been tagging images with -convert to svg- which, in my opinion should be svg (for example some flags, graphs etc.). It now often happens, that people take that tag away again. some examples: - -

My opinion is, that if an image would be better of in SVG, tag it and somebody eventually may convert it to it to svg. But thats only my opinion. What do you lot think? Amada44 17:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SVG tagging is appropriate; removing it for these images is not. Going by edit comments, Borheinsieg had a legitimate complaint that it should have been tagged as a coat of arms image, not a flag (but that doesn't justify removing the tag outright). As for the last one, I'm not finding "cheese" a very helpful revert comment. I've re-added the tags. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanxs! No, that comment isn't helpful. Only saw it because you mentioned it. Okay, then thats fine. I will continue to tag pictures which should be svg! I just converted an other poor png to svg :-)

Amada44 23:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two shields have been reverted again by Geograv. I have put the tags back with an edit comment pointing here. William Avery 13:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And he (Geograv) has taken the tags away again with this comment: "(99 % of 8.000 uploaded german coas needs svg-graphics (why?) - so please delete these fucking playground-category)"

Well, I am not tagging them again,.... Amada44 18:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs of books

Hello all. I occasionally notice people uploading photographs or scans of old books (whose copyright has expired). My local library has some Charles Dickens books with some neat engravings from 1894 that I plan on uploading. I seem to remember seeing a discussion somewhere about the value of scans of the actual text... or am I just imagining things?

Also, does anybody have any tips on actually obtaining the images? I was planning on mounting my camera to a tripod and photographing the books, because I don't want to damage them in a flatbed scanner.... Thanks! ~MDD 46 96 20:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You asked me on my talk page. I used regular cheap flatbed scanner, 300 DPI is usually enough for books. You can't use a camera to produce good photos which can be used for OCR later unless you're very skillful and have a very good camera. Although you can achieve stability using a tripod, you can't get the whole page to be lighted evenly, trust me, I tried. You can read more about scanning at Project Gutenberg. Scanning old books requires some practice but go ahead and try. I recommend you try to OCR every few pages and then try different settings and OCR again to see which setting gets the best results before you do a whole book. I wouldn't worry about damaging a 1800 book on a flatbed, I did even 1600 without damaging them. A tip: put another heavier book on the binding to press even the folded center to the glass. ~~helix84 20:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the photograph idea from a friend who was doing work for my town's historical society. He used two lamps and a camera mount and was able to get decent images. They weren't doing OCR though. I will try out the photo thing and if it doesn't work, I'll try the flatbed. ~MDD 46 96 23:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's someone else at it - Image:Dalla Terra alla Luna pag. 122-123.JPG. There's dozens of pages from this book been uploaded. I'm not sure this is a particularly efficient method of storing out of copyright texts. --ksfan 21:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

Automobile license plates displayed or blanked?

Question: Should automobile license plates be blanked on the photographs, because having your license plate displayed on Commons (or other Wikimedia projects) is a privacy violation, or are photographs with license plates generally acceptable, as this is a publicly displayed information? Is there a general policy/agreement on this? Examples:

License plate blanked.
License plate displayed.

--AtonX 09:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just had another editor ask me the same thing on my talk page regarding a Swedish photo. By American case law, I'd say it's no problem. "No argument can be made that a motorist seeks to keep the information on his license plate private. The very purpose of a license plate number … is to provide identifying information … a motorist can have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained on it." (United States v. Ellison, 462 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. September 5, 2006)) Other countries may of course have sillier laws. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable... however, being empathic, I wouldn't like MY car and license plate eternalised on Commons... :-/ --AtonX 09:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. I don't think there's anything stopping us from courteously and voluntarily obscuring licence plates (or faces of bystanders), nor do I think this would affect the quality or usefulness of the photos, but I believe that's up to each individual uploader. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may choose between a disguised image and a real picture, I'll always select the real picture. So my opinion is that Wikimedia Commons needn't to be cluttered up with disguised images, unless there is an imperative reason to do it. --Juiced lemon 12:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit surprised by your choice of words. Do you mean blanking the plates deletes useful information, or are you against any content modification in pictures, generally speaking? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the point of imposing blanked plates. It's up to the uploader. Except in some individual cases, I don't see the reason for blanking plates. If you don't want anyone to see your plate, leave your car in the garage. LHOON 13:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mean blanking the plates deletes information, particularly regarding the location of the shot. Also, there is not a clear difference between a picture of a car with a blanked licence plate and a picture of a car without plate: the lack of a plate is a clue as to a special situation. --Juiced lemon 14:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LHOON, it's up to the uploader. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can one do with a license plate number, and the make and model of a vehicle, with no other information other than maybe the location of the photograph? ~MDD 46 96 15:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the American "law", I think the issue should not be if the info on the plate itself can be regarded as a privacy violation but rather the context of the photo. As soon as we try to provide extra info concerning the context of the photo, such as (exact) location and date (even unintentionally through the EXIF-data and/or other items identifyable in the picture), I think we do come into the domain of the owners privacy. "Hey dude, what was your car doing parked close to the red light district in Amsterdam while you were supposedly too ill to work and at home??" Of course, by erasing the number some info is lost (such as the ability to later enter it into a registration database and find more detailed info on the vehicle itself) and even with the numbers erased some vehicles are quite identifyable anyway to the point that it can be made out to be "your car". No real solotion there, but I feel it's a small effort we can make to at least signal that we do consider the owners privacy in some way. Pudding4brains 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made the point. This discussion is not about imposing a rule, but rather about raising awareness about an issue which has not been considered before. Publishing the date, time and location of your car, as could inferred from the meta-information, is rather orwellian. --AtonX 22:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it has Orwellian potential. Converting the photo to a PNG using the GIMP is an easy way to destroy the EXIF data. That's one option to consider. --Coelacan 20:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image not appearing on Wikipedia

~~I've just uploaded my first image to the Commons, and I've added it to the Ramla Bay Wikipedia article, but the image isn't displaying. What am I doing wrong? Wykebjs 23:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Never mind, it's working now. Wykebjs 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming a category

I discovered that I had misspelled, and that I created a Category:Toshiro-Kaplan Building that should be Category:Tashiro-Kaplan Building (Tashiro rather than Toshiro). I'm going to end up doing this manually, but in the process of trying to understand what to do, I encountered the following:

There is no obvious page anywhere off of the Community Portal telling my what to do in a situation like this.
There is a template called {{Category redirect}} that contains very confusing instructions. It tells me to look at the discussion for two other templates—both on wikipedia:en:, neither directly relevant. I have no idea what in that discussion is supposed to be germane. Most of it is distinctly misleading. It aims me toward using a bot-supported {{Cfr-speedy}} that, as far as I can tell, does not exist on Commons.
I also found Template:Deletiontools, which is full of red links. That page seems to be an absolute liability unless the things it links to are created.
As an experienced user (I'm an admin on wikipedia:en:) I found this quite confusing enough. I suspect that someone less experienced, and possibly unfamiliar with this page, would either have added a useless non-template, or given up entirely. - en:Jmabel | talk 01:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now moved all the images. What the heck do I do to get the old category deleted (no one but me has ever used it, so a redirect for my misspelling seems pointless). - en:Jmabel | talk 01:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it for you. You could have used {{Spelling mistake}} to put it in the deletion category. It certainly would be nice if some things were more intuitive. Jkelly 04:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; what about Template:Deletiontools, should that go away? - en:Jmabel | talk 19:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a copy of a page from en:wp that does not apply here. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jmabel, sorry you had such trouble figuring out what to do. I modified {{Category redirect}} so I hope it is more obvious how to use it now. If you had an account here, we could give you a {{Welcome}}, which would at least invite you to ask questions at the Commons:Help desk. :) cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

NEH grant

On the foundation mailing list, [20] , sage signalled the possibilty to apply for a grant.

It is my impression that we are weak in certain areas. For example, modern art in musea, famous people.

Musea often charge considerable money for making photos which can be used commercially. With a grant, we could pay the musea fees to have a wiki volunteer photograph a valuable collection in the museum. Of course not every museum has a collection for which we ish to pay. And the volunteer must be able to make photos of (semi) professional quality.

Another possible area is area of 20th century famous people. There may be retired professional photographers who are willing to sell yheir collection into ht epublic domain.

And you may have other ideas for collections we might wish to purchase. The central idea is that we pay to get media into the public domain, and use the money of the grant for this.

Of course there will be a lot of paperwork, and I will not be available for it. I drop the possibilty here, and if no one picks it up, so be it.

Teun Spaans 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a very good idea. I know we have people her on Commons with excellent photographic skills who are probably wanting to do this. I'm looking forward to see reaction. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use money to purchase collections. I will write a bit about this on the mailing list because it does seem well-suited to us. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started a meta page for ideas: m:NEH Advancing Knowledge grant. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

modern art in museums Beep. There are two issues here:

Whether or not the museum authorizes you to take photographs (and for good photographs, they'll need to be taken with visitors away, controlled lighting, glass cases open... so it's work for the museum, and they charge for it).
Whether the author of the work of art authorizes you to make derivative works. Remember, the copyright holder for a sculpture, painting etc. is the artist, not the owner of the work of art. Older art is out of copyright.

(Incidentally, I think I remember some museums allowing photos except in the modern art section... for that reason.) David.Monniaux 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture excerpt copyright tag = Template:Quotation-GFDL ?

Moved to Commons talk:Licensing Micheletb 07:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 11

"The file is corrupt or has an incorrect extension"

I'm getting the message "The file is corrupt or has an incorrect extension. Please check the file and upload again" when trying to upload a file via Special:Upload.

The source file is a jpeg. It displays just fine on my machine. My upload parameters are:

Source: C:\tmp\RTB.jpeg
Target: ReleasingTheBonds.jpeg

Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks. Tanaats 23:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change *.jpeg to *.jpg. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 00:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for responding, but I get the same error with these filenames:

Source: C:\tmp\RTB.jpg
Target: ReleasingTheBondsBookCover.jpg

Any further thoughts? Thanks. Tanaats 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you set a valid email in your account (special:preferences), I'll email you, then you can reply to me and send me the file. I can try to upload it. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've set my email address. Thanks for your help. Tanaats 05:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, but I've figured it out. My friend sent me a bmp with a jpg extention. I've converted it to jpeg and it uploaded fine. Tanaats 00:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The golden rule: store metadata in the image

The golden rule: store metadata in the image (here the link).

I found this "golden rule" but I discovered it by myself some days before, when realizing that the best place for my personal metadata and comments about any my digital picture is the picture itself.

I saw the Exif article on en.wiki and I found that there is no mention of such "golden rule".

The great, obvious advantage of putting metadata into the picture is that there is no need both to write them otherwhere, AND to link them with the image file name (as you know, if you rename/move/send a picture, the link between the picture and any external data is lost). I imagine a Commons tool to read/write/align some basic wiki data (author, location, date, copyright, description, keywords) AND exif picture metadata; so that any commons picture could be downloaded/published otherwhere with such important metadata INSIDE it. The upload into commons would be simplified too - no need to add any text data, if basic wiki data have been written inside the image by the uploader!

