Commons:Help desk/Archive/2006/11

Missing or moved image on Commons?

In this edit, May 25, 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humphry_Knipe&diff=next&oldid=53382712 I put a Luke Ford Creative Commons image, File:Humphry Knipe 2005.png in the En Wikipedia article on Humphry Knipe. I'm pretty sure it was a real image at the time - I edited the article lots of times since then, and kept it on my watchlist, skimming edits by other people, so through August 28, I'm pretty sure it was actually there, not just an ugly red link.

However, on October 18, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humphry_Knipe&diff=next&oldid=72417826 the image was gone, the link was a red link, and someone removed it.

I went to Commons, and found this:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Humphry_Knipe.png

which says that I uploaded it on May 25. No more image history, no more image contributions from me.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=AnonEMouse

Could someone have renamed it on the commons (breaking the En Wikipedia link) without it showing in the history? Or could I have been crazy enough not to notice that I uploaded it under the wrong title for three months?

Now eventually that image was replaced with another, so this isn't anything urgent, but I am curious - what happened to my image?

Thanks, AnonEMouse 16:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Special:Undelete/Image:Humphry_Knipe_2005.png, it was tagged as a duplicate upload by user:Lipothymia on 27 May 2006. user:Nilfanion deleted the image on 17 September 2006, giving the reason "Dupe of Image:Humphry Knipe.png". So it would seem Nilfanion either didn't check that it was still in use, or was relying on the outofdate copy of the en.wp database which CheckUsage uses. HTH. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Update an image for me?

I just uploaded Image:NXClientWindows.png. I hadn't run PNGCrusher over it, so I did that then made Image:NXClientWindows_new.png. Can someone update the first image with the new version? I can't because I just made my account. Thank you. --AdamGomaa 18:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This image contains copyrighted elements (the Windows XP background and bubble widgets) to an extent which likely isn't permitted on commons. So while I'd normally do this for you, since we're going to have to delete the images.. there is no point. :-/ Perhaps NX running on X would be a better example for this reason.--Gmaxwell 18:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! Hadn't thought of that. I'm gonna re-upload it to Wikipedia (not Commons) under fair use, because I do want to leave that background in- someone had mentioned on the talk page at WP that it wasn't clear that the client could run on Windows and I think this illustrates it well :). I will make one from Ubuntu when I get home as well- I take it Ubuntu's background would be a no-go for Commons as well then? --AdamGomaa 18:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Check the license on Ubuntu's background. If it is GPL that is ok here. --InfantGorilla 20:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Soft or hard redirects of categories?

I am confused by the documentation for categories that should not be used. Have I tagged Category:North York Moors correctly? It is a synonym of Category:North Yorkshire Moors. --InfantGorilla 18:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Zzyzx11 23:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good so far, thanks! Follow-up question - when would it be appropriate to use a hard redirect #REDIRECT on a category? --InfantGorilla 20:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A hard redirect is not recommended on any category. The problem deals with the possibility that users might continue to add subcategories and pages in the category with the redirect; they will not show up in the category that the redirect is pointing to. The soft redirect is needed so we can see which subcategories and pages are incorrectly placed in the future and will need to moved. Zzyzx11 04:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Orgullobot was at one time, going through hard RDRed categories and fixing up their contents. But I don't know if (a) it is still doing that, and (b) it rechecked the categories on a regular basis. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) Good. Could someone please fix the documentation at {{Category redirect}} It says:

Pages tagged by category redirect in en.wikipedia are BOT relocated on a regular basis. This is contraindicated here on the commons due to the need for human judgement.

This tells me (an idiot) not to use the template. Apparently that is not what it really means. I do not understand what is meant by "thr need for human judgement". --InfantGorilla 09:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Move image please

Please move this image to this image. Thank you! --SharkD 02:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but what you can do in the meantime is click on the "Upload a new version of this file" link near the bottom of the Image:Perspective isometrique cube gris 2.svg page. Then, you can add {{badname|Image:Perspective_isometrique_cube_gris_2.svg}} to the Image:Perspective isometrique cube gris 4.svg page. Zzyzx11 04:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that nobody, not even you or any admin, can technically move images at the moment because the software does not support that. Please also read question #4 of Commons:FAQ#Technical questions. Thanks. Zzyzx11 05:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

New users cannot upload new versions of images until their account is 4 days old. The error message directs them to the Help desk (for the impatient :)), so the user is probably aware of what you say. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, did not notice that the account was new... [1] Zzyzx11 15:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

moved and deleted to old file. --Matt314 09:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Flickr

