2020s
date QS:P,+2020-00-00T00:00:00Z/8
2029	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2028	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2027	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2026	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2025	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2024	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2023	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2022	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2021	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2020	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

2010s
date QS:P,+2010-00-00T00:00:00Z/8
2019	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2018	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2017	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2016	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2015	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2014	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2013	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2012	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2011	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2010	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

2000s
date QS:P,+2000-00-00T00:00:00Z/8
2009	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2008	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2007	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2006	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2005	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2004	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

October 1

Logo of commons : Made I a mistake ?

I just changed the logo of commons (see Image:Wiki-commons.png and its history), because that was a pic showing Ziang Ziming. No one explanation was on this change, not in the image neither in the talkpage. The image was from user Dori , who made only 100 edits.

Someone can explain ?

Moreover, If I did a mistake, really sorry, but I didn't seen informations about this change. --Yug (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are talking about, exactly. There weren't any previous versions with Ziang Ziming in them (local version on another Wiki with same filename?). Also, I believe someone needs to revert this to the previous version because it is now showing up incorrectly in the upper left. --tomf688 (talk - email) 01:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. My main question is that since this was protected, how did this happen? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 01:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what exactly happened. There is nothing in the revision history of the image to suggest it was changed. It is possible that Yug was having issues with his browser that caused images to display incorrectly. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

Logo of commons : Who seen Jiang Jiemin picture ?

Hello again, I want know who seen the Jiang Jiemin picture on the top, on the left, instead of the commons logo, on 1 October 2006 (yesterday) about 20:00. I want find out if that was only on my computer, or a vandalism for everyone. Yug (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How could that be? The logo is hardcoded so only developers can change its location, and Image:Wiki-commons.png is protected... I see you uploaded again the file, but there was no upload of such Ziang Ziming logo on the log ¿?

It seems your computer/squids/cache has been fooling you. Quite difficult to be an intended vandalism.

BTW: Can you find the image shown? Platonides 19:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories “by nationality”

Commons:By location category scheme states: "by nationality", “by Country”: These categories shall be renamed "by country".

At the moment, we have still many categories “by nationality” :

Category:Cinema by nationality
Category:Coats of arms by nationality
Category:Media by nationality
Category:Musical groups by nationality
Category:Professionals by nationality and most of subcategories
Category:Society by nationality

That is roughly what w:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) recommends.

I created recently Category:Categories by nationality, then I realized my mistake.

We have 2 alternatives:

Moving the wrong categories.
Changing the Commons rules.

Is there any objections to apply the first alternative ? --Juiced lemon 18:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you ask your question a different way? I'm not totally sure I follow it. thanks! ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to rename the wrong categories (according to Commons rules). Example: Category:Media by nationality => Category:Media by country. Who does prefer “by nationality” categories ? --Juiced lemon 20:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the all of the subcategories have been renamed "by country" it would make sense if the main category was also called "by country". /Lokal_Profil 01:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

Permissons

I saw that e.g. Image:Kruja utsikt.jpg states that it's "used with permission" and then links to an e-mail on En wiki. Is there another way of solving this? Should the permission be stored on Commons instead? This goes all the images taken by Marc Morell. /Lokal_Profil 01:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:OTRS for what should actually be done. It is better to have the permission somewhere rather than nowhere at all, though. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car images

I'm currently uploading photos from the "Mondial de l'automobile de Paris 2006" and i've found Image:Nepta01.jpg and Image:Nepta02.jpg browsing categories, i'm wondering if the licence is correct or not because i'm not sure we can upload photos from the press release. Does anybody knows Ton1 logged as Ton1-bot 18:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typically not. Such claims that the press release allow to use the image for any use are probably fake. While intended for global use, they're likely to be unfree. There's no link to such afirmation, nor an authorization email. I mark as no license. Platonides 19:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear copyvio. See http://www.media.renault.com/media/accreditation/info_legal.cfm?langue=en for details. --EugeneZelenko 14:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And so these images must be deleted. Ton1 16:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 4

Pictures uploaded by User:Botanikeren

The licenses of the pictures uploaded by User:Botanikeren (see Special:Contributions/Botanikeren) need to be checked. I think GFDL is the wrong license. Commons:Copyright_tags#Other free tags suggests to discuss the matter here. --BerndH 17:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've written an explanation of the problem to him in Norwegian on his talkpage on the Norwegian Wikipedia, in case the warning here goes unnoticed. He says that the images with this licensing problem can be deleted, except Image:Knottblomst1.jpg, which is now marked as own work. However, the name of a different photographer is still there, so I'll ask about that now. Cnyborg 14:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of the situation. I had the {{no license}}-tag right under my nose and i didn´t find it. --BerndH 17:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interlanguage links for warning templates

I've been working on missing templates listed on Commons:Message templates (I got rid of all the redlinks in there, yaay!) and in creating them, realised that there were a lot of templates of the form (template name)/lang (one for each different template) which have to be manually maintained, every time a new translation of one of those warnings to a new lang was created, someone has to edit that to add it. I thought about it and I came up with template:Lang linker which automates that a bit. It detects, through the magic of #ifexist, whether a language version exists and if it does, presents it in the list. So new language creators need no longer edit every time. I'm interested in comments.

If this is good stuff I plan to convert all the warning templates to use this template instead of the templatename/lang one they use now. ... as of right now, it has many langs already added but not all of them. The pattern for adding new langs ought to be very obvious. I can and will add every other language I can find (Template:Commons:Village pump/Lang has a good long list of ones to add but I was surprised to see that it's not using the {{#language}} construct for the language names... why is that?)