If you are interested: have a good try of Exifer on a batch or your pictures (it's free: http://www.exifer.friedemann.info), and think a little about...--Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 05:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before we give more emphasis on EXIF, we must find free (as in freedom and as in price), and Open Source software that handles it very well, in the various operating systems: Windows, but also Mac OS, Linux, *BSD... Do you have any suggestions ? --OsvaldoGago 12:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using KDE in Unix-like operating systems, one can edit the EXIF comment field (and view the others) from the file properties, provided one has the libkexif library installed. It looks like more full-fledged editing powers are in the SVN version of Kipi, so it should be available soon for Kipi-aware programs, such as Digikam (which has screen shots of the upcoming features) and Gwenview, in a distribution near you. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Far from being an expert in informatics, I simply saw a link about the "golden rule" and some basic requisites of a good database. I'll encourage my friends simply to begin to add EXIF data into their images, in particolar when they send them to me... there's a good Exif Viewer as an add-on of Firefox too.

Bot for changing wrong categories

I read somewhere in the past there is a bot to change wrong categories (e.g. "Churches of Italy" in place of "Churches in Italy". Can anybody tell me where I can find it? Thank you. --G.dallorto 23:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Orgullobot. User:Siebrand also operate bot which moves categories. --EugeneZelenko 16:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 12

Transwiki log created

A m:Transwiki log has been created for Commons. It can be found here. To learn more about transwiki, see the page at Meta. If you have any questions, please contact me at en:User talk:IanManka. Hopefully, I placed this in the right place. IanManka 03:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than this way, it might not be a bad idea to just get Special:Import enabled from projects that are often transwikied from. If "Transwiki:" is made into a namespace (as was done on en.wikibooks), the import tool can be used safely without problems of unintentional overwrites. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 12:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 13

Picture of the Year 2006 implementation

Some help is needed to organize the Picture of the Year 2006 (POTY) election. Please check the discussion and conclusions in Commons talk:Featured picture candidates . A POTY page sketch has been created here. All suggestions and help are most welcome. Alvesgaspar 10:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Art and Germany

The reference to Germany in the current form of the template is misleading: If a work of art was published in the US before 1923, reproductions of it are not at all automatically PD in Germany, due to a bilateral contract. I would like to re-word the template. Comments, objections? --Wikipeder 13:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say: Let's get rid of the "US before 1923" rule. --Fb78 13:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 18:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before making the changes, let's discuss at the template's talk page. / Fred Chess 17:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories and pages not appearing in large category

Take a look at Category:Dog breeds. There are no subcategories or pages showing up after "H", however, such entries do exist. Examples of a subcategory and a page that are not showing up: Category:Rottweiler and New Guinea Singing Dog. There is nothing I can see in the markup of Category:Dog breeds or these subcategories and pages that should be expected to cause this, so I suspect that the problem is happening in other large categories as well. --Coelacan 20:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the category contains more than 200 categories, images, and galleries. Most images are of specific dog breeds so they should be moved to the relevant subcategories. The galleries can also be moved to subcategories. /82.212.68.183 22:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that many images are already in relevant subcategories, but are also superfluously categorized in the parent category, which is consecutively overcrowded.

This is the list of the most linked categories. I selected 235. Category:Actors from the United States, then the fourth picture:

. Look at its categories, and don't be surprised anymore if they are 531 members in the category!

I suggest to create a template with a special message for users who use excessive surcategorization. --Juiced lemon 23:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorisation, as explained on Commons:Categories#Category_structure and the subsequent paragraph, is indeed a big part of the problem. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the cetegory is obviously overcrowded. However, this is still a bug. The display of subcategories should not break when a category is large. If anything, we might expect the subcategories and pages to continue on the "Next 200" but they aren't there. How is one supposed to find the relevant subcategories without shooting haphazardly for them with the search function? They aren't listed anywhere. Coelacan 23:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rest do appear but only once the first letter of the images has caught up with the first letter of the Category. See here [21]. The problem can usually be sorted by writing something like [[Category:Dog breeds|*Rottweiler]] for each of the subcategories. Then they all get sorted under * (but also in alphabetic order) and should appear on the first page./Lokal _Profil 00:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACK!! Well, I understand now. It's pretty awful though and I'm not up for that much work. I stole a nav bar from Wikipedia:Category:People by nationality for the time being. It sort of works. --Coelacan 01:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best permanent solution is probably to create slightly wider subcategories such as terriers, spaniels etc. (or maybe some more suitable/official subcategories). Currently there is also the common problem of galleries vs. categories where images which are in a gallery just gets dumped into the Dog breeds category rather than a subcategory. /Lokal _Profil 03:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin would change the misleading default text "There are 21 subcategories to this category" in MediaWiki:Subcategorycount to "There are 21 subcategories to this category shown below (more may be shown on subsequent pages)" (as it says in English Wikipedia), that would mitigate the issue. Subcategories can also be forced to display on the first category page by temporarily setting a sorting string and prepending it with a space, like [[Category:Dog breeds| Terriers]], until its contents are categorised better. This facilitates the work of those who work on assigning more specific categories, as they can easily see which categories they can use, without having to flip through multiple category pages or browser tabs. It also reduces the risk of images being assigned an overly broad category by users who erroneously believe that the specific subcategory they would use does not exist. —LX (talk, contribs) 04:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed MediaWiki:Subcategorycount as you suggested. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. I should have pointed out that MediaWiki:Categoryarticlecount and MediaWiki:Category-media-count should probably be modified in a similar fashion. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was wondering about this earlier. Category:Images from the Library of Congress has a couple of subcategories that don't show up, and I didn't know why. Now that I know though, it's still a bit odd -- three subcategories show up on the first page, but two more (starting with M and V), plus a template (starting with T), don't show up until the very last page of images (when the images are in the Vs). Is that to be expected as well? Carl Lindberg 04:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that helps a bit. Things like this make me think that Pages with galleries are better than categories (you can also "watch" a page more effectively than a category). If there are a bunch of images in "Category:Red Apples", but they are already on the "Red Apples" page, maybe we don't really need "Category:Red Apples". The "Red Apples" page could also easily be copied to "Rote Apfel" and "Pommes Rouges" as well, skirting the category-language issue. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 20:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about copying "Red Apples" to "Rote Apfel". It seems like that would create a lot more maintainance work in the future. What about putting all the different languages' information on the single page at "Red Apples" and having "Rote Apfel" redirect there? Anyway this category and gallery thing is bothering me. I'm fairly new to the Commons and I don't know my way around. I created Category:New Guinea Singing Dog although New Guinea Singing Dog already existed; I was trying to follow what appeared to me to be precedent. But in retrospect it seems pretty useless to have both. Should I tag the category for deletion (and put its parent categories on the gallery page instead)? Is there some decision already made about this stuff or is the category-and-gallery method advisable for some reason I don't see? Coelacan 21:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coelacan, categories and galleries each have their own advantages (and fans). Because a vote about which to use had no consensus either way, we choose to use a mixed system. Generally just use whichever you are most comfortable with, although media might be re-organised by others later. See also commons:Categories. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this sorting problem could be fixed by altering the sorting priority for different objects. Currently subcategories, pages, and media are all given equal sorting priority. But this could be changed, so that subcategories and pages have equal priority but higher priority than media. Then when displaying a large category, all the pages and subcategories up to H or whatever would be displayed, click on Next 200 and you see more subcategories and pages, until all of those are displayed and then the media files themselves begin. Since media outnumber subcategories and pages by a huge ratio, this seems like a good idea. Coelacan 21:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that this is a known and reported bug. Until the devs fix it, we just have to live with it, like all the Wikimedia projects. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness sake, the bug ID is 1211. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Righto. Thanks, all. Coelacan 20:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for collaboration

I would care to request if users of Wikimedia Commons could help collect 26 images each of which depict an object corresponding to each letter in the English alphabet. It is necessary for them to be appropriate for a young child (toddler) and simple to comprehend (non-abstract). I choose to ask the community rather than scourer the website myself because I’m assured you all have recognised appropriate images as you visit this site and I myself am not acquainted with the Commons system and its images. It would be preferable if the image description links (Image:..) were added to my Wikibooks page. --Herraotic 21:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than one million files in the database, and the images you want are scattered. Therefore, you have to specify your request so that we can help you: give us your objects list, and we'll point out where you'll find the pictures. --Juiced lemon 02:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My intent is to be vague as I hoped for the community to pick what they would think is appropriate. My own opinion is to use musical instruments, wild and domestic animals, transport, natural phenomena and food. --Herraotic 19:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea! Make a page with a link here where we can leave our suggestions so as to not balloon the discussion here. --Petercorless 23:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page is Wikibooks:User:Herraotic#Alphabet, or, if you just stick suggestions on User:Herraotic, I have a wikibooks account and I can drag them across on a semi-regular basis. Coelacan 10:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:nux&wikiquette[A.T_L.E.A.S.T]-YES-or-NO?

(on undoing owner's comment on e.g. Image:Decision Tree on Uploading Images pl.svg)

Original Image:Decision Tree on Uploading Images (COM-VPs working copy EN).png was published 2006-03 under cc-by-2.5. So-called "Self-created work" by user:nux under PD-self absolutely copies that Layout while transmitting it into Polish language and SVG. Original's author comment within nux' oeuvre is reverted by now-so-called "owner" with imvvho very questionable comment. Is this the way cc-by is handled within wiki by now?

Same applies to Image:Decision Tree on Uploading Images de.svg, by same so-called "author".

As far as I can make out Image:Decision Tree on Uploading Images pl.svg (released PD 2006-09-01) claims to be based on e.g. Image:Decision Tree on Uploading Imagesv2.svg (released PD 2006-05-27). What is the perceived problem? Man vyi 15:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As this happened I feel myself obliged to comment. Just want to confirm that I based my work on Image:Decision Tree on Uploading Imagesv2.svg. Note that I don't even have to give the author's name if the work was released to public domain. None the less I always give the author's name and also even though I contributed quite a lot in the original picture (compare sources of [22] and [23]) I don't mention my name there, but maybe I should have. --Nux (talk··dyskusja) 11:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, compare...