I've uploaded some pictures I found in Flickr, and noticed that they have to be "reviewed by an administrator to confirm that the above license is valid". The images from Flickr that I'm uploading are maked as {{Cc-by-2.0}} or {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} and sometimes I've wrote 2.5 instead of 2.0, as suggested in http://creativecommons.org. The whole situation makes me wonder what sould I do...
Best regards, Yuval Y 08:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about that, the Flickr review is for another issue - that of changing licenses. Its a way of validating that "yes this image was available freely, even though its now cc-by-nc-nd.--Nilfanion 11:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that there are several images on the Flickr review needed category. I've checked some of them, and the flickr still say "CC-BY-2.0" or "CC-BY-SA-2.0". May I replace the tag, or it sould be done only by an administrator..? Yuval Y 18:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help out, but this is something only administrators can do. Unfortunately if all users were permitted to do reviews, we would have a lot of people abusing the system. ~MDD4696 02:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've "went over your helmet" a bit... One way or another, I've requested to become an administrator.
Best regards, Yuval Y 21:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

SVG tecnhical problem

I created an arrow [2] using CorelDraw 10, and exported it as SVG. The image displays alright in Internet Explorer 6, but not in Firefox 1.5. In its Commons page, the image shows shifted halfway down and to the left, so only one quarter of the image is visible (in either IE or Firefox). However, the image imports properly in CorelDraw and in MS Word 2002. I'd appreciate any suggestions to correct this problem. --Doctor C 11:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed your file. It used negative offsets in the top level document dimensions, which is very odd... My quick reading of the SVG spec seems to indicate that such behavior is invalid, although most things other than the SVG library we use seemed to read it. In the future you may want to consider using Inkscape which tends to be a bit more standards conforming. --Gmaxwell 14:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you do most of the editing in one's editor of choice and just read and re-write in Inkscape at the end to get a little validation that way? ++Lar: t/c 19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes.. in this case, however, Inkscape doesn't fix it unless copy out the art and resize the underlying page... and I only did that because I could tell what was wrong in the SVG. --Gmaxwell 01:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Gmaxwell, I'll follow your adivce. --Doctor C 20:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA-2.0 or CC-BY-SA-2.5 ?

The images on Flickr have CC license version 2.0, and in http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0 have been written: "A new version of this license is available. You should use it for new works, and you may want to relicense existing works under it. No works are automatically put under the new license, however". When uploading a CC-By-SA marked image, which version sould I use?
Best regards, Yuval Y 19:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Shalom. Only the author can relicense a work. If the licensing info on Flickr says cc-by-sa-2.0, you must use {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} when uploading it to Commons. I have looked at your flickr uploads, and you have been doing it correctly. One minor point: You may want to add {{Flickrreview}} as well. --Kjetil_r 23:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll add {{Flickrreview}}, but I've been informed (at #Flickr above) that Flickr reviewing is something that only administrators sould do... Well, I have checked some images, and have found some {{Cc-by-nd-2.0}} or {{Cc-by-nc-2.0}} and such who's been swapped with {{Cc-by-2.5}}... And now I'm quite embarrassed, since I'm not an administrator (yet..?) Yuval Y 00:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Image not displaying

I asked about this at en.wikipedia but it seems to be a problem at the Commons so I'm asking here too. Image:Australasia--Schelfgebiete+Wallacea--RS02.jpg doesn't display except in the high resolution version. There is something at [3] but not at [4]. I'm not familiar with this stuff. Nurg 01:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Request to update/move an image

I attempted to update Image:Linde_logo.png with a new version, but messed up and created a new file Image:Image-Linde_logo.png instead. Could someone please move it to be a new version of the original image? Ta. Murraypaul 11:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Another request to move Image:Flag - Blatné2.gif to Image:Flag - Blatné.gif. Thanx. Abdull SK 22:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Replace Image:Aachen Königreichsäle.jpg with Image:Aachen Königreichsäle_V2.jpg. I removed the number plate. Privacy Laws exist in germany forbiding the depiction of license plates without permission oft the owner. The picture is used in the german Wikipedia. See also Bundesdatenschutzgesetz. Maybe the original (with number plate) should be deleted. --Moralapostel 22:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• image:Graaf_k5.jpg should be replaced with image:Graaf_k5_2.jpg FilmFreak 13:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Replace Image:Cinnamon_Peak.jpg with Image:Cinnamon_Peak2.jpg. I accidentally uploaded the wrong version of the file. Metalfilter 01:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Change Username

Please change my Username from User:Webmaster@sgovd.org to User:Liberal Freemason. I could not find en:Wikipedia:Changing username for commons, but I was requested to change my username because of MediaWiki issues. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The page you are looking for is Commons:Changing username. Zzyzx11 22:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Improving an image

