Open main menu
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


December 17 lacking contribution has released WW II documents and photos from NARA which are mostly in the Public Domain. The website is free for a limited time. I would like to suggest to ignore forbidding re-use of PD works. One can use sockpuppets to upload PD media from (According to German law there are serious doubts that there is a binding contract.) Contractual conditions are not relevant for us (our position since years). --Historiograf (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We should save as much as we can of these pictures! --Historiograf (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, they ask "If you republish public domain images, you agree to credit as the source of the digital image". I'm not sure if that would be enforcible anywhere (visiting a web site is not sufficient to establish a binding contract), but it's still the nice thing to do, and perfectly in line with Commons policy. --Latebird (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

December 25


I'm cleaning up the category Category:Benito Mussolini and I have some doubts about this document: File:Lettramussol.jpg. It looks like an unpublished prise letter from Mussolini to the uploader's grandfather. Usually, this could not be done, since copyright of the text would belong to the heirs, but if I don't remember wrong the copyright of nazi-fascist leaders were seized by the States after WW2 (as far as I remember, the copyright of "Meinf Kampf" is owned by the German Government, and so on). What shall we do? Shall we ask the removal of what, after all, is a historic document? --User:G.dallorto (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

if they were seized by the US, that only makes them free (or whatever license) in the US only, not in Europe. Hitler's books for example are exactly that, they're owned by the heirs, which in this case is the federal state of Bavaria since there aren't any other heirs. It's similar in Mussonlin's case, so I guess it's most likely not free.-- Gorgo (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I assume this letter was not seized by US. Can one have copyright on few paragraphs of official letter? In case it gets deleted one should undelete it in few years, 70 years after Mussolini's death. --Jarekt (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
No, it was not seized, and it was published by the heir of the person to which it was written. Therefore I suppose we have a copyright issue, here. I think we should suggest him to get a permission from Mussolini's heirs (they are rather public - and more vocal than I would like to - therefore not impossible to locate). Anyone disagrees?
I wonder whether another tag might be used instead, i.e. {{PD-ineligible}}, which can be used for trivial contents, as an official letter of prise might be considered (it has no literary or "creative" value for sure... but please bear in mind that letters are a rather shallow ground, when we talk about copyright. Even three lines may qualify for copyright...). However, in this case the doubt would arise why we shoud want "trivial" files in Commons anyway: the risk of ending in the deletion request list, would be strong anyway... --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this an official legal document by a representative of the government? In most countries, those are exempt from copyright (would need to check that for Italy, though). --Latebird (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Files @CommonsRoot

as we started the new global file:dummy suffix (#In case anyone hasn't noticed: "Image" changed to "File"), we should do a main Category:Files in Category:CommonsRoot, same as Category:Categories as a main class to cats

--W!B: (talk) 12:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, not a single one of those 42 images has even remotely anything to do with mechanical files... (unlike the uncategorized one to the right) --Latebird (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Bug: parser function

Hello, some months before, the page Commons:Ancient_Chinese_characters/214_radicals was working fine. Now, the page don't show 3/4 of its images (!) and when editing I got the following warning :

Warning: This page contains too many expensive parser function calls.
It should have less than 500 calls, there are now 2796 calls.

Is there a solution to force it to work ? Yug (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove the ifexists statements from {{ACCgallery}}. Multichill (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2

New Picture

can someone help fix the newest picture i uploaded? --Vaxley (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I believe this is File:1900.jpg, right? What's wrong with it? Diti the penguin 21:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I just thought it was kind of messed up and not sure about the licensing or categories? --Vaxley (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, from what I see, everything's good! Diti the penguin 14:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploading frustration

Is there any way for me to just upload an image without worrying about the stupid author and source information up front? I created a variation of an existing image and just want to upload it, upon which I'll copy and paste the relevant information... but stuff the upload summary with wikicode looks ugly. EVula // talk // // 22:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Try the basic upload form. MBisanz talk 22:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
That's what I was using. EVula // talk // // 23:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
No idea then, maybe some sort of upload-by-URL trick that I don't know how to do. MBisanz talk 00:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I just tried it again with JavaScript turned off (in both Safari and Firefox), and it got me around the block. Still, seems kinda stupid, and that there should be a "leave me alone" box on the form itself. Maybe make it a sysop-only feature if there are concerns about abuse. EVula // talk // // 00:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
derivativeFX might help. --AVRS (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I usually upload images totally blank and then add everything after the fact (I just haven't done it in a while), but that is a handy link to have on hand. Bookmarked, thanks. :) EVula // talk // // 17:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I think there is a glitch in the new-image upload form that needs to be fixed. It always forces me to put in all the author information which then shows up in the Comment box under File History in a completely useless string of characters that crowd the box. The only trick I have found to get around that problem is to start with an image I have already uploaded and click on "Upload a new version of this file." I then enter my (completely different) new file using the "Browse . . ." button and then – this is important – put the new filename in the Destination filename box. I then delete everything in the Summary box and put only what I want to appear under Comment in the File History. After the (new) image is uploaded to its (new) filename, I edit the file and restore the Information template to the Summary, with the author information included. It's the only way I know to keep unwanted junk out of the Comment box. HowardMorland (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

January 1

Commonshelper slow?

Has anyone noticed if Commonshelper is being a bit slug/lag ish? but it also will not upload the images? Bidgee (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It won't work because the server which does toolserver for en.wp is down currently. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably for the same reason all image usage requests go wrong. --Túrelio (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I autotranslate my subpages used as templates?

Can I autotranslate my subpages used as templates? I mean, that if I create a page like User:Joku Janne/Foo, and use it like {{User:Joku Janne/Foo}}, can I autotranslate the subpage so that it is shown in the user's language set from preferences? --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 17:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes you can. Read {{autotranslate}} on how to do it. Multichill (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Cover art

Hi, everybody. I just found this category and I think many of these covers are not simple to be uploaded here. What do you think?Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the copyvios, PD-olded a few more. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Misnamed images

Carl Gustaf Tessin, not painted by Boucher

The portrait to the right has the name "François Boucher 023.jpg", but is not painted by Boucher but by Jacques-André-Joseph Aved. (Unless Boucher made a copy of Aved's painting, but I doubt that.) See Nationalmuseum, who ought to know.

The lower image has the filename "File:Beatniks on opera house steps.jpg" and is included in the category for the Royal Opera in Stockholm, but the stairs belong to the Stockholm Concert Hall (Stockholms konserthus). See the images Category:Konserthuset and contrast with the other images in Category:Kungliga operan. (And who says these people are "beatniks", anyway?)

I can change descriptions and categories, but the filenames will remain incorrect and confusing (especially one solely named after a painter who had nothing to do with the portrait).

Can these images be renamed in some way? --Hegvald (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A direct renaming of files is not possible, as of yet. But you can request a file rename with the command {{rename media|new-name.ext|reason}}. It will then be performed earlier or later by a bot. As naming of paintings on Commons seems to follow nearly religious rules and has led to ugly disputes recently, I strongly recommended to get broad consensus about the new name of the painting. For the beatnik/steps image, it might be good to get at least 1 confirmation about the real place/building by another user from Stockholm, and the "beatniks" should be changed to "people" or "1960s people". --Túrelio (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Depending on your patience you may want to add the {{Fact disputed}} template to the file in question, and raise your concerns on the talk page. The file is then added to Category:Accuracy disputes were it may languish or be quickly dealt with (more the former then the latter). KTo288 (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The only way to get things done quickly is to upload to a correct name and then put a {{duplicate}} template on the old version. As to the painting: the collection of the Yorck project is known to have some errors. Of course they can be corrected by referring to an authoritave source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have now uploaded File:Carl Gustaf Tessin, portrait by Aved.jpg to replace the first image. If the filename offends some policy that I don't know about, somebody can re-upload it again. I have also uploaded File:People on steps of Konserthuset, Stockholm (1965).jpg to replace the second image.
Could some administrator quickly delete File:People on the steps of Konserthuset, Stockholm (1965).jpg. It is another version I just uploaded, but I made the mistake of uploading the cropped version. I assume the flickr review bot needs to re-review the image (as the review date will otherwise be before the upload date), and that it needs the original version. Once the image has been reviewed, I can upload the cropped version again on top of it.
And I can't do the "check usage" thing now, as it seems not to be working for most of the Wikipedia versions. --Hegvald (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
No need to delete File:People on the steps of Konserthuset, Stockholm (1965).jpg. Somebody reviewed the image manually, and it has a better name anyway. --Hegvald (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sculptures without artist name

I'm looking for someone to run, or at least care about, Commons:Sculpture images without artist name. It used to be in Mutter erde's userspace, but after one user objected to me moving it to his, I've put it in the commons namespace so it can be made somewhat of a proper project. So... anyone interested? please? -mattbuck (Talk) 12:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Accept my best wishes. [Zu Deutsch: Ich werde nix beitragen, aber Dich heute in mein Nachtgebet einschließen: Du wirst jede Hilfe brauchen können, wurscht-von-woher ;] [w.] 17:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thousands of CES pictures on flicker missing on wiki commons

Is it useful to add all these pictures on wikicommons ? They show CES and many products which don't have that many pics on wikipedia or commons. Please look at these links:[1][2] If they should be on wiki is there a bot for adding them?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure many are useful -- but they would need to have categories added and/or be placed in galleries to be truly useful, which is not really possible via bot. There are utilities here or here which greatly help with the process. BTW, use "l=commderiv" in Flickr URLs when searching for images, not just "l=comm" -- the "ND" types of CC licenses also can't be uploaded here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

New Idea

What do you think about this diff and the template Money-EU ? Best regards, --Sniff (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that new, take a look at Commons:Template i18n and {{autotranslate}}. Multichill (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

January 4

Public space (clarification needed for U.S.)

We need to clarify our policy on freedom of panorama for buildings in the United States. Wuzur and I clearly interpret it very differently; he recently deleted two images of mine according to a standard that, if applied consistently, would probably result in the deletion of hundreds of images. (The images deleted were two images of the lobby of a museum, the Fort Worth Modern. For the record, the images were File:Ft Worth Modern 15.jpg and File:Ft Worth Modern 16.jpg. I don't think either is an important image, but I do think the principle involved is an important matter of Commons policy.)

There seem to be two issues here: (1) whether a "building" is strictly an exterior and (2) what is "public space"?

Our writeup of Freedom of panorama says that there is freedom of panorama for buildings in the United States and that in the U.S. "Anyone may take photographs of buildings from public places. The photographer holds the exclusive copyright to such an image (the architect or owner of the building has no say whatsoever), and may publish the image in any way." The issue comes down to what is a "public space". As I understand it, (1) U.S. copyright law makes no distinction between interiors and exteriors of buildings and (2) the criterion for public space in U.S. copyright law is simply one of a space in which one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, a sports arena during a sports event or rock concert is a public space, even though it may be privately owned, indoors, not open at all times to whomever wants to enter, and limited even at this time to people who have paid admission.

Wuzur wrote on his talk page (this is verbatim), "Please note that not every lobby is a public place just because every can go into it. The building should be open 24/7 is just one criterium for a public place. The second thing is that interior is not a building but architectural artwork. The term 'building' just describes the fassade, what you can see from outside... The US law simply says 'public place'. A place which is open just a half day can't be public." (Spelling his. I'm copying verbatim to minimize any chance that I am misrepresenting him.)

I happen to believe he is dead wrong. (It is possible that there is some other country where the rules are this strict, but this is about freedom of panorama in the U.S.) If his standard applies, the following are not public spaces, and freedom of panorama would not apply for photographing architecture:

  • Church interiors
  • Any railroad station, subway station, bus terminal, airport terminal, etc. that is not open 24 hours a day.
  • Most public parks in most U.S. cities (since nearly all close for at least part of the night)
  • Interiors of public libraries
  • Interiors of concert halls
  • Interiors of nearly all buildings on college and university campuses, city halls, etc. (since very few allow the general public to enter 24/7)
  • Exteriors of many buildings on college and university campuses, etc. (since many campuses do not allow unaffiliated individuals 24/7 access)

This strikes me as an extremely unlikely interpretation of freedom of panorama, one way more restrictive than can possibly be intended by the law. I do not think we should even consider such a strict interpretation, even on the precautionary principle. I suspect that some of this goes even farther than Wuzur himself would go in practice. However, I would like to have some idea where the lines stand, so that I can continue to be a useful participant in Commons.

N.B.: All of this is, of course, irrelevant for pre-1990 architecture, which is not copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think even your interpretation is too restrictive :-) The law (17 U.S.C. 120) states The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place. The definition of "architectural work" from 17 U.S.C. 101 is: design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features. There is no distinction between the interior and exterior, and the exemption holds as long as the building is visible from a public place. "Public place" is not explicitly defined in the law, but there are two related definitions which use the terminology any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered. There is no "open 24/7" requirement to the definition of "public place" as far as I can tell -- does anyone have a source which states otherwise? The way I read that law, Congress was trying to keep the status quo of photographs/video of buildings when they made architecture copyrightable for the first time -- i.e. photos of buildings (inside or outside) are virtually always OK in any circumstance (copyright-wise). It would not surprise me one bit if the movie industry helped with that one, as otherwise getting permission from architects of all buildings which appear in movie shots would be basically impossible. The one exception is probably photographs of architectural models (etc.) for buildings which have not yet been constructed (i.e. buildings which are still a bit of a trade secret). Even the "expectation of privacy" part is not right -- that relates to people's privacy rights and not buildings; photos of interiors which do not expose any private details are probably also OK (since the building is likely visible from a public place). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I asked Wuzur several days ago for his comments here, but he has not responded. He has been on at least once since that time. I have no idea how I am supposed to proceed in the absence of any engagement on this question. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Category move

Category:Cities and towns of Newfoundland and Labrador has been moved to Category:Cities and towns of Newfoundland in Labrador by SieBot, and WayneRay wrote on the page that This makes no sense, they are two different land masses, someone please delete this or rename it properly. I think he's right, and I don't understand why it was moved in the first place (there is no reason given), because the category belongs to Category:Newfoundland and Labrador. How can I request a change back? Is there a page for un-move requests, just like undeletion requests? Or do I simply use {{move}} again? --Tryphon (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ask at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands to have reverse move done. The move was obviously a mistake and the intended new name was "Category:Cities and towns in Newfoundland and Labrador", i.e. changing "of" to "in" like in the other requests made at the same time. /Ö 17:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
There has been indeed a mistake during the in/of harmonisation process. Probably by the confusion caused by an area that is called "Newfoundland and Labrador". Corrected by now. --Foroa (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the late answer, I got caught up in real life. Thank you Foroa for fixing it, and thanks to Ö for pointing me to the right way to do it next time. --Tryphon (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing permissions issue

I've noticed that in several places, the missing permissions message on user talk pages isn't being properly substed, which often leads to people trying to edit Template:Image permission/layout. Is it just people doing it wrong, or has someone messed up one of the autotools somewhere? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am just using the "missing permission button" in my toolbox. --ALE! ¿…? 00:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It is never substed properly after the change to the autotranslate. I allready tried to fix this (the section heading should be substed from the Template:Image permission) but it is used several hundred times, so i failed to fix the old inludes from December 08 on usertalks: they lost their headline. --Martin H. (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
And another comment: A sollution like in the sister Template:Image source/layout where the section editing is disabled is not a good sollution because it makes it harder to work on user talks. Im very discontent with the situation. --Martin H. (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Same problem/bug was already discussed recently. --Túrelio (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I already proposed a fix for this problem, please see Commons talk:Template i18n#I18n of message templates. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

free image of non free content

A copyright question : Imagine a movie or book which enter Public Domain in USA because its copyright notice was not renewed. In it, it portray fictional characters which are still under copyright protection from earlier work. The image is free, but not the content of it, just like a photographer releasing under a free license a photo of which subject is non free : Commons cant host it...

So what about images like that : File:Falling hare restored.jpg - File:Popeye-meets-sindbad.jpg - File:Popeye-a-date-to-skate.jpg

Movie is free, but the characters might not. So, even if the whole movie is public domain, any screenshot from it portraying a copyright protected character, can't be hosted on Commons...

Right or wrong ?

By the way, Popeye entered Public Domain in Europe this 1st january... but not in USA, thx to the Mickey Mouse Protection Act :( --Lilyu (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's my argument for trying to get the bugs bunny one deleted from en.wp. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, maybe en.wp can use fair-use, but here on commons, we have : Category:Bugs Bunny & Category:PD Cartoon - Popeye, as example...-Lilyu (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
For a screenshot... if you can argue the depiction of the character is a derivative work of an earlier depiction, then maybe. The copyrightable side of characters, I believe, usually comes from their textual description in a book/screenplay (provided they are not "stock" characters), and screenshots generally aren't derivative works of that I don't think. But, it may be possible there is a derivative graphic copyright. I'm pretty sure most "character" protection is under trademark law, not copyright, which muddies everything (and the distinction is important here). It is particularly hard since presumably the owner of the original graphic copyright was the same as the owner of this one, and was the responsible party which let it lapse. It seems odd to allow distribution of the full video (since its copyright has expired) but not screenshots here. There have definitely been cases where movies could not be distributed because they were derivative works of still-copyrighted books or screenplays, even though the visual film copyright was not renewed... but I'm not sure how true that is with Bugs (who is, I'm sure, trademarked left, right, up and down). You're pretty much arguing on a graphic derivative work only I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
IANAL, but I suspect you've hit the nail on the head. There's a difference between derivative works on one hand, and separate works by the same author, which just happen to share some elements, on the other. Even if said shared elements are as big as a cartoon bunny. Of course, I'd still like to see a real IP lawyer (like, say, User:MGodwin) comment on this, but, pending such advice, I'd expect we should be safe to keep such images as the Bugs Bunny ones. (The Popeye images are a whole 'nother tangle of worms, if it's indeed true that the original comics remain copyrighted in the U.S.. I don't really feel sure enough to say anything on that.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There was very extensive past discussion of this issue in connection with screenshots from the Fleischer Superman cartoons... AnonMoos (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Policy on "~duplicates" - sheer vs. reasonable filesize.

Hi, I'm aware that "downscaled" files generally are not welcome here. A recent case however seems to indicate that this rule might be broken in similar cases. We have File:Vincent Willem van Gogh 098.jpg which was recently upgraded to 29.6 MB -- actually, what COM asks for: The bigger, the better.

Unfortuately, the white parts (the ladie's bonnet) of the new upload seem somewhat too bright, so that brushstroke there somewhat lacks definition. Now, I'm forced to download ~30MB to my old machine with my slow connection, which takes me a couple of minutes, just to find out that I would prefer the older version (<800k) which would be satisfying for almost any educational purpose, except for printing a poster.

  • My proposal for further similar cases is, to first check the usage of a file which might be replaced by a more than 10-15 times bigger one, say, at least if a 1MB file is replaced by a 15MB one, and for much used files to allow separate "Jumbo-size" "duplicates" (they are actually not, in this case, and quite rarely will ever be).
  • As the toolserver has problems, last days, I overwrote a file from the "backyard" with definitely bad colour by the older slim version, File:Women_of_Arles.JPG for a makeshift, but it would for sure be better if the most-used file would be the smaller one.
  • An alternative, if such could be provided, would be to design some "two-step" process for downloading files, one of "not more than 2MB", and anotherone for "fullsize". I do not know whether this was ever discussed or how difficult it would be to implement such, that's why I put the question here. I imagine such would even contribute to reduce server payload -- wouldn't it?. [w.] 11:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  Comment w:Occam's razor: we could deal with that problem like here or using thumbnails links. (I've seen a template to deal with that automatically, but could not find it now) 4649 12:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand the term "Occam's razor". [w.] 14:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Literally: Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity. Please look at examples above. 4649 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
For giant files... yeah, smaller versions (as separate files) can make sense I suppose. Especially for PNGs where we want the large version if we can even if it can't be displayed on the current servers; in those cases we definitely need a scaled version which does work. The same paintings with different "colors" are not duplicate though; I would not agree with your over-writing that one painting. Please make separate uploads for those... the same painting under different lighting conditions can certainly look different, so I don't know if I would call that "wrong". Over-writing should only be for obvious improvements; if they are different then they should be separate files. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
In case you, Carl, refer to me, having overwritten File:Women_of_Arles.JPG, I'd say that it was definitely too bright, having lost a lot of definition. On colour, one might agree or not. As anyways that file was pretty close to a DR, earlier (just: no-one liked to waste his time with such ;), I rather "recycled" it in an imo "reasonable" way, instead of uploading one more of those. Anyone can compare at any time, and decide whether the overwritten version should be restored, and do so (as there was no discussion about "overwriting").
constantly find third, fourth, fifth versions of vGs, and think ~3 should do for most cases. User:Olpl/4649's idea or finding [on Doré] is a good one, imo, although I'd suggest to reduce the quantity of possible versions (steps 1:10times filesize would highly do, therefore, never more than 3 versions of resolutions, 100 MB being the maximum allowed filesize, so "~1MB~10MB~100MB"), but I'd suggest to rather give filesizes than pixels as a suggestion to users -- on JPGs, e.g., pixels are somewhat less significant than compression. Besides, any user knows about the quality of his/her internet connection -- imagine some asiatic user with a difficult connection.
The "thumbnails links" seem to be appropriate as well. Could those be generated automatically by the software, to offer 2-3 steps of Filesizes, if available?, or, could similar be done by a bot, "at reasonable expense", or would someone have to provide different resolution files manually? [w.] 17:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
That is kind of the point... it is a matter of opinion, so if there is any doubt, keep them all. Three is not necessarily enough for all purposes. We like as much useful free media as we can; we do not try to edit or pick "best" (other than on gallery pages); that is a function for the projects which consume the images here. For one example from a previous discussion... there is a page on a possible Gauguin painting which has 6-7 versions, showing the painting under various lighting conditions -- no reason we couldn't do the same with other paintings. Maybe there would be a more in-depth wikibook on a painting, or it can be used as an example of lighting, etc. No reason at all to delete multiple versions unless they are effective the same. The solution to your original issue is to not upload different images on top of others -- just make a new image. You can then choose to upload which one you want. I don't like the idea much, but you could have an image redirect which is the "best" version of a painting according to some criteria, and could then just change the image redirect to point to a different image if we get a "better" one. Just keep in mind that "better" is not necessarily true in all situations -- thus we like choices. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Be ascertained that I'm aware of the need for "some choice". On the other hand, too many ~similar files of same objects lead to confusion, and turn down usability of COM-provided files, imo.
So, the real problem seems to be about creating a reasonable=practicable balance. I vividly remember all those [well, there were but two of the half dozen I contaced on this issue, which reacted ;] brave German's vivid protests when I gently suggested to "possibly upload" files which "might be more-or-less duplicates", to possibly speed up the process towards a more balanced COM collection of Van Gogh files [which is my ~private baby for a while ;]. [See Category_talk:Vincent_van_Gogh/Archive]] in case you like to waste your time (like I did) ;]] [w.] 19:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 :-) Actually, no, Commons generally doesn't strive for balance -- we are greedy, and we want them all. When we get too many in a category, add subcategories (like one for each painting maybe, if we happen to have a lot of one of them), and make galleries to give the balanced overview. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible fakes

Besides, I meanwhile see a heavier problem: You probably upload photos from replicas, not from Van Goghs, which creates copyvios in most cases!