(yes, mucking about with templates is something I really enjoy and would like to do more of here!!!) So please let me know if this is good/bad/whatever, as I will be working on this more. I tried raising some of this on Commons talk:Message templates but didn't get much response there so thought I'd raise it here... Oh, also, are there uses for this that don't use Template: namespace? right now it's wired to assume the parm it receives is in template namespace and tacks Template: on the front. Also, what about the name? Good name or no? ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a hella lotta templates we use with translations, used on a hella lotta pages, and I'm not sure doing an ifexists for every language (around 200 now?) for every instance of every template is a great idea... I suggest running it by a dev first. I'm not a fan of crying about the servers but that really does seem like a lot of lookups it's currently not doing.

What we would like is automatic translation of templates a la MediaWiki messages, of course. (where: if page/LC exists, for a user with lang code LC set, it displays; otherwise falls back to the default which is English.) That's the whole reason those pages are all set up as they are. Whereas Commons namespace pages are actually at the translation of the name (eg Commons:Bar Commons:Bistro Commons:Forum although these are all English words now too :)).

It is a bit of pain to add a new translation, but OTOH you only have to add it once and it's there. Maybe not too bad.

Also the reason that the VP doesn't use the #language magic is that it was only introduced recently (maybe last two months?). Before that we maintained such lists by hand. :o --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... good point on the server load. I work for a hardware company so... throw more hardware at the problem is my usual answer. :) :) Note that ifexists is used extensively on en:wp, there are over 100,000 articles now a part of the WP 1.0 project and all their talk pages have a template on it that uses ifexists at least once, that's a lot of usage! But once per talk page view is not 200 times per template view, not by a long shot. So maybe a clever idea that's too clever? I'll try to scare up a dev who knows about the load that ifexists places (but it has to be not inconsiderable, more than evaluating a logical expression, some sort of query is going to be required, although maybe it caches?).

On the other hand, maybe a solution that helps people update the current lang redirectors automatically might be helpful? Rather than running it every time, run it one time when you add a new translation. But maybe the task isn't that hard and isn't worth automating. You tell me, you're the old hand here. I am only an egg.

I don't think the current manual scheme or this proposed scheme affects automatic display of sub pages one way or another though, it only is for enabling navigation among the pages once one of them is displayed. ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I thought of is that if we used this method, we wouldn't be able to list redlinks on purpose. This is often very useful to prompt new translations. Otherwise it all seems nice and complete which is hardly the case.

Also the lang templates are used on all license templates, so this thing would be called on all user talk pages and all image pages at a minimum, which is quite a large chunk of Commons... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lang linker wouldn't need to be done all or nothing... I handn't thought of the listing redlinks on purpose aspect of it, the ones I had done as basename/lang had the non existant ones commented out but present, ready to uncomment once done (for a selection of more common langs). Talking to a developer who talks to Tim Starling a lot, though, has convinced me that Lang linker, with 200 #ifexist per invocation, fully blown out, will not be a good way to go... too many database accesses. I still have something up my sleeve though, we'll see.

Hold on, let's check your assumptions. That's 200 queries only when the cache is flushed due to an edit, no? Aren't they using database triggers to invalidate the #ifexist page in a data driven way? Are they really executing 200 invocations for every page read? If so, man oh man you bet that is inefficient. But it isn't the template writer's fault- that's a serious flaw in the underlying engine. Commons must be polymorphic with respect to the user- if for no other aspect than on the language issue. We either do it the static /lang way and distribute the processing to remote bots, or do it the sane way. -Mak 16:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, only when the cache is flushed due to an edit. But the cache that is flushed is the cache of teh page where the template that embeds this template was placed, I think... which in the usages I was thinking of is going to be a user talk page. Those get edited a lot, although maybe they get viewed less than images do. I am now thinking of a scheme to generate these on the fly for you whenever you add a lang but not every time the template is viewed. I have to think about how to do it. I do have a toolserver account though... :) I didn't talk to Tim Starling, I talked to Jude, so I may not have the most authoritative answer, but I could hear him cringing through the IRC channel pretty clearly. :) ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All uses of this template have been undone. ++Lar: t/c 05:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Original

I've created this template for images like Image:LA2-NSRW-5-0117.jpg and Image:Guernsey-CIA WFB Map.png. Images such as these should not be edited or deleted, the latter of which is suggested by Template:Superseded. Please modify as you see fit, remembering that other Wikimedia projects, Wikisource in particular, need original versions of files. Thanks. --Spangineer^en ws (háblame) 03:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related templates are {{ExtractedFrom}} and {{ImageExtracted}}. Siebrand 13:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither template is appropriate here, since we need to be sure that the originals are not modified. --Spangineer^en ws (háblame) 21:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr license review

Frustrated of FlickrLickr work being deleted because of license changes, I have been parsing the database dumps, and looked for all references to Flickr images, then querying their licensing information from Flickr. There are roughly 5000 images from Flickr on Commons where the licensing is different. This can be because of multiple reasons, such as the author himself having uploaded the images with a different license, or another user with a requested permission, but it would have to be marked on the image in a uniform manner. I don't know if this serves just as a heads up, or a start of a project, but in any case, they should all be reviewed somehow. Any propositions? Please, everyone, see User:Para/Flickr! --Para 18:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we can figure out what to do with the images, then we could make this a CommonTask. Yes, a shameless, but useful, plug :) -Samulili 18:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that flickr allows people to change the license on an image after they've uploaded, but CC license are non-revokable. Any flickr image where the license is different should be tagged with {{Flickr-change-of-license}} and left alone. Alphax (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, but that's assuming that all Commons contributors understand the importance of correct licensing, which unfortunately is wishful thinking. While there may be sufficient proof in the case of FlickrLickr, less than half of the Flickr sourced images on here have come through the FlickrLickr project. Like mentioned in the previous discussion about this problem, how about Flickr images uploaded by everyone else, such as Image:NewportBeach_California_USa.jpg? We can't tell if the licenses have indeed changed or if they've been non-free all along. Before slapping the informational template on the image pages, the contributions of each uploader would have to be reviewed to see if they can be trusted, and the uncertainty of doing this doesn't make the Flickr-change-of-license message very believable. --Para 14:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{Flickr-change-of-license}} should only be used for FlickrLickr images and the safest thing to do in all other cases is, sadly, delete. (well try and contact the flickr user I guess, but odds don't seem good)