Tnere is an image I'm using over on Wikipedia (Image:Toyota Monte-Carlo 1999.jpg) which has really bad gamma settings. I downloaded it, tweaked it so it looks VASTLY better - and now I want to place it back onto Commons - but I have no idea how to do that. I've read documentation until my eyes bleed and still I can't see a clean way to do this. The only option seems to be to upload it over the top of the original with the same name - but then I have to re-enter copyright and other data that's already associated with the file and I'm not sure what'll happen to the file history in that case. There must be an easier way - I just can't see it. Help, Oh mighty desk! SteveBaker 15:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:) Although it seems like you have to re-enter the data, if you are uploading a subsequent version of the image, all you should put in the "Summary" field of Special:Upload is a one line summary of the changes you made. It will appear in the file log at the bottom of the page. It's only on the first upload that "Summary" data appears on the page itself. If that makes sense. This behaviour of Mediawiki's is particularly badly documented and unfortunately a bit surprising... just try it and see how you go. Remember anything can be undone, so don't be afraid to try. :) pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! So I just leave the license field blank? Or am I maybe somehow stating license terms for my modifications to the original image (urgh! I hope not!). There really ought to be an 'upload replacement image' tab next to 'edit' at the top of the page. Even if it only lead to the 'Upload file' dialog, that would still be a lot easier to understand. SteveBaker 22:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, leave the license selector blank for subsequent uploads. You can also tick 'ignore all warnings' and this will suppress a warning about "an image already exists with this name" (well, duh :)). For some reason when you upload a subsequent image, you will get taken to a different page when it is successful, with instructions about putting source information etc etc. I never get this page when uploading the first time. Strange are the ways of the wiki.

If you do actually want your changes to be under another license (which is kinda painful, and I would very strongly discourage it), you have to later manually edit the image page. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Old portraits from Bibliothèque interuniversitaire de Médecine, Paris (BIUM)

I'd like to upload images of Gilles de la Tourette (1857–1904) and Désiré Magloire Bourneville (1840–1909) from the web site of the Bibliothèque interuniversitaire de Médecine, Paris (BIUM). The BIUM have a searchable image bank here. Their copyright claim (thanks to Google translate) is "All the images of the bank are © BIUM. Their reproduction is strictly reserved for the private use of the copyist and not intended for a collective use (law 92-597 of July 1, 1992)." I emailed them a month ago to ask about permission. I got no further than a "your email has been passed onto the relevant person" (or the equivalent in French). I think the US PD-Art rules apply. The Tourette image says "Cliché E. Pirou". The first word is French for printing plate. The name is I believe Eugène Pirou (1841–1909). The Bourneville image is anonymous. I think the "F.M.P. Bibliothéque" stamp is "Faculté de Médecine et de Pharmacie": Library of the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy.

Is it OK to upload? If not, then I assume the existing Image:Gilles tourette2.gif is also not acceptable? I believe that is just a low-resolution copy of the one in BIUM. Colin 17:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Image move

I've applied a minor correction to Image:TransCanadaHWY.png; there were small portions of Highway 11 (south of North Bay) and Highway 400 (south of Coldwater) in Ontario that should not have been marked on the map as they're not part of the TCH system. I've uploaded the corrected image at Image:TransCanadaHWY-correct.png; you can confirm the correction by reviewing the highway designations at Wikipedia's Trans-Canada Highway article if necessary. Note the "Winnipeg-Ottawa" route subsection; it will note that Highway 11's TCH designation ends at North Bay, and Highway 400's TCH designation ends at Highway 12. I'm a pretty well-known admin on WP, but I've never officially registered an account here until now, so I can't just replace the image myself — so I'll need help moving the corrected image. Bearcat 07:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved your file to the correct title and deleted the other version. --Matt314 09:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The right to use commons reproductions as illustrations in a book.

Hi, I am sorry if that seems obvious... having read all doc I could find here about it, it seems self evident that I could use wikimedia's reproductions where I want and for what I want.

I'm busy publishing a series of adventures for kids, and, since the story is taking place at the Renaissance, close to Leonardo, it seemed logical to use some of Leonardo's paintings and drawings to illustrate it. And so, having found some of those drawings and paintings at Wikimedia under Commons, I decided, by pure civility and politness, to email for instance Windsor Library, since I wish to include there address as the place where the readers could go to see the originals and lot of other similar paintings too.

Seems that

1) Windsor Library has never heard of Creative Commons, nor Wikimedia (I gave them the urls!). and,

2) they ask me to pay a fee (few tens of $) for publishing those reproductions... saying that anyway, nobody but them has the rights to give or sale photos of those paintings! (I've got all the correspondance at your disposal, if you'd so wish).

My last answer to them, was that I need a bit of time to fully understand all that, not wanting anyway to be against copyright laws, but also not to be mislaid only because they may ignore later developements on those laws.

So, I would be very thankful if you could advise me, or, at least explain a bit what is the matter there, since my publishing of those books (5 volumes) has already been retarded because of that, since last April, and that because of it, a signature day proposed by the Museum Leonardo da Vinci at Clos-Lucé (Amboise), will have to wait now, till the next touristic season!

I'm looking forward to read your answer, from what I am thanking you in advance.

Jean-Claude Féret —the preceding unsigned comment is by 80.237.206.62 (talk • contribs)

Being drawings and paintings, the files probably contain the {{PD-Art}} tag, which in turn refers to the Bridgeman v. Corel case of exact photographic copies of public domain images not being copyrightable according to US and UK law. As User:Eloquence said[5] related to the York Project (which also contains some photos of paintings currently in the Windsor Library), "I'm sure eventually someone will claim that they own the copyright to a public domain work of art here on Commons, but Jimbo has always said that he is prepared to go to court to defend the right to distribute art in the public domain. The attempt to re-copyright it through reproduction copyrights is pure piracy, and we should stand united against it." Would be interesting to hear from French precedents though. --Para 21:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem with uploaded pic.