The problem seems that putting an (however minor) "artwork" under "cc-by" seems to those people here just "NOTHIN'-AT-ALL". Not more, not less. any IP 15:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even discuss this with nux? -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR, to put it more precisely: THAT secondary faintingly "original" was produced as a copy of same true original by same a**(&ct). Re: Did you discuss? Why T.H.E_H.E.L.L should I talk to someone DEFINITIVELY stealing my work? HÄÄÄ? any IP 15:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AND, I might have forgotten to say, E.R.A.S.I.N.G my comment on "his oeuvre". So much for today. Make up WP's minds whether things like that should seem "correct" to people like WPdians. Please R.E.M.E.M.B.E.R: I was asking for, at least, so-called w.i.k.i.q.u.e.t.t.e. I personally care a bullshit on "copyright issues" of work I gave here, but WP should, and faintingly "A.L.W.A.Y.S" does [?????] care about. any IP 15:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do assume good faith, and discuss first with Nux himself before complaining on a public forum. Wikiquette is not shouting accusations on the Village Pump without ever trying to discuss. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. These images are not "works", they are not original enough to be copyrighted. --Fb78 16:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YES/or_NO: The Hell I'll do: Someone erasing a comment does NOT.AT.ALL show "good faith". It took by far more than just a few days to develop a perfect design. A.N.D: I was talking about, "at least," w.i.k.i.q.u.e.t.t.e. (could I make myself understood, on this point???). regards, any IP 16:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that don't seem to get your point of wikiquette across, is because you fail yourself in it. Please discuss it with Nux before posting again on the Pump. This is leading nowhere, I can assure you that nobody is willing to help you this way. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care about "being helped", nor will I beg for something I own. I asked here whether this community respects its own rules. any IP 07:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TO ALL READERS: You may find it useful to compare "any IP"'s complaints to the correction I've made on one of his uploads. He gives misleading information on authorship by himself!!! and wrong licenses. And this is only one example - 17:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please identify yourself. And to everybody: screaming on the Village Pump is good for nothing. It does not help you to get your point across. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Very probably German) witchhunter 217.237.148.71 and/or 217.237.148.73 obviously misunderstands handling of licences. Description of Image:Annie IP's joke -2- wikiWölfchens Späßchen.png (do not use http:/...hyperlinks to reference to media on commons!) clearly declared that someone had taken a GNU pic, and changed it: Whether original's author has noticed that new (and, may be, questionnable) "oeuvre" is uncertain, but he must not (in no case!) be made responsible for a later change, therefore must not show up as an author of the derivated work. He was referenced three times in the description, which I recently changed again to make things more than 100% clear, even for most the narrowminded among my German "friends". Tell me if I'm wrong. any IP 09:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please compare

Image:Meerkatmascotfull.png by Stevertigo and

Image:Annie IP's joke -2- wikiWölfchens Späßchen.png.

Who is the author of the second image? Presumably NOT "any IP". -- 217.237.149.143 14:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Experiences and frustrations

I just started coming to the Wikimedia commons to create graphics for the war in Somalia. The maps I made are my own. I found as a new contributor it was not very step-by-step or intuitive what I needed to do. I would select a license, but it would not show up on the result page. I would get these "panic" messages my image would be deleted because it was not tagged, even when I had chosen a license in the menu.

Further, now I am starting to get harassed that my maps, which I put my name on, are "watermarked." As soon as you tell an artist to start using "Perl" to use an EXIF tool to mark their images, I am afraid you're going to lose people. While I could do that, I suppose, given a lot of time and head-scratching, I'm unlikely to even attempt it. I can see how it would be unsuitable to put all sorts of rights statements in a small image, but my maps are basically "full page" works within which I simply added my name and the date in a light grey text. I have no problems sharing my work freely in Wikimedia commons, but a basic right of any artist is to sign their work, is it not? It would violate the spirit of the CC license to remove it, if this is against my wishes: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." Thus all I ask is that you respect my signing my work and leave my name on it. Simple, I thought? And not as obtrusive as a digital watermark. Considering this was an original contribution, I figured it served a few pragmatic purposes besides simple "vanity," including attributing the source of the information, just as one would attribute the author of a cited article. The buck stops with me. Plus the date was especially useful, I had hoped, to ensure that as versions and corrections were updated in the ongoing conflict, people could check to see which was the most recent.

Overall, I am generally but not entirely pleased with my experience. I started getting the swing of things only after a few embarrassing attempts. I could not figure how to replace a file to make minor corrections, so I ended up making "near" names, which was annoying. The wording of the licensing and watermarking messages was rather alarming, and might even be considered off-putting enough to drive away contributors. Were I less keen, I might just simply have said this was too much trouble. However, the value the maps brought to the articles has gotten me barnstars and kudos. I was considering making a new series of maps for other conflicts next (west Balkans in the 1990s, Sudan). Try to figure out how not to whipsaw or badger new eager contributors, and respect a creative contributor's rights, please. --Petercorless 23:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! They are nice maps. The issues of "watermarking" are a bit thorny and dependent on how and what you do. My view is that watermarking with photos is not at all acceptable - principally because it is impossible to remove without altering the picture - thus it is devaluing the picture, thus it should be avoided at all costs. With maps I am a bit more 50/50. On the maps you have made the only thing I would say is that the text shouldn't be floating somewhere down the bottom which is inside the "subject" of the image. On a couple of maps that I have spent 10's of hours creating I have added my name, but only inside the key box, and in very small text - that way it is not in any of the map itself, and can easily be removed if someone wants to (plain background - no info lost by having it). I have only attributed my name on a couple of the maps I have made - and in those cases principally because I spent a great deal of time creating them and I judge that it is quite likely that someone else may come along and attempt to use it without attributation. So all I would really say was that if you moved your attributation name to run along the bottom of your white key box then I would have no problems with it. At the moment it is distracting and in the map itself (and may confuse - is it valid map information or is it not? - on most professional maps copyright info is inside the key).

On some of the technical issues you raise you have a point. Unfortunately though the commons isn't flickr - and I don't think most people here want it to be. We want it to be as easy as possible for people to add work that is valuable to the aims and objectives of the commons - but we don't want people mass uploading stuff without taking the time to categorise, properly licence and describe what it is they have uploaded. It is a judgement balance issue I suppose - the technical barrier of entry shouldn't be so high as to only allow technophiles to contribute - but equally it shouldn't be so low as to allow everyone and anyone to just dump masses of junk into the commons servers which ultimately just devalues the project. I hope you decide to stay and add more work, best wishes, SFC9394 23:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, I am sorry to hear you've had trouble getting around. Have you seen our Commons:First steps guide? I guess most of it will be familiar to you by now. For licenses, just so you know, if picking a license from the license selector doesn't work, you can always edit the image page and type one in manually (for example, for the Creative Commons Attribution license, put {{Cc-by-2.5}}). So if the license selector doesn't work, I would just do this, and not pay too much attention to any warning messages you get.

There is some info about why watermarking is discouraged at Commons:Manipulating meta data. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong, there is a strong community feeling against visible watermarks. I didn't see any messages on your talk page about watermarking though, so I don't know exactly what was said there.

Anyway I hope you will continue contributing your excellent maps, they are an asset for the Commons and for Wikipedia. If you have any questions in the future, you're always welcome to ask them at the Commons:Help desk. cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you stay here long enough and be nice enough to make a sufficient quantity of "friends" here, your ID will be respected one day. Better forget about any value of any of your contributions. This is no place to be delicate. "Für die einen ist es eine Enzyklopädie, für die andern die größte Müllhalde der Welt" (Copyright possibly @Duplo^TM). See de:Benutzer:W./Bildertutorial/1 to make up your mind. Best, Wolfgang. any IP 08:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing meanwhile that you probably started contributing in 2005, and having a look at your awards, and in doubt whether you speak German, I hereby withdraw my above given hints. Translation of above given German phrase is app. "To some, it seems an encyclopedia, to others, world's biggest dumping ground." It's derivated from a frequently seen TV-spot on candies. any IP 08:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks. Yes, I read through the tutorials, and, as I said, I got through most of the hazards, and figured out how to retroactively copy/paste licenses where they were missing. I'll see what I can do about making the attribution less obtrusive. Putting it inside the legend box is a good idea. --Petercorless 10:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 15

PNG images not thumbnaling to JPG

As discussed here, "thumbnails are generated in the same format as the original image and are always in 24-bit color ...".

Obviously the reason this issue still exists is because some images should by all means be thumbnailed to PNG (line art, comics, maps, etc), and would suffer from JPEGification. However, as also pointed out on that page, this discourages people from uploading PNGs, which are particularly favourable for long-term archival purposes.

I have some background in digital imaging and watermarking, and could probably throw together a set of scripts and programs in a month's spare time to algorithmically analyse candidate images and determine how they should be thumbnailed. The issue of properly handling greyscale images would also be handled.

But of course, I don't want to start on this, only to find out later that it's rejected for some reason :-).

Is this something the Wikimedia community would find useful? --Adonicus 11:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted your offer to the wikitech-l mailing list and I will let you know what they say. It certainly sounds useful to me, but the code monkeys are a bit fussy sometimes about what they accept to use, so we will see. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B, thanks for that -- I'm new to the Commons, didn't know about that mailing list's existence :-). Have signed up and will watch for replies. --Adonicus 12:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas project by Electionworld

Generally, I don't take care of galleries, but I have noticed that user:Electionworld changes numberous maps galleries into redirections towards its new atlas galleries.

In my opinion, atlas galleries don't replace maps galleries, which are smaller pages about more specific subjects (so we can display them quickly). So, I cannot find any valid reason to virtually destroy the work of other users regarding maps galleries. --Juiced lemon 22:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe subpages under Atlas of the World are more appropriate. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages under Atlas of the world do not really fit into the system of the Atlas, but I am ready to restore the pages if you want them back. Electionworld 21:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I think the best option is to restore the map galleries and create a template This region is also available as a part op the Atlas of the World project as link -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the countries with an A and added the template moreatlas: e.g. {{moreatlas|Anguilla}}. It will take some time to restore the others. Electionworld 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 16

would like to know side affect of a medication called entrocort given to me for Krones disease

I recently had surgery to control Krones disease, I was given large amounts of prednisone after having been weaned off that I was given Entocort EC 3 Mg three pills at a times every 24 hours, I lack energy and would like to know if its a side affect of Entocort, I would certainly appreciate any information or advice as to what I might do to boost my energy level. I am a young 58 years old male usually very energized but since taken this medication I feel tired everyday, I take a multi vitamin and drink something called BOOST an energy drink, as you can tell I'm ignorant when it comes to vitamins or medicine because I was never sick. Thank you very much for whatever input you might contribute God bless Roger

This is Wikimedia Commons, a file repository for all of the Wikimedia projects. You probably meant to post your question to Wikipedia's Reference desk. ~MDD 46 96 01:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image owner identification

Can you please have a look to this deletion requests? How can this user proove he his the image owner? --Effco 09:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Korean font support for SVG files

Hi, Image:Public key making-ko.svg isn't rendered properly; none of the Korean text is shown. Could this be because there are no Korean fonts available?

In that case, here's a link to some Korean fonts that are freely available.

http://packages.debian.org/unstable/x11/ttf-unfonts
- http://kldp.net/projects/unfonts/ (Same fonts, in two split packages. un-fonts-core should be enough.)

If that doesn't help, what can I do to help get this fixed?

Thank you. --Kjoonlee 14:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a problem with all CJK text at least. How odd that it was never reported before. I wrote it up as bugzilla:8666.

You can get around this by converting the text to paths (something like Alt+T in Inkscape), then it will render at least, but this is not a very desirable longterm solution. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reuse of GPL/LGPL contents

[24] David Gerard asks for feedback on his editing of Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia about the reuse of GPL/LGPL contents. Quoted from m:LSS/foundation-l-archives/2007 week 2 Teofilo 15:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer, but GPL

Has an article 10 that states : If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission.

Defines "allowed aggregation" as aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium. I think it means that storing both programs on the same hard disk or CDROM is allowed (because you run them separately), while embedding a GPL program within a non-GPL program constitutes the sort of incorporation mentioned at article 10 which remains forbidden (because you run them together). Embedding a GPL image within a GFDL wikipedia article is not a run-separately-aggregation but a run-together-incorporation and is therefore forbidden unless the permission requested at article 10 has been given.

As a result, GPL images should be deleted from Commons, unless :

The author has given the permission requested at article 10.