Goodness, we almost need Commons:Verifiability... pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded one images of user who later changed the license, and when I told him that copies on Commons are still on previous license, he didn't oppose that... I think that LickrBot should also scan images with Flickr source and add a note "license confirmed by FlickrBot" with date. A.J. 08:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a good idea. But how binding is any of this, really, anyway? If crunch came to crunch (that is, lawyers) I am sure the Board would just step in and delete the offending item(s). pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if wholesale uploading of flickr images is still necessary given the number and quality of images being added here by our community. That said flickr is still a good source for images and maybe Commons should suggest that there are images available at flickr its the uploaders responsibility to obtain correct permissions from, or perferribly encourage the flickr editor to participate here. This would reduce the need for a special flickr licenses/templates and Commons:Verifiability Gnangarra 12:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ever used flickr? Mediawiki and Commons are far behind it when it comes tu ease of use... I know at least two Wikipedia contributors who upload their work on Flickr on daily basis... For some users our software is just too complicated. A.J. 13:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If FlickrLickr uploads are accepted after licensing changes on the basis that there exists a log of them having been free at a time, couldn't someone else do a similar spidering of every uploaded Flickr image? I'm thinking something along the lines of User:Para/Flickr/Licensing changes that I've been working on, though not suggesting that this would be the solution. It will still be interesting to see how much Commons work would be up for deletion every week because of Flickr license changes. In this first run it's around 40 images, which really doesn't encourage anyone to copy images from Flickr, work on describing and categorizing them, or to place them in any articles.

There are also a bunch of images where the Flickr link doesn't work or never had one, and the image can't be found on Flickr through other means. In these cases the image has probably been removed or restricted, or has never been there to begin with. Should they then be marked {{No source since}} and deleted, even if having some log entry saying otherwise? A Commons:Verifiability would say so, but it's not clear to everyone, as often seen in confused deletion discussions about who has to provide the evidence on copyright status. --Para 13:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea. I just found an image that had been uploaded on enwiki as cc-by-sa-nc and here as cc-sa, but the Flickr page said "all rights reserved". I seriously doubt the uploader put the correct license on. --Carnildo 06:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh*, I should have read the pump properly before posting! See below here #Admin review for Flickr, I think this could be an acceptable workaround solution until we find a nice technical method.--Nilfanion 15:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a flickr user, in my opinion the motivation to participate in flickr is different than in the Commoms. The flickr is an image sharing, comenting and community site. A hobbiest in photography may find more motivation there. An image creator has more freedom (there are many personal images in flickr) and control over his/her images there. But the commons has a different purpose: A purpose that isn't as charming, but much much more usefull.

To understang licensing is not appealing to most people. To many licenses available, to many text pages explaining therm... Creative Commons may be one of the easiest way to understand different types of licenses. --OsvaldoGago 14:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 6

Help with svg file

Hello.

I uploaded a file (Image:Flag of the Repubblica Anconitana.svg) made with Inkscape. Under Inkscape the image is correct, and shows the text "Repubblica Anconitana", while, once uploaded and viewed in Firefox (Linux), the text is covered by a black stripe.

Is there anyone who knows how to solve the problem?--FlagUploader 09:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. /Lokal_Profil 15:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-discussion

Hi all, some months ago Teunspaans created Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life as a resource for people on media relating to plants and animals. Along the lines of what WPs regularly do, the project page has also seen some discussion of proposed policy for ToL-related things, but some people have objected, resulting in a confused situation where the discussion is scattered all over the place and nobody knows who has said what. So although it makes me gag to have to say this, I've been forced into it :-) - "we need policy on how to make policy". My personal preference is to delegate to project pages; VP is starting to get large, and it's not really suitable for lengthy discussion that may include polls and such. Stan Shebs 17:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. It would be real nice if folks posting any significant changes to a quiet project page to make a brief mention of it on VP. -Mak 12:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Projects should be able to formulate policy for areas of interest, once a project has formulated its policy the project should:

clearly define what media are to be affected.
create a Policy page ie Commons:Policy/Bird Calls
notify the wider community by posting a description with link to VP. including implemention date(allow for a period of discussion), any bots being used.
before implemention add links from all associated help pages
affected category/article pages should have a link to the policy page.

As a side issue I think Commons should discourage such large all emcompassing projects like Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life as project of this size has effectively taken ownership of over half the media stored in Commons and place them in the control of 18 individuals. Gnangarra 08:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very new to this : transfer from English to Commons : license?

Hello, I read[1].

I would like to make this picture : [2] available on Commons.

What I still am unsure about is what choice I have to make for "Licensing".

The original says : "This image is copyrighted. However, the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author, as if in the public domain."

So what is this? GNU? GFDL?

I've been on Wikipedia for quite some time, but this is the first time I try a thing like this.

Why do people still upload pictures to the English Wikipedia? Why doesn't everyone upload to Commons?

Thank you very much! Evilbu 20:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

To transfer images, please use the CommonsHelper. It will take care of all that stuff for you. If you have any problems with it, please let us know (here or the commons:help desk).