Hi, Recently Ive uploed this lovely photo

Mushrooms

but when I go to the picture's page it doesn't acctualy show anything. Any idea what's wrong? --Robek 04:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the image itself has a large size of 3008x2000px. I have observed that the software does periodically have problems displaying such images on the image description page for some reason. I am not entirely clear about the specifics. But as you can tell, the original high resolution version is still here. Zzyzx11 04:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the general problem is that sometimes the software has trouble automatically generating thumbnails and low resolution versions of these high resolution images. The only good solution so far seems to what User:Gmaxwell has done with your picture: re-upload the image again until the automatic thumbnail generation gets through correctly.[6] Zzyzx11 06:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Same problem here with Image:Testicular artery (bull).jpg, despite I have uploaded the new file several times, still the thumb of the first version is shown. The full-size picture indicates succesful upload. --Uwe Gille 18:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

License-Question Still Pending

Hello, The solution for this is still pending. The question of Pfctdayelise is still unanswered by the corresponding user. Pfctdayelise is currently taking a wikibreak until June or July 2007. This needs an admin. Thanks. -- Mathetes 19:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Mathetes 12:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Update Image

I fixed Image:Europe_location_ARM.png, please replace it with Image:Europe_location_ARMO.png Border of Europe was incorect in first verion. See Image:Europe location.png to compare.--DLiuzzo 15:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Cropping in Inkscape

I have a very simple question. :) I'm creating a bunch of SVGs of Arabic letters. How can I crop in Inkscape so I don't get all that whitespace at the bottom of the SVG?

Interestingly, when I open the image in Irfanview, it automatically crops it.

Also, are there any other tricks I should know? I already know to convert text to paths, and to save as a plain SVG.

Thanks :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I figured this out, it's File > Document properties > "Fit page to selection" - of course... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you should leave a LITTLE whitespace but I could be wrong. ++Lar: t/c 01:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're planning on displaying them in a frame, you should definitely have some whitespace. If not, it doesn't matter as much, but rsvg doesn't anti-alias well at the image edges. Firefox's SVG render does a better job with this. – flamurai 10:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thumbnails of new images

Hi.

This is simply thumb

And this is 1 pix less then default thumb size (more thumbs here)

I just uploaded two new images (well not mine, but that's not relevant) and the default thumbs do not get generated. Strange thing is that any other is OK. Is this something that happens from time to time, or should I report this as a bug? --Nux (talk/dyskusja) 21:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It is probably the same problem as the one in discussion directly above in that the software has periodic trouble generating thumbnails from a very high resolution image. Zzyzx11 04:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Found a bug for it (bug 2888). This seems to be of something more then just JPG resizing. --Nux (talk/dyskusja) 00:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be similar to the problem with Image:Australasia--Schelfgebiete+Wallacea--RS02.jpg which, however, is not a new image. I know this one used to be ok because on 9 July 2006 it was displaying correctly at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahul_Shelf and another article. Nurg 02:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

How do I rename an image?

I uploaded an image inadvertently named Reboiler.png when it should have been named Kettle Reboiler.png. How do I rename it? Or how do I delete it and just start over with uploading it? Thanks in advance for help. Mbeychok 01:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to upload the image again named as Kettle Reboiler.png, and tag the old imasge as {{badname|image:Kettle Reboiler.png}}. Yuval Y • Chat • 02:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much. Mbeychok 05:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Image on wikipedia and updated image on commons with same names

1) I uploaded a picture to wikipedia.

2) I uploaded the same image to commons with the same name (e.g. Sublimation apparatus.png).

3) I updated the image on commoms.

4) However the image is not updated on wikipedia!

5) What can I do if I want to replace the wikipedia image with the commons image of the same name?

thanks for your help Quantockgoblin 13:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The local wikipedia displayes the local image no matter if there is an image with the same name at Commons. The image "shadows" the Commons image. You can either upload the image at Commons at a different name or (better) ask an administrator at the local wikipedia to delete the local image. --Matt314 14:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Quantockgoblin 14:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

SVG support/limitation - official information anywhere?

Is there an official page somewhere that illustrates the current level of support and the limitations of SVG files in the Commons and Wikipedia? Thanks for your help. - Manu3d 23:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Although Commons:SVG gives basic information, the general SVG page for the MediaWiki web software is at Meta:SVG image support. Zzyzx11 06:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Replace Image:William McKnight (MOH) framed.jpg with Image:William McKnight (MOH) framed2.jpg

Could someone please replace Image:William McKnight (MOH) framed.jpg with Image:William McKnight (MOH) framed2.jpg? Thanks, Jwillbur 23:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Upload the second image with the same filename as the first (you'll be asked whether you want to overwrite it... you do), then add {{badname|Image:William McKnight (MOH) framed.jpg}} to the second image's description, and it will be deleted. – flamurai 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

embedding pictures?