That permission satisfies Wikimedia Commons' policy of not allowing "use by Wikimedia only" clauses, by clearly stating that it applys not only to Wikimedia but to any person refered to as "You" in the GPL licence.

See also other opinions, more often than not contradicting mine at : Commons:Village_pump_archive-35#GPL_v3_and_screenshot ;

Commons:Village_pump_archive-33#Why_is_there_a_software_licence_for_images? ;

Commons:Village_pump_archive-23#category:GPL.

Teofilo 15:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid deletion requests

I have proposed a change in the deletion policy. Please see Commons_talk:Deletion_requests#Invalid_deletion_request. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploads channel on IRC

We have a recent changes channel for specifically monitoring Image Uploads. It's at #commons-image-uploads. The chief difference between this channel and the rc channel is that the full URL is included with each image. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 20:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checking copyright

I have posted the following question in the English Wikipedia and received the attached response regarding images posted on Flickr.

QUESTION:

I have found various photos on site http://www.flickr.com/photos. Most of them, if not all, have a note indicating that "This photo is public"

1. I interpret this that the photos are public domain and therefore can be used without problems for Wikipedia and for Wikicommons. If so, what tag should be selected? Is any special explanation required when uploading such pictures to make sure that they are not deleted?

2. As there may be other Wikipedists who could be interested in these pictures, would it be appropriate to list this site in the list provided at Wikipedia:Public domain image resources where sites with public domain pictures are presented?

Afil 15:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The "This image is public" refers to who can view it on Flickr. Each image has its own license statement. Many are compatibly licensed and Commons has a system to find and import these already. Rmhermen 18:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Question.

If there is a way to find out if the use of any particular picture is free, what is the procedure to find out? Do I upload it and wait to see what happens or is there anything else I can do?

Afil 21:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Above the "This Photo is Public" you have a link to copyright info...the image might say "Some rights reserved" like this one: [25]. If you click that link you'll see that this image is avaialble under Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike license, which is compatible with Commons. Most other licenses Flickr offers are not compatible. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 22:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict Hi, on the left of the image page you see a small copyrighted notice. This is either "All rights reserved" or "Some rights reserved". If the text ia "Some rights reserved", click on the link and find out what the license is. If it is Attribution or Attribution ShareAlike or ShareAlike, the image is allowed on Commons. Please leave a comment to indicate that you have the author known that the image has been uploaded to Commons. Say something like "Thank you for choosing a free license. Your choice of license have allowed us to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons [link]". On Commons, add the {{Flickrreview}} tag to the image, so that the FlickreviewR bot can confirm the copyright status. Do not forget to add a link to the picture description page. Also please upload the highest possible resolution to Commons; you can find that on the "More sizes" page. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PD or not?

Hi, I'd like to get someone advice on this case. I found this image of The Scream on Wiki en:. The picture is from 1895, and It's tagged PD-US so it could be upload here. But there's another version of the painting which, although tagged PD-US and painted in 1893, mentions "This image is not freely licensed and should not be transferred to Wikimedia Commons". So what? If the first pic is Ok, the other should be ; but if the second isn't, neither is the first. So, can be both pictures upload here? Or should they both they where they are on Wiki en: ? Thanx Sh@ry tales 23:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edvard Munch died in 1944 and none of the pictures are in PD. They will be 70 years after he died. ---Nina- 23:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That will be in 2014, i.e. pretty soon. --Purodha Blissenbach 01:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 17

PD-Soviet

We on the Hebrew Wikipedia have some pictures with the above license. What should we do with them? Can we keep them all? Which should we delete? Thanks, Yonidebest 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See {{PD-Russia}}. I don't know what rules you apply at the Hebrew Wikipedia: only the law of the source country? Only the law of Israel? Both? Or any combination, plus the laws of the U.S.? You'll have to figure that one out first.

Note that PD-Russia is ok for works that were first published in the Russian SFSR. For works that originate from one of the other SSRs, I think the laws of the corresponding successor countries of the USSR would apply. (E.g., apply Georgian law to a Georgian photograph, or to a photograph from the Georgian SSR. The Georgian copyright law of 1999, BTW, applied retroactively for a period of 70 years, placing under copyright any works of authors who died 1929 or later. That means that for Georgian photographs, apply "70 years p.m.a.) The large majority of Soviet publications occurred in the RSFSR, though. (About 80%, IIRC.) So, as a first-order approximation, applying PD-Russia to all Soviet works is probably not too bad.

Israel is a signatory of the Berne Convention since 1950. When Russia joined the Berne Convention in 1995, all works that were copyrighted in Russia at that time became copyrighted in other Berne countries, too. In 1995, works of authors who died 1945 or later and works first published 1945 or later (even if the author died earlier) were copyrighted in Russia. (Basically, replace 1954 by 1945 in PD-Russia to see what works were copyrighted. Russia had a copyright term of 50 years in 1995.) Such works became copyrighted in Israel in 1995, where they are copyrighted according to the law of Israel. Israel once had a copyright term of 50 years p.m.a. that was extended to 70 years, but I don't know when that occurred. (Neither the Copyright law nor the Copyright Ordinance tell.) Israel does not appear to follow the rule of the shorter term.

IANAL. HTH all the same. Lupo 09:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make things more complicated: - The Georgian copyright law of 1999, BTW, applied retroactively for a period of 70 years - retroactive laws are illegal in many jurisdictions, so if a copyright had already expired in Georgia, and that had had effects under such jurisdictions, they cannot be reversed by a change of the legal situation in Georgia. --Purodha Blissenbach 02:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read en:WP:PD#Retroactive changes in copyright legislation. Retroactive copyright laws are laws that place works under copyright again after they already had been in the public domain through the expiry of a copyright term under an older law. They are not ex post facto laws, which is what you were probably referring to. Lupo 19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect Template:Delete

Have I done anything wrong ? I do not see any reason why I should have my editing rights removed on that page. Teofilo 13:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed this on semiprotection. The theory for the original protection is that widely used templates are very common vandal targets. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 15:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing widely used templates also puts a lot of streign on the servers, because all pages using the template have to be rerendered. For this reason, heavily used templates should be fully protected, imho. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition

Bonjour, Une idée m'est venue. Ne pourrions pas mettre en place une géo-localisation des contributeurs de commons. Cela permettrait de s'adresser au bon interlocuteur pour obtenir telle ou telle photo. Qu'en pensez-vous ? Si un bilingue passe par là, je le remercie de traduire. Je ne ferai pas l'affront de tenter cette traduction. Merci d'avance. Ludo 12:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation (freely adapted) : Hi, I just had an idea. Would it be possible to have a page referencing the geographical location of Commons contributors ? This would allow to reach to best photograph when a photo of a particular location is needed. What do you think ? (by le Korrigan →bla 13:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Should be I know there is en:Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service.Geni 18:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is frequently suggested but never quite followed through comprehensively. The latest incarnation is m:Scheduled attendance for Wikinews or Commons. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also w:Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers, w:Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service (Wikipedia just has a much larger community!). pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks a lot for answers. Ludo 09:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martorell case

Moved to the Disputes section of the Administrators' noticeboard. The Village Pump is not the appropriate place to discuss this, and without a real good place for these kinds of discussion, I have moved it to the AN/D. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check usage, gallery etc. only when not logged in

Hi all, I have noticed that I don't have some buttons (like "check usage", "gallery", "orphans", "find categories") when I'm logged in. I do see them when I log out. I used to see them when I was logged in too. What could be the cause of this and how can I solve it? I didn't change my preferences recently. Cicero 19:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try purging the cache : Ctrl-Maj-R on Firefox, or Ctrl-F5. le Korrigan →bla 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a personal monobook.js file? That could be interfering too. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 02:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purging the cache solved the problem (should have thought of that myself...). Thanks le Korrigan! Cicero 16:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

problem with an svg map I'm working on

Hello,

I've been working on an svg map to illustrate an article on German wikipedia since yesterday, but the map doesn't seem to display. It is currently only a preliminary version (I'd like to get some feedback from people at the article, which is why I only linked it to a talk page) and not all information is included. Did I do something wrong with the format? Is the file too large? This is the first svg image I've created. The file is saved under Image:Worringen_1288.svg. I plan to finish it sometime tonight or tomorrow.--Caranorn 18:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure it's valid, remove as much unnecessary code as possible. It might help if you open it in Inkscape and save as a simple SVG. Also I wouldn't be surprised if librsvg is just crapping out on the ENORMOUS JPEG you have in there (among other smaller raster images). There are some elements that librsvg (or at least our installation of it) just flat out won't accept (like 'title', IIRC). ¦ Reisio 01:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It renders okay on SeaMonkey, though I notice the image properties are messed up somewhat: it thinks there are 7 links within it. It appears the links contain the image descriptions. Confusing! EncMstr 03:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

references to external bitmaps are not allowed in svg images on commons - the renderer just refuses them. Embedded bitmaps are possible, but generally a bad idea, since they are contrary to the purpoise of SVG (namely, being small, zoomable and easy to edit). -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I think I forgot the original map scan (which is essentially invisible, but would logically have been saved into the file) in there, I must have saved it with the rest. There are possibly some small shapes that I didn't convert from bitmap, but the underlying map is indeed a big bitmap picture.--Caranorn 17:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got it to work, removing all bitmap graphics still wouldn't let the image load on its page. So like recommended I loaded it into Inkscape and saved it from there. Now it seems to work fine, so I'll just have to add the last missing elements. Up to now I'd almost exclusively worked with bitmap images and only experimented with some vector portraits and game maps last summer.--Caranorn 17:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say thanks for all the help;-).--Caranorn 17:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Kutuzov

Hi guys, I've a problem. Infact, I've created the page of the famous general Mikhail Kutuzov. Well, I've made a bad mistake; infact, I've written the page on Mikhail kutuzov, instead of K. Can you resolve this problem? Thank you.Sconvolpi74 13:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. You can rename a page by clicking on the "move" tab. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, mademoiselle.;-) Sconvolpi74 14:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See_also in category Tiles

Category:Tiles has a See also area which includes Italian and Russian ... somethings. They just show up as plain text. I don't know much abut international wiki stuff and don't have a clue in how to fix them. - 2*6 19:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just the category name "Tiles" in italian and ukrainian. /Lokal _Profil 00:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Thanks. Sensible feature. Do we have a common section header title for these lists of translated category names? - 2*6 03:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need a header! They are the introduction to the category. You can use Commons Sum-it-up to generate them almost automatically. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

Cannot create thumbnails?

Hello,

I'm having problems trying to display thumbnails of Image:Flag of Meta.svg, which I did create and upload, at any size below 36px (yes, I really did check all sizes one by one). The problem is, simply, that the thumbnails are not displaying at all:
[[Image:Flag of Meta.svg|35px]] produces nothing:

While [[Image:Flag of Meta.svg|36px]] produces this:

Trying to manually access http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Flag_of_Meta.svg/35px-Flag_of_Meta.svg.png, which is supposed to be the 35px thumbnail, returns the following error message:

File not found

Although this PHP script (/w/thumb.php) exists, the file requested for output (/mnt/upload3/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Flag_of_Meta.svg/35px-Flag_of_Meta.svg.png) does not.

Similar errors are returned for other sizes below 36.

Any ideas on why this might be happening and how to correct it?