People still upload to local projects for lots of reasons, including familiarity, no need to register again unlike Commons (until m:SUL), lack of language support in Commons for that language (although not a problem for English), and lack of promotion of Commons in that project (they may not know it exists or how it works). pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image isn't GNU or GFDL; it is copyrighted by the author, but the author does not reserve any rights regarding distribution or modification to the image. It would seem that attribution is requested, however. This is a permissible image for the Commons since it is a free-use image. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{CopyrightedFreeUse}} Platonides

October 7

Outdated {Image source} templates

Templates from {{Image source}} family are outdated and contain terrible HTML code. All of them contain useless HTML code messing up with a red box in the upper part and many of them suggest GFDL license instead of Creative Commons. I fixed four ones: English, Polish, German and Spanish (doing [3] and [4]). Can someone fix other language versions? --Derbeth ^talk 13:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

CommonSense not working

The CommonSense tool to categorize images doesn't work for days. Instead of categoy proposals I get reproducably the following error message:

"Fatal error: Uncaught exception 'DBQueryError' with message 'A database error has occurred Query: SELECT page_id, page_namespace, page_title, page_len, page_touched, page_is_redirect, rev_id, rev_timestamp, old_id as text_id, old_text as text, old_flags as text_flags FROM text JOIN revision ON rev_text_id = old_id JOIN page ON rev_id = page_latest WHERE page_title = 'Köln' AND page_namespace = 0 Function: fetchWikirecord Error: 1146 Table 'enwiki_p.revision' doesn't exist (zedler.ts-local) ' in /home/daniel/MediaWiki-live/phase3/includes/Database.php:684 Stack trace: #0 /home/daniel/MediaWiki-live/phase3/includes/Database.php(641): Database->reportQueryError('Table 'enwiki_p...', 1146, '? ...', 'fetchWikirecord', false) #1 /home/daniel/public_html/WikiSense-live/common/WikiAccess.php(880): Database->query('? ...', 'fetchWikirecord') #2 /home/daniel/public_html/Wi in /home/daniel/MediaWiki-live/phase3/includes/Database.php on line 684"

Any idea or solution? --Túrelio 06:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe due to the moving from zedler to hemlock of the toolserver tools. Bug Duesentrieb Platonides 17:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

Photography critiques

Hi all, I wanted to let people know of a new page to get critiques of your photographs Commons:Photography critiques. Dori | Talk 00:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:One million files

It's coming up! We're currently at: 112,023,571

This is a great milestone for the Commons, in not much more than 2 years. More and more projects are choosing to use Commons exclusively, for example pt.wp is also voting on turning off local uploads (a la es.wp). Many more community activities and groups are organically springing up.

How can we celebrate this as a community, and also individually?

A milestone is always a good occasion to reflect, so let us look back and think: what have we done right? What things have hampered us? How are similar to another wiki community you are familiar with? How are we different?

What challenges do we have coming up? How can we best manage the future rapid growth? What do we need to do, and how can we get there?

I will make that page a little scrapbook and we can collect some community reflections. It will be a nice thing to look back on, I think, when we hit 10 million in 2009. ;)

--pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to ID images/media 1, 100, 1000, 10000, 1000000 to added to the collection. Maybe Commons could ask a select few of FP regulars to ID the 10 best FP from the 1st million. Then possibly create a Commons:History 1st Million. Gnangarra 09:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dataflowfiringnodes.png was identified as the 100,000th file, but I guess it was just manually: watching the ticker out of interest and looking at the upload log as soon as it hits the magic number. The dev's may have some other method of identifying the right file. I am also not sure if it is the 100,000th file uploaded, or the net 100,000th file (taking deletions into account). I guess the latter, but I don't know.

It looks like mostly Eloquence and Angela wrote the previous press release. Definitely we can include a few highlights. LadyofHat's ant diagram comes to mind, for example. Stuff that highlights Wikinews, Wikisource, materials that have never before been available freely, that kind of stuff is great. If you want to collect a few suggestions, I'm sure the Board (or whoever writes the next press release) will try to include them. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK there's no way to measure the Page#, as it's a simple counter wich depends on several factors. At eswiki it was hard to decide the exact one. Hopefully, with files should be a bit easier, as there're not uncounted-files (but we must still check it's a New upload). Platonides 17:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies has also agreed to prohibit local uploading. Lycaon 19:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the Commons has grown significantly, it is still rather intimate, at least in comparison to a huge community like en:wiki. That's the major difference I can think of. I am also happy to have uploaded .001% of the images that comprise the present Commons database. :) --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"as there're not uncounted-files". Perhaps there should be... There are a great many files which are totally orphaned across all projects... there are also a non-trivial number which are broken and don't display at all.. etc. Likely if we deleted all these it would push the millionth back several months. I'd rather see us celebrating the millionth fixed page than the millionth upload. :) --Gmaxwell 06:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, i meant what i said. Some pages on the main namespace aren't counted as articles. There isn't such thing with files. But yes, please don't make mass-deletions when we're on file 100,012. Just in case ;-) Platonides 20:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name for cities Category

Today I've lerned that for cities category names english rules: this way Juice is vandalizing firenze and maybe tomorow I will go and change all the german (Munich?) or dutch ( maybe also french ) cities category name from the national name to the english name. If this is the rule it's stupid. What is the way to change it? --mac 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It takes 1/2 hour to understand that there is a rule->all category must be in eglish, and there are, few exceptions (maybe there are more than these consdering the time I had to check ): Muenchen instead of Munich, Koeln instead of Cologne, Sevilla instead of Seville , Bruxelles - Brussel insetad Brussels, Praha instead of Prague, and many italian cities- firenze, roma, venezia, torino, milano instead the english name...If on one hand it make sense to have a common language, on the other hand sometimes it doens't: cities, imho, it's a good example. Cities name can vary in a heavy way from the own language to english, there also many differences between languages for indicating the same city and because changes happen only for the biggest city ( perugia is perugia also in english )), the result is a mix of national name and few english name within a country. So I will propose to change the rule, for cities, allowing to mantain the national one: subcatories, example for buildings, will continue to be written in english (i.e Rivers of Muenchen ). --mac 16:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not always true that there is a 1-1 relationship between a city and its "native name". For example the Bruxelles - Brussel you mentioned before. Do you also think we should have categories like Category:北京?