According to U.S. law an exact copy does not generate new copyright. This is the basis of PD-Art. My upload won't make a legal problem here, even if they were copies. 4649 15:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm no lawyer, but I think you're wrong on this, and, that the US law you refer to is just about "photographic reproduction of two-dimensional objects". [w.] 16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The case law generally referred to on this, Bridgeman v. Corel, speaks about "slavish copying", and in fact cites earlier cases, such as Hearn v. Meyer, where the copying was not photographic. Indeed, the legal principle involved seems fairly straightforward, even to a layman like myself: as the U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the "sweat of the brow" doctrine in copyright law, a work, to be eligible for copyright protection in the U.S., must possess at least some trace of originality, which a slavish reproduction, whether photographic or manually executed, completely lacks.
Of course, one should remain cautious in applying the narrow exception set out in Bridgeman v. Corel. For example, in cases like the photoshopped forgery you gave below, one might argue that the expansion of the image with new content, even if said content is merely a "collage" of existing parts of the original, could be considered sufficiently original to be eligible for copyright. Even so, such a copyright would be rather tenuous, and could easily fall under de minimis. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just think about: Why should a serious collector or museum allow some hardly trustworthy firm, which sells replicas commercially, why should the allow them to create huge-size files for their PR from pieces which cost millions? They most likely photograph, as you ~said yourself in our private talk, their own products to show their quality. A 1990 replica oil painting of some vG is copyrighted, I'd say. I did not yet inspect carefully enough any of your monsters, bur I think this is not the right place for them at all.

This morning I found an only ~10MB "Almond tree" uploaded by someone else which is quite obviously NOT a van Gogh, and however will cost me half a day at least to prove that. So, please be reluctant at least with overwriting files whose origin is a renowned museum, even if you uploaded the good+small-one yourself. It would be easier to remove sheer new uploads, in case the're proven to be false. Best, [w.] 14:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So you think they are cloning frames too? There are frames on many of these images, and they are exactly same as I personally saw in the museum. Not to mention notes in russian and same gray scale on every image.
You know that I can not upload images with frames here (not PD-Art), so if you're interested in original uncropped images I can upload one or two elsewhere especially for you. Or just download that torrent.
This file is exactly same as one on the museum website, just bigger. You can easily check that by downscaling bigger version.
OK, I will make a-copy-not-replacement if I feel a little doubt. 4649 14:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Do not overdo "in a hurry". After ~2.5 hrs of checking, I had to notice that my suspicion from noon (where I was totally sure at first glance, about the Almond Tree) was probably "just wrong", so, I'll take a few more hours to compare one or the other of the big files with the ones given by the museum. I'm just rather nervous about such because I recently had to find out that exaxtly for "The Potato Eaters", one of our (WP's) "bestsellers" (uploaded by renowned "Yorck project"!) were fakes, which were used during a ~3 years' time in WP projects, worldwide.
For checking, BTW, I'd rather upscale the smaller one, or portions of it (which may create a problem and costs time on a slow machine, but is by far more safe). Best, [w.] 16:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

To excuse for inadequate suspicion, I add here what I created about named yesterday's upload, concerning F_0671 File:Compare Uploads.jpg. The strange "duplicate" patterns from which I was afraid (see rectangular parts which were more closely inspected), were very probably created by the painter's palette knife.

End for today. [w.] 18:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

CheckUsage does not work anymore

I experienced now for several days that CheckUsage does not work as before. I get in red the messagesas
Database Error: Unknown error on sql-s1/enwiki_p
Failed to connect to DB enwiki_p!
Failed to connect to database for
Database Error: Unknown error on sql-s3/frwiktionary_p
etc. Is this a known problem? Wouter (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#CheckUsage broken?. Bidgee (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
/me throws shoe at toolserver. Various bits of toolserver are down at the moment. See Bidgee's helpful link above. Megapixie (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The tool services fairly frequently break down and are then fixed. Most of the time, the people who work on such things are aware of the problems (unless the breakage has been rather recent), but if you really want to, you can complain at the appropriate pages on -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bridgeman versus Corel

If I took a UK museum's photograph of a UK painting, where copyright on the original artwork had lapsed, and uploaded it to Wikimedia commons (US based I think), would:

1) I personally be liable for copyright infringement;

2) Wikimedia commons be liable for copyright infringement;

3) No-one be liable under the US Bridgeman versus Corel ruling.

I won't anyway: I'm not going to be the testcase. It would just interest me to see. Thanks! Jarry1250 (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • 1: In theory yes, under UK law, but it is highly unlikely that the museum would take action, and unless you live in the UK it would be very hard for them to do so anyway. It is also theoretically possible that a re-user in the UK could also be pursued by the museum under UK national law; the {{PD-art}} tag warns of that.
  • 2: No, as Commons (the WMF) has not infringed in the UK, and is protected under Bridgeman in the US, where the servers are located.
  • See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

@Jarry~: you might have infringed some "rule of the house", in case they disallow photography, and therefore be kicked off by them forever.
Deutsch: Hausverbot
English: According LEO:"order to stay away from a house"
(to be more precise: just for the rest of this your life ;))
Be ascertained: The problem, if ever occurring [which, however, is not very likely], would just be yours, not wikipedia's ;]]] Happy 'borrowing'&uploading. [w.] 19:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
PS: There were test cases before you. Some of them were not seen again, after a while. But that's what may happen to any wikipedian ;]
There seems to be some confusion here. The scenario originally posited by Jarry1250, and replied to by MichaelMaggs, involves someone copying to Commons (e.g. from a museum website) a photograph taken by the museum of a PD artwork. In this case, Bridgeman v. Corel indeed applies. The case you seem to be replying to, however, involves a person visiting a museum, taking a photograph of a PD artwork displayed there, and uploading it themselves to Commons under a free license. In that case, Bridgeman v. Corel is irrelevant: the uploader might have broken the museum rules by taking the photograph, but this does not give the museum a copyright on it. Unless, that is, they signed a contract with the museum to such an effect — and, at least under U.S. law (see 17 U.S.C. 204), it does not seem to me (though IANAL) that a mere contract of adhesion (such as one might enter into when buying a museum ticket) would be sufficient for an exclusive transfer of copyright. Of course, U.K. law might be different. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I indeed misunderstood "If I took...[a photograph in some UK museum]". After reading w:Bridgeman_v._Corel#United_Kingdom_implications somewhat more carefully, it seems quite clear that the UK case is not clear, so Jarry1250 might be the firstone to find out. 8( [w.] 08:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • W wrote: Some of them were not seen again, after a while. Could you elaborate, please?
  • Bridgeman is a UK museum, whose photographs were appropriated by US company Corel. I think it is only a test case (precedent) in the circuit in which it was heard.
--InfantGorilla (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Improved support for people who use a RTL language for Commons

At Betawiki There is a gadget that allows for the user interface to be RTL oriented. It would be a nice gesture for Commons to support RTL languages like Persian, Hebrew and Arab in the same way. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  •   Support - It's a shame we don't have that already - Abigor talk 18:17,
  •   Support - I'd support anything that helps to make this place more multilingual / international / functional, as long as no technical reasons oppose (about which I would hardly ever be aware). [w.] 18:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment You mean this one? Funnily enough, they appear to have copied it from us. You can see it in action by temporarily setting your interface language to Hebrew. But yes, it would be nice to see it enabled for other RTL languages too. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    WHO-ON-EARTH should, unless being able to read it, switch to such "temporarily set" of some/ANY language???
    You (or anyone) either contributed to WP, therefore did it under the required license, where no "SHIFT_TO_HEBREW" is required, as far as I know, or those edits would not be appropriate here (imo). [w.] 20:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
People like to use interfaces in their own language, and that's partially supported on commons (click here and see what happens: ), but the scrollbar still appears on the right etc., whereas if you're browsing Hebrew or Arabic Wikipedias (and your browser supports it), then the scrollbar will appear along the left, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

January 5

Getty Images' Royalty Free Stock?

Does anybody know for sure that images from Getty Images' Royalty Free Stock allow redistribution? File:OGTConstr.jpg is claimed to come from that source. The deletion request for that file (used in 4 projects) is open since more than 2 months. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am very doubtful that this is a valid licence. I would like to find the source though if possible to confirm. Adambro (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Never, the principle with this images seems to be simple as you can see here: You can use it for every purpose, infinite, but this permission is restricted to a single payment, so permission is not granted to everyone. Not acceptable here, and of course a financial risk for the uploader if i understood the terms correctly. --Martin H. (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. It's gone. --Túrelio (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A warning about the current unreliability of check usage tool

I have just checked the usage of File:AHF_The_Cowboy_photo_1.jpg and the check usage tool says that it is only in Commons. That picture is being used at least here and here since 29th December (longer than a week). The tool seems to be wrongly working and needs to be fixed because this may lead to a lot of unfair deletions if this glitch is widespread and some users around here keep on tagging for deletion and contacting people only in Commons (i.e. not by e-mail or by using the links to projects provided in the user pages so that the users are properly warned). -- 11:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Toolsever admins are aware of this issue and working to get it resolved. If you go into "my preferences" you can set it so that you get an email when someone changes your talk page on Commons. Adambro (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Great. Thanks, Adambro. Given the fact that an important amount of users upload things here just occassionally or once, probably it would be a good idea to make the automatic warning e-mail message a default feature for all newcommers if it is possible/feasible. They always can change it if they do not want it. Regards. -- 13:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I assume it is possible and it certainly should be the default, I'll just wait for someone who knows more about these things than I do to inform us of the situation. Can we have this sorted? Adambro (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

SVG not appearing

I uploaded File:VASR 7 map.svg earlier today. Something seems to be going wrong, because there isn't any preview on the image page (though when I click on the filename where the preview should be, it shows up), and when I tried to add it to the infobox on w:Virginia State Route 7, it didn't appear. Plus, there are several more shields on the map (SR 9, US 15, etc.) that show up in Inkscape but not when I upload. Is it a problem with the server or is my SVG screwed up? (File:VA SR 28 map.svg is a similar file, and it works fine.) Thanks, Xenon54 (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Error creating thumbnail: 
librsvg-ERROR **: _rsvg_acquire_xlink_href_resource called for external resource: pastedpic_01022009_131754.png base: (null)

Does that ring a bell? Looks like you reference a bitmap file which is not embedded. --Dschwen (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, you have a couple of those in your file:
    sodipodi:absref="C:\Documents and Settings\[username]\My Documents\pastedpic_01022009_131754.png"
    xlink:href="pastedpic_01022009_131754.png" />
--Dschwen (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
That picture (pastedpic_01022009_131754.png) is a US 15 shield. That is one of the shields that's not showing up - should I have saved and imported rather than copying and pasting? Could that be what is causing this problem? Xenon54 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to upload an SVG file that uses raster images to Commons, you need to embed the images in it. In Inkscape, you can do this by selecting "Effects" → "Images" → "Embed all images...". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Then again there is no reason not to use vector graphics for the highway shields as well. Kind of defeats the purpose of SVG to embed raster images of such simple objects. --Dschwen (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

January 3

Phantom file

Could someone please look into the following problem for me? It concerns this category view: Category:Colubridae. In it you'll see that while most of the subcategories are indicated to contain subcategories and pages of their own, two of them also contain files. The first of these, "Ahaetulla (3 C, 3 P, 2 F)," does indeed contain two files as expected. However, the problem is with "Drymarchon (1 C, 1 P, 1 F)," which is supposed to contain one file, but actually doesn't. A file may have been there in the past, but if so it was moved elsewhere months ago. Is it perhaps because there is still something there that I can't see? We may need a SysOp to fix this one. Thanks, --Jwinius (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of such cases, especially when categories are changed through bots or templates; Category:Halo and Category:Pagos since several months, Category:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict casualties, Category:Duplicate, Category:Universally replaced by CommonsDelinker, Category:Candidates for deletion, ... These counters don't seem to work correctly. Deletion and recreation does not solve the problem. Moving (which is a delete and create under another name) neither. Purge neither. I have never seen a workaround for that. I think that is one of the reasons why these counters are not displayed on (all ?) other wikipedias. --Foroa (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Buggy code, huh? Unfortunate, but thanks for your response. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Watermark help

After Rubohcity uploaded a copyvio I decided to mind their contribs. I came across File:Akronartmuseum.jpg and while my gut tells me it's NFC I can't get a good read on the watermark. I picked up fotografie, but I can't get the first word. Can anyone decipher the first word, it appears blurred due to resizing. This seemed to be the best place to ask. Stepshep (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Image is on this page, without watermark. The watermark name looks like "Roland Halbe", which is the copyright owner named on the source page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
So much for my ability to read. Thanks for your help. As a side note I was searching for another copyvio-looking image and found the exact image (Akronartmuseum) at [3]. Stepshep (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Popeye free

According to an article by Slashdot, it recently became 70 years since the creator of Popeye died, and therefore, the images created by him, en:Elzie Segar, is now free. All of you that have the comic books created by Segar is now allowed to upload those to commons, and that would be very helpful for the project. //moralist (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Popeye may be free in many places now, but not in the U.S. Since that's the source country, the comics are still not allowable on Commons. --dave pape (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Exept for works where the copyright has not been renewed (which has to be checked). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Category Panoramas?

Is there a separate category of panorama pictures? If there isn't, do you think it would be a good idea to have one? (Perhaps with subcategories, by country etcetera.) Best regards, MartinD (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a Category:Created_with_Hugin, which is one of the software used to create panoramas. Maybe a panorama category could be created if it does not exist, and if it exists, it could be included to Category:Created_with_Hugin, so images categorized with hugin get categorized as panoramas. (I know some people might say that hugin might not create panoramas in all cases, but it's fair to consider that 95% of the hugin images right now are panorama.) Esby (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Category:Panoramics may be what you're looking for. If you're referring to en:Panoramic painting, some images are mixed in with the photos in Panoramics, but many are not, and there doesn't seem to be a clear, separate category for them. --dave pape (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers. I think "Panoramics" is what I was looking for. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Need Help Researching

Ok, I'm 12 years old and need help researching a project. My teacher assigned me a special project because I was going against the school system in a way because i was bored. So now I have to look up stuff on "the effects battles in France had on Axis and Allied soldiers during WWII". I also need primary sources. So, i check internet and library but nothing comes up. It seems like a college thesis topic to me. PLEASE HELP!!!!! I CAN'T FIND ANYTHING!!

Davis391 (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend that you ask your question at w:Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Humanities. This page where you asked is for internal discussion among contributors to the Wikimedia Commons, the media repository (mostly images) for Wikipedia and related projects. - Jmabel ! talk 07:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong title

What should I do if I find a photo with the wrong title? This is the file File:Sala_pasilor_pierduti.jpg. The title should be Bucharest Palace of Justice. I want to upload the correct picture (ro:Fişier:Sala_pasilor_pierduti.jpg) under Sala pasilor pierduti. KlaudiuMihaila (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's probably easiest to just save it and reupload it in the correct place, copying the info (and noting the rename), and tag the old one with {{bad name}}. You can use {{rename}} but that rarely runs. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!KlaudiuMihaila (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


Even it's a good idea I don't like the translatet templates. Is there any way to turn off the autotranslation so I get the english one as deadful every time without changing the language in "My preferences"?
thanks for help --D-Kuru (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's linked to the interface language. You can append uselang=en to force the interface to English at a single page. Multichill (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
If I'm right that solution works only if you place it in the url line and not automatically. --D-Kuru (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
You can of course add a link to your toolbox (something like show this page in English) for easy switching. Multichill (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I try to say it in other words: I hate it to see german templates. I want that every template is displayed in english everytime without switching the language manually and without that I have to change the language in my preferences.
Hope you have some more ideas :-)
--D-Kuru (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry but you really have only two ways to make Mediawiki's user interface render to a specific language: either you add manually (or with a javascript trick as suggested by Multichill) the uselang=en in the url, or you switch your preferred language to English forever...
This is due to the way the autotranlation works: it tries to find an existing subpage in your preferred language, and your preferred language is set in your preferences.
I hope this helps, even if it does not add much to Multichill proposals :)
Best regards from France,
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 09:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama-Biden free images

Sasha and Malia Obama prepare for school - high resolution image

The flickr stream of the Obama-Biden transition project has recently been switched to a free license. Some nice high-resolution images there.[4] Haukurth (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and has also been CC-BY for a little bit now. ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems with SieBot

Hello, User:SieBot, a bot operated by User:Siebrand, often creates wrong edit summaries (example, another example). He has been told about this problems already months before (for example here), but is not willing or not able to correct the problem. Because it happens again and again, I blocked the bot a few days ago, but Siebrand just unblocked it with the offending comment "bs" (bullshit). So he still runs a malfunctioning bot and seems not even think about correcting the problems. Beside this, I think it was not a good idea to just unblock his bot. I tried to talk to him, but unfortunately got no serious response (User_talk:Siebrand#SieBot_problems), and I do not know now what I should do now. I definitely do not want to start a wheel war, but I think that he should not just ignore the problem and of course he should not abuse his administration rights. Well then? -- aka 16:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It causes confusion, but it is mainly a cosmetic problem. Maybe fewer categories should be renamed. That would reduce the number of errors. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I also send you an e-mail concerning this, please check your inbox ;) Regards, abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 16:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Fixed it, Multichill (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me as a very minor problem and the utility of the bot in my mind outweights possible confusion caused by the glitch. I think it is easier to get used to it than to spend time discussing it. --Jarekt (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
No need to. See my previous comment, i just fixed the bug. Multichill (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Upon loading....

Hey there, I've never posted on wikipedia before, sorry if I am doing it incorrectly. I just have a simple suggestion. When you type in you don't have to touch the mouse until after you've typed in whatever you are going to search for. But with wikipedia you have to click on the search bar first. Is it possible to make wikipedia work more like google so that I don't have to grab the mouse again before typing in my search?

--Aj10101 (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No this isn't really the right place. But you could try [ctrl] + [shift] + [f] Than you don't have to use the mouse also :) Abigor talk 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Video question

I just uploaded File:192447main 017 law of inertia.ogg. I think I've found a video with the correct license, and uploaded it correctly. It's my first video, though, so I'd like someone familiar with uploading government videos to take a look at it. If you could reply at my WP talk page I would really appreciate it. I want to start uploading lots of cool vids, but I want to do it correctly. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons research help needed

The Wikimedia Foundation is working on a grant proposal related to usability specifically for Wikimedia Commons, and we'd appreciate volunteer input to make a strong case for supporting the project. Please see Commons:Case for Commons for more information. Any and all help is appreciated.--Eloquence (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If some more people would engage in keeping track of re-use of images from Commons by media (organizations), using the {{published}} template, Category:Commons as a media source would have far more entries and that in itself would provide a strong case for Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Some more images from the Bundesarchiv

About 880 images that were missed during the inital bulk upload have been imported now. Additionally, about 690 images that had been imported with a bad name have now been reuploaded (see Commons:Bundesarchiv/bad names). You can see the recent uploads at Special:Contributions/BArchBot. -- Duesentrieb 10:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Question for english native speakers: Krippenmuseum or what?

I want to create a category for museums showing the Nativity scene and, eventually, also use it as sup-cat for their exponates. However, I'm somewhat puzzled about the name for that category. Most of these museums seem to be located in German-speaking countries. Consequently I couldn't find any established english translation of the term de:Krippenmuseum. In single instances I found "Manger museum" and "Nativity museum". Is there any term that is clearly understood by people in all/most english-speaking countries or should we use the established German-language term (by taking exception from our cat-names in english rule)? --Túrelio (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that museums of this type are not common in English-speaking countries. My best translation would be "Museums of the Nativity". --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Firstly many UK churches have a nativity play- or a static display which is known as a Christmas crib. In England, there is no concept of Heimatmuseum, and little concept of Folk Art, there is no such thing as a Märchenwald, which is why Germany is such a wonderful place to take children. I have found the page w:Category:Museums_by_type which shows some possible categories- No mention of Museums of Christian Folk Art- no mention of Museums of Christmas Traditions. I would suggest Museums of Christmas Traditions as a subcategory of Category:Museums by type. Alternatively, you could use Christmas crib museums as a subcat of museums by object. In the end I suspect that will not matter as there is significant duplication, and some cats here do not follow the naming rules- work needs to be done. Does that help? ClemRutter (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for your helpful input. In the last days I couldn't work on that, but will do so next week. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In Place SVG Editing

SVG is not like other image formats and can be edited by hard without external applications. It should be posible to edit SVG images in place in a wiki like manner. This image here is bad but it is troo much hassle for me to fix it.Scientus (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like this. I would also like to see something like The METAPOST previewer for editing text-based images on a higher level than SVG - though it would be the same kind of technology (it could be readily extended to the various other imperative drawing languages out there). Conrad.Irwin (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
That was already discussed here a little over a year ago (see Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2007Oct#Poposed_Extension:_Editing_of_SVG_files_within_Wiki), and never really went anywhere, as far as I know (for some probable reasons why, see my comments there). Being able to tweak the width=, height=, and viewBox= parameters in the enclosing overall <svg> tag might be useful (since these numbers often seem to be wrong), but I'm not sure I see much real use for unlimited direct editing... AnonMoos (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea, and have previously thought of proposing it myself. I mostly agree with Jarekt on the discussion you pointed -- that is, I see more gains than potential losses. Waldir talk 03:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
An SVG file is a text file, and I have never understood why people wanted to make it harder to edit than an article text file. Do we force people to download articles, edit them locally and then re-upload them? I've wanted in-place editing from the day we started supporting SVG. ''Chamaeleon'' (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Failed upload of File:Ru-у.ogg

This bug gives details, but "Ru-у.ogg" is the systematic filename for The pronunciation of у (Cyrillic) in Russian, and thus this file should either be uploaded by an admin or removed from the Titleblacklist. Conrad.Irwin (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already written in MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist#Blocking upload of pronunciation files. In my opinion title blacklist has to be removed, because there are many one-letter-words in languages that have pronunciation files on Commons and it would be absurd to call admins any time someone wants to upload such pron. file. --Derbeth talk 01:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
File:\P{L}*((Ima?ge?|Pict?(ure)?|Media|Photo)\P{L}+)?(\p{L}\P{L}*){0,3}((orig|copy|thumb|small)\P{L}*)?\.[^.]+  <reupload|errmsg=senselessimagename>
This regex is blocking File:Ru-у.ogg - apparently File:lang-utterance.ogg is the standard naming scheme for such files. The rationale is apparently that automated tools rely on the naming scheme. This strikes me as a terrible idea - expecting that a file will retain the name is absurd, as evidenced time and again by reality's failure to meet that expectation. There have been several examples of templates breaking due to this nonsense & it should be 100% expected that they will continue to break (along with other automated tools) so long as this scheme is assumed to work (which it doesn't). Furthermore, the filenames aren't descriptive. If we want these files to be usable by anything other than automated tools they should have a descriptive filename. A simple disambiguation-style suffix is an easy workaround - File:Ru-у (letter pronunciation).ogg is more descriptive and gets us past this restriction.
On the other hand, the intent of this regex is to simply require three characters of meaningful text - most of these files will get through - this one is blocked only because the utterance part is a single character.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
File:Ru-у (letter pronunciation).ogg is an idiotism: it does not help users in any way and prevents this file from being added to Wiktionaries. The most important (if not only) purpose of pronunciation files is to be easy to find for automatic tools or Wiktionary users who want to probe fast if there's a pronunciation file for the entry they are writing at the moment. Naming scheme currently enforced not only on automatic upload tools but on all pronunciation authors makes these files able to find an application.
In this case: у is not only a letter, but a separate word, so File:Ru-у (letter pronunciation).ogg is simply wrong. --Derbeth talk 02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
"Word" then - or better yet, don't specify anything except that it's a pronunciation.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
What for? What's the benefit? Type "pronunciation utterance", "utterance audio" or "uttercance English" in search box - you'll get File:En-us-utterance.ogg. And you of course would like all files named like "Pronunciation of word utterance in United States English.ogg". Never! The place for file description is the description field. Consistent and unequivocal naming files like "En-us-utterance.ogg" is a must. There's a rule how to name pronunciation files and you are asking to violate it. --Derbeth talk 12:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Well there's also a rule that says Commons filenames should be descriptive. One or the other has to be violated. Powers (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
"En-us-utterance.ogg" is perfectly descriptive. It says "US English pronuciation of word 'utterance'". I could not imagine myself more descriptive name. --Derbeth talk 01:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I think "US English pronunciation of the word "utterance".ogg" would be more descriptive. :) --J.smith (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:User stitch