Thanks in advance,

--Fibonacci 11:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. If I could reproduce this problem with another SVG, I would open a bug request. My Firefox doesn't render the file at all. In Inkscape, small white vertical lines appear in the green stripes. Is that intentional? (On the image page they show as solid green stripes.) Could the file be cleaned up a bit perhaps? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the vertical lines are not intentional - that's just Inkscape rendering pattern fillings incorrectly. Happens to me very often, it's no biggie.

As for the code, I think it's clean enough - I coded it by hand, take a look at the code if you want to (though I deleted the line breaks). But I don't think that's the cause of the problem - I have uploaded dirtier SVGs that render correctly at any sizes. --Fibonacci 13:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not fixed by reuploading the exact same file, as you might check for yourselves. --Fibonacci 15:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an acceptable license?

Image:EU location GER.png: "Newly created maps based on this material may only be used together with the original images if they stay in line with the corporate design scheme and its intention. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted if the copyright holder gets informed about it." I don't think this is "free enough" for Commons; is this correct? --NE2 12:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the licensing policy: "The following restrictions must not apply to the image or other media file: … Notification of the creator required, rather than requested, for all or for some uses." In other words, you're correct; it's not free enough. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader has been contacted about this on his german talk page /Lokal _Profil 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author intended to change the license to a CC license, and I have asked him when he is going to do this. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Image classification system

What should we do with the started but discontinued Image classification system? We have no consensus for its use, and it seems that the initiator User:Rfc1394 is not longer active here on commons. --GeorgHH 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just mark it {{Historical}}. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

joseph jagersberger

I put this text in a comment because Commons is not a place to look for random people. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the background of this posting resp. the related email? Was it sent to Commons? There is actually a stub on :en about Josef Jagersberger. --Túrelio 08:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the message to en:Talk:Joe_Jagersberger -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr group for Commons

I just started a group on Flickr called "Wikimedia Commons". I encourage anyone who has a Flickr account to join it.

It can be used as a way to increase our presence on Flickr and explain the utility of CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses to Flickr users, on their own turf where they are much more likely to be receptive to helping us out. Flickr users who are unexperienced with wikis/Commons can post photos to the group where I am sure one of us will gladly transfer them, if they are useful. Flickr users can have the satisfaction of seeing their work in prime web real estate, especially if they photograph famous people for example. :) People who photograph plants can also post photos there to get them IDed before transfer to Commons.

I think some people also post comments on photos when they transfer them to Commons. It might be useful in such a comment to also post a link to this group now, to encourage them to learn more about how they can contribute to Wikimedia, the world's largest and most accessible of open content.

So anyway, all members and discussion now welcome :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Over one million media files, and not even one image of a typical suburban american house ? 13:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Category:Houses_in_the_United_States - is there nothing you like? --Fb78 14:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... I wrote "American House"... Thanks, I do like some of the photographs. 16:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

January 23

Argument to Host Source Material

I’m creating a wikibook on roulette, and I’m creating a lot of images in Adobe Illustrator. I can just host the images here, and that’s all well and good, but it seems to me it would be a LOT more useful to people for me to be able to upload the source .ai file for all the pictures I created. There are about 60 layers and it would be a royal pain if someone tried to recreate it.

If the intention is for people to have free access to content and especially to allow derivative works, then it seems to me that mission is best accomplished by making not only the images available but the source as well.

Film8ker 02:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.ai? Is that Adobe Illustrator? If so, isn't that a vector format? What information would be lost by converting to SVG? —LX (talk, contribs) 05:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the Illustrator format. Since it's proprietary format it's probably not allowed in here. Unfortunately, I do not believe SVG can store .ai layers. Film8ker, if you intend to put them on commons, you should convert them to SVG.--Saoshyant 16:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SVG supports layers. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question

I have two images about phishing (Image:Phishing_banesco.PNG and Image:Phishing_banesco2.PNG) but i dont know if it can be used. Nobody can claim the copyright, otherwise it would be taked to jail for identity theft and stuff but which copyrigth tag should be used? or i can`t use the pics and then the speedy delete tag should be added?

and please split this page is really anoying writing at his current size --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alextrevelian_006 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although you are right that probably no-one would assert ownership (and thus copyright) of the website, and we would therefore be very unlikely to be prosecuted for hosting such images here, copyright nonetheless exists for someone. Under our current approach, we have no evidence of the content being released under a free license, so we would delete it.

Yes, the page is too long. We have an archiving bot but it seems to be a bit broken. We will try and get it working again soon. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the archiving: WerdnaBot only archives talkpages -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. Nothing copyrightable there. It's not a poem, it's a banking website. --Fb78 13:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In many countries copyright is automatic for all creations. Banking tips, stick figures on napkins, everything. Not my ideal, but that's how it goes. — coelacan —7:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it`s not a banking site per se, its a phishing attempt against a bank. The page is similar to the original that the bank has, but I guess a layout cant have copyrigth, only the banking technology on it. In any case if you dont comply im gonna delete the pic in a while xD

Copyrigth can be so annoying some times lol--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alextrevelian_006 19:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Website designs are indeed copyrightable. Phishing sites infringe on the copyright of the sites that they spoof (apart from committing fraud). Reproducing such an infringement would itself infringe on the rights of the original copyright holder (i.e. the bank). —LX (talk, contribs) 06:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that ask my question. so what should I do with the images?--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alextrevelian_006 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alextrevelian_006 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably upload it as fair use onto English Wikipedia. Do not upload it here. / Fred Chess 11:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A general comment on the argument that "someone can't claim a copyright on this, as they'd be admitting their guilt": This argument is often used to argue that we should include non-free works and there are many counter arguments. My favorite counter argument is to point out that copyright is inherited and spans past death but criminal penalties do not. So, for example, our criminal author could die thus removing himself from our earthly jurisdiction and then his family, heirs to his copyrighted works, could prove their ownership and go after anyone reproducing the work. Certainly, such images would never be the worst of Wikimedia's copyright transgressions, but commons is for truly free media, so we should not accept them here.--Gmaxwell 16:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The essential point to note is that it's the Bank that continues to own the copyright in its web page layouts. If that layout is criminally copied by a phisher, the phisher thereby gains no new copyright (since he has simply copied slavishly) but neither does the Bank lose it. Anyone copying the phisher's version will infringe the Bank's original copyright just as if they had copied direct from the bank's own website. That's true in most countries, subject to any fair use exceptions which may apply. --MichaelMaggs 16:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving and protection

I am going to archive this Village pump manually. However, to not worry about edit conflicts, I have temporarily protected this page. Please do not undo protection or make edits to this page. It will not take longer then 30 minutes. I am sorry for the inconvenience. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived to Commons:Village pump/Archive/2006Dec and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007Jan. I might have archived some active discussion; feel free to pull them out of the archive. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image: being used in Commons instead of Media:

Hello,

I just noticed that every media file (especially audio or video inside ogg containers) gets labeled here on Commons as Image: but in Wp, I usually see them under Media:

So, what's wrong here? The MediaWiki software? The upload option? Commons policy? Or should the users take some precautions to make sure it gets the Media: prefix?

I think it would be more sensible to use Media: instead of Image: to audio and video.

--Saoshyant 15:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image: links and Media: links are different - Image: shows the image (possibly thumbnailed and boxed), Media: creates a "deep link" to the file itself. For formats that cannot be displayed (like ogg, pdf, etc), Image: behaves the same as Media: - but that could change in the future (for example, a java based player for ogg could be shown when using Image:bla.ogg).

I agree however that the prefix "Image:" is misleading and should be changed. Since "Media:" is taken, "File:" would be an option, maybe. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's bugzilla:44. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Kristoffer Zetterstrand

This image was supposed to have been deleted 'ages' ago. But still remains as a search result on Google, etc. linked to [26]. Please - we need to get rid of it as it causing problems! Can someone help? --Profero 02:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... it was deleted: Image:Kristoffer Zetterstrand-sm-DSCN3538.jpg. What problems is this thumbnail causing, exactly? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I undeleted the image, uploaded a black square over the top, and played with thumb.php and actin=purge until the 386 thumbnail was replaced by the black square. Then I deleted it again. So it should be fine now. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Why was the main image hanging around for so long? Could it have remained in my own cache only? And why was it – or the thumb – that difficult to get rid of? A thumbnail is still turning up, but I guess it will disappear as websearch-engines are updated. --Profero 09:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could it have remained in my own cache only? -- No, I could see it as well. I have a feeling that any image could "hang around" like this after being deleted, because deleted images are not really 'deleted' now -- they're just kind of hidden from view. Similar to articles. If you know the raw URL of an image before it gets deleted, it's probably still valid after it gets deleted. But no one should ever be using the raw URL like that (hotlinking, presumably), so mostly we don't notice this. Hm, it might be worth speaking to the devs about this. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks again. --Profero 11:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Percent of what?

What are the numbers on the map Image:Buddhism By Country Percent.png supposed to mean? Miuki 16:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would presume they are supposed to be the percentage of citizens of each country that are Buddhist. But the numbers for Australia at least are totally inaccurate, so it needs some work. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 17:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, according to the presumed source, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35391.htm, Buddhists comprise only 1.9 percent of Australians. New Zealanders are at 1.08%. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 17:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the United Arab Emirates are only at 5%. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 18:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, I think that the numbers aren't percentages but rank in the world as far as percentage of Buddhists. Which is still not clear. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what it is, as indicated by w:Buddhism_by_country#Top_20. However, it's still wrong because the Phillipines is not colored. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 18:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar maps: manipulation?

Hello,

Today, I came across this Gibraltar map File:Gibraltar map (es).png, because it was categorized in Category:Maps of Spain. I am not opposed to fictional maps, but only when they can unambiguously be identified as fictional maps.

By a curious coincidence, the original CIA Fact Book map was not categorized in Category:Maps of Gibraltar: I have just added this category.

As a result, the fictional map is used in 11 Wikipedia pages, the original in only 10 pages. Can we say it is manipulation? --Juiced lemon 18:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say whether this was done in good faith or not, but I am quite sure that the second map is the correct one. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's saved at all (is there an encyclopedic interest?) then it should be clearly marked as fictional. The original image should now be the only one used in the 21 articles. /Lokal _Profil 23:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how the user would react to a similar map of Olivença. It'd be funny! Dantadd✉ 00:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright option refers to paintings, but should be less specific.

One of the copyright options for uploading reads "Reproduction of a painting that is in the public domain because of its age". However, the rule in question applies to any two-dimensional art, including prints and photographs. In fact, this just links to {{PD-Art}}, which simply specifies two-dimensional art. The upload text should read either "Reproduction of a painting or photograph that is in the public domain because of its age" or "Reproduction of two-dimensional art that is in the public domain because of its age". (I think the former is more easily readable, even though it's not as general.) grendel|khan 07:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check usage time lag

Could somebody explain why we have a time lag of almost 2 1/2 days for the check usage tool? This makes it alsmost impossible to use. I have to delete images "blindfolded". --ALE! ¿…? 08:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the toolserver admin [27] it was the fault of one of the tools. Looking at the recent replag graphs [28], things seem to become better. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2006 competition (translation help needed, please)

The arrangements for the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition are almost complete, and voting will take place between 1st and 28th Feb. The competition will be widely advertised throughout the Wiki community, the aim being to draw more users in to the Commons project and to encourage the posting of more top-quality images. A single Picture of the Year will be chosen from all the images promoted to Featured Picture status during 2006.