It is very strange to only bend the rule for cities of a certain size, and only for the plain category, not any subcategories. The country-level categories are in English (Category:Italy). pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is not stupid. At the moment, near half million media files in Commons have to be recategorized. With ideal conditions, it takes about one minute to categorize a file (when categories are guessed, without checking). In other cases, it takes several minutes: in fact, there are no limits for complex cases. We have not so much time to spoil, and therefore we must find the conditions to work efficiently.

The main conditions are: language uniqueness, standardized names, standardized shemes. --Juiced lemon 09:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wa too rude, saying stupid. I think that cities, but also region and state name should be expressed in the nativ language; I don't think that it will repressent a big problem in term of common understandings. But if it's a problem, and there is such a rule, do we have to change all the non english names? Munich, Cologne and Prague included? --mac 10:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that anybody will understand Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, Cyrillic, India language scripts and so on? I can guess what main article in Category:India is for, but only due category name. Sorry, I think it's good idea for category redirects only, if they'll works eventually. --EugeneZelenko 14:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

Absurd Auto Complaint About File Type

I am attempting to upload files for the first time. All are JPGs taken by the same camera on the same day. Some upload, others receive the message:

"." is not an allowed file format. See Commons:File types for more information.

The message is in red. I have looked at the File Type page but can see no obvious problem with what I am attempting to do. Any assistance gratefully received. User:Ben MacDui

It probably means that when you saved the file, you forgot to add an extension to it. A good indicator is whether or not you can open the files in an image editor from your computer or if you get an "invalid file type" message. Try to manually add "jpg" to the end of the filename and then try to re-upload them. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add the extension. Platonides 20:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks- there was a file extension, but it was .JPG rather than .jpg. I changed the file names to the latter and one of the images that was refusing to load is now fixed. User:Ben MacDui 22:32.

I added info about this error message to commons:File types & COM:FAQ as it comes up reasonably often. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A general proposal to reduce gallery/category fights

Hello, I have been thinking lately about how to solve a common problem: category maintainers would often like some way to see new files in a category, so they can add them to an appropriate subcategory or gallery. But removing a category tag is unpopular with users who are more comfortable with the category system, or feel that categories should still act as "catch-alls". I have thought of a partial solution that I think should please most people.

First, create a category scheme or similar organisation project. Give it a catchy acronym :) say "FOO"
Create a template {{FOO}} that says, in tiny font: This file has been sorted by the WikiProject FOO. [or: This file falls under the jurisdiction of the FOO category scheme.] You can help! Place it (by hand, or by a bot) on every file in your relevant category that is already in a gallery.
After this, to find newly categorised images that need sorting, use CatScan with the setting "for pages by template" "FOO" and tick "inverse (untagged only)".

This even has additional advantages:

Automatically scan subcategories at the same time, to the depth you specify. (To only scan the top category, make depth=1.)
User is provided with a list of text links rather than image thumbnails. For this type of work, seeing the image itself is not always so important.
No "200 files" limit.
Standardised output means it would probably be very easy to write a bot that when, fed such an output and a template, could easily go tag the images for you. [just have to be a bit careful not to go too deep into subcats...]

Some disadvantages:

Toolserver sometimes suffers lag. But this is the same as admins must face with Checkusage for image deletion, so, I don't think it's too bad. ;)
(Minor) additional work is needed to make subcategories show 'all first': add |@abc to put them on top and sorted (where abc is some string to sort them)
???

I thought of this when thinking about TOL, but I don't see any reason it couldn't be applied to people who organise category schemes as well. Any thoughts? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal meets my request to do not impair the categorization of files. So, it suits me. --Juiced lemon 19:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer categories, why cant the galleries be put on the category page anyway. Gnangarra 12:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal divides the gallery/category problems users had into two independent problems, and solves one of them, the removal of category tags from pictures. It does this without introducing a new category, so it's better than my proposal for ToL in this regard. It does not solve the mixing of galleries/categories but, as this is an independent problem, I'm for introducing this solution (also to ToL) first, and discuss the other problem later. However, adoption has to be discussed in the respective fora/forums. -- Ayacop 08:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible idea. No sub"project" get a jurisdiction over a file. Files on commons are used for many purposes, no single little clique should get force their pet system on commons. Moving categories into templates and off the page means someone working with a dump of our data needs a whole darn wikitext parser just to figure out which categories apply.--Gmaxwell 20:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 15

Image not purging properly

I uploaded a new version of Image:James River Bridge.svg yesterday, but the image page is still showing an older version, even when I purge and hard refresh. The new version definitely exists, as seen (sometimes) when making a new thumbnail (but sometimes the thumbnail uses the old version!) but all old thumbnails also refuse to purge. This seems to be the same issue as the one just above. --NE2 21:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sometimes takes a while for images to be updated. Give it a day or so and it should be fine. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it helps to view an image alone (copy a link to it and paste it to the address bar) and then refresh it. --Nux (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See previous section. Platonides 10:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who do I complain to? --NE2 14:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you complaing to us? :) If you like, search bugzilla (or commons:bugs) and find any open bugs mentioning updating of thumbnails and the purge method. You can complain there too, but it will likely have similar effect. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is the best tag for a photo?