I created this template , which categorizes users in this category.
The idea is to provide commons users who don't know how to assemblate images together a way to ask other people who are able to perform it and have freetime to do it.
Now I am wondering, should the requests be centralized somewhere, or should they just link to the user discussion page or subpage? Or any page the template could have?
Any opinion about it? Esby (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Stitching requests can be made at Commons:Graphic Lab School/Images to improve‎, and have been done so several times in the past. J.smith (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added the template to my page, btw. --J.smith (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

January 9

Lost files in Category:London Underground stations

Hiya. In Category:Railway stations in London is an entry: London Underground stations (270 C, 2 P, 15 F). However when you go to Category:London Underground stations the 15 files are nowhere to be found (the 270 sub cats are there along with the 2 pages). What's going on here and how do I fix it? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine that the figures aren't calculated instantaneously so the files have probably been placed in more appropriate categories but the server hasn't regenerated the numbers yet. Adambro (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Category file-counts do not work properly. The files are not "lost" - they were likely moved into some sub-category. J.smith (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Merging {{Blocked zombie}}‎ and {{Blocked proxy}}, harmonizing styles of various "blocked user" templates

Hi all,
It appeared to me that those templates were rather similar. Actually, the main difference stands in the categorization. Are the 10 blocked zombie machines so different (in a blocking policy point of view) from the 100s blocked open proxies that they need to be categorized differently? If not, I propose to merge both templates in something like "Blocked host" for example.
I also wanted to point out that there are many different styles of "blocked user" templates (see the 'layout' items in Commons:Template i18n/User templates): what about harmonizing them within a single design? For example, I'd like to reuse {{Blocked proxy/layout}} for other "blocked user" templates.
Any inputs appreciated,
Best regards from France,
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 09:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, there's no need to retain different templates in this case. Feel free to merge them.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sita Sings the Blues

Hanuman burns Lanka

Nina Paley, author of an award-winning animated film, has released the trailer to her film under a free license and plans to release the entire movie in that way. People here may be interested in uploading some images from the trailer and in Paley's copyright plight.[5][6] Haukurth (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's nice that she wants to release her project into the public domain (or whatever), but I don't really have much sympathy for her "copyrights are evil!" whining. There is nothing stopping her from making the same investment of time and money that the people she took the music from did. J.smith (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that - you realize she's not a composer and that she's already spent essentially all her money on creating the film? In any case we're talking about the works of people who died some time ago and who created their works having no idea that someone would hold a copyright to them in 2009. For the record, I do think current copyright laws are evil but you can of course disagree with me on that. Paley has what I think is a good blog post on an objection similar to yours here: [7] Haukurth (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera

Anyone lives near at the Walk of Fame in Hollywood?. Is necesary a picture from the CHristina Aguilera's Star. THanks a lot! --IPoedo (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You could contact someone in en:Category:Wikipedians in Los Angeles, California or ask at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Los Angeles. Pruneautalk 17:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Spot the station

Anybody here fancy a go at Category:Unidentified stations. It's not overflowing (yet). Railwayfan2005 (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, File:Z26HWS.JPG is Hampton Wick railway station - you can see the name on a notice board. I'm no good with the underground though. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This is why using good file names is important! Can't we just ask the uploader? Adambro (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I did, he said his GPS didn't work on the Underground so he couldn't work out where he took the photos.Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
...right. Sounds like one of those types that will do a 90° turn in the middle of a bridge if their GPS tells them to. ;-) Anyway, I took a quick look at the EXIF timestamps in Special:PrefixIndex/File:London_1. File:London 1100451.jpg, taken at 19:32, is from King's Cross St. Pancras tube station. File:London_1100457.jpg was taken at 19:33, so I assume it's the same station. But it's also definitely the same escalator as in File:London 1100460.jpg, File:London 1100469.jpg and File:London 1100471.jpg, so I assume those are all from King's Cross St. Pancras, though I'm not sure why the photographer apparently spent 15 minutes going up and down that escalator. Similarly, File:London 1090979.jpg, taken at 16:30, is from Marble Arch tube station, so I assume File:London 1090988.jpg and File:London 1090992.jpg, both taken at 16:31, are also from there. Mind you, it would be nice if someone who's actually ever been to London could confirm that. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Excellent deduction skills. Many Thanks... Railwayfan2005 (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User content

What's the correct tag to mark user content? With user content, I mean content, that does not fall under the general COM:SCOPE, but is only relevant to specific users (for example photoes of users or artworks to illustrate user pages). This form of content should be separated from project content in some way. --Slomox (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't think we have a special tag. If it were my image, I would make a note of it in the image description page. J.smith (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
How about {{Userpageimage}}? --Miaow Miaow (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was searching for, thanks. I was too unpatient and tried to create a template of my own: Template:Community content. It makes a distinction between files relevant to a single user and files relevant to a specific community group (for example images of Wikipedian meetups). And it allows to specify the user or community group in the template. What do you think, would the existing template benefit, if we'd provide the user to whom the file belongs? --Slomox (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll be darned. No idea that was out there. J.smith (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploading a free image or a public domain image to a page I have edited.

I am new to Wikipedia, but I saw such an impoverished entry to a topic about which I knew factual information for which I could cite legitimate references--now I wish to know how to put a picture of my target on the page I have edited. Any advise would be helpful, because I do not want to make a mistake or ruin what is an otherwise good page-edit. Please help me if you have time, for I would like to improve a page with helpful input, but before I do, I wish to check with knowledgeable and responsible persons.

Well, you need an user account here on Commons because unregistered users cannot upload images. See Commons:First steps/Account and before choosing an username cf. en:Wikipedia:Username policy. Then upload your image with according to instructions from Commons:First steps/Upload form. An insertion of an image into article can be usually anonymous but editing under username is preferred. In such case sign up also on the language version(s) of Wikipedia of your interest. Finally insert something like [[File:Your image name.jpg|thumb|right|Your image caption]] at desired place in the article. (cf. en:Wikipedia:Images for more detailed syntax). And BTW try to sign your discussion entries with four tildes, ie. ~~~~. --Miaow Miaow (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

January 11

Category:Hidden categories

I am rather confused about which type of categories suppose to be hidden, and could not find any related discussions. My understanding is that it was meant to contain maintenance categories like:

  1. categories related to license templates like Category:CC-BY-SA-2.0-ES
  2. categories related to informative templates like Category:Attribution metadata from licensed image or Category:Media with locations
  3. maintenance categories like Category:Malformed deletion requests
  4. user specific categories like Category:Archives by D-Kuru or Category:Files by ABF

I do not think it should include categories related to:

  1. camera used like Category:Taken with Canon EOS 40D
  2. software used to create the image like Category:Created with Hugin
  3. photographers (even if not famous) like Category:Photographs by Marek and Ewa Wojciechowscy
  4. species like Category:Jacobaea vulgaris or Category:Species of Asteraceae
  5. sources or collections category:Images from the Library of Congress or category:Images from the New York Public Library

The last group contains categories that outside users might want to search by or Wiki articles link to. Such users might not know that they have to change their preferences to see all the categories an image belongs to. I can also see that image categorized only with categories from the second group is likely under-categorized. --Jarekt (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The only reason that the species categories use this was that some of the upload bots understand not to suggest the hidden categories. That being said, it would be nice if there were a more specific way to let bots know to not put categories onto these template added categories. -- carol (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
For that may be we can create category:No-file categories, category:Category-only categories or category:Non-leaf categories (following tree analogy) to mark categories which are not expected to ever hold files only other categories (like "... by country" or "... by year" categories and many others).--Jarekt (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems like since it would be something for software to recognize, requiring all bots which are adding or suggesting categories to respond correctly to the {{nobots}} template. There are many categories which should not have images in them, not just the template added categories but also upper level categories and categories which contain templates. Perhaps even more that I cannot think of right now.
A note could be left for the non-bots to not add images into these categories or perhaps the template could be refined to do this.
Is it a requirement that bots operating here respect the {{nobots}} template? -- carol (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think thats exactly what that template is for. It would only prevent bots from modifying THAT particular category page, witch is not a desired behavior anyway. Anyway - a similar template called {{nobotadd}} or something like that would be useful. J.smith (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes please to this. Having just cleared out Category:London Underground stations to the individual stations categories it would be great to put a flag on it which meant it couldn't pick up any more files. If we can't do this how about a robot which moves all the files out similar to a category redirect?Railwayfan2005 (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried to create a Meta Category template which could be used to identify these categories. See {{Railwayfan2005/MetaCat}} for where I've got to. Does anybody know how to get the number of files back in a category, excluding the sub categories? At the moment it doesn't work properly because it includes the sub cats in the count. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I like it. I have never heard of term "Meta Category" but every thing else is great.--Jarekt (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I made up "Meta Category" by reference to Meta Data. I've created the template {{MetaCat}}, you need to put in the correct number of sub cats as a parameter to get it to work, and even then it gets confused by ghost files. Category:Non-empty meta categories should pick up all the meta categories with issues. Now if the people who maintain the bots could check for this tag, or membership of Category:Meta categories before dropping files in it would be great. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

January 8

broken link

this image link is broken Earthlights dmsp.jpg the full resolution give an error Lillolollo (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's broken. I guess it's your PC which can't handle the size of the image (134 Megapixels!). I haven't tried though, cause I'm quite sure my computer cannot cope with it...
Btw: File:Earthlights dmsp.jpg (link, so other people won't have to copy the filename to view the image). --Slomox (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
In my experience most browsers can't deal with images as small as 80MP in size. Each browser behaves differently - but it's clear to me they did not anticipate wide-spread use of 100mp images. In my limited experimentation IE does the best, Firefox second best with Chrome worst. I haven't done any specific studies on this, so it might not be the same for different file formats or compression types. J.smith (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
FF3 seems to work fine with it. Or it was anyway. It doesn't seem to like being opened in a new tab. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it has something to do with your ram or OS - I can't seem to open it in FF3 on my computer. (XP SP3, 1gig ram) Maybe at some point I'll do a series of experiments to see what the limit is for each browser. --J.smith (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't open it in FF3 but i can whit E7 on my computer XP SP3 2G ram Lillolollo (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Opera doesn't have any trouble with it. --Carnildo (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

January 10

Commons:WikiProject Templates

I created Commons:WikiProject Templates, which is intended to work towards making templates less redundant, more generic and more easily localizable. other words, to enhance the templatiness of templates. If you are interested in the topic, have a look and join. --Slomox (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There was something about template standardisation a while back, you might want to look into restarting that. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Would have been easier, if you had provided a link ;-) But I found it: Commons:Template standardization. Its related, but the goal of the WikiProject is more on content, whereas the other project is about design. Comparable to the HTML/CSS distinction. I will link both pages. --Slomox (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It would have been, but it would also have required me to remember the exact name of the page. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a worthy Project.--Jarekt (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Systematic in categories for German cities

While trying to link uncategorized photos of good quality to a category, I came across a photo made in the German city Bürder. Usually I create a new category when there are more photos made in the same city or I put them in the one higher level category. In this case I have to go several levels higher. If I make new categories I have to start from the existing Category:Landkreis Neuwied then to create a new one "Verbandsgemeinde Waldbreitbach" then a new one "Niederbreitbach" and then a new one "Bürder". I just want to know from somebody whether this sequence is right.
If so, then I create these and there may be not yet images in some categories. Only a very short description in German and English as I did with Category:Landkreis Neuwied. Thanks for suggestions, Wouter (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I just did it starting from the new made Category:Waldbreitbach and using the search to find images that were not or not properly categorised. Wouter (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Verband in german does not indicate a hierachy, but a voluntary pooling of resources and responsibilities. So, the members of a Verbandsgemeinde remain individual communities, even if they may have only one instance of, for example, a registrar's office or if they decide communally about zoning plans. That means that it would be perfectly reasonable to leave out Verbände from the category tree. --Hk kng (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What happens when the WP original is deleted for copyright reasons?

I recently came across an editor on WP that was passing off several unlikely pictures as PD-self (a picture of a Kenyan Veranda, and a tropical veranda, and a wooded path in Wisconsin), see the PUI, several others uploaded by the same person have been moved to Commons [[8], so had I not thought to search here they might be here forever. Is there any bot that monitors file-copyright-problem categories on WP? If someone has a habit of uploading copyvio images as PD I wouldn't trust anything they've uploaded ever. It would be great if there were a warning system. ~ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 20:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If the original image on WP that was deleted for issues of copyright, let us know here and we will arrange for the photo to be deleted. Honestly, I am not certain if the uploading bots have a list of what images to deny from, but it does happen a lot. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

January 13

Braeden hacking.jpg

Hi there, I have posted a request to check the license on discussion page of that file on 10. Jan 2009. Since there was no reaction, I submit it here again, if you don't mind.

The picture File:Braeden hacking.jpg here is under a license cc-by (reviewed on 10:20, 21 November 2006 by the FlickreviewR) and at flickr[9] it is tagged as copyrighted. Could somebody tell me something about that? --DanSy (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the Flickr user has changed the license for that image on his Flickr page after it was copied to Commons and Flickr-reviewed. See comment on File talk:Braeden hacking.jpg. No need to do/change anything here. --Túrelio (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your confirmation. DanSy (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename image with spelling goof

Could someone rename File:Stellamare capsiszed at port of Albany 1.jpg to say "capsized", not "capsiszed"? How do you rename an image? Crystal whacker (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Two options:
  • Add {{badname|File:Stellamare capsized at port of Albany 1.jpg}} to the top of the original file page and upload the image with the correct name.
  • Add {{rename media|File:Stellamare capsized at port of Albany 1.jpg}} to the top of the file page. It may take a few days. References in Commons and in other wikis will be fixed as part of the rename process, so you may proceed to use it under the old name. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Technically, the {{badname}} template is only if you are the uploader of the original. You can do the same thing using the {{duplicate}} tag instead, but be sure to appropriately include all licensing and author information on the new version. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposed "Rename" -- as the file is "hardly" ;] used, we can wait for the bot to do the job. [w.] 18:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
@Crystal whacker: Anyone can propose such "rename", but such is not very much welcomed by admins, as they have to do the cleanup in case the bot had problems, which might occur if the file is heavily used (and, for instance, used in some "box"; try editing an arab wikipedia page to understand what I'm talking about). I, for myself, do not see a problem in this case ;) [w.] 19:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks W. So I don't have to worry about it; you'll rename the image at w:Port of Albany-Rensselaer when it's renamed here? It sounds like that, so I think we're good. Crystal whacker (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Right you are. [w.] 05:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Check usage removed?!?

Why is the "Check usage" option removed?? I know it rarely worked properly, but it was better than nothing. - Ssolbergj (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

DittoKTo288 (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The buttons are gone, but the toolserver is actually working right now. One can click the usage-link in the pictures in user galleries with good results. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I've just done as you suggested, and you're right I've rarely seen check usage run so fast, I guess its because people cannot now easily use the function.KTo288 (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a new bug in some JavaScript, which makes the script stop before it reaches the code which adds the checkusage link. I get the following errors on image pages:

Error: QuickDeleteEnhanced is not defined Source File: Line: 299

But not on Image talk pages, where the checkusage link still works. /Ö 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem seems to be caused by recent changes to MediaWiki:Quick-delete-code.js. As a temporary workaround, you can disable the Quick Delete gadget in your preferences. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Might have been fixed now.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Isn't image usage is displayed on image page itself in Usage: section? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
That only gives usage on Commons. "Check usage" is scanning all of wikimedia. It is working fine now, except that one of the servers is not up to date. New hardware will be ordered. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I misinterpreted Template:Check categories. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Being late, as usually, and controversial, as often, I'd even propose to remove that tab from the file description page, to reduce payload on servers which might be caused by kids "just clicking around for fun" -- everyone really interested in some file would have a look at its talk page, I think.
Admittedly, there might occur a problem for non-wikipedians (the majority of human beings, up to now ;) if the talk page would be empty. How about kind-of-activating file talk pages anyways, even if they're empty? I am programming=0, but I see that my (any SUL-user's) nick "exists" on each&any wikipedia project, with data pre-filled-in, no matter whether I ever went there (or would be able to read the language). Could similar not also be provided "at reasonable expense" for file talk pages?
Say, for instance, something like "No contribution up to now. You may add one, or explore file usage." -- Such pre-prepared (blue-linked) talk page would, BTW, also seem less repellent to non-wikipedians than the red link for "discussion" we have up to now, as long as the talk page is empty. The initial "prompter" text should of course "vanish" as soon as the first edit is done on that page. [w.] 06:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

January 7

Planck and Einstein picture

Where is the right place to talk about this deletion debate?

The history on en-Wikipedia seems to have not been picked up by the Commons editors discussing it (understandable, but a systematic failure, in my opinion, that is commonly found with images transferred from other projects to Commons). The history is:

  • (Uploaded on Commons at some point before January 2006, but I only found that out later)
  • Uploaded 7 May 2006 on en-Wikipedia (only en-wiki admins can see that)
  • en-Wikipedia deletion debate here in July 2007 (this could have been linked to if all information was transferred)
  • en-Wikipedia deletion review debate here (need to find the debate and click "show" - a link to this also could have been transferred to Commons)
  • Transferred from en-Wikipedia to Commons on 23 November 2007 and deleted soon after on en-Wikipedia
  • Image deleted here on Commons in November 2008 after a very small debate (not complaining about that, as it is common here, but contrasting it with the discussion and participation at the other discussions)

So, a few questions after this:

  • (1) What is the correct copyright status of the image? Can the debate be appealed or reopened?
  • (2) Should links to previous deletion discussions on the "origin" project (where the picture came from) be carried over to Commons for future reference, and if so, how can this be proposed, hopefully accepted and widely implemented?
  • (3) Is talk page stuff copied over? The deleted talk page of "File talk:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg" at en-Wikipedia has some very relevant material - did that get copied over here? By looking at that, I found that this image has already ping-ponged between Commons and en-Wikipedia. See here (Commons deletion debate from March 2006), plus here (Commons deletion debate from January 2006).
  • (4) How did the three people participating in the latest debate miss all the earlier debates including the Commons ones from January and March 2006? Even though the image was under the same name? I can't see the deleted revisions of pages here, so if someone could tell me if there were any links to the past discussions on the image or image talk page, I'd be grateful (I suspect they got lost in the initial deletion back in March 2006).

Sorry for the strong tone of the comments here, but I think something must be wrong with the system when an image ends up ping-ponging between a project and Commons like this with no real institutional memory of previous debates. I make it (so far): Commons, en-Wikipedia, Commons, and maybe en-Wikipedia again (under fair use if nothing else). Is there also a suitable place to put the en-Wikipedia talk page stuff, which includes an e-mail exchange with the Chief Executive of the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft about the copyright status of this picture? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ping-ponging is really messy. It can happen with disputed copyright issues though especially if people change licenses, and other users make assumptions based on the changed license without seeing its history etc. Ideally any image put back on en-wiki after being deleted from commons should be marked DO NOT TRANSFER TO COMMONS somehow. I'll try to answer your other questions...
1) That is the crux of the matter and without more info about the image it is really hard to say. One source is here, with a source of "Fritz Reiche Collection". The page describing that collection is here... sounds like he was a German scientist whose heirs donated the material. Given that Corbis has the image through a different provenance... seems likely there were prints made at the time with multiple people having copies, thus it was published, and most probably in Germany. Unfortunately without knowing anything about the first publication things become uncertain. If published without attribution originally and the author was not disclosed in the following 70 years, the German copyright expired in 2000, but the U.S. copyright would still have been restored in 1996 and thus would expire in 2025. If the author was known at some point but attribution was lost, then the German copyright still exists too. The Corbis copyright claim may well be bogus, but it seems almost guaranteed the U.S. copyright still exists, and could still be claimed by the original photographer or maybe institutional copyright owner. If it could be definitively shown to be an anonymous work, rather than just unknown, there would be a better case -- but I just don't see enough to claim that. Appeals can always be made if more information is uncovered... what did the email exchange say? I can't see that...
2) Absolutely -- all info is applicable. Links to alternate versions on the web and other provenance info should be added to the image page itself as a result of those discussions. Links to those discussions... probably could be added to the talk page. Commons now tries to do this with deletion requests which result in keep but it was not always done with old ones. I'm not sure there is any way to automate links to discussions on en-wiki or any other local projects, as the style of discussion varies greatly everywhere, so stuff like that may have to be manual. Can't think of an easy way, unless links to these discussions are put on the local project image talk page, and the image talk page contents are then transferred (your next point).
3) I don't think talk page stuff is copied over -- images are essentially new uploads. It would be a great idea if bots could figure a way to transfer that info too, and maybe that should be added to the transfer-to-commons process to ensure it was done before deleting the local image. Don't see why that couldn't be automated somehow, but I'm not up on the nitty-gritty of image uploads so maybe it is more complicated than it looks, but even a standalone bot which looks at recently-transferred images could probably do it.
4) They would probably have to check "what links here", check the deletion log (which has no links to old discussions), or just remember it. The image was re-transferred so the new one probably did not include any of the old content. The newer deletion pages scheme, with subpages based on the image name, mostly results in old deletion discussions showing up at the top of the new one (since the old subpage is basically just being edited again for subsequent deletion requests). However, this doesn't work for very old deletion discussions like that one. Not sure there is anything more which can be automated. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I did put in an undeletion request at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg, with evidence of first publication. I did receive no answer from the historian that I wrote to, but it is not really necessary. It is quite clear that this was anonymously published, {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think of the issue with the U.S. copyright so far. Looks like we cannot restore this anyway, as it is still copyrighted in the U.S., no matter what the copyright status in Germany is right now. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Carl, for a comprehensive reply. I'm not really active enough here to take things further, but hopefully something can be done about some of the issues here. About the talk page content - I summarised it at the undeletion request. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Verbose Betacommandbot

Hi, having rename-requested a few files recently, I find out that same "stuff" is added to the renamed file's talk page (where it is imo appropriate+welcome), but redundantly to the file description page.