I hope Commons users will support this initiative by granting permission for the following template to be added to the main page, above the Picture of the Day and Featured Picture templates, during February. The template will change slightly on 14th to announce the final (but still keeping the depth at 3 lines) --MichaelMaggs 12:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in honouring the best of the best? Vote now in the
Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006
Voting to select the finalists is open until 14th February.

and can anyone please advise on how best to get this translated into the variety of other laguages we will need? --MichaelMaggs 13:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created {{Commons:Picture of the Year/2006/banner}}, so I invite everybody to translate! -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! Thanks. --MichaelMaggs 18:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we also have help, please, in translating this banner: {{Commons:Picture of the Year/2006/banner1}}.
Thanks. --MichaelMaggs 20:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best picture of 2006? The candidates have been chosen. Vote for your choice now in the final of the
Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006
Final voting to choose the 2006 Picture of the Year is open until 28th February.

But only registered users can vote! We should add it to Special:Userlogin instead. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use cookies, so I haven't seen Special:Userlogin in many weeks. I suspect this is also true for many other editors. — coelacan — 18:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both registered and unregistered users can vote. We've tried to make that clear on the voting page and on the banners, shown above. The intention is to bring more users in this direction in the hope they will become long-term Commons contributors. --MichaelMaggs 19:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've made a real mistake with the rules for this contest. I've commented more about it here. --Gmaxwell 16:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nudism and wikimedia

The image

File:PICT0070 3.JPG

has been erased, before any discussion. It is the innocent photo of a beautiful 32-year-old woman who shows her breasts, though she does it voluntarily and she asked me to upload the photo to wikimedia. But administratos ask me to prove that Ayni, the girl, is eighteen years old or older; that is absurd (since ancient Roman law, the evident facts do not have to be proved). They ask me also to prove that the image is useful for wikimedia. Is it not obvious that the image of a beautiful girl showing her breasts can serve to illustrate hundreds of articles: nudism, sexual morality, beauty, women, etc.? Do they want me to show publicly Ayni's personal documents? That is dangerous and it is not fair. I am disappointed of the closemindness of some managers of wikimedia.

Maurice Marcellin 16:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take this to Commons:Requests for undeletion? A request there would be reasonably considered. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 19:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we have a lot of people uploading "erotica" with false or incomplete claims about license and/or about consent of the people show. Also, since some people tend to be offended by explicit content (and be it only bare breasts), such images tend to get a lot of attention. So, we are a bit more picky here.

I personally feel that the image is suitable (and desirable) for commons, but only if reasonably sound evidence of the girl's identity and consent can be given. A picture of her holding a sign saying "show my tits on commons" would be a bit much - but an email by her, personally, sent to permissions@wikimedia.org, would do i guess.

Also, please explain your relation to es:Usuario:Bernardo Bolaños, who has placed [29] this image on es:Usuario:Ayni_Ruiz. Also - is that really her account, her editing? The account is very new, and i see no contributions except on her user page.

Again, I would like to have the image on commons, and I said so in the discussion on IRC that led to the deletion. Please understand that we have to be wary of people claiming false origin/license of images, and are especially keen on "explicite" image. We had a picture of a naked woman in the article about "Woman" in many Wikipedias for many months, before we found out the claim of authorship was false and the woman probably had no idea she was being shown like this, on one of the most frequented websites in the world. We don't want this to happen again. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 21:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand YOUR arguments, not those about the “absence of utility of Ayni’s picture for the wikimedia project”. Marcellin is a pseudonym used in common by 3 photographers. But I am tired to give so many explanations in order to share innocent pictures with you, I do not have enough time to loose chatting here and English is not my native language. I won’t upload my pictures again in Wikimedia. Anyway, I asked Ayni to send the e-mail, if she wants. Ayni has not had enough time yet to learn how to edit in Wikipedia and Wikimedia but she loves the project and she asks her friends to help her. Why do you discriminate people who are not informatics-nerds? Why ordinary people can not participate through their friends? You have being asking us to justify the origin of that picture since the begining but I can not fight permanently against closemindness. Bye! 01:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You can write in Spanish if you like; other people will translate for you.

We are not trying to censor or discriminate but protect against exploitation. I would much rather delete the photo if the permission is not sure, than keep it with the possibility that it is unknown to the subject or against her wishes. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chichis2.JPG Is it enough for you? How can we convince you? Use a little bit of common-sense, please! Maurice Marcellin 04:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are always free to fork (aka leave and open your own wiki), and, frankly, that may be the best in view of your constantly hostile wording against those who spend their time trying to answer you. -- Túrelio 09:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Turelio. Maybe you didn't know the complete story of this file. First, I answered many questions about copyright, authorship, Ayni's consent to be in Commons, etc. Then, the administrator Orgullomoore wrote to me saying that if I wanted that the image File:PICT0070 3. JPG remain in Wikimedia, I had to provide a proof that the naked girl in the photo is older than 18 years, 'cause several administrators discussed the image and decided that it was too risky to let the photo in Commons. Ha asked me to comme here, to Village pump. I tried to answer to their request, by instance, with a second photo Image:Chichis2.JPG showing clearly Ayni's age and her consent. But now I think it is just censorship against nudisme, because they do not answer to me clearly. That is why I decided not to upload any other picture if they do not let File:PICT0070 3. JPG remain in Wikimedia. My hostile wording is maybe also because of my lack of English and I apologize. Maurice Marcellin 15:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. As it was only yesterday that User:Orgullomoore wrote you that he will consult with other admins, you might simply wait a few days. If nothing happens or if you disagree with their decision, you may take the issue to Commons:Requests for undeletion as recommended. There you can make your request also in French language (though still not in Spanish).
On the other hand you should understand that the worries presented to you earlier are valid. The reason is not “closemindness”. Wikimedia cannot take any risk damaging its reputation and/or getting sued for privacy or copyright violation or even nastier accusations. (And if it is the same girl as in the middle of Chichis2.JPG, I personally wouldn’t be sure that she is above 18 years of age. But I'm not an admin anyway.) Besides, in the US the laws are tougher than in Europe (and eventually in Mexico) and lawyers are very expensive. -- Túrelio 16:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to the question how to prove she's over 18: Email some id document to permissions@wikimedia.org or get her to write a letter stating she's old enough and agrees. You were asked to prove it for the 1st picture, you didn't, so it was deleted. If you can prove it now, the picture can be restored. She does NOT need to learn how to edit wikipedia nor how to be informatic nerd. She needs to send an email. Period. Or, if she can't write the email, you can choose the other opcion and scan the id for her. Keep in mind that content sent to that email is confidential and won't be shown on the website. -- Drini 16:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really have nothing to add that's not here already. The case is pretty clear-cut. The image is useful. We need sound, verifiable (a) proof of age and (b) proof of consent. I'm not offended by, or closed-minded to, bare breasts. I promise.--Orgullomoore 10:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

Oceandots.com free license?

Hi all, what are people's thoughts on this copyright notice?

Looks pretty good to me; does it warrant its own template, or should we just use {{PD-USGov-NASA}}?

--pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their statement isn't entirely clear - it can easily be read to merely say that it's okay for them to use NASA imagery. They don't spell out whether they believe the derived products merit a copyright for oceandots; "enhanced in some way" is vague, and could include significant, copyrightable changes (possibly they just don't think that's the case, and so didn't mention it). You can always ask them for clarification. --Davepape 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted an license issue on that site; let's see their answer. --mac 09:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have many millions of pages, without specific links to the problems you've mentioned it will be hard for us to fix them. No one should be copying the text of your site, nor should they be copying your copyrighted images if you don't want them to... your notice could be a little more clear in that regard. We will gladly add your site to our bad sources list and instruct people not to use anything from your pages if that is your wish.

We do want to treat you with respect, although mistakes are made. If you bring them to our attention we will try to do right by you. Wikimedia exists to help the world, and hurting you doesn't help that cause. --Gmaxwell 20:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of, maybe, the central point of all the Wikimedia projects is to collect and mirror free content, that is, material that can be copied and used by anyone, for any purpose. Many other people with sites on the web have made the material they created available under these terms; Wikipedia, as well as anyone esle, copying that material is what is intended. NASA's images are also available under such terms. Why do you find the compilation of free content to be so objectionable that it makes you unwilling to work on your site? I'm sympathetic, but what form of "respect" would you like that you arn't getting? -- JesseW 22:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 27

Change license after verification?

I was able to persuade a professional photographer to change the license of some of his photos on Flickr so I could upload them here. I have done that and placed the flickrreview template on them. After they have been verified, can I inform the photographer he can change his license back? Once they have been verified here, they remain permissible regardless of the change of license at the source, correct?Nmajdan 04:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Nmajdan's point is, will there be license problems in the future because of this? Nmajdan, if there are a bunch of photos, I suggest forwarding a copy of the permissions email (I presume you spoke to them via email?) to OTRS and then there won't be any problem in the future. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke to him through Flickr, so I can't forward the message. I guess I'm just asking, now that the images I uploaded from Flickr have been verified, there will be no issues if he changes his license back in the future?--Nmajdan 16:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you registered at flickr after Yahoo bought them, you had to register a Yahoo account. If you log into that account, your incoming flickr mail should also be mirrored there in your Yahoo inbox. These can be forwarded. If you've been at flickr since before the buyout, then I don't know if you were automatically granted a Yahoo account but it might be worth checking. The username and password are the same as for flickr. Hope that helps, — coelacan — 18:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact allone that flickr allows people to "change the license back" makes my skin crawl. Why would you want that? If he makes the images free, they are free. He doesn't want to commit to that? The images are far more exposed here than they are on flicker... this all doesn't make sense to me. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 21:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He probably doesn't actually want them to be free... what he wants is material, not what is listed in a little dropdown. --Gmaxwell 02:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton Hoo image

This image just uploaded is not displaying correctly. Image:Sutton.Hoo.Belt.Buckle.RobRoy.gif. Is it because it is a gif? I did a right-click "Save file as.." from Flickr.com and then uploaded to Commons. Thanks for any ideas. -- Stbalbach 17:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone now :-( However, it was indeed an 1x1 blank gif. I managed to download that image using mozilla (view->page info->media and then looking for it and clicking "save as"). I could upload it, but I can't find its copyright status. Tizio 17:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be related to a Flickr security feature which prevents people from downloading images from Flickr, the image gets saved as a Null-size. Now working with the owner who has given permission to use it on Wikipedia. Thanks for your help. -- Stbalbach 23:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greek letters missing?