we were wondering how we can embed pictures on a WIKIPEDIA-page? so we mean, how do we get the picture to appear instead of a link?

thanks

Eveliendorien 20:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

All you have to do is just embed the image's file name as if you saved the image locally on the Wikipedia site e.g. [[Image:ImageName.png]]

However, this does not work if the local Wikipedia already has a local image with the same name as the one at Commons. Instead, you have to either upload the image at Commons at a different name or find someway to get the image at your local wikipedia deleted. Zzyzx11 01:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Fuell cell.jpg

Hello, I want to update this image, but I can't (I'm a newbie :( ). I have uploaded Image:Fuell cell up.jpg. Could anybody heelp me ? thanks --Zedh 21:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved your picture to Image:Fuell cell.jpg. --Matt314 22:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

strange scaling of image and colour

There is Image:Blücher.jpg, that changes its colour (coloured-->B/W) according to size. Can you tell me why is that, and how to fix it (ie. how to put it in an article, as a colour picture thumbnail, thumb size). Thanks

Same image as below

Same image

--Bdamokos 00:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, this page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=Bl%C3%BCcher.jpg&w=300 scales it right in colour... --Bdamokos 00:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That's quite hilarious! Never seen that before.

It's because the old version of the image was black and white, and MediaWiki hasn't purged the old thumbnails properly yet.

You can work around it by forcing it to make a thumbnail of an unusual size - instead of using 200px, use 201px or 199px. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Can't you or an amin force a purge? Anyway the issue has been settked on our part, using a 199px thumbnail.--Bdamokos 15:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a software thing, something to do with the developers. The admins have no control over it! Unfortunately. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a somewhat related problem with this image. It seems impossible to force the software to update the thumbnailed pic, but resizing it worked. Perhaps the software doesn't like non-English characters? Valentinian ^(talk) 19:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Yes, all the default thumbs are still the old version of the image (which was deleted), so it does look very mysterious!

I'm not sure if non-English characters in the image title is the problem. We are also having similar or same problems with images with just plain titles, so maybe there are several problems mixed together, or it is something else alltogether, I don't know yet. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Any way to force rerender of SVG?

Image:NYCS-SSI-alltimes.svg has not rendered correctly. Right now, it is just transparent: . However, if I change the size from the original, it renders fine: . Is there any way to force a rerender of the original size? I am having the same problem with a number of images in Category:New York City Subway denotations. – flamurai 09:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is another bugzilla:2888 thing. I figured out how to purge the default, but is there any way to purge other sizes? – flamurai 14:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this one has solved itself... good. We are having some thumbnail problems at the moment. I put some tips on the FAQ. They are not perfect though. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Something's weird with [[:]]

That pictures seems to be unavaliable both in Commons and Hebrew Wikipedia, but I can see a thumb in http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=&w=_100000 - Sould I delete the image, and asked the user to upload it again..? Yuval Y • Chat • 18:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be working now, both on Commons and on he.wikipedia. Could have been a problem with the image web server. Zzyzx11 00:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Weird, I still can't see the picture... Yuval Y • Chat • 06:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see it, try hard refresh, clearing your cache, etc. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the picture's url - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Crocs.jpg ? Yuval Y • Chat • 08:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the "ad" part doesn't work sometimes because of ad-blockers. / Fred Chess 08:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've killed the ad-block. :-P Yuval Y • Chat • 22:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

new user seeks advice

I am somewhat confused about what the commons would like to have (in a perfect world) and could use some advice. I have uploaded a few images.[7] All of them are pictures I took. All of them have a logo in the photograph which I put there. I wish to

• require others to link any usage to the original images in the commons where the logo and my WP ID both appear,
• make the images as useful and accessible as possible given the restriction above,
• not have my real name attached to these at this time.

I may some day wish to attach my real name to these images. If so, my understanding is that all I need do is request an administrative change to my ID, and all pictures attached to Curtius in the commons will automatically be attached to that new name.

So now my questions:

• Will this name-change scheme work the way I describe?
• What license should I use to accomplish this?
• Does the use of this license restrict the image's utility in WP and the commons in some important way? (ie. are my intended restrictions a big barrier?)
• Does the presence of a logo restrict the image's utility in WP and the commons in some important way?

The particular images already uploaded have a bunch of different things attached to them. Can I change the licenses they have? Anytime? Retroactively?

Is there a way to make an internal-to-wikipedia link to the gallery or must it always be external like the one I put in above?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Hi Curtius,

• Regarding name changes - what typically happens is that your old account is moved/renamed to your new account, and you then reregister the old account to stop anyone impersonating you. You make the pages redirect to your new account. The old credits will still say "Curtius", but if you make them as links to your user page, when someone clicks on them, they will be taken to your new userpage.

You could ask a bot operator to replace all the text on your images from your old user name to your new one, but I think it would be smarter to decide how you want to be credited, before doing a lot of uploading.