Could such be switched off? It imo just blows up the description with "stuff" which de facto is of no user's interest. Or, am I wrong on this? [w.] 05:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ask for category deletion

I have create bad category and ask them to be deleted (in french pump no réaction !) The concerned items are : Category:Valentin Haûy - Category:Black and white school class group - Category:Photographs of school class group - and Category:Black and white photographs of school class group - Thank you - Siren-Com (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  Done, tag the categories with {{speedydelete}} if you ever make another mistake like this. Multichill (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


Is anyone watching vandalism here on Commons? This File:LG L194WT-SF LCD monitor.jpg has been vandalized with licence and category removed for more than 5 months and then instead of simply reverting, there were 9 edits which made the same as potential revert. Sad story.--Kozuch (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of people are watching vandalism on Commons. When I am online I have a Vandal Fighter running to check the edits from new users and ip users. But It's kind of hard to keep track of everything, there is a lot of editing on Commons and its sad but this things happen. If this images wasn't upload with a bot and the uploader has it on his watchlist it would have been spotted earlier. Abigor talk 22:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you watching vandalism here on commons, Kozuch? Try not to draw conclusions based on a non-representative sample. J.smith (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, with nearly 3.8 millions of files it's not so easy to catch every vandal and every vandalism edit, as we also have to catch copyvios, and those are more frequent and far more dangerous for Commons. You are welcome to help.--Túrelio (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
At the moment vandalism is often not spotted. I just had a quick look (less than 2 minutes) and i already spotted several cases of vandalism. We really need a more structural approach to fight vandalism here at commons. Multichill (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

January 12

free Al Jazeera videos

check out those clips Al-Jazeera releasing in CC-BY about the current Israely-Hammas conflict. Hidro (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, if anybody needs help in cutting a specific clip from the videos, feel free to message me the specific video name and time line. Hidro (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

January 15

Autotranslation of Template:Self & Template:Information

One way of making Commons more accessible is to make templates available in the users interface language. See for example File:Eagle_Owl_IMG_9203.JPG in German, French or Italian. A lot of templates have already been converted to use {{autotranslate}} (full very big list at User:Multichill/Template_i18n), but not {{self}} and {{information}}. Autotranslated versions of the templates are available at {{self/autotranslate}} and {{information/autotranslate}}. I want to enable auto translation for these two templates. Any questions/suggestions/objections? Multichill (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  Done. Multichill (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Well done, Multichill! I tried to do it before for {{Self}} but I gave up when I encountered a template loop... -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 09:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This ain't exactly related, but I have been wondering if there was a way to hide the language an user don't talk when a text corresponding to his language is found in the image description, something like ignoring all text in {{en|text}} or {{fr|text2}} for german users for example, showing only {{de|de text}} Esby (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You could make a template like:
|de=German description
|en=The English description
|fr=French description

And this template could only show the user language part. You could also make something with css so that users can select which languages they wan't to see. Not sure how to implement that though. Multichill (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Meta already does this. Not sure how though...  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Meta:Language select sure looks a lot like it. Esby, you should copy it over here and play around with it. Multichill (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I hope there will remain a means for the user to show all the languages, independently on her language settings. --Eusebius (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You should take a look at that page. You can select a specific language or all. First test here is at {{Multilingual description}} and the javascript is at MediaWiki:Multilingual description.js. You have to add it to your monobook.js to get it working. Multichill (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I added the other languages in the MLD template. Now I think it could be good if someone could change how the two buttons are working:
Imo, they should be merged into only one: First click shows all language, next click only shows the selected language code. Esby (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  Done Merged the two buttons into one. Esby (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

December 27

Own up

OK, who messed with Special:NewImages? Is there a way I can change it back to the way it was, or if not, can you add a big red "delete as copyvio and notify uploader" button? By the way. what's with the coloured boxes? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what way it was, but maybe you are using the Gallery details gadget. Then these changes may have changed something. /Ö 17:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd swear I wasn't using that before. Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Possibly you were using it, but it didn't work as intended on Special:NewFiles. "These changes" fixed that. Further improvements are, of course, possible. The gallery details gadget has a few problems:
  1. It might need a switch to turn it off on Special:NewFiles...
  2. It makes a synchronous XmlHTTP request.
  3. The coloration of the boxes is weird.
  4. It could indeed use additional links such as the "delete as copyvio and notify uploader" mentioned.
Others? Lupo 08:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
My main complain about Gallery details gadget is that it often does not work, and when it does than it only shows details of the first few dozen images and the rest has a "Missing image" description. For some categories it does not work (for me) at all, for example I just checked Category:Photographs by Marek and Ewa Wojciechowscy and did not get a single description. However I have to say than when it does work than I find it a great tool really worth the effort of maintaining and fixing. --Jarekt (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. Try forcing a reload. My recent changes should have fixed it. At least it works for me on that category. Lupo 14:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Forcing a reload just kicks me out of the Gallery details mode. Pressing "Gallery details" link again still gives me "Missing image" descriptions. I tried it in Firefox and IE with the same results. I tried some more categories: for Category:Funeral of Jerzy Popiełuszko or Category:Stamps of Poland the gadget worked perfectly, for Category:Photographs_by_Benon_Tuszyński or Category:PD Polish I got all "Missing images". --Jarekt (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Strange. Works for me on all these categories. Ok, let's try to track this down. What other gadgets do you have enabled? Are there any error messages displayed in the "error console" of your Firefox? What version of FF do you use? Lupo 19:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
FF version 3.0.1. Error console did have an message: Warning: Expected end of value for property but found 'height'. Error in parsing value for property 'width'. Declaration dropped. Source File: Line: 0. Other gadgets I have turned on: gallery preview, slideshow, All maintenance tools except myImageNotify and RemoveImageTools, both category tools. The gadget works the same way when I have no other gadgets checked. --Jarekt (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The "Missing image" problem is probably due to the script hitting the 50 title limit for the prop=imageinfo API query. Ironically, the limit is raised to 500 for admins, so anyone actually able to edit the script cannot easily observe the problem. The obvious workaround, of course, is to break the query up into multiple requests: I do that with one of my scripts on enwiki, though one should spare some thought to not DOSing the servers by firing lots of rapid-fire API queries from a script that is likely to be widely used. (Not that I think imageinfo should be a particularly expensive query, so I'm not sure why the limit is so low.) Alternatively, consider bugging the devs to raise the limit on Commons. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ilmari, as usual you're probably correct. That seems to be it. I wouldn't bug the dev's about raising the limit; it's there for a reason probably, and while raising it to 201 would fix this for category pages, some rewriting of this hacky gadget would still be needed to make it work for galleries with more than 200 images. I had planned to rewrite the whole gadget anyway.
But if that is the reason, he should still see some images with info. Jarekt, do all the images have no info, or are there some with info?
Incidentally, the CSS error Jarekt mentioned came from MediaWiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js; I've fixed it. Lupo 08:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
All right. I've got a new version of the GalleryDetails gadget available at User:Lupo/galdet.js. That one should fix a number of problems that MediaWiki:GalleryDetails.js has:
  1. The current gadget fails on gallery pages. It only works on categories. My replacement works fine on gallery pages.
  2. The current gadget makes a synchronous HTML request. My replacement uses asynchronous requests (which don't block).
  3. The current gadget has a problem with the low request limits for non-admins. My replacement fixes this.
  4. Admin users get a bunch of quick deletion links in my replacement.
  5. The "no source" etc. links of my replacement work using the existing MediaWiki:Quick-delete-code.js. Additionally, you get a "nominate for deletion" link.
Jarekt (and other interested parties), could you please test this new replacement a bit? Disable the "GalleryPreview" gadget in your preferences and instead include "importScript ('User:Lupo/galdet.js');" in your monobook.js. Then force a reload.
I've tested this in FF 3.0.5 in the monobook and cologneblue skins. Worked in both. Also tested from my non-admin test account User:Lupo Test. Also worked like a charm on Category:Photographs by Benon Tuszyński.
Once the bugs that I didn't see have been solved, we can then replace the gadget with the new replacement... Lupo 13:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: a side-effect of using MediaWiki:Quick-delete-code.js is that the image tagging links open the pages to be edited in separate tags. Because Quick-delete doesn't close these tabs automatically, they remain open and have to be closed by hand. That's the same behavior as with the "Nominate for deletion" link in the sidebar (which also comes from Quick-delete). Lupo 13:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I have tried User:Lupo/galdet.js gadget and it works beautifully for me. However suddenly my Cat-a-lot tool's window is about 1/4 of the correct size what makes it unusable. Cat-a-lot tool is still broken after disabling User:Lupo/galdet.js so most likely it is a coincidence that I noticed problems with Cat-a-lot while testing your new gadget. Thanks for the fix, and hope to it becomes a standard soon. Another gadget that is not working properly on my machine is "Image Boxes" I am still getting "{{Imagebox|0|NaN|1|NaN|test}}" each time I use it. --Jarekt (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Cat-a-lot: I fixed some CSS in there. It specifies a width of 108px and a height of 145px. What size should it be? Should it have a size at all? Lupo 14:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've fixed the CSS error in MediaWiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js b removing the offending CSS altogether. That also fixes the CSS bug (missing semicolon) and doesn't change the behaviour. Sorry, you'll have to force a reload once again. Lupo 14:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hidden categories

Why are categories Images with watermarks and Images requiring rotation hidden, but Images with borders, Media renaming requests needing target and Underexposed images are not ? - Erik Baas (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Because __HIDDENCAT__ was never added? We never added this tag in a structural way. Imho all "meta" categories like these should be hidden. Wouldn't be better to have a template to mark hidden categories? We have one at the nl wikipedia (Template:Hiddencat) explaining what a hidden categegory is. Multichill (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Right, thank you. I found some more, and modified them: Category:Overexposed images, Category:Media requiring renaming and Category:Media renaming requests needing confirmation.
I don't think a template is very useful, since every hidden cat is already added to Category:Hidden categories. - Erik Baas (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Gallery of Historical Figures

Related items: User talk:Mharrsch, User talk:Jappalang#Question on your message to MHarrsch

This concerns the images found in Category:George S. Stuart Gallery of Historical Figures. User:Mharrsch has uploaded these images under a CC 3.0 SA license. She is the webmaster of the site,[10] where these images are taken from.

There are several problems I see here. First, the site states "Images © copyright 2006 Peter d'Aprix" and I have informed Mharrsch to the effect that she requires d'Aprix to send an OTRS to release his images as CC 3.0 SA. An OTRS can certainly cover all images from a site (a particular directory or other restrictions). However, I later learned that George S. Stuart, the creator of the figurines, is still alive, and that poses a conundrum as follows:

George S. Stuart is alive. He makes quarter-sized sculptures of historical figures, which are only seen in private collections and museum exhibits; hence, his works are considered to be unpublished (w:Wikipedia:Public domain#Publication). There is no freedom of panorama in US, hence one cannot take a photo of a 3D art and claim copyright over it (Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States). Therefore, George S. Stuart has a copyright on his work of art (3D works), and any photos taken of them can only be released on his authorization.

Peter d'Aprix, as the photographer, also has copyright over his photos. His photos of Stuart's copyrighted figures are, however, derivative works that require Stuart's approval for distribution (Commons:Licensing#Derivative works).

As such, I believe that the images from Gallery of Historical Figures require the permissions of both Stuart and d'Aprix sent to the OTRS team to be released under CC 3.0 SA for Commons.

An email can cover the entire Gallery of Historical Figures site, something along the line of:

From Stuart: "I, George S. Stuart, authorize the Gallery of Historical Figures to release photographs of my work (figurines of historical figures) stored on the site under the Creative Commons Sharealike 3.0 license. ..."

From d'Aprix: "I, Peter d'Aprix, agree to release my work (photos of George S. Stuart's figurines of historical figures) on the Gallery of Historical Figures under the Creative Commons Sharealike 3.0 license. ..."

Other contents of the email from them or parties involved can follow the examples stated in w:Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#Declaration of consent for all enquiries and w:Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.

I invite the community to evaluate my analysis and to help resolve the situation. Jappalang (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If the photos are on the site... presumably they were taken and are being distributed with Stuart's permission. If the photographer feels he is within his rights to license them that way... that may be enough (it is their responsibility if they are wrong; it is more of a contractual matter between them, as Stuart would probably have had to indicate permission for uses beyond the website). I would agree we need explicit permission from Peter d'Aprix though. I would think one email for the entire set of images is fine though (the same OTRS number can be referenced on each); the email would just have to be specific on the scope (images done for that website, or just the ones of the Stuart statues, or whatever). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I share the same views with Carl. It is Peter d'Aprix's permission that is certainly required (as the copyright holder) via an OTRS E-mail from him. This is a contractual matter between Peter, the photographer, and Stuart, the art creator. From the range and high quality of images, Peter must certainly have an established and close relationship or agreement with Mr. Stuart, the artist. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

british empire

please find the colour code for this map for me

just relpy by editing this ill check up on it

The page had been vandalized last year. I restored it: thanks for bringing it to attention. --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please delete

Please delete the following file that I uploaded ASAP File:NASA SP-4301 Venture Into Space- Early Years of Goddard Space Flight Center.pdf. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's gone. --Matt314 (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please delete

Please delete the following file that I uploaded ASAP File:X-15- Extending the Frontiers of Flight (NASA SP-2007-562).pdf. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why? --Eusebius (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, user-request is a valid reason. I removed the badname tag though. I don't see what's wrong with the name. And while the deletion may be requested by the user, it strikes me as pointless. This file is obviously a freely licensed NASA work. I might just reupload it myself if it gets deleted. --Dschwen (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, we don't always automatically delete an image simply because the original uploader to Commons requests it. AnonMoos (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I made a mistake uploading this file - there is a better, more updated version of this file & it will go under a different name. As soon as this one is deleted, I will upload the right one. I have several other NASA publications I will upload as well. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you can upload your documents right now, under the name you think is correct. After that, we/you can mark the old document as {{superseded}}, or delete it if it is an exact duplicate. About other cases: if you want the plain renaming of a media, you can use {{rename}} and it will be taken care of. If you have uploaded twice the same file under two different filenames, apply {{badname|goodfilename.pdf}} on the wrong image page. But please don't delete page info when applying a tag :-) For now (in the absence of a more recent version), I'd rather not delete the document: it's useful, in scope, no copyright issue, no privacy issue... Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Never mind. I'll discontinue my NASA publication upload project. FieldMarine (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Why? If I suggest that we wait for the new version before we delete this one, it is because I think these documents are valuable. I really don't understand you here. --Eusebius (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Horace Heidt Foundation

Does anyone have a contact address (e-mail or snail mail, or phone number) of the Horace Heidt Foundation? It appears that they've uploaded a super-huge scan of a photo (6550×8376px!), which I'd really like to keep. But we absolutely need an OTRS-confirmation for this file. See User talk:Horaceheidt#File:Horace Heidt Sr. 1939-1941 001.pdf for more on this. (Don't bother converting the PDF yet. I already have it as a JPG on my computer, and will upload it once the OTRS confirmation is here.) Lupo 17:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find the foundation anywhere on the Internet (apart from a 50 year old decision on tax exemption), but Horace Heidt's son is apparently still in the music business. If there's anyone who would know about the foundation, it's them. --rimshottalk 18:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Request to change the default in My preferences/watchlist

In Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_&_protections#How_to_change_the_protected_upload_forms.3F I asked how to change the present situation where default the tick box for the "Add pages I create to my watchlist" is set to “off” to the situation where it is “on”. People who explicitly want to change this can do that in their preferences configuration. Please see the comments there.
User ChrisiPK suggested “Please propose this on the village pump, so more people will notice it and post their comments. If there are no objections, we can ask a developer to change this.”. Although one may think that this is a minor thing, I think it is important to have this changed as argued on the Administrators'_noticeboard page. Wouter (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  •   Very strong support We should provide as good feedback as possible to image providers. --Foroa (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Good idea, would make the authors of images more likely to notice when their images are tagged as needing work, such as when they lack categorization. TimVickers (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support. It'd do more good than harm. Anrie (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Needless to say that this is a base for Commons communication and interactions. --Foroa (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Let us hope these people watch their watchlists. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -mattbuck (Talk) 19:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Adambro (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Makes sense. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Multichill (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support. --AVRS (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support, as I frequently forgot to do it on projects where I'm not very active :). -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 09:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Looks like enough support. Did someone already file a bugzilla request? Multichill (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    Yup, bugzilla:16961. Sorry, I only metioned it over at AN/B. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Donating images

Hi, I've got 500 graphic panels I've created in the last six months. How would I begin to donate worthy additions to the Commons? @ Thanks, Jeff Christen-Mitchell Boulder --Christen-Mitchell (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It is always easier to learn by doing, so try uploading just 2 or 3 and see how well you do, (and find out how well they are received).
You will need to decided upon a licence first (see your talk page for help about these things) and also categorise them; and complete as many of the upload fields as you can. See Special:Upload
You might find {{PD-self}} a suitable licence. See Commons:Copyright_tags for more options. Good Luck!--P.g.champion (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest doing one or two, certainly, but if you want to donate them without the hassle of uploading them yourself, I suspect we could get you some help. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I have access to a Post Office box (United States) if you would like to mail a CD of images, and would have no problem uploading all them myself. Drop me a line if you're interested. EVula // talk // // 19:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


I have made some changes to a page and want to upload relevant documentation.

The documentation consists of a short HTML file and three PDF files.

Can I do this?

Depens on whether your documentation is released under a free license. If it is not, don't upload it. If it is, it needs to be in Project scope. If it is in scope and released under a free license, feel free to upload it. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change allowable scope of userpage content

I have made a proposal to specify more clearly what is and what is not allowed on usepages. Please comment at Commons_talk:Project_scope/Pages,_galleries_and_categories#The use of userpages to advance personal political opinions. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

January 18

Category:Banknotes by country

I've gone through some of the subcategories of Category:Banknotes by country and marked a lot of them for deletion. However since Banknotes are derivative works by default I'm guessing that the majority of the images have some problems. I therefore ask that some more people look thorugh these categories. Basically the images need a "PD-state claims no copyright" or "PD-old" license in addition to any license that the photographer might have added. Any image with just a "self"/GFDL/CC license should be relicensed (if the image is indeed free) or tagged for deletion. /Lokal_Profil 01:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a list somewhere of which governments have PD banknotes? If not such a reference page might be a good thing. /Lokal_Profil 01:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please help working on Commons:Currency. --Martin H. (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Reading Commons:Currency#Australia it would be ok for me to upload (Real) coins (Maybe notes if I can find any photographs) just as long it's before 1969 and not after? Bidgee (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

" Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution "

Article : " Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution "

In the second sentence of the second paragraph, under the sub-heading ( or title ) of " Commerce Clause ", the sentence begins by saying, " In the twelth century . . ".

It is unclear to me or perhaps it is an error, to use the word " century " in the context of this sentence.


Jess Fulcher

My mistake . .

The article correctly reads " twentieth ", not twelth century . .

[edit] " Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution " Article : " Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution " In the second sentence of the second paragraph, under the sub-heading ( or title ) of " Commerce Clause ", the sentence begins by saying, " In the twelth century . . ". It is unclear to me or perhaps it is an error, to use the word " century " in the context of this sentence. Kindly, Jess Fulcher

Hello Jess. What are you talking about? An article on Wikipedia? This is Wikimedia Commons, not the encyclopedia project. If you go back to the article where you saw the mistake, click on the link near the top of the page marked "talk" - you can leave you message there and it will be seen by people who are watching the article. J.smith (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments on the best way to go ahead with content organisation

Dear comrades,

The Stroke Order Project here at Commons holds images (static and animated) depicting the canonical stroke order of a number of characters. The project originally started with the simplified Chinese characters, but has since added traditional Chinese and Japanese variants, as well as the Japanese syllabary and Korean alphabet.

The images are named systematically, with the simplified Chinese characters having names on the form: <character>-<image-type>.<suffix>. As the traditional and Japanese variants often have the same stroke order, only those characters that differed from the simplified Chinese were uploaded separately. These were given filenames on the form: <character>-{jt}<image-type>. The intent was that when absent, the Japanese and traditional Chinese characters would fall back on the simplified.

There is a serious flaw with this approach. Since the lists aren't anywhere near complete (and won't be for quite a while yet) the simplified Chinese stroke order might get offered in error, simply because the variants hadn't been uploaded. This intertwining of the three schools of writing also causes a problem when uploading traditional Chinese or Japanese variants since contributors will generally only have access to sources for that variant. They would then be unable to confirm whether the stroke order is shared among the variants.

I proposed a different approach on the project talk page, but have gotten little or no responses, so I turn to you, dear community, in the hope that you may enlighten me with your comments and criticisms before I embark on any great changes to the project.

What I see as the best solution to this problem (partly because it's the simplest), is to separate these variants completely so as to do away with fall-backs and just maintain copies of the shared stroke orders under different filenames. This would introduce a great number of identical images, which I don't know whether is frowned upon due to serious drawbacks. I also considered creating redirects, but categorising these is a bit of a hassle.

I'd be most grateful for any insight offered. --Swift (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to those who took the time to respond on the project talk page. The comments were very helpful for moving this issue along! :-D --Swift (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

January 14

Definition of publication

I don't know whether this question has been raised before, or whether this is the right place to ask it, but I'll go on anyway. I would like to know whether the act of uploading an image on a website constitutes publication. I am a little bit confused, because according to this page, any work created before 1978 and first published between 1989 and 2002 is protected in the US at least until 2047. If a pre-1978 photograph that was never published previously was first made available on the Internet before 2002, then does this mean that it is protected until 2047? I am inquiring about this because that is exactly the case of a couple of images I intended to upload on Commons. Regards. --BomBom (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll have to ask a real lawyer, and even then you may not get a definitive answer. AFAIK, opinions are split on this. It might be a publication, or it might be a broadcast. We treat "making available on the Internet" as "publication", though. Lupo 14:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
What's the difference between publication and broadcast? In my understanding broadcasting would be a form of publishing. But I am not very familiar with US legal definitions, so there may be differences. The English articles on publication and broadcast do not mention anything about 'publication vs. broadcast'. --Slomox (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
"Publication" in U.S. law means distributing tangible copies to the general public. The question is basically whether a file is "tangible". Some reading: Thomas F. Cotter, Towards a Functional Definition of Publication in Copyright Law, Minnesota Law Review vol 92 (2008)[11]. Lupo 16:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
From Circular 66: The definition of "publication" in the U. S. copyright law does not specifically address online transmission. As has been the long-standing practice, the Copyright Office asks the [registration] applicant, who knows the facts surrounding distribution of copies of a work, to determine whether the work is published or not. So... clear as mud ;-) Probably means "whatever is to the best advantage of the website owner". Were these photos put on the Internet with the permission of the copyright holder, or by someone else? If it's by someone else, then it may not be legal publication. When were the works created? Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know of any US-decision about that topic, but a German one called Motezuma. It's a Vivaldi-opera, so basically public domain, since Vivaldi died 1741. Then a German archive claimed Editio princeps (first publishing). The court declined that claim because the party who claims editio princeps also has to proof that it was really never published before. The older some work is the more difficult it gets to proof that kind of stuff. So for old works this kind of proof is more or less impossible to be done which actually makes that one row in the Cornell-table more or less worthless. -- Cecil (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous author

The majority of the images I upload come from getting permission from Flickr users to use their celeberity images. As you can see, I've done this more than a few times, but I now have an issue that I haven't encountered before. After asking one user if I could use their image, they stated that they would allow us to use the image but did not want their name linked to the image. Do I need to link it as an anonymous author or is there a better protocol? This image has the potential to provide three articles or more with images which currently lack them, so I would appreciate any help. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be best to have them send an e-mail to OTRS authorizing you to release the image under a free license on their behalf. Then you can upload the image and cite the OTRS ticket number. Note that, if they have the image on Flickr under their own name, someone curious about its source could probably find it there easily enough — but I suppose they're probably okay with that, if they've made it publicly available in the first place. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I was considering doing this, but just wanted a second opinion to be safe. Thanks for your help. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

January 19

User rankings

I checked the statistics, and there are zero users in these categories:

  • Stewards;
  • Board vote admins;
  • Importers;
  • Transwiki importers;
  • Uploaders; and
  • Developers

How come?