I recently uploaded the svg version of the greek letters (which were currently in png format). However, two glyphs appear to be missing, as one can see here: the capital delta and the small mu. As far as I can see using my local svg viewer, these images are how they should be; the thumbnail generator however fail to create these two letters. Tizio 17:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

probably has soemthing to do with the fonts installed on the server. I'll ask -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 21:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm the problem. Two things as an aisde: please use Generic font names ("serif", "sans-serif", "monospace"), not proprietary names ("Times"). And the currect license would probably be {{PD-ineligible}}. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 21:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See bugzilla:8797 -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 22:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I've done both changes you suggested. Tizio 16:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

Inapprioate Content

THe description under "Summary" of this picture is inapprioate and unprofessional

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nagasakibomb.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.168.171.41 (talk • contribs) at 28 janvier 2007 à 01:02 (UTC)

Edits reverted /Lokal _Profil 01:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blocked anon edits -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

by-nc-sa

I found some images from a website which only allows by-nc-sa. I do not have the time to put deletionrequests on all of them. Maybe speedydeletion is possible as well?! I hope someone could take care about it ...Sicherlich ^Post 11:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC) (one deletionrequest you find here[reply]

You could just use {{Cc-by-nc-sa}} in this case. --EugeneZelenko 16:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged them all for deletion with {{Cc-by-nc-sa}}. They included this curious commercial exemption: "The maps generated on this site are licensed under the Creative Common License Attribution- NonCommercial- ShareAlike 2.0 Germany. You are allowed to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work or make derivative works as long as its non-commercial and you don't remove the copyright notices. Exception for Wiki-Projects: public Wiki-Projects are free to use the maps also for commercial purposes (CC by-sa)." Nevertheless, this is inapplicable for Wikimedia Commons, as Wikimedia Commons is a collection of only free content in all senses of the word, not merely content that is only free on wikis. Wikimedia Commons content already finds its way onto websites that aren't wikis anyway, including our mirrors such as answer.com and ask.com. Someone needs to do the legwork with this guy and try to get him to release his images under a real free content license such as GFDL or CC-by-sa; but until then, they are going to have to be deleted on Wikimedia Commons. --Cyde Weys 23:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal license templates

It would appear there are additional personal license templates getting created. I'm not sure this is a good trend and would like to foster a bit of discussion. Consider this one: {{Ebrenccreated}}, which you can see in the history has changed which license applies, at least once. You can also see in the what links here for it that this license template has been applied to multiple images. I think having an image licensed under one license, and then under another (where the first license was not an error that needs correction, but a change for whatever reason) is a bad practice, even if it is a change from one free to another free license. It is my understanding that once a license is applied to an image, it is irrevocable. Certainly we treat the Flickr images that way, we stamp that we checked that a license was a certain sort at a certain time and carry on even if the original uploader then changes to a more restrictive license. Tracking what licenses an image is available under here at commons, if the template itself changes licenses, thus becomes a bit harder to do if the template changes.

Since we have multiple users doing this now (see also {{Spui}}, {{Spuiother}} and User:Vishwin60/license, there may be others, I haven't exhaustively searched, but maybe we should?) I think we need to discuss this. My preference would be to disallow it, and convert all images licnesed with user specific templates to all the licenses the templates have had at various points, using non user specific license templates. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. There's a lot of vanity in it and I think that a tag like {{PD-author|MyName}} should be enough. When it comes to licenses there should be some standards and it's important to avoid "customization". Dantadd✉ 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. It is not the templates that cause us trouble, but the wikithinking that everything can be changed. We need to teach users that licenses are irrevocable.

I'm jumping in late, but I thought I'd add a thought. Once a license is assigned, it is true that it can't be revoked in the sense that any copies made cannot have their license changed. HOWEVER, the copyright holder can always remove or change the license restrictions, that is, any new copies from that location would be under a different license. Changing the license is a perfectly legitmate thing to do. This is logically equivalent to licensing an image to one person privately under one license (say a CC-by-sa license) and then turning around and using a different license (say the GFDL) for a different person. The second person does not have a right to use the original (CC-by-sa) license unless they have received the image from the first person who was granted the image under that license. It is true that the original author of the image cannot revoke the license to either of the persons that it was given to, but they retain the right to license future copies (from themselves) under whatever license that they see fit. A license does not apply unless copying actually takes place. As far as Wikimedia commons is concerned, the licensing for images stored here but not used/copied is merely an offered license. The license only applies to copies. Obviously displaying the image on a screen would make a copy or displaying it in an article, but if the licensing terms were changed by the copyright holder, then any future copies would fall under the new terms. The old copies would still fall under the old licensing terms. Ram-Man 14:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some good uses to transclude licenses in your own user template. I have seen some very useful user template which was a GFDL template, and explained what the conditions were of the license, and who created the image and how to contact etc. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bryan. I use my own templates (user:Thryduulf/cc-by-sa-all, user:Thryduulf/copyleft and particularly user:Thryduulf/work)) which convey the standard template messages and additional information and automatically categorise the image as my work. This information could be included manually but why should I not be allowed to use a template to convey this standard information in the same way every time. The only changes to licenses I've made have been to either increase the number of licenses it is under or replace individual templates with one that covers all. Thryduulf 01:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you subst them? Unsubst'd it is VERY hard to tell when exactly the license on an image changed, as there is nothing in that image's history to tell you that. That's the main issue. Extra info is certianly nice, but could be included via a template that didn't incorporate the license itself. ++Lar: t/c 04:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly for my images, the license hasn't changed and wont change (although extra licenses might be added) so that isn't an issue. The information could be included other than with the license but I don't understand what the point would be as the extra info I include relates directly to the license and so would be significantly harder to understand elsewhere? If you are concerned that people will be changing licenses, just watch people's templates. Thryduulf 08:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watching every personal template seems impractical, we don't even know which ones are which. I'm concerned about how hard it is to tell for an image, looking at solely the image and its history, to realise there has been a license change. The history shows nothing, you have to check the history of the template... IF you realise the image is using a template and not the standard license. That you don't change licenses doesn' mean you can't. Two of the example templates I gave have had license changes. This is a bad practice in my view, it makes things harder for other users. Again, if youw ant to add things to the image description that are custom, great. But I'm coming round to thinking that unsubst-d custom templates are just a bad idea with no redeeming good features that outweigh the convenienve of future users who have to know how something is or was licensed. Perhaps I'm missing a feature? Perhaps you're not following me? I do want to see if I am all wet here. ++Lar: t/c 14:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one entirely agree with you. The whole point of Commons is that content should be freely available, and for that they need to be clearly labelled with accurate licensing information. What if a newspaper wants to grab an image to illustrate a news story? Why should the news desk have to trawl through the template history to see if thay can legally use it in the way they need to? Ideally, once a licence has been applied it should be locked, and unavailable to modify or remove, though additional licences could be added. Genuine mistakes can be dealt with by deletion of the content, and re-uploading. But I think that's not possible with the software we have now; if so, it would be nice to hear that the developers are working on it ;) --MichaelMaggs 16:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, people. I'll stop using the {{ebrenccreated}} template and I'm going to replace (in the files I think...) that template for {{Cc-by-sa-2.5|Joan M. Borràs ([[:ca:Usuari:Ebrenc|ebrenc]])}}, for example. → ebrenc

sí?

16:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think, at the very least, standard licensing templates must be present for bot-readability. It's very important that license-checking and such can be automated, and if someone is using a personalized licensing template that basically boils down to "dual-licensed under GFDL and CC-by-sa-2.5", but is not robotically parseable because it is a custom template, that is a bad idea. At the very minimum, if something is licensed under a certain license, it should have the default template for that license (which should also automatically put it into a relevant category). If people want to use additional personalized licensing, they should do so in a usersubspace template which includes that information as well as standardized license templates and is then substituted onto the pages of their image uploads. --Cyde 17:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with Cyde's comment above. To make it more clear, for machine readability we really should demand that a standard template be directly included in the page itself (via subst or direct insertion), not nested in via a transclusion. This is needed because it is unreasonable to expect someone working from a dump to perform the wikitext parsing needed to make sense of anything using transclusion. As far as personal templates go, I think they can be useful and shouldn't be discouraged unless someone gets obnoxious with them.. but they can not replace the standard licensing templates. --Gmaxwell 17:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've slightly lost what is being complained about in this discussion, but my templates are basically wrappers that include standard license templates in the same way that templates such as {{Self}} and {{GFDL-CC-triple}} do. User:Thryduulf/work also includes a custom additional license in text as there is no template for multi-licensing with UK Crown Copyright. Thryduulf 01:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just ask people to subst: personal templates? That seems like a perfect solution - no extra work for people who use them (well, 5 letters to type!) and then the licenses for each image are totally transparent. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would work for me. To be clear, it's not about vanity, if you look at my image writeups there's some vanity there. It's about making it easier to track licenses. Heck I would require substitution of personal license templates, actually. ++Lar: t/c 22:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substed user templates sounds good. I'd like to see that enforced completely (people can keep a non-substed version to make their tagging easier) but should always be substed on use. An alternative for those who want to use these templates is to instead tag with the normal licensing tags and add their own custom stuff in an informational template, that has none of the license information.--Nilfanion 22:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this position. Please don't make a rule that says no user templates, instead just make one say no-nonsubsted user templates with license or other required metadata. I may someday want to make a contact sheet template.. and it would be silly to need to run a bot to change the hundreds of images I created every time I change my email address. :) Our templates are our metadata API to the outside world... we need to reduce the number of special cases wherever we can. --Gmaxwell 22:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

Picture of a copyright sign

I would like to upload this Flickr picture (not my own) to Wikicommons. It is a picture of a out-door plaque with a map of the Sutton Hoo grave site in England. The author of the picture (who is not a Wikipedia user) has expressed concern about the map being copyrighted and so is hesitant to give permission for its use on Wikicommons. I believe that it is not possible to copyright public displays such as buildings, out-door signs and other stuff in the public - that only the author of the picture retains the copyright. Any suggestions or guidance about this picture? -- Stbalbach 20:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Here is another picture of the same plaque for perspective. -- Stbalbach 20:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#United_Kingdom, only 3D objects are free of copyright in the United Kingdom. So a map should be copyright protected. / Fred Chess 21:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is 3D object, a plaque on a stand next to a pathway, in the second picture it is even part of a larger panorama. Or, that sounds like a pretty weak argument, given the whole intention is to look at the map, not the stand. I guess since it is not me who took the picture, or would be in trouble if there was a problem, it is probably best not to pursue it. Thanks for the link. -- Stbalbach 04:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stbalbach, I'm afraid your information is definitely wrong. In the UK, maps count as 'artistic works' (regardless of artistic merit) and do attract copyright protection. That copyright is not lost merely because the map is displayed in a public place. The image you've found will therefore need permission from the copyright owner before Commons could accept it. But that should be OK if you have documented permission from the author of the map (assuming it's his or her original work) and also providing that he or she did not make the map as part of his or her employment. In the latter case, the employer automatically owns the copyright, not the author, and permission would need to be obtained from that employer (which may be a company). Hope that helps. --MichaelMaggs 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map belongs to The National Trust so probably not much hope there. Perhaps the next step is see if someone can create a free version. Thanks. -- Stbalbach 04:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PD for works of unknown authors

Normally, the work passes into the public domain 70 years after author's death. But the authors of many works, mostly photographs, are unknown, and in many cases it seems impossible to find out the name of author and his death date. So how old should such work be to be assumed PD? Having the copyright paranoya, you can assume that the work should be 170 years old: assume that autor was 20 when he created it, and he lived 120 yeas (which isn't impossible). Clearly, this is an axaggeration, but where should we draw the border line? I think that it is important matter indeed, and we should have some formal rules about it. Kneiphof 22:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will depend on the country. Which country are you interested in? --MichaelMaggs 22:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Union countries. I think they should have similar law, because of harmonisation. Kneiphof 22:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Swedish copyright legislation, the decision of whether to consider the work free within 70 years (in some countries: 50) of publication without knowing the time of death of the author is whether the work was originally published without the name (or well-known pseudonym) of the author.[30] In other words, be very cautious about equating "very difficult to find out" with "impossible to find out." The assumption made in Commons:Copyright rules is that authors are 20 years old and die at 90. I think going further than that without special reasons is probably overly paranoid. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio uploaded under Free License

Formerly, I just used the template {{Wait}} to block them peacefully, and one day. But it may e useful to merge my "Introduction" to the template. See bellow, and please write your opinion about this mergging.