I am going to upload a graphic design which I created and hold the copyright to. I do not object to public domain, BUT would like some sort of attribution. Can this be done?

Also, I am going to upload a photo which I have received permission to put into the public domain BUT it has his initials on it. Does that make a difference?

Tom

64.12.116.66 21:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can simply use the {{attribution}} tag. You may also be interested in using the creative commons attribution license. The basics of the license can be seen here and the image tag you would want to use is {{cc-by-2.5}}. As for a photo that you have received permission to place into the public domain, as long as there is permission it does not matter that there are initials on it, but it may be preferable to crop them out. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a pleasure to meet a wikiworker. After working with wikitalkers, it is a relief that there are indeed wikiwalkers somewhere. I wanted to log in but that never happened...I am using the user name Fixaller here. I am also using a name well known at ArbCom evidence page of pseudoscience plasma cosmology, if you are interested. I'm going to upload a graphic to systems theory, take a look later. Wikiwalk and wikitalk. Mr wikiwalk, thank you for everything. User Fixaller (Tommy)

Category:Categories by country

According to Commons:By location category scheme, “categories by country” are “categories by location”. If we want non ambiguous categories, it makes sense to define precisely what are countries. Sure, it was clear for me that countries were current countries, with the exception of dependent territories, former countries and other entities.

So, we should have an exhautive list of countries, then delete from “categories by country” any entity which is not on the list.

Today, this stance is questionned by user:Evrik, regarding Category:Ancient Roman saints. See also User talk:Juiced lemon#Category:Ancient Roman saints and User_talk:Evrik#Category:Ancient Roman saints.

What do you think about this? --Juiced lemon 15:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do I think?

First, I want to point out that Category:Ancient Roman saints, falls under

the following three categories: Ancient Romans, Italian saints and Saints by country.

Second, as a Category:Historic states, Ancient Rome no longer exists, so the links as they are right now are appropriate as it is a former countries
Third, the category pattern as currently set up under Saints by country matches the English, Spanish and Italian versions of Wikipedia. --Evrik 16:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the scheme needs expanding to deal with former/historic states more effectively. Expanding the scheme is a better idea than edit warring! pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think my approach is the more expansive and inclusive one. Yes? --Evrik 18:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach is not rigorous. Your categorization of Category:Ancient Roman saints makes Italians the Apostles, Judas Iscariot excepted, of course. --Juiced lemon 18:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This approach is meant as a way to help sort images and articles to make them more accessible for people. While I suppose that since Judea was part of the Roman Empire it could be classed as Ancient Roman, there is also Category:Saints from the Holy Land not to mention category:Apostles (which is not geographic). This isn't meant to be a strict rule, merely a convenient way to sort these articles and images. In practice, the Ancient Roman saints tend to be from what we now call Italy, but since Italy didn't exist 2000 years ago, the correspondence isn't exact.--Evrik 19:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I missed some of the finer points of this discussion, but just to add some clarification if there were any confusion on these items:

By location category scheme is not constrained to existing countries. Ethnographic regions are also useful to identify- such as Kurdistan which includes parts of both Iraq and Turkey.
Exceptions have been made for fossilized expressions- there is not a general exception for all historic entities using adjectival forms. Examples of fossilized expressions: French revolution, Greek Gods, Mexican food, Spanish-American war.
The precedent of the Spanish, English and Italian versions of WP is to declare the category "Luxembourgish saints". Very few people will guess that category name. The precedent for mankind is to wage war on ourselves. The precedent for most of written history is to consider the earth as flat. Precedent can be wrong sometimes, and it is incumbent on Commons not to propagate mistaken conventions.

-Mak 13:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evrik said: “the Ancient Roman saints tend to be from what we now call Italy,”; it's wrong. People named Ancient Roman come from numberous Mediterranean countries. Each saint can be categorized individually in a specific region, so it's stupid to affect Category:Ancient Roman saints to a specific geographic area. This category is only an historic reference, and cannot be matched with a geographic area without extra details.

Therefore, you cannot neither categorize it in Category:Saints by country, because this category is only for current countries. --Juiced lemon 11:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you'ree wasting all of our time here. Yes, ancient Rome was expansive, but there are also categories for the Byzanines and the Holy Land. I don't see a big groundswell here to implement the changes you'd like to see. Best to just let this one go and leave the categories as they are. --Evrik 14:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Rome, Byzantine Empire and Holy Land are not current countries, but historic regions. I don't criticize the matching categories for saints, but your insistence to mix these categories with geographic categories, i. e. according to the division of the world by present countries. Though, the Category:Saints is not overpopulated. I also think you are wasting our time. --Juiced lemon 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least we agree on something. --Evrik 18:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibooks has a new multilingual portal

Wikizine - number: 44 Technical news

[Portal] - Wikibooks has now also its own real portal. It used to point to a page on the wiki to act as portal. The portal is in Wikipedia-style.

o http://www.wikibooks.org/

How about having the same kind of portal on http://commons.wikimedia.org ? Teofilo 11:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those portals are only used on language specific sites, http://wikimedia.org has one which links here. Lcarsdata (Talk) 17:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting idea. It might encourage more people to browse the Commons in their native language rather than the default English. But it seems a bit misleading to me, too. We don't have communities of editors in these other languages (a few, certainly -- but not all). Translation coverage is spotty even for French, German and Spanish. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The translation in those languages is spotty, yes, but this for sure has to do with the fact, that even natives of those languages for example upload images with English only descriptions cause they weren't aware that they can add multilingual content. --::Slomox:: >< 14:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured galleries?