Deathgleaner (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Everybody can upload to Commons, Uploader isn't needed here. (There are some Mediawiki-wikis where uploading is restricted)
Steward and board vote admin rights are given for all WMF wikis an meta.sугсго 08:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Image permission

Why does {{subst:image permission|Filename}} ~~~~ suddenly generate a section edit link that goes to edit Template:Image permission/layout? See e.g. here... That's not good at all. Lupo 08:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's because the template, like a lot of other templates, got autotranslated. The template should either be not substituted at all or fully substituted. This is horrible. Multichill (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
How to fix it? (It must be substed. First, this is often posted on newbie's talk pages, who might only be confused by finding a single line with squiggly braces instead of all the text they'd expect to see when (rare case!) they reply, and second, there is a variety of JS tools that would've to be changed otherwise.) Lupo 13:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
I reverted the heading to a <h2> section so that the edit link does not lead to the layout page. This template should not be subst, otherwise you get an even more horrible {{Autotranslate|1={{{1|}}}|base=image permission}} thing :)
Anyway, I think now that it is far better for the users to get a translated message in their default interface language than to have it in plain text while editing. At least they better understand what we try to say :)
Best regards from France,
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 15:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
That is not an option! Are you going to fix all our notification scripts? Lupo 15:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
If a list of them is available somewhere, I could try to do that, yes (depends on the workload). This would be to synchronize with Commons:Template_i18n/User_templates, by the way.
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 15:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no list. One is the script that adds the sidebar links, start at MediaWiki:Quick-delete-code.js and be very careful: this is imported by MediaWiki:Common.js. There may be others... Lupo 16:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Also note that there are more such subt-Templates, for instance Template:Copyvionote. Lupo 16:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I allready tried to solve the problem by putting the headline to the substed template instead to the /layout subtemplate (Template:image permission in the case of {{subst:image permision|filename.jpg}}). It was working without much knowledge of Templates, but my change deforms the inclusions on many usertalks made after the implementation of autotranslate to this template. --Martin H. (talk). PS: the trick with an editlink or however is not a good sollution i think, the info templats are new sections on a talkpage and a new section needs must have a headline. 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's do full substitution. I will change one of the templates as an example how autotranslation and full substitution can be combined. Multichill (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have some naive questions:
  • How do the full substitution is triggered?
  • Does it preserve the autotranslation mechanism? (i.e. will the substituted template be displayed in the default user's language?)
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 15:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I wonder about that, too. We want the templates appear in the viewer's default language, not the poster's.... alternatively, how do we find all scripts that do subst templates? Query on the toolserver? If we can catch them all, we might after all consider using transclusions instead of substing. Lupo 20:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, problem with translusions is that generated == titles == don’t have an anchor on them. Hence some problems if we need deep linking. Diti the penguin 21:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've autotranslated {{Copyvionote}} and updated the following scripts:
After further testing, I think we'll be able to move my edit from MediaWiki:UserMessages-dev.js to MediaWiki:Quick-delete-code.js. Any other scripts I may have missed?
About the problem raised by Diti: using <h2> tags builds a new section in the page where the template is transcluded. However, I agree that this trick does not build the associated anchor. But we generally don't deeplink to user talk page, do we? If deeplinking is really needed, I could work to manually build an anchor in the layout templates...
Best regards from France,
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 10:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
To answer your questions:
  • How do the full substitution is triggered? - {{subst:<template name>|parameters|subst=subst:}} , you have to change the template and the scripts to get it working.
  • Does it preserve the autotranslation mechanism? (i.e. will the substituted template be displayed in the default user's language?) - The point of substitution is to fix a page, the point of autotranslation is to have dynamic content. Once the page is substituted autotranslation won't work.
Finding the scripts which use these templates shouldn't be that difficult. Scripts are probably named something.js and in mediawiki or user namespace. Multichill (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is still not fixed: We are spaming text on userpages without a headline. Im always angry and correcting it if anyone post something on my talkpage without creating a new section, so this should be fixed urgently please. {{copyvio}} was switched on January 16, it is already used on ~250 Userpages as you can see by what links here for the layout subtemplate, all inclusions are incorrect because there is no headline substituted to the users talkpage. The sollution might be to include a language independent headline to the base template, that will fix the problem but it demolish the already included templates as you can see on my User:Martin H./Test page. --Martin H. (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


I've recently made a series of flickr agreements from that vast site of over 1 billion images. Given that the OTRS ticketers have a huge back log I was wondering if your foundation had ever considered contacting the people who operate flickr and introducing a scheme whereby those who upload images have the tagging option as to whether they are willing or not to allow their images to be used and uploaded to the wiki commons. Its just in my experience all these images are marked as "copyrighted" but the moment you mention wikipedia and the people on flickt seem "honored" to have their images used. Potentially we are missing out on millions of images because of this lack of contact. I just think such an close working relationship between us and flickr could massively improve our content of images in the long term. Does anybody think flickr would feel threatened by such a proposal? Dr. Blofeld (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Who knows how they'd react? They are a commercial operation, so they might prefer not to help what is, in some sense, a rival repository. But it seems to me there would be nothing to lose in having someone from the Foundation approach them. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that they are offended by the approach. The question for them is: do they have a profit? In think yes, because it can generate more traffic. Not everybody wants to create an account on Wikipedia or is familiar with our uploading system, but can easily add pictures via Flickr. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably can't hurt, but simply making images licensed as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA allows Commons to pick them up... nothing special really needs to be done. Not sure if Flickr's licensing instructions mention that part or not. Also, we can't accept any images which are not licensed that way, as we do not allow wikipedia-only permissions, so that step (licensing) is required anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
All I want them to do is not allow you to revert a CC license on Flickr, if you choose a different CC license, it should show both licenses to recognize the fact that its non-revocable. ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It is certainly within the author's rights to change the license there, and stop distributing their photograph under that license. It has no effect on copies previously distributed of course, but you can't make further copies from the Flickr page after that point. Commons (nor anyone) should not have the right to make copies after that point, even if it once was listed that way. This is specifically mentioned in the CC FAQ; Flickr really shouldn't be preventing such license switches. It would be nice if Flickr provided verifiable history of such, but I'm not sure that provides any benefit to their users ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Carl, even if the flicker user changes the license info to say "All Rights Reserved", the image is still governed under the CC license they previously chose. It's still a single work of art - it's not separated in two. However, there is nothing requiring that the artist advertise this fact. Flicker have considered a license-history log and rejected it in the interest of their contributers. J.smith (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
But you may have mistaken licences. I've uploaded a few things by default as CC-BY-SA but changed them to all rights reserved for one reason or another. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Remarkably, Flickr doesn't have a "release into public domain" option. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
For their own Commons like project, they have a "no known copyright restriction" option and they treat it like the public domain at Flickr. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

January 17

Low resolution versions from Flickr

Is it enough if someone just posts a comment on their own photo that they release the picture under a specified resolution under a specified acceptable license? It won't work through the automated channels, but surely a trusted user/admin can see what they have done and give it the "green light"? This method probably requires the least possible effort from the uploader, which is desirable when it's very "touch and go" getting permission. Richard001 (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me. Do you think you could persuade the photographer to paste the declaration of consent into the Flickr page? --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

PD postcards

When uploading an old PD postcard, is it also necessary to upload a scan of the rear of the card showing the date when the card was postally-used in order to confirm its PD status? The question has arisen in the context of this deletion request. Ravenseft (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Would be a good idea. If it's a used postcard, blur the handwriting on the reverse, but leave everything else intact. (BTW, this suggestion has been made in other discussions, too. I think it would be great if we always also had the backsides. Helps verifiability, is better documentation/archiving practice, and sometimes the reverse may be interesting in itself.) Lupo 13:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
If the reverse was interesting in itself then presumably it would have been uploaded in its own right. More importantly though, this idea seems to preclude uploading unused postacards, which is ridiculous. The content of the material itself often gives enough context for dating. For instance, a postcard of a ship that was sunk on a certain date clearly must predate the sinking. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Why would it "preclude uploading unused postcards"? Lupo 14:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thankfully, most ships don't sink. Dating postcards is a recurrent problem in Deletions Requests and I'm not sure what you're argument against uploading the reverse is. Even unused postcards will often have some kind of date (the publication date, not the posting date). Mainly, the reverse is indispensable to verify claims that a postcard is anonymous. Pruneautalk 15:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The point to uploading the reverse is to show what claim of authorship there is, plus dates and descriptions, if any. This is particularly important if claiming {{Anonymous-EU}} or similar licenses, to show there was no author credit when first published. Presumably this is what is being claimed in the referenced deletion request; the tag currently on that image indicates that the individual author is known and died before 1939. That is certainly possible, but the author's name should be listed, and it's not, so that tag should not be used. If published anonymously, then evidence needs to be given to show it was published without an author attribution -- thus the preference for uploading the reverse side, since that is where author attributions usually are for postcards. The same goes if trying to claim {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The arguments against scanning the reverse are as follows: (a) old postcards very often do not contain any information on their reverse as to their provenance or date [12]; this leaves the postmarked date as the only sure way of dating them. If they are unused, then they cannot be dated and hence cannot be uploaded; (b) unless the image on the front is referred to on the reverse, there is no way of knowing for sure that the reverse is the genuine one for the postcard; (c) obliging users to upload both sides means that they actually have the card in their possession. Some of these cards are very rare - such as the one which is the subject of the deletion request - and expensive [13]; (d) requiring both sides of the postcard rules out a large swathe of publicly available and legally usable material - material which is reproduced without any copyright acknowledgements in publications such as this:[14]; (e) I have yet to find a single example of the reverse of a postcard uploaded to the Commons to prove its PD status. Ravenseft (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I have uploaded a few from the Zeno site, for exemple File:Emden, Am Delft 1913.jpg (look in the previous versions to see the reverse). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
That's actually a perfect example. The date is not indicated, except for a handwritten note which could have been added later. Furthermore, the publisher - Raphael Tuck & Co. - was in business until the 1960s, meaning that the work is still copyrighted. Ravenseft (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyright has expired, because no author was indicated. Actually, at the time I think copyright on photos was only ten years, so copyright expired in 1913 + 10 = 1923. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The author is indicated on the left hand side of the image which you uploaded together with the number of the postcard. For postcards issued by large companies such as Tuck, there is no individual person named as the copyrights were assigned to the company. The card also indicates "Published in England" which means that UK copyright laws apply. Ravenseft (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
As mentioned below, the copyright term is based on the death of the individual artist, even though the company "owned" the work -- if never named, the copyright would last 70 years (after the 1990s laws were enacted). If that is truly the case, then as a UK work {{PD-UK-unknown}} may well apply. However it does look signed in the bottom right... "Sieb"? or maybe it is cut off. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the laws of England - in this case Section 154(1)(c) of the CDPA 1988 [15] - take precedence over Commons internal rules. Ravenseft (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I quite follow? Commons policy is to use the laws in the country of origin, which is the country of first publication -- if that is the UK, then yes, we use UK law to determine if it is copyrighted or not. (By the same token, a work first published in the U.S. by a British national would only use U.S. rules regardless of its copyright status in the UK.) PD-UK-unknown is part of the UK copyright law which defines copyright terms, section 12(2) of the law you just linked (note that that law is from 1988; the UK later amended it to retroactively increase the term to 70 years). Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The point is that under UK law as set out in the CDPA the company is the author, and the work is therefore not of "unknown" origin. Ravenseft (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The copyright term is still calculated using the human author's death, if that is known. If they are not known, then the 70 years from "making available to the public" would still apply as the copyright term. This is per the EU directive, Article 1 (4). You may be technically right in that if the author was not disclosed along with the original work in these situations, then the term is automatically 70 years without having to do any more research to show "reasonable enquiry" to qualify as "unknown". Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
All that is asked for is proof of publishing before 1923. In the case where online proof is available, (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alaska Yukon Pacific Exposition - Rainier Vista.jpg), that would be the easiest and best situation to have. In the case where proof is in off-line reliable sources (i.e. published books and catalogues), good faith is taken and the fullest possible details of the source (title, page, ISBN/ISSN) are given, so that those with access to the sources can verify. This case (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hellingly Railway Station.jpg), however, lacks both (the image was even taken from a website that received it from a private collector, and the pictures in the book were of the original b/w photo, not the colored version), and as such, uploading the back of a postcard could help verification if pertinent data was on it. Jappalang (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
1923 is a dividing line for U.S. works; works from other countries have different copyright terms. If it is the UK (and really Europe), then copyright is dependent on the actual individual author -- 70 years after they died. If published anonymously, without naming an artist (and if that artist was not named in the next 70 years), then laws like {{Anonymous-EU}} and {{PD-UK-unknown}} may apply. Europe does not have "work for hire" the same way the U.S. does; the company may effectively own the copyright but the term is still based on the artist, regardless of how long the company itself lasts. In order to help show that something was published anonymously, the back of a postcard can help show that (which doesn't preclude the author from becoming known later, but it becomes much less likely). Basically, the back is to help provide evidence to support the claim of PD per the existing laws. For the U.S., the author doesn't matter as much as the date (before 1923) or lack of copyright notice (before 1989), but all info helps. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, as laudable as your intentions may be, they bear no relation with reality. There is simply no "catalogue" or "book" which lists the thousands of postcards issued at the turn of the last century, especially not of obscure low-circulation postcards such as the one in issue - a village railway station on a now closed minor branch line. The availability of the image then depends on obtaining a copy of the PD postcard from a private collector, in this case "Lens of Sutton". Furthermore, contrary to what User:Jappalang asserts, the image is not a "photo" and was originally coloured, the two reproductions made of it being in b&w. If it would simplify matters to have the black & white version instead, this can easily be done. Ravenseft (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
For clarification, it is not I who have the original idea of the image as a photo. Iridescent first put forth that it was probably a photo in the deletion request. It is also disputable that it existed as a color image first, most postcards were produced from original paintings and photos, rather than the other way around. If the b/w images in the book are reproductions of the colored image as you claimed, then their copyright is inherited from it. If the colored image is not in the public domain, neither are those reproductions. The key to solving all this is still proving that the image concerned is in public domain, rather than relying on speculation. If it requires confirmation from the collectors themselves, that is what OTRS is for. Jappalang (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

When Flickr2Commons doesn't work

Yesterday it didn't work, and it still seems to be playing up today: it doesn't complete the page but just uploads the image with the text "{{" and then nothing (see e.g. [16]). How am I supposed to clean this up? I did it manually yesterday but it's difficult and kind of contrived. Still, without uploading another image I don't know how else I can fix it but manually trying to fix it up and "forging" the approval. Richard001 (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the Flinfo-tool that was (or still is) broken, see the reason at User_talk:Magnus_Manske#File_upload_bot_is_broken. --Martin H. (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

PD in UK, but not in US, what do to?

Suppose a picture was created for the UK government in 1941, under Crown copyright,[17] it would be in the public domain in 1991, regardless of its publishing status. Under the URAA, "If the work was in the public domain in the country of origin as of January 1, 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S. (Even if it was published after 1923, but only if no copyright had been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.)", thus the work should be public domain in US as well.

If the photo is published outside of US before 1996, we could slap {{PD-UKGov}} and {{PD-1996}} and it will be all okay. However, the {{PD-1996}} template specifically asks for the publishing of the photo outside of US. What does that leave us for the unpublished but PD photo in UK? {{PD-UKGov}} is applicable, but as Commons demands the files to be PD in both US and country of origin, what template do we use for this image? Jappalang (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

For the particular situation of PD-UKGov, yes it is OK in the U.S. That is essentially the same thing as an author declaring their work to be in the public domain (i.e. {{PD-author}}); no U.S. technicalities on those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear, we put {{PD-UKGov}} and {{PD-author}} for an unpublished 1941 UK government photo to declare it PD in UK and US, or are you saying that {{PD-UKGov}} applies to both US and UK? Jappalang (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Just PD-UKGov alone is fine. It applies worldwide. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Derivative works and native art vs high art

Does an image such as File:AT WORKSHOP.jpg fall foul of derivative works. Is there a discernable line between native art and high art and what qualifys for a derivative work when photographing a sculptor at work, it would be pretty obvious that a piece destined for a museum probably qualifys for copyright, but what of semi mass produced pieces destined for souvenir shops and a tourist's mantlepiece? KTo288 (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

At least this single image shouldn't be a problem as the work of art (statue) visible in the photo obviously isn't finished yet. (I know, that does answer only a small part of your question.)--Túrelio (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure copyright subsists even in unfinished works, as long as the work is complete enough to display creativity and pass the threshold of originality. So a blank canvas or a block of stone are not eligible for copyright, but a half-finished painting or a half-carved statue are. It does seem to me that the picture mentioned above is a derivative of the statue it depicts — at best one might try to claim de minimis, but IMO the statue is rather too prominent in the image to make that claim convincing.
A particular exception would be if the depicted artwork was not eligible for copyright in the first place, which might be the case if it was intended to be an exact "slavish reproduction" of an earlier work old enough to be PD. Besides the most obvious case — exact replicas of famous old works — this might also hold e.g. for some types of religious artworks that are intended to follow a traditional design precisely in every detail. However, note that most countries (and the U.S. in particular) set the threshold or originality so low that even minor variations in the execution of the design may qualify for copyright protection, at least as long as it can be argued that they might be intentional, rather than merely the result of imperfect skill. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Image behaviour differences Wikipedia and Commons


I refer to the image File:Grid 99, 100 int red 50 int yellow (940).svg.

It has no, that is, a transparent, background.

When rendered via a page in Wikipedia over the top of another image it correctly reveals all of the underlying image. See for example [18], the Brisbane (with grid turned on) section. The Wikipedia image is being pulled from Commons as far as I can tell.

When rendered via a page in Commons over the top of another image it incorrectly hides all of the underlying image, as though it has a white background. See for example Template:Overlay legend/doc, the Brisbane (with grid turned on) section.

What is causing this difference ?

How can it be fixed on Commons ?

Peet Ern (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Monobook.css ->
/* Makes the background of a framed or thumbnail image white instead of gray. */
/* Only visible with transparent images. */
div.thumb div a img {
Splarka (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
That's odd... I would expect a checkered background. Never mind, I do see a checkered background on the image page. I also checked both example links, and they show OK in both IE and Firefox. Mind you, if you use IE6, you cannot see transparency on Commons. Wikipedia has a script in place that enables transparency on IE6. Maybe it time to implement that script here as well. EdokterTalk 22:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I was using IE6 at the time. From and accessibility point of view, it might be good to run the script at Commons too? Peet Ern (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone check an image transwiki please

I refer to the image File:Spider main organs labelled.png

I tried to use the tool to transfer from to Commons but it did not work.

I then tried to do the transfer manually, but it seems the licencing templates were out of date.

Can someone check to see if I have got it right. I have kludged a few requirements and these might need fixing.

Thanks in advance.

Peet Ern (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems OK but I think it would be better if we had the legend of this picture. --Pymouss Tchatcher - 09:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Yep, will move the legend. I was in a hurry and left the legend in the ported template. Peet Ern (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems similar to File:Araneae anatomic numbers.svg, which is the source... what is the advantage? Does the SVG not always render well? (In turn that is made from File:Araneae_ru.svg, which has the labels in Russian). Would normally seem best to keep as an SVG. Nothing wrong with it though from what I can see, other than maybe the author -- where did that come from? May be best to credit User:Wassily as the author since they made the original; not sure where the current author attribution came from. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. SVG versus PNG - do not know, I just pulled it over to Commons so that I could use what was already in use. Current author was of the creator of the PNG, PNG now deleted on Wikipedia. Peet Ern (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

West Midlands Library

Does anyone have a bot which could kindly upload and categorise all the free, high-quality, images and maps from the West Midlands Library, together with the descriptive text? Andy Mabbett (talk)#

free-to-use looks ambiguous for me. Are unrestricted derivative works allowed? Will be good idea to ask them to use one of Creative Commons licenses.
regional marketing tools may be also out of Commons:Project scope.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yup, an actual licence would be best. Most images look in scope. If you can get the permission i can help you with uploading the images. Multichill (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll get on to them in the next few days, about licensing; but they do say that they are "available to use without copyright or restriction", which seems pretty unambiguous to me. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a potentially very useful resource although I note some of the composition of some of the photographs doesn't lend themselves to use in an educational context. Hopefully we can confirm these are freely licensed but the statement, "Choose from a range of inspiring photography for use royalty free" does confuse things a little since royalty free doesn't mean freely licensed. I understand you need an account to download the full versions but having created one, the purpose of this requirement isn't clear, there wasn't any agreements to sign up. Adambro (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
On its own "for use royalty free" would be ambiguous; but alongside "without copyright or restriction"..? Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

← I now have an e-mail from West Midlands Library, in whcih they say:

the images are free to use and copyright cleared.

We are currently updating the regional library website (where the images are stored) and we will be putting clear text on the site so people are in no doubt.

I am happy to provide a copy to the relevant e-mail account, if that will help. Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

January 16

Weird image


As you can see this image is not rendered at 404x464px, how come? //Sertiond|B 07:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. On my screeen all 3 images are shown and look identical. --Túrelio (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
same here --Jarekt (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It displays for me too. Maybe your computer doesn't like palindromic numbers? Richard001 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
More seriously, if it's still broken for you, try clearing your browser cache. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Now it works, thanks. //Sertiond|B 16:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

SVG image created from raster image


I've just created an account to upload an SVG image that I rendered from an raster image in a biology textbook.

(I'm sure this question has already been asked, but - despite some searching - I did't find one)

So I want to know where does this image stand in copyright terms? It's pretty much an exact visual copy, though I did not trace it.

Of course, being in SVG now, it's very manipulable, and I can change the colour scheme, and a bunch of other things, to make it considerably different, if I like.

However, this seems insidious, as the original image color scheme is just fine, and the only purpose would be to make it different. As it is an image of something in nature (it's not anything like a copyright schematic either).

On the other hand, if I was one of the authors of the book, I would recognise the image pretty quickly.

Anyhow, how should I deal with this?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutriados (talk • contribs) 2009-01-19T19:25:26 (UTC)
The SVG image should not be an exact copy of the raster image, because the raster image is copyrighted and thus the exact SVG copy will also be copyrighted by the copyright holder. You should create a different image about the same subject. From a different angle, for example. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 17:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Joku. Many thanks for your answer. As usualy in biology there are some repeated chains. So if I deleted one of them, or even added an extra chain, it would be OK? I honestly thought changing the colour scheme would be the best answer, as it is the most recognisable. Alot of people would miss that fact that I have added an extra chain.I am still getting the hang of this discussion, I am now able to write a title. However, I was unable to add a reply, I had to start a whole new discussion Sorry! Corrected. OWrking it out slowly. --Nutriados (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
No, this won't do at all. You have to go far enough to not produce a derivative work that still has to honor the rights of the original author (to solely produce those drivatives). The way I am doing it is abstraction. Only reproduce what is needed to relay the content of the illustration. Think about what the idea is and take a different approach. Add details from your imagination. Look for a second picture of the same subject and adapt elements from them both. This is a creative process that, from some point onward, will leave you with your own picture. --Hk kng (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
But of course it also depends on the complexity of the image. If it's just a very basic design it's perhaps ineligible for copyright or few changes will make it different enough to be okay. The more complex, the more different your image has to be. Quite hard to judge as long as we don't know the image. You could upload it somewhere on the web, so we could have a look. Or load it up on Commons (an admin can delete it quickly, if it cannot be accepted). --Slomox (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all your comments. I did not expect to be totally clear on this topic, as I left the scope so wide. So it's no surprise that I things haven't got clearer for me. It also appears that Hk_kng disagrees with Joku's modification suggestion, so I am still quite in the dark. The abstraction sounds like a ball-and-stick diagram then. That's a little disappointing. When you manually turn a raster image into a SVG, it's quite alot of work actually. The idea that there is no creativity in it, well I suppose I have to accept that. I have to find a new visualisation scheme. The diagram is a series of small spheres on a ribbon helix. It's the famous alpha-helix - a fundamental structure of proteins. When I was creating it, I found it quite difficult to get an SVG version of a helix. In fact, I didn't find one at all. That may be surprising, such a simple and fundamental strucutre taking so much time, and actually it's not quite perfect yet. The SVG standard is quite high over in the Microbiology section. You need only look at Lady of Hat's SVGs ... really high standard.