You uploaded the following files under GNU license, so you legualy took responsabilities of this files, and possible copyright violation. If an organization want pursue you, the Mediawiki software keep information about you which will be share with lawyers.

Welcome to the Commons, Village pump/Archive/2007/01!

dansk ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ svenska ∙ македонски ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Wait checking

It seems that some of your contribution(s) may be not allowed on commons, probably because of copyright violations.
Your account and IP address are temporarily blocked and you are not allowed to upload files to commons, to allow others to check if your uploads are allowed under free licenses. In the meantime please read Commons:Licensing to make sure you are uploading content that is allowed. Sorry for this precaution, your ability to upload files will be restored after the check.

Yug (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments :

I think we can add to {{Wait}} something such as "We notice you that you legualy took responsabilities of this files, and its possible copyright violation. If an organization want pursue you, the Mediawiki software keep information about you which will be share with lawyers." Yug (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

Consent of person being photographied

As you can see here, there is a heated debated about the fact that a person's picture is being used without his or her consent.

This leads me to the fact that although we have a very documented guidance on Freedom of panorama, we lack such guideline page on Respect of private life (Droit a la vie privée).

Should we work on such guidelines? --Diligent 14:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we encourage photographers to seek and record the permission of identifiable people, or failing that, avoid including enough of a person to identify them? YES

Should we provide guidelines which make our preference clear and give guidance on doing this, such as a boilerplate commons model release? YES

Should we require this on all images? NO

Should we be paranoid and distrusting? NO

Should we differentiate between images taken in obviously public places, and images taken where the subject has an expectation of privacy? YES

Should we be sensitive about pictures which could harm or, if incorrect, be libelous (such as calling an identifiable person a "prostitute" or a "pimp")? YES

--Gmaxwell 15:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The right to one's own image granted in some countries is by no means universal. I believe we should apply the laws in the country of each photograph's origin (provided this is stated) in addition to common decency. In other words, I think it's fine under normal circumstances to show ordinary people in public places, even without their explicit consent, unless the photograph is embarrassing or the law requires consent. Of course, defamatory statements should never be tolerated. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LX, can you explain why all my candid photographs are being deleted? They show ordinary people in public places. Graham Wellington 19:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LX on these two important points:

We should apply the laws in the country of each photograph's origin;
In addition we should make guidelines about common decency because a) we will often not now where an image is taken b) even if now the country of origin, we won't know its laws c) some countries may not have any restrictions but the community wouldn't ready to accept just anything (and US law may restrict us anyway).

Samulili 16:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accept facism into wikipedia. Europeans elected Hitler to office, why must you repeat the same mistakes over and over? Facism has no place at wikipedia. The right of a photographer to create artistic images on public city streets is backed up by 100 years of case law. You should not trample this legacy based on your "moral" insecurities.

Did this old Hmong man give consent to take his picture? Maybe the moral police at wikicommons should delete the picture? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Old_Hmong_Man_%28Sapa_Vietnam%29.jpg Graham Wellington 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for invoking Godwins Law. The discussion is closed. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, some guidelines would be very useful, if only to avoid the sort of arguments we've seen at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Childhood Obesity.JPG. --MichaelMaggs 17:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translating information template

I'm posting this message here in hopes that people speaking other languages come here from time to time...

Anyway some time ago I developed a way (simple script) to translate the information template for other languages. As this has been successfully working since more then a month I think it safe to be widely used.

The code is available and working here. The outcome is that all of the header fields like "Description", "Source", "Author" are translated along with some standard contents of other fields like "own work" (in Source) and "see below" (in Permission). Additionally (when the information template is available) some section names get translated too - I've added "Summary", "Licensing", "Full description"/"Description", but this can be very easily extended.

The code is pretty easy and commented, but if someone would run into problems while trying to use it for other languages, then please contact me through my talk page.

BTW. It is very important that we stick to the information template on uploading images and use common names for sections. I've made a kind of template for me User:Nux/summary#Standard_descriptions

If anyone would like to have a shortcut link to that you can use this code for your monobook.js:

addOnloadHook(function()
{
        var elBefore = document.getElementById('pt-mytalk');

        var elNew = document.createElement('li');
        elNew.innerHTML = '<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nux/summary#Standard_descriptions">summary</a>';
	elBefore.parentNode.insertBefore(elNew, elBefore);
});

Nux (talk··dyskusja) 15:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Could someone check out my logic?

On Image talk:High Resolution Solar Spectrum.jpg, I made a note of what appeared to me to be the case surrounding this image, however it's an FP on eN so I didn't want to whack it with some huge black template or cause disruption. Can someone check my train of logic and observation and see if it's worth anything? 68.39.174.238 19:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is NonCommercial. I don't think this is {{PD-ineligible}}. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hm... the solar spectrum is a fact, and thus PD... the representations appears to be purely technical, I don't see any creative originality involved. So, the image would be PD-ineligible. But the requested byline/credit should be given, no harm in that.

Perhaps it would be best to test this by a regular deletion request, so more people can talk about it, and there's some community backup for keeping or deleting it. If the image is found to be PD, perhaps it would be a good idea to warn potential users that someone claims copyright for it anyway?... -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 20:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best photographer for red carpet? Noon decision need.

Hi all, I've been organizing to get a photographer at the Annie Awards, which are animation's highest honour. I need to decide which photographer we're sending by this afternoon. Who should I choose? (Edited list of applicants.)

Jason Jones:
Roger Snider:
John Mueller: "I use top of the line Nikon cameras & lenses and can either FTP or send you a copy of the images within a couple days." Ace Young Birthday Benefit, Red carpet for cancer benefit
Lafayette Height: "My experience includes more than 15 years behind the lens as a professional photojournalist and an event photographer for corporate events, parties, private celebrations and weddings. My cameras are a minimum 6.5 megapixel resolution."
Alicia Hopson: "I am currently pursuing my degree in Photography and would like the opportunity to come in for an interview. The equipment I use are the Canon 20D, Canon Rebel XT (back up), Polaroid 600SE & Mamiya RZ67. I'm familiar with the Hassleblad 500c but do not own that camera. I have experience in BW printing & developing as well as color. I also have experience in shooting event & portrait photography."
Kevin Knight: "I'm a big animation and comic book geek."

I'd like people to pick their top 3, in order of preference. This person will then be "accredited" by Wikinews. -- Zanimum 15:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, noon EST. -- Zanimum 15:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top 3 lists

From Lar (note, I have no expertise and this is based on a not very in depth evaluation, I would not give it as much credence as the comments of others. I looked in the galleries for some evidence of good "candid" shots. Studio shots show you know how to use a camera but not that you can frame and get photos quickly in a high traffic environment under jostling and poor lighting/stability conditions...) My top 3 in preference order...

Lafayette Height
John Mueller
Alicia Hopson

Hope that helps... Apologise for not having more time, this was a shoot from the hip answer. ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thx! "Shoot from the hip" is all I need. -- Zanimum 16:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lar's comments sound good. Our primary factor is making sure they are okay with and understand our licensing requirements. ;) --Gmaxwell 16:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to voice my strong agreement with Greg here about licensing. Presumably these candidates made the cut because they already agreed but I'd say that ANYTHING that they take while carrying our credentials has to be licensed freely and I'd further ask that, if possible, they do the uploading to Commons rather than just making a zip file or FTP site available (as one candidate indicated), where someone else has to do the work of uploading so we can use the stuff. If you are cranking in pics that all go in the same category, uploading to commons can go quite fast. Especially with a custom user template (grin, duck, run) :) ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would put Alicia at the top of the list, and maybe give Kevin a chance -- he knows the topic well, which is a more significant advantage than wedding photographs. Rama 17:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mine:

Alicia Hopson
Roger Snider
Kevin Knight

Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 17:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My picks:

Alicia Hopson
John Mueller

Both of these show excellent work and should perform well. FloNight 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an image?

Is there anywhere on the Commons where one can request a certain type of image be uploaded? I'm working on an essay for Wikipedia, and would like to get a picture for it, but I'm not sure where I'd find one with the appropriate licensing.

For the record, I'm looking for an angry mob (of the torches & pitchforks variety). No, the essay is not entirely serious. -- 199.2.248.100 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Image:228 Incident h.jpg? (I found it by searching for 'angry crowd'). pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Image:New York Draft Riots - Harpers - beating.jpg which I found by searching for "riot". —LX (talk, contribs) 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for a place to request pictures, it's called Commons:Picture requests. (I know, it's probably just to confuse you.) —LX (talk, contribs) 06:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. That actually makes sense, which is probably why I missed it. Thanks everyone! -- 74.245.150.21 03:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007/01

January 1

2007

SVG for mathematical functions

Licensing for derivative works from public-domain sources

Another copyright problem that I can't mark...

January 2

multi-lingual disambig-pages

Restore bot edits

Fed up now..I want my images deleted..and this username..

redundant taxobox for artist

ExtendedWatchlist

January 3

PD, GFDL...

80% width licence template

User:NielsF/Arbitration

New subject (specify; please, don't spoil other subjects)

Conflicts Juiced Lemon has been involved in

Bryan's view

Other users

Languages for categories

Juiced lemon's view

January 4

Interlingual problems

Image:Russian coa 1917 vrem svast.gif - official symbol or artist impression

January 5

Image:EU_location_GER.png

January 6

Please review SMPTE image for appropriateness

Coats of arms for (Italian) towns or communes

January 7

Forts and fortresses

Category:Missing images

January 8

tagging -convert to svg-

Photographs of books

January 9

Automobile license plates displayed or blanked?

Image not appearing on Wikipedia

Renaming a category

January 10

NEH grant

Picture excerpt copyright tag = Template:Quotation-GFDL ?

January 11

"The file is corrupt or has an incorrect extension"

The golden rule: store metadata in the image

Bot for changing wrong categories

January 12

Transwiki log created

January 13

Picture of the Year 2006 implementation

Template:PD-Art and Germany

Subcategories and pages not appearing in large category

Request for collaboration

user:nux&wikiquette[A.T_L.E.A.S.T]-YES-or-NO?

Experiences and frustrations

January 15

PNG images not thumbnaling to JPG

Atlas project by Electionworld

January 16

would like to know side affect of a medication called entrocort given to me for Krones disease

Image owner identification

Korean font support for SVG files

Reuse of GPL/LGPL contents

Invalid deletion requests

Image uploads channel on IRC

Checking copyright

PD or not?

January 17

PD-Soviet

Please unprotect Template:Delete

Proposition

Martorell case

Check usage, gallery etc. only when not logged in

problem with an svg map I'm working on

Mikhail Kutuzov

See_also in category Tiles

January 21

Cannot create thumbnails?

Is this an acceptable license?