Perhaps we should make a juicy carrot to encourage more gallery usage? I feel that galleries could be featurable in the same way as articles are on the wikipedias. Obviously we would have to work out what criteria are reasonable to assess under but I think it is a workable concept. Comparing to the English wiki FA criteria, some of those could carry over to FGs: NPOV, comphrensiveness and appropriate length for example. Have I gone off the reservation again or am I being sensible? :) --Nilfanion 21:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. To me, this seems to be a concept similar to that of featured lists on Wikipedia. Galleries that have informative and properly labeled images are additional criteria that I can think of. --tomf688 (talk - email) 21:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nilfanion, could you point me toward some examples that you would consider to be candidates for featured gallery?DVD R W 21:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this is a very interesting idea. Galleries can take a number of different forms depending on the subject. I think TOL has identified a couple of model galleries. Probably as the concept develops, and we all think about it more (rather than just dumping whatever in them :)) the quality will improve rapidly.

One thing that comes to mind straight away is multilinguality. Not sure how to handle this. But I will create Commons:Featured galleries and those who are interested can discuss it with us there. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something from the darker side, as galleries where proposed as a replacement for categories these pages are going to be dynamic and continually growing. If you create a "featured" process wont this encourage editors to be selective in their choice of which images get displayed. Look at Feature Pictures page there plenty of opposing opinions for most images already, wont gallery pages become hundreds of small content fires(arguements) creating lots of disgruntled editors. Gnangarra 07:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the advantages of galleries is that you can be selective in your choice of which images get displayed. Sunset cf. Category:Sunsets. I know which I'd rather look at. :o

I doubt galleries will become contentious. I have never seen a dispute about including or not including an image in a gallery, actually. It is probably because at the moment they have relatively low status and not many people watch over them (like caretakers).

Developing a Featured galleries project is a good way to explore how we can better exploit the strengths of galleries, and what we consider them to be. I know what I consider them to be: ability to organise and annotate data.

In general, creating any Featured-like process will create some firestorms, somewhere. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for quality, just to avoid disputes. :) As always, we just have to be smart about how we resolve them. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Also just wanted to point out that I raised this before, but no one was interested then ;)) pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't suprise me ;) You have to say a good idea about two or three times before people start to listen...--Nilfanion 12:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the feature status apply to a particular verson, so that in the tagging (we're gonna have fancy tagging boxes and awards and stuff right (grin... ok maybe not?)) on the gallery the user can see what it was like when it was selected to be featured. Of course that might break if some of the images go away or are changed radically (not that they are supposed to be!). The downside of this of course is that we should avoid all (most of?) the baggage of the Featured (list/article/portal) process as implmeneted elsewhere, if we can. ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current en FA tag tags the article and gives a link to the prior version which passed FAC. That concept should be OK here...--Nilfanion 12:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us who don't follow those processes, what do you mean by "baggage"? Just procedure? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to bring something specific here is one of a number of discussions involving ToL having a policy of removing images from categories and placing them in galleries then deleting the categories, since changed to hiding categories. The very nature of this "policy" means that galleries cannot be selective and that every image must be displayed, as ToL policy applies to over half of the media on Commons anything that alters this will first need approval of the 18 ToL members. Gnangarra 12:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These can be made compatible. Take Felis silvestris catus for example. There is no reason to have every image of a cat in this gallery. The spirit of w:Wikipedia:Summary Style should be considered relevant to this, in other words sub-galleries linked through see-also's should be encouraged. One of the biggest problems with putting every last image of a species of animal in a gallery is that it gives that gallery the flaws of a category, no selectivity and taking forever to load all the thumbs.--Nilfanion 13:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something like Digitalis purpurea and Digitalis_purpurea/Stora_Hultrum. --BerndH 13:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible to have two galleries for a category (if people insist on doing this) - one - everything, and the default one should just be the best. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pfctdayelise: Oh, all sorts of baggage. Pomp, ceremony, excess process, infighting about changing criteria, you know, all the en:wp fun stuff... all what we ought to avoid if we can. ++Lar: t/c 22:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's baggage right here, and making galleries selective is just the start. Either all images are available in a category or they are in the gallery. ToL policy requires all image to be in galleries and therefore Commons must follow that as they claimed ownership of more than half of the commons media. Gnangarra

My heads spinning for the last 2-3 weeks I have been involved with a number of other editors about the use of galleries. The end result is that ToL published a policy made 12 months ago(but not previously implement) that all images will be put into galleries and that categories will be deleted, I got a concession that categories will be renamed such that normaly searching wont find them. A major reason continually being brought up was a "bug" that only allow 200 images in category page. Now its being argued that galleries only allow 200 images in a page and that multiple sub galleries should be created, and that all images of a subject wont be put in the same gallery.

I think that the way we are usually using galleries offers very little over category use, and once we have proper support for category intersections, the value of galleries used in the same way as categories will be further reduced. Instead, I'd rather see use galleries to create sophisticated image layouts that educate viewers with an attractive collection of images in a logical order. Something of a photo essay. I'm still not sure if we can resolve the multilanguage issues (it really needs switchable languages), or if ultimately galleries should move to the local projects. An example of the sort of rich galleries that I think we should have can be seen at Paving (and please allow me to apologize in advance for the lack of translation). --Gmaxwell 17:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly simple. Galleries are for arbitrary selection of images. Categories are for all. There's no reason why Categories should be deleted, even in the case of "Tree-of-Life goverened" images. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 17:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin review for Flickr

Obviously FlickrLickr is the preferred procedure for uploading these images and should be encouraged. However, the large numbers of images not uploaded under that project receive no verification in general. How does this sound for a solution? Create a {{Flickrreviewed}} template, then administrators can review flickr uploads and verify them. The usage would be of the form {{flickrreview|adminname|date}}. The restriction to admins doing verification ensures that it would not be misused, admins are trusted after all. Other users could add {{flickrreview}} to images, which would add it to a maintenance category; so admins can find the imagery. I feel this is a simple and fairly solid concept, and it wouldn't add that much to the admin workload imo. Worth trying out?--Nilfanion 15:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it had come up before quite recently #Flickr license review. This is probably a workaround solution, while what is offered above is a technical one. This is probably a good idea to stop the worst of it (add a list of trusted users to the admins maybe?) and we can work out a superior solution long term.--Nilfanion 15:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simple system which I've now implemented. I've restricted the verification to admins (as presumably they can be trusted). The usage is simple enough; anyone can add {{flickrreview}} to an image, which produces:

This image, which was originally posted to Flickr has not yet been reviewed by an administrator to confirm that the above license is valid.