A derivative work has enough creativity to qualify for an additional copyright on its own -- it is not just a simple copy (unless it is the straight, unedited result of a "trace" function in Illustrator or Inkscape or something like that). That is not being argued. However, the copyright owner of the original also has the right to control derivative works of that original, so if the SVG still contains the expression seen in the original then you do not have the right to distribute your version without permission. When you say if I was one of the authors of the book, I would recognise the image pretty quickly that pretty much indicates that the original expression is still there. Some works are so simple they do not qualify for copyright at all; if the original image is in that category then an SVG version is fine. Without seeing it... hard to say for sure. There are probably "standard" representations of helixes that may not be copyrightable, but it is always possible to make one that is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

File ATgAAA...

Where the heck do filenames like File:ATgAAABWgZkPg7TjH3r62g6cOHK3U8L srXTRhsLp191YEfPHvsp4PSVgEjrhVJSmGOpDXPzLx8oqVVCZeXvP8otc27cAJtU9VBziI45eD1hZg-lstX4mR9GXBc-3Q.jpg or File:ATgAAABjEw5oFEBQ8doTxlUZkW6qWFUFS4Col-wt2K0PC4QNmmZ82bbUD1An6sHrV2457V2g4DcmI871XjoSz7reOangAJtU9VBnCaT2rv0fH330xc0iqCcPL3JhsQ.jpg originate? What piece of software produces these? Lupo 23:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Might be a computer conversion of a file name in a non-western script. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
A google image search for ATgAA* [19] gets some results from I think that site may be the source. /Ö 11:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, just searching for "ATgAAAB" reveals that a lot of other sites also use this; it appears that Coppermine galleries also generate such filenames. Probably some kind of base64 encoding, but a straight base64_decode on these two filenames just yields gobbledigook, even if trying to display it as UTF-8, and even after replacing the blank in the first one by an underscore or replacing minuses and underscores by plus and dash, respectively. Lupo 12:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The exact pattern, as a regular expression, seems to be /^AT[AEIMQUYcgkosw048]AAA[A-D][-_A-Za-z0-9]{85}AJtU9V[A-D][-_A-Za-z0-9]{26}[AEIMQUYcgkosw048]\.jpg$/. There are (at the time I ran the query) 29 files matching it on Commons:

Note that the ugly pattern looks a lot simpler when decoded into a bitstring: there are 12 constant bits followed by 4 variable, 24 constant, 512 variable, 40 constant and 160 variable bits. The bit lengths make me suspect they're cryptographic hashes (of the file contents?) concatenated with something else. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added the pattern to the title blacklist on en.wikipedia (where there currently exist three matching files). We may want to do the same here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, after some more DB queries on the toolserver, I changed the blacklist regexp to simply /^AT[AEIMQUYcgkosw048]AAA[A-D][-_A-Za-z0-9]+\.jpg$/. It seems that, while most filenames matching this broader pattern also match the narrower one above, there are also some significantly shorter ones present:
Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Ok... yes, might be a base64 encode hash of something, possibly concatenated with some date information. But when you google for "ATgAAAB", you'll also find a few files with shorter names, such as here, or here (also starts with this string, but then is followed by legible stuff, and not all files in this album have these names). We also have some files with shorter "ATgAA" names, interestingly uploaded by the same user. I notice than indeed many eastern (Indian in particular, but also Estonian) albums have such "ATgAAAB" images... that may be a coincidence, though, as I also found quite a few Spanish images with such names.
Looking at the source code of Coppermine: I don't see anything in Coppermine that would explain why the filename is hashed. Temporary files during upload in Coppermine have, as far as I see, the last 8 characters before the file extension containing some md5 hash, but the final file name doesn't. Also interesting is this spam e-mail, which has the string "ATAgAAAB" inside a base64-encoded GIF. I also get the impression that some of the Google links are about images from or for mobile phones. Do any mobile phones generate such strange names?
Anyway, a case for the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist? Lupo 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I see you've done that at en-WP already, I'll do it here. Lupo 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

January 20

Screenshot of the new White House website

Would it be possible to upload a screenshot of the opening appearance of the new White House website with Obama's official portrait using the PD POTUS license and crop out any portions of the IE or Firefox browsers as necessary? --BrokenSphere 17:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Per, yes. If you're not certain that the screenshot only contains government-produced content, you may want to tag it as {{cc-by-3.0}} to be sure. Both are usable on Commons, anyway. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ilmari, the website is very probably created by someone else who is not an gov or whitehouse employee, but no matter, according to the copyright statement third-party content on this site is licensed cc-by-3.0, so under this license i think: yes. --Martin H. (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Some has already done just that, but an admin tagged it as a copyvio; I'm not sure if this is because no cropping was done of the IE features visible on the top and bottom. --BrokenSphere 18:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Please advise of any changes that may have to be made to File:White opening screen 1-20-09.JPG. Thanks. BrokenSphere 18:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It was tagged because of the windows and IE parts indeed. Abigor talk 18:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I've uploaded a losslessly cropped version without the IE interface elements. The old version can presumably be deleted. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded the other three "themes" for the page (assuming that each of these represents some significant aspect of Obama's early presidency). I also downloaded a version of the all-about-Bush version of the page that was there early in the day yesterday. What license shall I assume for that? Is it possible to upload it to Commons at all? --Hegvald (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The image of the webpage during GWB's last day as president has been uploaded: File:White House homepage early 2009-01-20 (Bush).png. Delete it if necessary, or edit out any image that is not by the US federal government. --Hegvald (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How to rename a page?

I loaded an image file, realizing after the loading that the file name was wrong. Is it possible to do a rename of the image file and of the page? If not, is it possible to delete the file and the page? In this case I will reload the file with the correct name. The name is important because it identifies a taxon (the image in object is of a fossil). Thanks. --Antonov (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Rename -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
More precisely, you can upload a duplicate with the right name (with the same information on the image page) and then put {{badname|rightname.jpg}} on the misspelled one, it will be taken care of (although maybe not very quickly, since work on duplicates is slowed down for the moment). If your misspelled file is currently not in use, you can (once you've uploaded the duplicate and tagged the original) leave a notice here with the name of the file to delete. --Eusebius (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

January 21

Non-public deletion requests

If someone is looking to have images deleted due to violation of their copyright, but doesn't want to make their request publicly (i.e. on wiki), what is the recommended approach? Is there somewhere such requests can be sent via email? Dragons flight (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

COM:OTRS, or if that doesn't bring the desired result and the requester is serious about it, he could send a DMCA takedown notice to the designated agent of the WMF. But generally the OTRS volunteers handle such things. Lupo 23:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I read COM:OTRS before asking. Nothing there suggests that they handle deletion requests. Maybe they do and it's just not there, but it certainly isn't clear if is the right place for something like this. Dragons flight (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I take that back, there is one sentence in the middle of the section titled "If you need to confirm permission" mentioning that they handled copyright violations. I can see how I missed that while looking at it quickly. Perhaps it is time to make mention that more prominently? Dragons flight (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
According to Commons:Contact us the best address (other than the designated agent) is:
Commons:Contact us is reached with one click from Disclaimers at the bottom of every page. To understand how to make it more prominent, please let us know where you looked before trying COM:OTRS.
--InfantGorilla (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

January 22

OTRS procedure

Hi there. Sorry, I'm totally confused in this robotic-commons world. I've obtained a permission to publish this - - an important ethnographical map to the article on Wikipedia. Its author sent the e-mail with Declaration of consent for all enquiries and with that file to at 11:00 - 12:00, on 22 January 2009. I've later added in my e-mail the link to the file here on Commons. I can also add the rest of our conversation, unfortunately, it's in Czech. Is everything all right? This is my first experience with this complicated OTRS system. I hope, I don't bother here... I just wanted to ask, I'm not sure :)) Thanks --Vejvančický (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

From my point of view when looking at the image page, everything looks ok. If something is not OK in the e-mails you've sent, OTRS volunteers will ask the author (or you) for precisions, by e-mail. They may take up to one month to process the e-mail. A few OTRS volunteers speak Czech. --Eusebius (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploading a crop

I want to crop a small part of someone else's image, and upload it as a separate file. Is there a way to do so, while retaining all the relevant metadata from the original, including their copyright? Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As cropping an image does not generate a new copyright, it would probably be best if you copied the complete image description page and modified it so that it is clear, that your upload is only a crop. E.g. you can put cropped version of File:Somefile.jpg, which is own work by User:Someuser in the source field. The original license needs to be preserved. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow you. I made a copy of the original page File:The Bear, Sparkhill.jpg (new page, cut'n'paste of contents) at File:The Bear, Sparkhil crop.jpg, but if I then try to upload the cropped image, it asks me again for the licence, author, etc. I'm looking for something which cuts out such redundancy. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure whether there is any way around this with the new upload form. If this bugs you, go to settings and activate the first gadget in the list (use old upload form). That way you will not be asked all the questions and can just upload the image. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
[ec] Thank you; I'll try that. What I was going to add is that I can use the Upload a new version of this file link to overwrite the original, but I want something similar, to to make an alternative version instead. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know of any such way. What exactly should it do then? Copy the complete image description? I don't think this should be done automatically, as sometimes derivatives do have an own copyright. Also, users could mistakenly use that feature to upload completely different images, which would then end up with incorrect licensing information. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
When you use "Upload a new version o this file", you should see a text field with the name of the original file. Change that name to the name you want to use for your crop ("The Bear, Sparkhill crop.jpg", I think). That should allow you to upload your crop to the new file name. /Ö 23:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It does, but it still requires me to enter data which is already on the system for the original image; that's what I want to avoid. Thanks, anyway. Andy Mabbett (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
For me the easiest way is using Derivative FX. Anrie (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Where to ask for translation help?

I apologize in advance if this is a FAQ or if I've simply missed the obvious answer, but... what's the best place to request help in translating a particular template or other page to as many languages as possible?

In particular, the message we currently show to people uploading badly named images is pretty crappy, and in some ways misleading. (The current rules match a lot more than what the message says.) I've written a better message for en.wikipedia, and have started a project to translate and adapt it to Commons in my userspace. What it needs now is people willing and able to translate it to more languages, and to check the existing translations. (My attempt at a German translation is probably particularly awful.)

Obviously, for specific languages, I could just ask at the Village pump -equivalent for that language, but I'd rather not spam this to a dozen village pumps, not to mention that not all languages even have one. Or I could try to find individual speakers of various languages via the Babel categories and ask them directly, but this would be something of a hit-and-miss approach.

Doesn't Commons have any sort of "Requests for translation" page? Should it? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't. Might be a good idea. Alternatively, have "Commons" set up as an extra translation project over at Betawiki. Or use a variant of the {{Autotranslate}} mechanism that adds to the displayed English text a link "translate this text" going to MediaWiki talk:senselessimagename if no translation already exists, similar to what I'd done with the upload form script for its labels and messages. Of course, it'd be good if we had a (fully translated) MediaWiki:Translate message for this... (we don't, but BetaWiki has one).
Note: we have more Commons-specific interface messages that are only partially translated, such as the sidebar stuff MediaWiki:Latestfiles, MediaWiki:Randomimage, MediaWiki:Village pump, MediaWiki:Village pump-url, MediaWiki:Welcome, MediaWiki:Welcome-url, MediaWiki:Participate, and possibly others. Lupo 07:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, extensions used by Wikimedia are already part of BetaWiki. I think this particular message could be translated here (if you're logged in there and have translator rights), and if we changed the definitions in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist not to use the homegrown MediaWiki:senselessimagename message but the apparently standard MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-upload message. Lupo 11:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-upload is the generic message used for any blacklisted uploads that don't have a custom message specified (including those that match a generic blacklist entry, not just upload-specific ones). It's not really supposed to be that specific. (Oh, and it exists and is translated already — it only shows up as a redlink due to a MediaWiki bug.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Adding Commons as a translation project on Betawiki might not be such a bad idea, assuming the technical details can be worked out. The area where this could really be useful, though, wouldn't be interface messages but file namespace templates. Especially once the recently proposed change to make the description pages of Commons images show up in the local language on other wikis gets implemented. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

an idea that I dont have a clue what to do with

Before I start, if I have posted this in the wrong place please forgive me, i am unfamilliar with the formalities of where to post what and John Reaves told me to post this here. (actually he didnt, i got it wrong, sorry)

This is a copy of an email i sent to and the reply i received. it outlines my idea for an application that would be useful in historical research.

Dear Sir/Madam

I have had what i beleive to be a great idea for a software application
which would rely on wikipedia, please allow me to outline it.

To visualise, imagine an application something akin to google earth in
appearence but instead of dealing merely with the present, would allow the
user to peer back in time. It constists of a world map of some kind and a
timeline control. The user would be able to scroll the timeline to a
specific time period and see placemarks  representing historical events or
phenomena. This would be complimented with imagery representing the state
that the earth was in at the time.

To illustrate, the user may wish to find out about tectonic plate shifts, so
he would scroll the timeline to the beginning and be able to see the
continents as one (pangea). Then, by scrolling further forwards he would see
them shift relative to the position that he had placed the timeline in. Once
a position had been settled on, the program would search the wikipedia
database to find any related articles on the time period and have them
appear as a link in a linking window, or as a placemark on the map if they
were location specific.

Conversely, the user may be interested in a particular time period in
recorded history, so he would use the application to navigate to that year,
focus on the reigon that he was interested in and see what the database had
to offer, the beauty being that he could then focus on anothe reigon and see
what was happening somewhere else at the very same time.

I beleive that this application would be greatly benificial to many people
studying varying topics as they would be able to see not only what they were
specificly looking for, but also other information based in that time period
giving them an historical context in a visual and easily understandable way.

The project would need to be run by community effort through volunteers the
same as wikipedia is at the moment considering the vast ammount of
information that would need to be correlated into the project. It would also
need to be developed by someone or even made open source as unfortuneatly, I
have no idea how to build such an application.

If this idea is of any interest to anybody then please contact me, as i have
only given a brief and broad overview on my ideas for this.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter, i would elaborate
further, but time constrains me.

yours faithfully

Michael Keen

Thank you for your suggestion and your interest in improving Wikipedia. New
ideas are however not implemented directly by email request; all changes to
the way Wikipedia works come from its community of editors. If you'd like your
idea to be considered by other Wikipedia editors, you might like to post it on
our community forum, the Village Pump <>,
for further input and suggestions.

Yours sincerely,
John Reaves

So there it is, if anyone Can do anything to help me with this then please email me at I have a lot of ideas about how the GUI should be, features that would be cool to have etc etc but not nearly enough programming experience to pull it off. So if anyone can help me, please do.

Mike Keen —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 12:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that Dschwen already did something like this with the mini-atlas. -- carol (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
m:WikiMiniAtlas does not appear to include a "timeline control", a feature that seems to be a key component of Keen's idea. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia covers most of the typical reference works present in the bookshelves of many households: a dictionary, an encyclopedia etc. But one is still missing: the atlas/globe. I realized this already short time after I started contributing to Wikimedia projects in 2004. At one time I started developing a data model for a Wikiatlas. My idea was basically quite the same as Michael Keen's (a world map where you can go to every point in time and space to see the political, geological, religious, vegetational or whatever landscape at that time and you can watch the landscape changing over time). But my thoughts got dumped in the drawer, cause the project is too big. We can store the underlying data in a wiki, but the data needs to be rendered somehow. And creating a tool to render the data is much work. Too much work. If you get a million dollar grant, you'll possibly be able to do it (and 'one million' does not stand for "any exaggerated number" but should be in the correct magnitude for a basic tool if you use paid programmers. Volunteers would be cheaper of course, but it'll be hard to find enough of them). Wikimedia has no programming capacities free at the moment. I see no realistic way to realize the project.
The most realistic way, in my opinion, would be a closer cooperation with Openstreetmaps. They are engaged in creating a free alternative to Google Maps fed by volunteers. They focus on street maps, but the underlying software could be a good base for a Wikiatlas. An agreement for cooperation between Openstreetmaps and Wikimedia could pave the way for your idea.
Btw: The idea came up several times. There are several proposals at Metawiki: meta:Category:Wikimaps. Which shows, that it's a great idea, but that nobody could manage the problems connected with it until now. --Slomox (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Smaller image not appearing

File:Gare de Nice CP - quais.jpg exists, and if I click on the full resolution link, I see the picture, but the smaller, resized version is not displayed here or on enwiki. AdThanksVance. Slambo (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Another example: File:MinuettoTrentoMale.JPG. Slambo (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This issue applies to new uploads as well. I just moved File:N110booster.jpg here (was asserted as public domain and was listed as a candidate for moving from enwiki) and see the same behavior. Slambo (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Also happens on File:20080513-IC50-Thessaloniki-220019.jpg. Slambo (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA-2.5 template broken

The cc-by-sa-2.5 template seems to be broken when viewed from outside commons (e.g., on Commons it however displays fine File:Lilla Edet vapen.svg. My first guess is that autotranslate breaks when the attribution parameter is filled in but I have no idea how to fix this. /Lokal_Profil 20:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand, they look the same to me... what am I missing? Patrícia msg 20:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks ok to me too.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
This is why we should protect templates.... Multichill (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Aha, so the broken template was probably still cached when viewed from outside commons but not from inside. Anyhow Multichill's protection seems to have prompted those caches to be refreshed and everything now looks ok. Thanks /Lokal_Profil 20:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Correction after looking at the timestamps. Something else (like being mentioned at the village pump) must have prompted the cache to be cleared. Anyhow it's fixed. /Lokal_Profil 20:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I just realised, that image description page inclusions on other projects always show up in English, although we now have autotranslate. For example sv:Fil:Lilla Edet vapen.svg should be Swedish or even better in the user's preferred language. Does anybody know, how this can be done? --Slomox (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
AFAIK image pages are rendered before they are delivered to the projects. The default language for Commons is English, so {{{int:lang}}} returns en, which is actually what this was intended for. The fact that it returns the current user language is actually a bug. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not a bug, it's a hack. The behaviour is intended, but the way it is used, was not intended. If the software would provide a meaningful way to access the user's preferred language, we wouldn't need the hack.
The default language for Commons is indeed English, but that's only cause it's technically impossible not to have a fixed default. Commons is multilingual and that needs to be reflected.
I had a look in the code and it seems it's only three lines in FileRepo.php that need to be changed. I made a request on wikitech-l. But I have no idea, whether there are additional issues with caching. Judging from common sense the caching mechanism should cache versions in every language separately and the change should thus be minimal. --Slomox (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

la marseillaise

I suppose la marseillaise was written in 1792, not 1795. regards kai/helsinki

True, but which file are you referring to? --Eusebius (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

January 23

Copyright question

Does anyone know if sounds bites such as station id / jingles and logos of former radio stations would be copyrighted thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 09:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Most likely copyrighted but it depends on the Country and the year that the audio was used/made in. Bidgee (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Keeping track of items with OTRS pending

I hope it is the right place to discuss that. It has been suggested here that we needed a way to keep track of items with OTRS pending, allowing us to know when the template was put on the page, so that we may be able to point out the old, and thus suspect, ones. The guys at OTRS tell us that 30 days is currently a reasonable delay for processing an OTRS e-mail. The discussion on Commons talk:OTRS proposes that it becomes a new guideline that items with "OTRS pending" tags older than 30 days should be deleted. I come here so that it can be discussed (and adopted, I hope). Would it increase the backlog? No, actually it would allow us to process properly what was previously hidden under the carpet (currently, there are thousands of "OTRS pending" items...). I think such a rule is needed, and obviously I'm not the only one.

From the technical point of view, I have adapted the system of the "no permission/source/copyright since" templates and propose this one. Instead of putting {{OTRS pending}} on the file, users would put {{subst:OTRS pending}} (well, for now it is {{subst:OTRS pending temp}}). Just like for nXd tags, the templates categorize the page in monthly and daily categories, like Category:OTRS pending - January 2009 and Category:OTRS pending as of 14 January 2009. For now, it also categorizes in Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission. Appearence is of course consistent with the current one. What remains to be done if we adopt such a regulation?