• AFAIK there is no license where you can require that they link to the Commons page. You are using CC-BY-SA and GFDL I see, which both require attribution. What you can do is recommend or suggest how to achieve this - put a box on your image pages that says, If you use this work on the web, please attribute this work to me by linking to this page with the words 'Created by Wikimedia Commons user Curtius' or something like that. You should read the actual terms of the licenses (always a good idea!!!) to find out if you can require attribution like that, but I would very much doubt it.
• What you've described doesn't put any extra requirements on Wikipedia/Commons, I don't think. (If it did, we wouldn't let you use that license. ;)) Photos from Commons, in Wikipedia, automatically link to the image page here.
• The presence of a logo or watermark is strongly discouraged. Many people violently hate them and I would have a careful think about why you really think one is necessary. Please be aware that simply removing the logo is a valid derivative work. If you don't allow such a derivative work to uploaded over the top of your original work, it could be easily uploaded with a new name, and editors will probably prefer to use the version without a watermark. So be aware of this.
• Licenses cannot legally be rescinded. These circumstances of license change should be OK:
  • Making a license less restrictive (eg GFDL to PD-self, but not vice versa)
  • Uploading a new version of a file (if the old license required ShareAlike, the new license must be the same, but if it didn't, they can choose any free license they like... it is generally easier to just keep it the same though)
  • Misleading circumstances (if you reveal that the work is not actually yours, although you represented it as yours, you have no right to choose any license, and therefore the images will likely be deleted)
  • Other emergencies relating to privacy, 3rd party laws and other things I don't know about yet :)

The point is, if you decide in the future that all of a sudden you don't like free licenses so much, we might not be very sympathetic. (Ignorance is no defence...) Therefore please read and understand what the licenses imply before you use them.

• Links to Galleries will always be like external links, because the Gallery tool is hosted on the toolserver and is actually external to MediaWiki. You can link to your Special:Contributions but there are no pretty pictures. :)

HTH - if you have more questions, please ask --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving an image

I just made my first image, Image:Memento structure.svg, which appeared to be fine in Inkscape, but shows up with an annoying black box in everything else. I've uploaded a new version without the black box (Image:Memento structure 2.svg), but need somebody else to move it to the original location since my account is new. Playstationman 20:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved the image and deleted the duplicate. --Matt314 20:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Playstationman 21:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded this Image:Carcassonne-Hunters And Gatherers.JPG photo and noticed that it wasn't properly edited (white space on right and on bottom), so I uploaded it again with new name of Image:Carcassonne-Hunters And Gatherers 2.JPG, could someone please correct this? Zame 19:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So, could someone rename this Image:Carcassonne-Hunters And Gatherers 2.JPG filename into this Image:Carcassonne-Hunters And Gatherers.JPG, please? Zame 12:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Matt314 11:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Zame 11:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Overwriting

Is it possible to accidentally overwrite another user's file without knowing, or will a warning appear? I'd rather ask here than find out the hard way. --Tewy 01:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A warning will appear, unless you check the "Ignore any warnings" box on the upload file form. Zzyzx11 01:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tewy 01:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming files

While I'm here, is it preferred to name files with a single capitalized first word, as in, Image:Four green mice in a Russian park.jpg, or with the first, last, and significant words capitalized, as in, Image:Four Green Mice in a Russian Park.jpg? I'm trying to stay as true to standards as I can. --Tewy 01:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Concerning this issue, iirc, there is no standard. Zzyzx11 05:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I certainly prefer the first one :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories

There are a couple of categories I would like to create, but I don't know if they'll be helpful. Would categories for Cetacea range maps and Cetacea size comparisons be acceptable for inclusion, or would they probably be deleted? --Gray Porpoise 18:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Cetacea, I would say sure, that looks like a good idea. Also put them under other categories like Category:Animal habitat maps. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving an image

I recently uploaded Image:Resistorscombo.svg as a replacement for its PNG counterpart, only to realize that I had R1 and R2 reversed. I've re-uploaded the corrected version as Image:Resistorscombo-fixed.svg, and now need someone to move it to the original location, as my account is new. Thanks in advance. -- DancingPenguin 03:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Matt314 12:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --DancingPenguin 01:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

commercial use of photos of famous people?

I'm confused about copyrights and publicity rights. If I upload a photo I took of a performer for use in the Wikipedia article about them, of course the copyright license must allow commercial use. But if someone actually tried to reproduce and sell the photo, or use it to promote a product or service, they would be violating the performer's publicity rights... is that correct? Thanks for any help. --Amcbride 04:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

See here: [8]. It's not a matter thats litigated all that often and in the US it would seem that only uses in advertising run into problems. It would be ideal if we got model releases wherever we could, just to avoid confusion... but obviously they will be unavailable in some circumstances. --Gmaxwell 14:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a question also about famous people. In the checklist it lists Celebrities under Questionable, may or may not be OK. When would it be okay and when would it not be okay? To help narrow this down, my interest involves college football and head coaches and players and related (to the team) people. When would it not be okay to use an image of the coaches/players and when is it not? Assuming that either I or another non-media outlet person were willing to publish the image under the GDFL. In short, I don't understand the reason celebrities are questionable? Thanks for any insight. --MECU 21:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright review

