User:Pfctdayelise/Things I learned from COM:VP

Commons:Village pump archive 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16

(from current COM:VP)

  • User:FlickrLickr is a cool project to comb through cc(-by)(-sa) images from Flickr and choose any that are appropriate to upload to commons. ie, not holiday snaps. Very cool.
  • Q. Is it recommended that subcategories are also direct subcategories of categories from which they are already indirect subcategories? A. No, usually only the most specific category should be used. Sometimes, it makes sense to use one of the "ancestor" categories redundantly, but that is rare.
  • Check-usage will tell you if a file is being used on any wikimedia projects ("what links here" only tells you if it is being used on commons)
  • commons IRC channel: #wikimedia-commons
  • You can convert PS files to SVG format using pstoedit SW
  • interesting deletion debate at Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives02#Image:Steinkjer_komm.png regarding images that are free, even though their use is restricted by other laws
  • Upload photos you've taken yourself into a category like Category:Photos by Userfoo and make that category a child of Category:User galleries
    • Categorizing is problematic in two ways: it's a) time consuming and has to be done by hand, and it's b) crucial to the commons. Tagging the images with a "uncategorized images" category would be a little better than not tagging them at all. But please upload images only if you make sure that they are categorizes, preferrably by the original uploader (who supposedly knows most about them).
    • Please only copy images from any wikipedia if it has complete licensing information, i.e. license tag, author and source (or a statement that the uploader created it). I'm away that that is a lot of work. But if you upload images without those images, it's also going to be a lot of work to go through deletion requests for every single one.

Moving images to the commons is a good thing. But it should also be an opportunity to make sure only really free images are used. (well said, User:Duesentrieb)

  • Something interesting about personality rights: Every person can decide on his/her own, if and in what context images of him/her may be published. (that's German law)
  • Taking pictures of museum exhibits (assuming the items themselves should be out of copyright, ie not art made 10 years ago, but 100 or more!): In any case, it's up to each uploader to decide respect museums' rules, it's irrelevant to image legitimacy.
  • wrong or inappropriate meta-data appearing on an uploaded image page: not a lot you can do about it, possible bug.
  • Huge categories need {{CategoryTOC}} and when adding subcats, add them like this [[Category:Hugecategory| ]] or [[:Category:Hugecatgory| Bar, Foo]]. At any rate, notice the all-important space after the pipe that forces the category listing onto the first page of Category:Hugecategory.
  • There's no point adding keywords or anything like that to image description pages, because Google doesn't even index them. Grr!
  • {{PD-user}} is useful when you're re-uploading an image from (say) en: to commons, but you didn't take it yourself.
  • What is the point of Commons articles?

Galleries are mainly extensions to Wikipedia articles, serving as a database for authors and a feature for readers. We have dozens of images for certain themes but it is impossible to include them all into encyclopedia articles. So we have f.e. Ephesos with a lot of illustrative material and articles like w:Ephesus in several languages as background. Other encyclopedias are using only a small amount of their images - we have the possibility to use them all without to make Wikipedia a picture book. The reversal effect is that with Wikimedia Commons we have an image archive which is strongly sorted by theme and has like an encyclopedia all kinds of illustrative material + links where you can find their background written in your mother tongue. These links and a proper presentation of these images can only be given with articles, not with categories. I don't know any image archive where you can realize such a network between good media stuff and background materials in several languages. There might be archives with several millions of images but their usefulness has limits which we have not. Wikimedia Commons profits from good encyclopedia articles describing what can be seen in the images. Wikipedia profits from good image archives because they help making an article and improve it's readability in several ways. If you want to write an article like rainbow or Östra Hoby kyrka it is really helpful to have your illustration prepared by someone.
(Thanks, Saperaud!)

  • Apparently only cc-2.5 is forward-compatible, which is why it could be handy to mulicense your works {1, 2.0, 2.5}.