  • A bot (DumBot?) should be told to create the categories automatically, like for nXd tags;
  • Maybe a bot should take care of the thousands of "OTRS pending" items, by subst'ing the new template, once its name is made final (with a date corresponding to the appearance of {{OTRS pending}} if possible);
  • Admins should have a look at the new backlog categories :-)

Again, I hope it is the right place to discuss it. Otherwise, feel free to move/copy/link this conversation elsewhere. --Eusebius (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we also should agree upon a deadline: I suggest that OTRS-pending categories by day with OTRS pending for "X" days are sorted into Category:Unknown automatically. The X depends on the estimated maximum duration of OTRS tickets. Another problem of the OTRS is, i think, that the new upload form instructs users to tag the file with {{OTRS pending}}, so sometimes trustworthy images are tagged with OTRS pending. --Martin H. (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You mean people use OTRS-pending when there's no need to do so? Should the message be clarified? It looks clear enough to me... --Eusebius (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they use, see File:Ludwig der Reiche.jpg for example. The image still needs a license but not an OTRS ticket. --Martin H. (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess that just like overdue nXd tags, overdue OTRS-pending tags will tell admins not to delete blindly, but to reexamine the file (and if there's neither a need for OTRS nor a related mail in the system, just remove the tag). I'm not sure we need to detail this kind of case if we actually design new guidelines about OTRS-pending. --Eusebius (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Eusebius, i suggest we do the same as what i did with {{uncategorized}}:
  1. Add a timestamp option the {{OTRS pending}}
  2. Don't use the template directly, use a subst template like {{subst:OP}} (same as {{subst:unc}})
  3. Have a bot figure out the timestamps for all the images currently tagged
  4. Have a bot create a new otrs cat each day/week/month
  5. Have a daily bot add timestamps to the images tagged that day
I can implement this right away. Multichill (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, about the templates you did what I had already done (with an "offset" in the level of substitution), with probably more common sense (experience talks). I delete my templates in order not to add confusion. We still have to decide about the action rule for "old" OTRS pending pictures. --Eusebius (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, converted everything. Images are now all in subcategories of Category:OTRS pending. I set up a daily bot to timestamp images in Category:OTRS pending - No timestamp given and another daily bot to create the daily category. Multichill (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it's not as bad as it looked, only a few images are outdated. Maybe the guidelines should advise to ask an OTRS officer for confirmation before deleting? Or should admins delete on sight when the tag is really too old? --Eusebius (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't delete on sight, that will probably upset a lot of users. Maybe just tag it with no permission to give the user a deadline of 7 days. Now we have everything timestamped i can have a bot notify uploaders after say 3 weeks without any sign of improvement. Your upload has been marked as pending otrs more than 3 weeks ago, but we haven't received any permissions. Are you sure you send it? Please look into it, would be a shame if your upload got deleted or something like that. Multichill (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we should not delete on sight, but I don't agree with all of what you're saying. First, we cannot simply tag those pictures with "no permission", because the associated message says that the proper way to solve the problem is to send an e-mail to OTRS (and thus, update the {{OTRS pending}} tag on the picture). I'm afraid we're just looping there. At t+30days, we have to decide whether the original "OTRS pending" tag was legal or not, and take a specific action (but not this one). Perhaps delete if OTRS volunteers say that there's no valid authorization (I think it is the right thing to do), perhaps ask the uploader to send a new mail (but again, we might enter a loop here). --Eusebius (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Now we have the tools, but still no clear action policy. To be honest, I have no idea about the process through which guidelines can be decided on the basis of the ideas here, nor about the kind of consensus needed for that. --Eusebius (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  Info I have advised the OTRS mailing list of this discussion hopefully they'll be able to offer some thoughts. suggestions and a guide as to how long is too long. Gnangarra 15:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

30 days sounds like a good time frame to me. Tiptoety talk 18:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Picasa free web search

Can someone help with a "free" Picasa search? Something like this on flickr?--Kozuch (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting; picasaweb is allowing users to tag images with Creative Commons licenses just like Flickr. I tried briefly but did not find an easy way to search on it, other than adding "cc-by" to the search terms which does turn up some (also matches cc-by-sa images... and some without any CC tag for some reason). Not sure if they have any special API stuff to determine the licenses either, but that would be interesting too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Microformats Project

I have created Commons:Microformats Project to facilitate and coordinate the discussion and deployment of microformats on Commons. If you have an interest in microformats, please join in! Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Need an expert rescue

I just uploaded 27 images of Iris in the landscape (1 not showing for some reason in the group), but in naming the group in the upload operation, I wrote in, and therefore apparently created the category Iris, which made sense to me (and nothing alerted me it was used earlier). But someone has earlier overridden this category and put all flowers under the latin name, because now I find there are photos based on species. I don't know the species of the ones I contributed since I thought of them more like landscape photos. Sorry to be in over my head, but can someone who is not a novice like me get these new uploads handled by the redirect that now operates, that is, make them a subcategory so they can be found? I thought I was doing something good, but wish I hadn't started it now as I'm afraid I made a mess. Thanks. LW (screen name lesmuskey)

I think what you probably want is a user category (something like Category:Media by Cary Bass) to keep all images that you uploaded together (regardless of what other content categories they're in). If you still need help to do that, let me know.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
No... I think this because the old Category:Iris was moved to Category:Iris (Iridaceae), with the old category then being deleted instead of being made a redirect of some kind. That in turn leaves the old category name, which is more obvious to most users, very liable to be recreated without being aware of the old one (which happened here). I'm guessing they want help in moving the images over to the appropriate category (but note there are many many subcategories). Not sure what the best approach is here... is there a way to make it a disambiguation category, with links to both the real flower category and Category:Iris (eye)? Maybe it was deleted so it doesn't show up in suggestion lists... Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Back again. You guys understood it. It just took me awhile to decide there was a concept I thought I could use and I edited the code and think I solved it. I would have preferred the more common name used for the plant group, and the latin under that, maybe as a "species" or "varieties" subheading but I suppose some plants have many common names, and this one is complicated by the fact that it can mean other unrelated things. I just made a separate link for less formal conversational references than the botanically focused person would have in mind.

It would also be helpful it you could add them to the appropriate Category:Flora of ...... (e.g. Category:Flora of Gambia, if you were in Gambia, say) Man vyi (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Helpful to whom? -- carol (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Biological Taxonomy

Do we have a group, project of other forum for the discussion of matters relating to biological taxonomy? I ask because, further to my post above about microformats, I am planning to develop a template or templates for taxonomic information about images of living things. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life is a good start and are you sure you have to create the templates? Multichill (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

January 25


I suggest putting something in the upload form to encourage people to include the location where a photograph was taken, a recording was made, etc. This is especially important with wildlife—not only is it interesting to the reader, but species often get split on the basis of range and the place may be the only way to tell which new species the picture or recording pertains to. And it's crucial for unidentified wildlife! (Of course location is important for landscapes, cityscapes, buildings, etc., but people realize that.) JerryFriedman (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree I always felt that {{Information}} was lacking "location" field. I understand that one can put it as description but most likely we would get more location information if there was a field for it. Also I imagine that the future search engines will be able to search individual fields of the {{Information}} template and keeping this information separately would help with the search. It seems there is a template {{Information2}} with "location" field but it is not the default and it is not widely used. --Jarekt (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to third this suggestion. I think that more generally there should be specific guidelines for uploading the animal images. Besides the issue of location, I would like to see information about the basis of the identification if there is any doubt. There also should be some animal specific guidelines about what category the image belongs in and how to connect all the images of the same animal together (for instance when the dorsal and ventral view of a spider is uploaded). --Davefoc (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Klashorst? (again and again)

January 24

How to find images upload by a user starting from his username

Hello, a friend of mine uploaded some images on Commons but I don't know their exact name, is it possible to find them using his username, and if so how can this be done? Thank you, (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is using where foobar is his name. and then selecting "Files" from the dropdown menu. --JMV290 (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
You can also go to their user page and click on the "gallery" tab at the top of the screen. --Eusebius (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
You can also go to Special:Log/upload and enter the user's name. (The "Logs" link on the contributions page also leads to the user's logs.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

mp3 format

If someone tries to upload in this format (or another similar one that we don't accept) can't we at least give them some advice on converting it (e.g. a link to a Commons page that deals with the subject)? Ideally the Commons would automatically convert such files to ogg for the uploader, but anything would be better than just saying "Files of this type cannot be uploaded." Richard001 (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, unrelated remark: did you know that all the MP3 patents will have expired in December 30, 2017? Diti the penguin 09:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Now I have UNISYS and libgif (as well as libungif and its refusal to paint #FFFFFF) in my mind -- how do I thank you for this? If commons had been created before the UNISYS patent had expired, would gif images not have been allowed? I still get confused at the difference between the freedom to use the software that creates them and the creations. (Most certainly I am the only person who experiences confusion about this.) -- carol (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
If mp3 remains more popular than ogg by 2017 (only 8 years - Wikimedia has been around about that long), will we switch to mp3 as the preferred or at least allowed format? Richard001 (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Quantity tends to equal popularity for these things. It is a shame that the contents (and perhaps copyright restrictions) make it difficult to compare the formats. It is rare to find the same original rendered into each format, then if there is available the same in both formats -- it is difficult to make side by side comparisons of sound files. Perhaps a review of if it is the player/renderer that is not allowed or the format itself could allow mp3's to be uploaded here and perhaps make it easier to compare for quality of format. (what is copyrighted the format or the contents?) Copyright law has not helped encourage the freesoftware which started the idea for this kind of collaborative community so what reason to restrict the sound software? -- carol (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorting by license

I would like to be able to sort by license on Wikimedia -- freer licenses first (eg: public domain). Another great thing to add would be a way to hide anything that isn't license X or that is license X. For instance-- for my purposes I don't want to see anything that isn't in the public domain and I currently have to wade through many GNU, etc., etc. pictures to find these.

If this is already implemented then how would I do this?

If not, then this is my suggestion to the Wikimedia admins ...

--Agamemnus (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats simple: All PD images are in Category:Public_domain and all PD licenses are using the template PD-Layout, if you want to have an PD image of a specific subject, e.g. PD-Images related to the statue of liberty, you should use catscan searching for
this works for categoris with <1000 subcategories (a general topic like "United States" would not work). Showing Public domain images only is not possible, Commons is a repository for free images and not for public domain images only. --Martin H. (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Why not make some thing like the Free media and Non-free media "stub templates" on Wikipedia, have just little mini templates transcluded into the license templates that can sort by general license type (Like by specific classes of Creative Commons licenses, all Public Domain images, etc). ViperSnake151 (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

January 26

Problems with the latest files gallery

I have problems wit the latest files gallery. The gallery gets loaded and after having loaded all imaged collapses to show not a single image. What is wrong? --ALE! ¿…? 13:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm. You have the gadget GalleryDetails enabled. What browser are you using? Any error messages, for instance in the "error console" of Firefox? Try forcing a reload. Lupo 13:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
And what skin are you using? Lupo 13:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Some background info: MediaWiki:Gadget-GalleryDetails.js has always contained code that should have made it run automatically on Special:Newfiles. However, due to a bug it didn't run at all on that page. I've fixed a that a while ago, and have since then completely rewritten this gadget. If forcing a reload doesn't fix things, try putting the following line in your monobook.js (or other site-specific js):

var gallery_details_newfiles_run = false;

That should prevent the gadget from running automatically, and should make it put a "Gallery details" link in the sidebar, like it does on other pages. Lupo 13:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Ok, fixed; I think. I bet you are using IE... so no need anymore for the gallery_details_newfiles_run-line. But remember to force a reload. (On IE, I actually had troubles forcing a reload. Had to do it several times in a row. Oh well.) Lupo 15:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC) extension for quickly adding images from Commons to documents

Hi! We've created an extension for that makes it easy to find illustrative images on Wikimedia Commons and place them in a document. The extension automatically adds a caption to the image that attributes it to its author and Wikimedia Commons and links to the page of the image at Wikimedia Commons. Hopefully this will make it easy for people to adhere to licenses without much trouble. If you are interested in the extension, it is freely available at I would be glad for any comments here or at the extension repository.--Cyhawk (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you also should include license information in document. See also Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm directing the users to this reuse guide in the help page of the extension, and ultimately it is up to them to comply with the licenses. I've read the guide of course to try to make compliance easy, but not even the guide is definitive. For example for the case when you want to put an illustrative photo (licensed under the GFDL) in your document (say a master's thesis) it recommends to seek proper legal opinion to decide if you have to release your document under the GFDL too (and include the whole text of the GFDL) or not. The same question (including an image in a document) is not even discussed for CC-BY-SA. For other licenses I think linking to the license is enough, and in my opinion the hyperlink to the Wikimedia Commons page of the image accomplishes that (even if it is not a direct link to the license text). But maybe a small "(licensed under ???)" string could be added to the caption... I just don't want it to get annoyingly long. Maybe a footnote could be used for this purpose, or the author could note at the start or end of the document that all images are licensed under this or that license.
I think putting these images in documents as illustrations is one of their primary uses, so I feel it would be very important to make it absolutely clear how this should be done properly. An automated tool like our extension could also help in this regard -- if it turns out that for example GFDL images require the entire document to be released under the GFDL we could pop up a dialog box asking the user if they are aware of this and also insert the entire text of GFDL to the document if that is a requirement. I understand that these licenses have for the most part not been tested in court and until then we will not know for sure if you have to do this or that to comply. But I would expect the authors or users of the license to be able to tell us what their intention was. Would the author of a GFDL image be offended if I used the image in a non-GFDL document? I would be glad to comply with the intention if it were made clear and not encrypted in a 3000 word legal text.
Sorry for the rant :). --Cyhawk (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ford (car) images

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Ford Motor Company Diti the penguin 20:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ford Motor Company released a large number of its images on Flickr under a cc-by-2.0 license, as documented by FlickrReviewer and other Flickr Reviewers like myself. Recently they relicensed under cc-by-nc-2.0, which has been causing some confusion, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:2008FordSportTrac.jpg and Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Safety Belt.jpg. Someone needs to go through the Ford category and re-tag the images with the tag for Flickr images which have had a license change, since once an image is released, it cannot be withdrawn. MBisanz talk 18:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(Copy from our user pages):

Initial message: You reviewed a copyvio ;), posted by Diti (d · c).

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that you reviewed a Flickr picture, quickly after its upload, as being licensed under a {{cc-by-2.0}} license whereas commercial use was prohibited. I just noticed it because I wanted to support it on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Safety Belt.jpg. Don't worry though, I did worse than that (who said “IRC consensus”? :) Diti the penguin 18:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

When I reviewed it, it was a {{cc-by-2.0}}, I noticed Ford recently changed their flickr license for all of their images. I think there is a tag we are supposed to use to show this on the image since they cannot revoke the cc license. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:2008FordSportTrac.jpg. Just because they messed up in releasing it under a free license, doesn't mean we are required to delete it. MBisanz talk 18:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. What's the result of this deletion request (that I didn't see) then? Because, here is the problem: “you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license”. Yet, this picture was obtained with a non-commercial clause (see the watermark), so, perhaps the image you reviewed was a former version of this file which included a CC-by watermark, but the version I deleted was obtained while it had a NC license. That's why I deleted it. Diti the penguin 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: the same statement applies to File:2008FordSportTrac.jpg. The way the image was obtained is determinant for the deletion request, and what I see as a first version is a non-commercial image. Can I close the DR and delete the file using that reason? Diti the penguin 19:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
All the images have always had the NC watermark, but Ford for some period of time had additionally released it under cc-by-2.0 via the Flickr release license. There was a conversation somewhere about this already, and I restarted a conversation at teh Village Pump in the hope that someone else will remember what was decided. MBisanz talk 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
So, I disagree with MBisanz (talk · contribs). It may be be commonly said that licenses are non-revocable, however I see no official text giving an accurate explanation excepted the one given by Creative Commons, which tells us that only pictures released to a given license can be licensed with that license, no matter the changes. Yet, if the file we currently have has a non-commercial clause (as shown as a watermark), per what explained above (I underlined the two important words), we cannot keep the file. Diti the penguin 23:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:2008FordSportTrac.jpg as delete. Regardless of whether the image was available under a free license, the reality is this image is readily replaceable with a free one. We don't need this image. There's plenty of these vehicles on the road. --Durin (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • And in fact we do have free images available. See Category:Ford Explorer Sport Trac. --Durin (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Uhg. There's a ton more of these. See upload contributions of RichN [22]. Many of them are CC-NC. I've deleted some already, but there's many more remaining. --Durin (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Just noticed this and thought I'll comment. I've had this issue raised with me in the past about restrictive watermark licensing, even though 2008FordSportTrac.jpg was released on Commons a non-restrictive license however a restrictive watermark license makes that invalid since watermark licenses have more power over the pages that display the image and show the license (Bit like using a copyrighted photograph from a website with a CC-BY license). For it to be used here the image would need the restrictive watermark license by them and re-uploaded on flickr (Per Images from websites, companies, or organizations on Commons:Watermark). I sent a very nice (Not rude) message to Ford and I've not had a response from them even though the message has been read. Bidgee (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Not in all cases... images could be watermarked cc-by-nc originally and then have their license changed to cc-by later (but without wanting to rewatermark the image). I know we have seen images with metadata saying "all rights reserved" but the author later relaxing the license on Flickr. For these though I would tend to agree; if they put cc-by-nc on the image itself, I would tend to follow that unless the Flickr license changes back later. They once did have cc-by licenses on their images there, though -- here is a Jan 3 2008 capture, and the image thumbnails there don't look like they had watermarks (maybe I missed them). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Okey, Durin's point makes sense, but there are a large large number of these images that have come through Flickr review, so it will take a bit to clear them all out. I'll start with the ones I can remember reviewing. MBisanz talk 03:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • {{Flickr-change-of-license}}. Okay? ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with ViperSnake151, the license on Flickr was in fact cc-by and it was changed to cc-by-nc. I also came across the watermark and was about to open a deletion request, but like i said: the Flickr license was cc-by for all newly uploaded images on the Flickr account. The license is valid and irrevocable, no matter what different license is printed or painted elsewhere. --Martin H. (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
IMO images without the watermarking license should be kept (Meets {{Flickr-change-of-license}}) however the images with the restrictive watermarking license is another story. Bidgee (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course we are talking only about images with watermark and contradictory licensing, the images uploaded to Commons without watermarks are free without doubt. --Martin H. (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The license is irrevocable if they intended to use it in the first place. If the images were uploaded to Flickr as CC-BY by mistake, I don't see how we can hold them to it. --Carnildo (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
A company like Ford knows all there is to know about intellectual property. One must assume that their PR-department knows what it is doing. Restore. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Ford is comprised of fallible creatures known as humans. Even large PR departments make errors, and some times very large errors. It's rather clear that their intent was to release under cc-nc. I don't see value in retaining works that are readily replaceable by enterprising contributors here taking pictures of the vehicle in public settings when those works were clearly intended to be licensed under a non-commercial license. Risk-Reward analysis: Is there risk of Ford filing suit? Not much, but non-zero. Is there reward to retaining the images? No. They can readily be replaced. That makes the math pretty easy. --Durin (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone taken a few moments to doubt if the collection at Flickr is actually owned and managed by the Ford Motor Company? I ask this from personal experience, and as the owner of an individual web site. My participation at Flickr was 1)to participate in some of the groups there, 2)not a good experience for this goal and 3)ease of gathering comments (see item 2 in this list about that). My personal web site gets so much more web traffic than the Flickr gallery -- the sheer waste of my time and attention at that commercial interface was and remains difficult to deny. Now consider the participation of one of the major employers of the United States and perhaps throughout the world and their web site and what interface they would/should be using to distribute copyrighted images. I suggest that all images from that Flickr collection be deleted until the people employed in Ford Country can find a way to distribute the photographs from the Ford web site with a clear copyright that matches any watermarks found on the image. -- carol (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got no doubt that it's not Ford (Most images uploaded haven't even been publicly released). It seems Ford did upload with the wrong license as all images have been marked cc-by-nc such as 2009FordF-150XLTSFE.jpg[(]. Bidgee (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  Comment All images having a CC-by-nc watermark on them were obtained according to that license (per what I said above, quoting the CC wiki), thus they can't be kept here. Someone (me?) should start a deletion request for those versions (images without a watermark can be kept). Diti the penguin 11:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

So, what's going to happen with the 82 photos that remain in Category:Taken by Ford Motor Company? Also, is there a way to verify what the listed license was on Flickr at the time a photo was uploaded here? IFCAR (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for

On Meta there is a proposal for a wiki specialised in the needs for people who restore files. This wiki will resolve most of the issues mentioned in the proposal that are particular to the restoration process. Obviously, the result of restorations will end up here on Commons as always. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Images uploaded by User:Gframesch

This user is uploading a vast number of images loosely related to the Sai Baba movement, many of dubious copyright status and/or supplied with fairly unhelpful ALL-CAPS highly-personalized PoV descriptions (the most recently-uploaded example: File:SAI-NWS.jpg). I don't even really know where to begin... AnonMoos (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree most of those small blurry photos look like photos of printed photographs ranging from 60's until now - many of them are likely copyvios --Jarekt (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd also say they're out of scope highly POV promotional materials, most of highly dubious copyright status, some probably faked. I'd say delete them all, inform the uploader about COM:SCOPE and COM:L, and block indef if he keeps it up. Lupo 06:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I saw maybe one photo out of 20 taken with a digital camera... the others are obvious copyvios. Like File:SAI-HRLM.jpg, a scan of a 2006 newspaper article. BotMultichill left a looong list on the user's talk page of uncategorized images... and there are warnings already there. Not sure there is much to do except delete the lot. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What is Spanish “Vāch” in English?

While working with the category Vác (about a city in Pest county in Hungary) and making commonscat links on the Wikipedia pages I came on the Spanish Wikipedia on [Vāch] which starts with “Vāch es la personificación de la voz o el habla”. All the links point to the city Vác in Hungary. My questions are: what is the English word for the Spanish Vāch so I can make the right links on the Spanish page and the second question: is there a page about Vác in the Spanish Wikipedia? Thanks, Wouter (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

en:Vāc. --Slomox (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It was the work of the bots on the Spanish page and I fear that in due time they will chance it again. Wouter (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

January 27

Firefox screenshot

I wasn't sure what licence to put on File:WikipediaBrokenGeo.jpg. Please advise. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  DoneI replaced the tags with {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} (a screenshot without all rights reserved images would be more free) --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've uploaded a revised versions, with the Wikipedia logos removed. What should it be, now? Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I have added the licenses for the elements in the screenshot. Could you please add a compatible license of your choice for your own work (it may not be copyrightable, but folks here like you to license it just in case.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I've done as you suggested. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

{{Information}} – “Permission” field

Why does the field “Permission” link defaultly to some information below and doesn't itself contain the license information? It looks much better, when the license-template is used in the Permission field (see ex. Image:IKUE-Flago_(02).svg). I know that from historical reasons there are hundreds of thousands images which have their licence templates below the information template but at least the standard upload form should place the license info to the template, not below it. --PAD (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Some people prefer to the license below. Lupo 15:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Some images have up to 5 different license tags, which would make the permission field look really ugly. Thus the license is normally put below the Information template. The permission field e.g. contains OTRS permissions or additional information regarding the licensing of the image. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
We had about this on Template talk:Information/en too. There I said, it was done on personal preference. But I have meanwhile learned, that this is not fully true. It has mostly to do with the way MedaWiki handles uploads. There are two ways: You can either provide the license directly in the "description" field or in the license dropdown menu. If you provide it via the description field, it is personal preference whether you put it in the "information" template or below. But if you use the license dropdown the software will forcibly put it below (and additionally add two headings "Summary" and "licence information"). With the dropdown there's nothing you can do about the position.
I recently asked on Wikitech, whether we could change the hardcoded headings to use a MediaWiki namespace message instead. If we change it in the right way, maybe it could become possible to change the place of the license information too. --Slomox (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Slomox, take a look at User talk:Ilmari Karonen#Upload headings in viewer's interface language... (I posted that there because I didn't know the wikitech-l OP's wiki-name.) Lupo 15:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Giving it one more thought, it should be possible to change the javascript, so that it would empty the dropdown on submit and put the license info from the dropdown to the description. That would omit the headings, cause the headings are only triggered if the dropdown is not empty. --Slomox (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Desinsertion du muscle CO.jpg

I noticed the links to the FPC votes for the English and Spanish Wikipedias are broken. I couldn't find either of the pages by searching. Ottre 16:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

At least with the en. file, the actual discussion is at en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Desinsertion du muscle CO.jpg, and it seems like the switch from "image" to "file" is what broke the link, as this past discussion on the template mentions. I guess the template is still broken, and I'm not sure exactly how to fix it, but hopefully some of this info is helpful with your query. -Andrew c (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
In succeeded in fixing that problem on Commons ({{FPC/}} and {{Assessments}}) because the availability of a page could be checked thanks to {{ifexist:}}, but seems impossible to check that on external wikis… unless someone do find out how to do the same as the Wiktionary. I can't do anything more than that… Diti the penguin 18:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

File talk:Hubert von Herkomer04.jpg

? [w.] 19:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The info is on an archived version here; no clue about how correct it is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. Thanks for thisone (I'm not aware either, on correctness, as thisone is a side - ...- side theme to my vG project)
  2. How would I, "the_average_user" have to find such archived version?
  3. A still remaining problem is imo that IF Raeburn [+1947] did this engraving, it would not be appropriate for COM. [w.] 20:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. Sure.
  2. Go to and enter the URL you are interested in. It will come back with a list of dates they have snapshots for (if any). If you want to go the slightly quicker route, type in "*/" directly (note that style is, not www).
  3. If first published in London by Raeburn, which it appears is true, then yep that is probably correct. The original self-portrait would be fine, but I think there have been court cases where mezzotints have enough originality to qualify for derivative works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
On (2), Thanks-a-L.O.T.
On (3), I-for-myself will not care, but COM possibly might (after having seen a few similar issues).
Best, [w.] 21:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

January 28

Images of Novi Sad

Is it possible to transfer dozens of freeimages from English Wikipedia with bot? --BokicaK (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved. --BokicaK (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, title wrong