Is there a page here for copyright review? I stumbled across images that are 1. recreations of insignia and 2. so simple there is really no authorship that the author claims copyright on. e.g. Image:RDAF.svg. Is there a place to post images like this for community review? Edit: I just noticed that basically all this user's contributions are recreations of various air force roundels, and he has claimed copyright on all them. – flamurai 05:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, copyright review at Commons is done by requesting deletion of the images. If the image is held to be a copyvio, it gets deleted; if it's held to be free, it gets kept. —Angr 06:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The point here is that the user is claiming copyright for images that may be public domain. Deletion is not appropriate. – flamurai 07:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I'd leave a note with the uploader, explaining that the image does not meet the threshold of originality and should therefore be retagged {{PD-ineligible}}. If the uploader hasn't been around in a while and is unlikely to respond to your comment, or to object, go ahead and retag it {{PD-ineligible}} yourself, using an explicit edit summary and maybe a comment in the image talk page, explaining your action. —Angr 10:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also complicated by the fact the user is from the Czech Republic (I believe). However everything here is subject to US copyright law, correct? – flamurai 22:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Gallery tags

Can someone check Thomas Friedman for me and see if the gallery is showing up correctly? As it is, all I see is a blank entry with a few categories despite there being five images between the tags. Is this a browser problem, a <gallery> problem, or a thumbnailing problem? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 03:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

When you use the <gallery> tags, you do not need the brackets.[9] Zzyzx11 03:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Weird that I'd forget that. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 03:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Help with Licensing

I'm new here, and I'm a bit confused about licensing. I tried to upload the cover of the book fever 1793 by Laurie Halse Anderson so I can put in on Wikipedia. I didn't know the licensing so it got deleted. How do I get the cover on? What should I do? How did people get covers of other books on? I don't suppose scanning the book in through a scanner would be considered "own work". Leon math 21:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the cover of Anderson's book is copyrighted and falls under the laws of fair use. This image is not allowed here on Commons; as per the licensing policies here, we only accept free content that can be used by anyone for any purpose. If you are going to use that book cover on the English Wikipedia, you are going to have to upload it directly onto that site, following its fair use policies. If you want to use on another Wikipedia or Wikimedia project, please refer to Meta:Fair use to see which sites allow fair use images. Thanks. Zzyzx11 21:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you Leon math 21:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

cropping

Are there any restrictions to cropping a picture? If it's okay, how should I document it? Does the original picture have to be accessible (i.e. uploaded) as well? (It's currently uploaded... but I read there's something like overriding something... what's that?) ???? Thanks for your help. --Ibn Battuta 08:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

When you upload a new version of an image (the link is at the bottom of the image page), in the 'summary' field put what you have done & the reason for it (eg. "cropped to remove distracting empty sky"). The original version is still available in the file history. If the original uploader reverts your change, because they think it is not an improvement or there is some reason the image shouldn't be edited, then you should upload the crop as a separate image and link the two to each other. Does this make sense? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, it makes sense, and this is what I was looking for... only I can't find the link you mention. Or do you mean the "Edit this file using an external application"? Do I have to use *that* link? (It seems that to use that link I'd have to install some new program or whatever, currently it's not working with my Corel Photo Album that I usually use.)

And another question: Instead of a description, it reads "{{{Description}}}". What's going on there? ... Thanks in advance, --Ibn Battuta 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Look for the link that says "Upload a new version of this file".

It says "{{{Description}}}" because the user didn't fill in description= field. You can put in a description by editing the page. If this doesn't make sense, please put a link to the image and we can have a look to see what's going on. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 17:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't find the link... and CTR+F doesn't either. (BTW, there was a description, but after reading your comment, I found that there was a typo in the word "description"... thanks, that already helped!) --Ibn Battuta 18:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about Image:Carl-Woermann.jpg, right? Try doing a search on the page for "Upload a new version of this file"... that's the link. If your account is < 4 days old, you won't be able to upload a new version anyway. So... I suggest waiting patiently for a couple more days. :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I see, that should explain it!! And if a search for "Upload a new version of this file" still doesn't yield any results in four days, I'll just be back whining and whimpering. In the meantime: Thanks a lot for your help!! --Ibn Battuta 09:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How to delete a picture?

I made the mistake to publish a picture of a person without his permisson. How do I delete it?

You edit your file and put that {{specify a reason}} with reason for delation. And an administrator will delette the file as soon as possible. Oxam Hartog 23:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Many photos are now unavailable due to software changes

Two or three weeks ago there evidently were changes made in the general Wiki software because many photographs that were previously available are still in our archives but won't show up on web pages. These are all image files with titles that include an ampersand. Is there some way that as a non-administrator I can change these file names when I discover them? One example is Image:Psalmopoeus cambridgei Fang & hypo.jpg

Thanks. Patrick Edwin Moran 20:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You can re-upload them with a new filename. Afterwards tag the old image with {{new name}} if they are not used on any Wikimedia wiki. If they are used somewhere the {{Image's new name}} would be better. You can check if the image is used on any other Wikipedias by using the "check usage" tab and make sure that the filename is shown correct at the CheckUsage page. It seems there is a problem with the ampersand there as well, so the filename is cropped at the ampersand's position. --Matt314 22:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Many of them are not mine to establish permissions on, etc., so how do I handle all of the information that the person who originally uploaded a file has provided? Thanks. Patrick Edwin Moran 23:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, wait. If & symbols used to work, but now don't, it would better to change the software to get them working again, than rename potentially hundreds of images. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the & problem for CheckUsage and the other external tools, is a problem of MediaWiki:Extra-tabs.js, not the external tools. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

OK finally -- can you please list the file names here and which thumbnails are missing/wrong? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I can list the ones that I know about, but there are presumably lots of other images that have this problem but that I will never encounter. Probably what needs to be done is the get a list of all media filenames in a format that can be searched for the & sign. Searching for "&" does not retrieve any file names. Patrick Edwin Moran 16:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wolf_spider_with_egg_sac.jpg This photo has disappeared but there is no deletion log for it.

Image:Psalmopoeus cambridgei Fang & sewing needle.jpg This one works with the ampersand.
Image:Psalmopoeus cambridgei Fang and hypo.jpg This one only works if the ampersand is replaced with and. (I kept the old file and reuploaded with the title as above, so you should still be able to try for

Psalmopoeus cambridgei Fang & hypo.jpg

Patrick Edwin Moran 17:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What I was getting at, is how do you know that this failure is for all images with '&' in the title? How do you know it's not just the two or three images you have listed?

You can search image names at Special:Newimages. I did a search there for '&' and about a quarter to a third of the thumbnails failed, so I'd say there probably is some specific software thing behind this. Anyway, I reported it to the dev's, they are aware of the recent troubles we've had with thumbnails and are working to solve it at the moment. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you will re-read what I wrote above I made it clear that it not all filenames that cause trouble. Two pictures created and uploaded at the same time, both with ampersands, still exist. One of them still appears in an article in which it is placed, and one of them fails to appear. The image is still in Commons and is still visible. Downloading it and re-uploading it with the ampersand replaced with "and" makes it possible to get it to show up in an article. Since the images worked until a few weeks ago and nothing changed in the images or the file titles to make them inaccessible the problem must be somewhere else. Patrick Edwin Moran 16:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Image:Berlin Wall graffiti&death strip.jpg is another one with & in the title that isn't rendering properly. It's been re-uploaded under the name w:Image:Berlin Wall graffit and death strip.jpg at en-wiki, but that doesn't help the other projects. —Angr 06:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Is anything being done to solve this problem? Is the appropriate procedure to reupload a file with a different filename and let the old file sit there taking up space? Patrick Edwin Moran 09:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I told the developers about it. I think it has been fixed now. Don't reupload photos, first try the process described at COM:FAQ#Technical "Why is the old picture and not the new uploaded picture on my screen?". pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

{{PD-old}} licensing

I have made some questions on Commons talk:Licensing#Is the source required for a PD document ? related to request source of origin for a {{PD-old}} image. Please take a look if possible. Lugusto • ҉ 15:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Cropping (II)

Okay, I think I've understood how to technically upload a new version of an image. But I'm afraid I'm not yet quite as "savvy" when it comes to documenting what I've done. pfctdayelise (说什么?) mentioned I should write that into the 'summary' field. Are we talking about the same summary field (i.e. the one with the description, source, etc.)? I don't see another one when I upload an image... [BTW, whom could I contact to suggest to change that? i.e. to include a 'summary' field as well as a preview for uploading images?] ... So if I should in fact document my cropping in this 'summary' field--where there? As description? And do I have to enter something into the "other_versions" cell? Thanks a lot! --Ibn Battuta 07:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

When you upload a new version through the “Upload a new version of this file” link, you have to document the changes in the “summary” field. This text will appear as a comment in the “File history” section of the picture page. It will not overwrite the original description field nor the license information.

Let's take an example. I uploaded yesterday a cropped version of Image:Louvre assiette sirene barbue.JPG. In the upload page, I wrote in the summary field: "corrected distorsion, cropped, enhanced lighting". I left the license dropdown box as it was ("None selected") and ticked the "Ignore any warnings" checkbox. As a result, my new version got uploaded, my comment appears in the File history section, the original description field and license information are unchanged. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, the ability to preview a file upload is bugzilla:2537. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories

A note about categories: Thanks for all the dedicated help in spite of my horrible attitude due to the frustration with using Commons--it really need some work making it user friendly. However, I am going through other pictures and putting them in useful categories, plant families and genera, and Flora of California. This will eventually make it easier for others to find these pictures.

Thanks again, everyone, for all the help, and especially to pfctdayelise for reminding me to plug in the computer first. KP Botany 22:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent!! I'm really happy. :) Sorry that was so confusing... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)