I made a mistake uploading a picture with a wrong title. It did not register in my mind till it was too late. I noted the necessary change here: [23]. I don't know where else to put in a request for change. --JohannesJ (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Upload it under the right name and tag the old image with either {{bad name}} or {{duplicate}} (it's still impossible to rename images without reuploading). Multichill (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

90 degrees

I have a few photograpghs that look perfectly normal when I click them on my screen, but when I try to upload them they are turned 90 degrees, sideways. I don't know how to fix that. Anyone? --JohannesJ (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Upload it tagged with {{rotate|90}}? Multichill (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Some softwares (Apple's software in particular) store the orientation of the image in an EXIF field, and then displays it accordingly. It means that a portrait-oriented photo is typically stored as a landscape-oriented photo, and a flag tells the software to display it rotated by say 90°. When you then upload such files to Commons, it is not aware of that EXIF flag, and displays the image as-is. To fix it, you can either use a software that relly performs rotation, or if the file is on Commons already, use {{90}} to have Rotatebot perform the rotation for you (and I think this is the best way to go for JPEGs because it performs the rotation losslessly). --Tryphon (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Some cameras will detect what orientation your holding it in and add that to the EXIF data. My Nikon d60 does, and I'd expect others in the Nikon D-series to do the same thing.J.smith (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Usage of images in commercial postcards

Hi. I want to ask about possibility of using pictures from commons in postcards. I know that CC-by and CC-by-sa represent no problem as long as we give credit to the authors and provide a link to the license. But the issue is the GFDL. I have present this image File:BD-propagande colour en.jpg. We cannot provide the license attached with the postcard. Would be enough to provide a link to the license in the webpage? If not, has the compatiblity between GFDL and CC been solved in a way that we can, for instance, use a GFDL picture and say that it is CC-BY-SA compatible and provide a link to CC-BY-SA license? Sorry, I don't know about the implications of this compatibility. ThanksChabacano (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You cannot relicense a GFDL work under CC-BY-SA. If the work is dual licensed (as for example File:BD-propagande colour en.jpg), then you're fine, since you can choose the CC licence. If the work is GFDL only, the best thing to do is probably to contact the author and ask them to put release the work under CC-BY(-SA) as well. Some (but not all) will probably agree to do that. Pruneautalk 16:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you can relicense a GFDL picture under a CC-by-sa license, provided that the version of the GFDL you use is the 1.3. “Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation […]” is ok, but if someone used a {{GFDL-1.2}} template on a picture, you cannot do that. Diti the penguin 18:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
No, that only applies to text published on a multi-user collaborative web site, and those permissions expire in August. ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Diti: you're thinking of section 11 of the GFDL 1.3. This does not allow anyone who feels like it to relicense a GFDL work under CC-BY-SA. It does allow the operator of a wiki to relicense GFDL work under CC-BY-SA. I don't know where the "text-only" clause mentioned by ViperSnake is - is it something to do with "prominent facilities for anybody to edit"? Anyway, assuming that section 11 does apply to images on Commons, GFDL works will only be relicensed under CC-BY-SA if the Wikimedia Foundation so decides, and I guess that won't happen until the community has a discussion about it. Pruneautalk 09:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not restricted to text only. For more information, please see m:Licensing update/Questions and Answers. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
@Pruneau (talk · contribs): the thing you are mentioning (a pending decision from the WMF) is unrelated to that section 11; the Foundation is just willing to release all former GFDL works, GFDL 1.2 only included, under a CC-by-sa license. But individual publishers who chose that license also agreed to do so under latter versions (“1.2 or above”), so permission to relicense the work was explicitly granted. I'm talking about image license templates here, by the way. Diti the penguin 11:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Stupid question, having the image exported to another wiki would allow the wiki controller to change the licence to CC-BY-SA, I mean in theory? Esby (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Only if the transfer occurred before 1 November 2008. The Free Software Foundation was careful to choose a date which has already passed to avoid issues with that. Pruneautalk 17:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The image came from a now-defunct web site

In 2005 when both I and the Wikimedia Commons were a little less sophisticated about copyrights, I had uploaded an image which was being used in advertising a product. Now, both the web site and the company offering the product are no longer around to ask for permission to use the image. Is the default position of Wikimedia Commons to assume that there was and is a copyright on that image, and therefore should be deleted? Patsw (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. That's the default of copyright law, in the USA. J.smith (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
However if the image is still of use you could load it to Wikipedia and claim fair use (subject to the rules governing fair use). Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
That last bit is important: if you're using the image to show what the product looks like, it probably doesn't meet the rules. If you're using the image to show what the advertising looks like, you're probably fine. --Carnildo (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This file: File:Stock-ticker.jpg, right? And the page is The youngest version on (which has archived some old versions of the page) is from 2008. Sadly the archived versions are not accessible. I have no idea whether this is a permanent problem. --Slomox (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Google tells that the origin is not but --Slomox (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

January 29

Where can one get some help, exactly?

I am familiar with the help desk at wikipedia, where a question gets a speedy answer, and some assistance. I have asked a question at the Commons Help desk concerning files I uploaded yesterday. Those files are from a contributor whose work I have posted here before by uploading his files direct to Commons and posting his consent via 3.0 ShareAlike License. This time we thought we'd try something simpler: he would upload to Flickr; I would download from there; and he would use Flickr 2.0 ShareAlike license. Now the images are slated to be deleted, even though anyone could see that it's the same contributor whose work I normally post. At this point, I'm ready to give up on Commons -- which is sad, given that I have become a regular contributor. I would appreciate some help resolving this issue. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Marmaduke, i checked File:NewNorthChurch.jpg and will give you a short answer: The license of the source image from Flickr was found cc-by-NC-sa by on of our reviewers, that means commercial use of this file is not allowed. Commons accepts only images that everyone can use for every purpose including commercial use. The Image is sourced to the Flickr website but the license is different, so we need a proof that the Flickruser realy want his images licensed cc-by-sa-2.0 at Commons. Ways to solve this, ranked by acceptability of the large number of reviewers with different experience and knowledge of this case:
(1) Change the license on Flickr, of course it is no difference in publishing the image cc-by-sa here and cc-by--nc-sa there, the only difference is, that Flickr is more popular than Commons
(2) follow COM:OTRS and sent an Email with your friends permission
(3) other sollutions like let your friend make a comment on his images that says that the image is cc-by-sa or a comment at his userprofile that he publishes all his images under cc-by-sa are not recognized by most reviewers, so thats not a solution.
Hope that helps, --Martin H. (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have in hand his permission under 3.0ShareAlike licenses, which is what we've used before. Should I attempt to append these to the original files from Flickr, or simply let those be deleted and start again from scratch, and bypass Flickr altogether? (I much prefer geograph in the UK to Flickr because it gives you the right snippets to post to Commons). I just really like this photographer's work and want to get it onto the site. Thanks for your help. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploading a new version

Mmm, I don't know what the hell is going on here, but I'm trying to update File:Giant petrel with chicks.jpg to reflect the version en enpedia en:File:Cutout 2.jpg. When I click on "Upload a new version of this file" everything looks fine, however, instead of overriding the current file, it uploaded File:Cutout 2.jpg instead. This is the first time this happens to me, and the page doesn't look protected or anything. Can someone have a look and fix this? Lucasbfr (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Tried, encountered the same problem. --Eusebius (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Same here. It seems to be uploading to a filename on Commons which corresponds to the filename on your computer. Normally you can set these to be different. I think you can workaround by not using the upload a new version link - instead just use the normal (basic) form and set the file you're uploading to to whatever.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Confirmed. I can also confirm that it is not our MediaWiki:UploadForm.js script. The problem appears to be that the destination file name field is disabled, and at least FF 3.0.5 does not appear to send the contents of that disabled field to the server. Hence the server does not get any destination filename, and falls back to using the source file name instead (lines 403-407 in SpecialUpload.php). Enabling the destination filename field before submitting the form resolves the problem. Has anyone opened a bug report on this already? Lupo 15:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Lupo. Lucasbfr (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Photograph taken in 1941 by an artist painting a picture

I want to upload a photograph of the Cherokee artist, Franklin Gritts, painting an oil in 1941. He took the photo for his own use and is deceased. The oil may be one that he painted for Haskell Indian University in Lawrence, KS. The oil painting in the photo is unfinished. Franklin Gritts was my father and I am preparing an article for Wikipedia about his life and work.

Because this is a personal photograph and was never used commercially and because it is of art not finished, can I upload it and use it in the article? The various license options are confusing. Which would be the best process to use? Thanks.

Gutchman Gutchman (talk • contribs) 01:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am delighted with your offer to provide a photo to Commons.
The photograph's copyright belongs to his estate (unless it was sold.) To put the photo on Commons, it must be released under a free license allowing commercial use and derivative work (changes). Do you represent your father's estate?
The person representing his estate can make the license release, either by editing the file licensing once it is uploaded to Commons, or (easier) sending in a "declaration of consent" mail as described at Commons:Email templates.
(If you can't get permission from his estate, there may be options for uploading to English Wikipedia only, listed at en:Wikipedia:Non-free content, but I don't think you meet all 10 criteria for that.)
Footnote: Even though your father later finished and sold the unfinished painting, it is unlikely he sold the copyright, which would also have been inherited by his estate. So you would not need an extra license for the unfinished painting.
--InfantGorilla (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
If your inherited the copyright, you can release it on a license of your choice. If you would choose PD, there is a special template {{PD-heirs}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin deleting transcluded contents (leads/interwikis) without checking it

Well, I created the template Info:Arto Paasilinna with the leads in about 12 languages and all the interwikis.

And yet User:Kanonkas deleted it on sight as "out of project scope", wiping all this contents from the two pages! Could someone sane undelete Info:Arto Paasilinna please? 12:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion at one place. The discussion is available here. --Kanonkas(talk) 12:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
deletion seems to be plain wrong. Perhaps Kanonkas did not know about the existence of the Info namespace (Info pseudo-namespace actually, but still official). --Slomox (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#Must be a media file and Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories. The problem was that the page didn't contain any media content - see the two links I gave you. Be nice. A more polite response will get a much better response in turn. --Kanonkas(talk) 14:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I removed that comment. Why? Because it was just you being abusive towards someone, and that is not something we accept here. Treat others with respect, and be mellow. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    I deny any relationship with this comment you removed, besides it was from a "" when I was a "" (and he's clearly a Commons insider who thought preferable to unlog before posting, when I'm only an occasional wikignome). And what about the respect to other people's work instead of deleting it unread, which was the unaddressed violation in the first place?
You care about policies being followed? Then follow the policy and don't edit when being blocked. --Slomox (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean? I didn't edit Commons during my block and went instead tagging 15+ Wikipedias with {{Commons|Arto Paasilinna}}. I posted the above well after the block expired. 15:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, there has been some wider deletions of multilingual Info pages. EG:Info:Thomas Alva Edison. It too was deleted although at the time it was in use on at least one other page Category:Thomas Alva Edison. If these pages are proper and being deleted out of ignorance of their utility, then perhaps all deletions in this pseudo namespace need to be reviewed? -J JMesserly (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Edison page is displayed empty. I guess, that added to it (of course a page looking empty shouldn't be deleted if the source code is not empty). If have no idea, why it is empty, the included templates are far too esoteric to understand. --Slomox (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It now transcludes just fine at Category:Thomas Alva Edison. Also, I see that some admin deleted Info:Thomas Alva Edison/aux. Now to the larger question I asked.... -J JMesserly (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
There's no possibility known to me to sort logs by page name substrings. So as far as I know there's no possibility to review deletions from a pseudo-namespace (or even a namespace). --Slomox (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Well rats. Appearing to be blank was no doubt the reason that they were deleted, and its understandable with the volume of junk pages how people are skipping the SOP of checking links prior to any delete. But it should be done regardless of namespace. Hopefully I can insert a noinclude warning in these (and succeed in not breaking them) so there aren't future incidents. These templates are using wikitext arrays- which very quickly gets into esoteric subjects. I don't see that they can be easily simplified for what they are doing. Perhaps if the international text is the main value, people could be encouraged to just do info pages that way rather than using the info templates. Anyway, to anyone curious about the issues- I wrote up some of my notes about those templates at Category talk:Info Pages. -J JMesserly (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Admins have the browsearchive right, which should let them search deleted pages. Maybe they can use Special:Undelete to search for deleted Info: pages? /Ö 23:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It's easy enough to grep the logs via the toolserver: see User:Ilmari Karonen/Queries/"Info:" deletions for the complete list. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I did a spot check of deletes of this pseudonamespace in the time range for these two admins, and really, I think these cases were isolated. Mistakes happen. -J JMesserly (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Ö is right, Special:Undelete allows the needed search (I've never before used that page without parameters, I had no idea). I have reviewed all deletions. 32 deletions are registered in the logs. 18 were correct deletions (e.g. after pages being moved), 10 deletions were restored by me (5 main templates + 5 aux templates). These are Info:Eddie Rickenbacker, Info:USS Nimitz (CVN-68), Info:USS Hornet (CV-12), Info:Meher Baba, Info:Erich Ludendorff. These 5 pages were deleted, but some inclusions remained.
The remaining 4 deletions were Info:Admiral Scheer, Info:Admiral Scheer/aux, Info:Ng Moon Hing, Info:Ponte di Rialto (the last already deleted in 2006). They are not used in any pages, but they seem to have been normal Info templates. Scheer was deleted with Incorrectly named gallery - Admiral Scheer, seemingly unaware of the Info pseudo-namespace, Hing was deleted with see Commons:Project scope possibly also unaware of the namespace. The Rialto bridge was deleted with Orphan Misplaced tag. If orphan was indeed correct, this deletion was correct. If anybody cares and is willing to insert them into relevant pages, I can restore them.
The Rickenbacker and Ludendorff ones are empty too. Would be nice, J JMesserly, whatever you did to Edison, if you could do the same thing to them. --Slomox (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 Done. BTW- I see you are interested in multilingual issues. There is a rationale for this sort of multilingual text being transcluded on pages. I think they enhance search hits from outside searchers. EG, you can get search hits on pages that have the Japanese words for battleship and pearl harbor[24] because there are pages that have info pages transcluded on those topics. There is no question that manually created short descriptions for each of the major languages would be superior, but as we know- any such File namespace translations are rare on commons. Although these info pages have been around for a while with numerous contributors and different approaches (simple versus complex), there appears to be little in the way of guidance on the limits that should be placed on their use. For example- Obviously, we are not an encyclopedia, so the descriptions should be just a line or two for each language. Maybe this should be a separate thread? -J JMesserly (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Costumed people

Wich is the general stance about photos of people wearings masks or costumes of popular unfree characters, such as the Simpsons, Star Wars, Superman, Batman, Spider-man, etc? It may be cosplay, a parade, a convention, a child's birthday; in any case it's surely the same thing for what copyright law is concerned.

To my understanding, those things are clear cases of Derivative works and Fan art. I know, costumes are not mentioned in an explicit manner, but there are countless ways in wich derivative works may manifest, from wall grafitis to hacked videogames with "skins" of known characters, and the policy may never count them all, but just describe the general idea. Of course, there would always be cases that may be accepted or at least ambiguous: de minimis (someone in a populated parade of people with costumes wich are not DW), the "costume" is just everyday clothing (nobody is costumed of James Bond just by wearing a black jacket), the costume fails miserably to actually resemble the character (like someone with 3 knifes tied to his hand, pretending to be Wolverine) or the original character is itself in the public domain already. The issue is with clear photos of people dressed like unfree characters with clothing of unique aspect, and that resemble the original character very closely.

At first, I tagged such images I found as copyvios for speedy deletion. And they were speedily deleted, wich would mean my interpretation was correct. But, after some time going on with it, I have encountered users, including admins, who think that such costumed people photos are not copyright violations. Did I understood things wrong? If I did, wich is then the correct way, when would costumes be acceptable and when not? Belgrano (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, under U.S. law, clothing being worn is considered to be utilitarian and functional "useful articles", so photos of people wearing costumes are not generally violations of the copyright on the costume (though a photograph of the costume in its original packaging might be such a copyright violation). AnonMoos (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
AnonMoos - do you have a reference for that? I ask because there are several Deletion Requests currently open that could hinge on the interpretation of clothing as a utilitarian article. For example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spiderman and child.jpg. Consensus to delete similar photos has been reached in the past: Commons:Deletion_requests/Star_Wars_images ("photos of them are photos of copyrighted objects, which are copyrighted"). LucasArts asserted copyright, which it was not challenged in court: is there reason to believe other artists and designers would not do the same? --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, by the way: please have a read at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Natalie close-up in front of the Eiffel Tower.jpg, as fursuits are costumes (but special ones, meant to be photographed and published). Diti the penguin 11:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it may be useful to consider external legal information as well, and not simply Common's policies or guidelines. I have checked the Star Wars site terms of use (choosing Star Wars as an example, it could have been any other), and I found this.

STAR WARS, STARWARS.COM; STAR WARS: EPISODE I THE PHANTOM MENACE; STAR WARS: EPISODE II ATTACK OF THE CLONES; STAR WARS: EPISODE III REVENGE OF THE SITH; STAR WARS: EPISODE IV A NEW HOPE; STAR WARS: EPISODE V THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK; STAR WARS: EPISODE VI RETURN OF THE JEDI (collectively referred to herein as the "Star Wars Pictures") and all other Lucasfilm productions, and all logos, characters, artwork, stories, information, names, and other elements associated thereto are the sole and exclusive property of Lucasfilm Ltd.. Any use of any of the materials on this Site other than for private, non-commercial viewing purposes is strictly prohibited. The sale, auction, lease, loan, gift, trade or barter, or use of any of the materials contained herein, for any other purpose except as expressly permitted pursuant to these Terms of Use, in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed, including the use of any of the aforementioned materials on any other Web site or networked computer environment, without a prior written consent from Lucas, is expressly prohibited. Except as expressly provided for under the Terms of Use, the creation of derivative works based on the materials contained herein is expressly prohibited. You may download one copy of the materials on any single computer for your personal, non-commercial home use only, provided you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices. Modification of the materials or use of the materials for any other purpose is a violation of Lucas's copyright and other proprietary rights.

So the issue goes down as to whenever making a costume based on a character from Star Wars pictures for public and commercial purposes can be interpreted falls within the "in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed" bit. Belgrano (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Companies can also overreach on claims... also, characters are often more protected by trademark than copyright (and the above list is more about trademark). Photographs of costumes are really dancing around the furthest edges of possible copyright infringement, fair use, and de minimis; they are definitely not obvious infringements. Clothing is utilitarian, and generally not protected by copyright, though you can copyright a textile pattern as a graphic work to prevent competitors from using it -- but calling a photograph of someone wearing it a derivative work and a copyright violation is a big big stretch and I've never seen a deletion for that. Costumes are kind of a special case... they aren't necessarily utilitarian (especially masks). If a person sells their versions of a costume without permission, they can be and have been charged with copyright and trademark infringement, and have lost. Making your own costume for a party... probably fair use; selling them is where the issues start. But photographs of a costume? That is different. I'm not aware of that ever being tested in a court case. I can't think of a way to use such a photograph to really violate a copyright... they are basically always fine on a fair use basis at the very least, so there is really nothing to gain from even trying to sue someone to find out, but that is also pretty close to the definition of de minimis. Deletion requests for them are always going to be controversial -- it is the furthest fringes of what could even theoretically be a copyright violation, and is really coming down to if we think it is "fair use", or since fair use is probably a complete defense in any situation (I really can't see how such a photograph could be used in any way to affect commercial opportunities), if that basically qualifies as "de minimis". Or if it really is a copyright violation in the first place... costumes are not sculpture, and I'm not really sure a photograph of someone wearing a costume is a derivative of a character copyright. If you put such a photograph on a t-shirt and sold it... I'm not sure even that would be a problem (unless you made people think that it was a LucasArts t-shirt, but that is a trademark and not copyright issue). Short answer, I don't think anyone is absolutely positive either way, so I'm not surprised deletion requests have gone both ways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that Commons does not allow things user "fair use" claims, and fair use does not allow derivative works: a derivative work of a fair use work, such as a photo of a costume, adds the new copyright of the photographer but does not erase the original copyright applied to the object.
As for "De Minimis", this case is not the correct use. If someone is dressed like Superman, and we took a photo of him with the idea of pointing how a good imitation of Superman it is, then "De Minimis" is not applicable: check the policy. Belgrano (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Companies can also overreach on claims..." And not only companies. For example, we have copied tons of images from sites of libraries that make absurd rights claims to pre-1923 US postcards or other similar materials.
  • I don't claim to know the exact answer to the legal issue here, but I would not look to Lucasfilm's boilerplate for a neutral view of copyright law. I believe Carl is more or less on the mark with what he says. - Jmabel ! talk 00:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair use implies something is OK only in certain contexts -- if something is OK in *all* contexts, with no exception, then that is basically de minimis (a technical infraction that is too small to really care about). However, if you consider the photo fair use only -- that is where deletions come. If you consider it de minims, then it's a keep. If you consider it not a derivative work at all (also quite possible), then it is a keep. These boundaries are generally not tested in case law, from what I've seen -- it is an intersection made up purely due to Commons' policies. So, it is hard to get guidance, and we are just guessing. You are plainly stating that a photograph of a costume is a derivative work of a character copyright, and that is not necessarily true. Can you find a court case which has said it was? You might be right, but are just guessing like the rest of us, I would think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Satellite Photo Permissions

I have a question about satellite photos. Don't they ultimately come from a government agency like NASA and are thus public domain?

Several months ago I contacted Digital Globe to get permission to upload a cropped and modified version of one of the Google Earth images (the craters at the Nevada Test Site) and was told by the person who answered my email that "you may use that image on Wikipedia." When I learned that such a statement is not enough permission, I wrote back and asked again using the language of Creative Commons. I never got a reply.

But why do I need any permission at all? The line at the bottom of the image says, "(c)2009 Google - Imagery (c)2009 Digital Globe, Orbis Inc, GeoEye, U.S. Geological Survey, Mat data (c)2009 Tele Atlas - Terms of Use." But do any of those institutions actually own the image itself? If I do a screen capture of the image as displayed on my screen, and eliminate anything added by those corporations, do I have a public domain image produced by the US government? HowardMorland (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the specifics (I know I've seen a conversation about this that was pretty enlightening) and it came down still to who actually "published" the images, as there are indeed 1) private satellites--anyone who can get one up there can have one, basically and 2) if I recall correctly, on some of these the government leases resources, but on that latter point I could be mistaken. If it's published directly by the US government in any event, it's fair game. rootology (T) 05:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of them are indeed private satellites (they may pay NASA to launch them, but NASA does not own them). Some of them are actually photos taken from airplanes, not satellites -- the USGS has contracted with some companies to do just that (in those particular cases, the USGS makes sure there is no copyright, but it is possible that Google contracts with someone too I suppose). If it is a USGS image to begin with, you can often find it using their resources, and that would be fine to upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also very interested this question to be resolved. Copyright is intended to promote creativity, and is granted only to works by humans -- neither chimpanzees, nor robots or computer programs produce creative works protected by copyright. Moreover, pictures (faithful reproductions) of the Earth from above have nothing creative in their elaboration -- these are all common information, thus ineligible, public domain. The case is not very different from COM:PDART where an official policy of the Foundation accepts faithful reproductions of objects in the public domain. --5ko (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coast france map.jpg. The Terra Prints may have done some image processing, but the basic data is from NASA and USGS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

January 31

February 1