This places it into a new maintenance category where admins can find these images, and change the tag to {{flickrreview|adminname|date}} which produces this:

This image, which was originally posted to Flickr was reviewed by the administrator Nilfanion on 2006-10-15, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the above license on that date.

This should give us a degree of certainty regarding these images, as opposed to having to delete them when the license changes due to unverifability. Anyone can add the {{Flickrreview}} but only admins are "trusted" to verify. Please help find these flickr images while they are OK, and tag them, not wait until the flickr user changes the license...--Nilfanion 20:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just now noticed this issue, as this tag has been appearing on the many images I've uploaded from Flickr. I'll do my own scan of those pictures and apply {{Flickr-change-of-license}} where appropriate, but for what it's worth, I hereby attest that these pictures did indeed have the licence they are tagged with at the time of upload. What is the appropriate template to apply if the picture has since been deleted from Flickr? TheBernFiles 16:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licence display on Flickr

Flickr have just improved the way they display licenses. Instead of only the CC icon, they now show the specifics the way they're shown here on Commons already. This would allow taking screenshots of all the image pages in Category:Admin reviewed Flickr images and storing them somewhere for proof. There are free to use command line web screenshot programs such as Pearl Crescent Page Saver for Firefox and WebShot for IE that could be scripted, following category additions from CatScan. But would there be problems saving screenshots of another site here, even when without the browser interface elements? Commons policy aside, Flickr TOS talks about it not being allowed to make derivative works of their service. Would screenshots be allowed? --Para 01:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure if there is much point to it either. This system with just text relies on trusting users. A screenshot still requires user trust as they could be faked and this is probably another bureaucratic hoop. Nevermind the legatity...--Nilfanion 01:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nilfanion on that. I can't possibly be the first to suggest this, but has anyone written to Flickr and explained that they should prohibit (or log) changing a CC licence to a more restrictive one? Their incentive to do this is to enhance the ability of CC images to be used in Wikimedia and similar projects - which will bring them traffic, due to the attribution requirement. 13:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC) TheBernFiles 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm sure countless people have asked them that. But having a history of licenses for an image would defeat the purpose of being able to choose between licenses at all. The copyright holders do of course have to be given the possibility to add or remove restrictions of their work offered to the public, or to withdraw it from the service altogether. With a history function anyone could just pick the least restricted one from the history, pretending that that's when they first downloaded the image. There's no way to prove otherwise, unless Flickr invents some signing solution to get the download date and given license from the image file. People also make mistakes and Flickr would have to support withdrawal of such unwanted changes. Then anyone wanting to change licensing for their photo could just say that the original one was a mistake in the first place, and there would be no history.

About the proof issue, I think it would be much more credible to be able to show the page at the time of the claimed license as people see it in a browser, instead of a derived note in a wiki, log trace, html or xml file. Like Mak mentioned in a previous discussion, how about an unaffiliated third party to do the spidering? --Para 14:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one point: I have to disagree with your statement that "copyright holders do of course have to be given the possibility to add or remove restrictions of their work offered to the public, or to withdraw it from the service altogether". Once issued, a CC licence is irrevocable, irrespective of whether the image itself continues to be offered for download. The rights holder may legally only remove restrictions, not add them. So, picking the least restricted version as relevant for licencing purposes would be correct. If the rights holder claims he mistakenly licenced the image too liberally, well, he can sue and make this argument in a court of law, but I guess proving such a mistake would be quite difficult. TheBernFiles 17:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I should have said "work offered to the public from that service". The license agreement is not formed between the photographer and Flickr, but the photographer and the person who downloads the image. That person can distribute the image further, on terms of the license agreement, but CC licenses being non-exclusive, the photographer can add restrictions to future license agreements if he wants. If Flickr didn't allow changing restrictions, or if they pointed people to other sites where the same image is offered on different terms, I don't think as many people would be contributing as there now are. Computer savvy people may find those sites, such as Commons, by other means, but on the whole it's quite rare. --Para 17:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that, but it's not an argument against providing a log of licence changes, so that we can prove that the image was at one time more liberally licenced. TheBernFiles 18:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect Flickr to ever implement an open log of changes, since the users would then lose the ability to change restrictions. A verification service might work though, if Flickr added some metadata in downloaded files and logged it for themselves. Then a file downloaded from there could be sent to the service, which would answer with the matching log entry.

I don't know how freely Flickr has been developed and if such a verification service would be in their interests. But meanwhile, here's my try at a license changes log. Unfortunately we can't be trusted. --Para 19:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like your list! Once bot-automated, it would be quite sufficient for Commons purposes, IMHO. After all, once a rights holder demands deletion of his image, we can still do that. This discussion is really only to convince ourselves that we don't mass-stock copyvio images, and an impartial bot's log should suffice for this.

As regards Flickr, I don't see how an open log would deny users any ability they have now. Log or not, they can't revoke a CC licence they have previously granted. But as you said, they can (also) distribute it under a different licence. The log would just make this transparent. It would change nothing at all with regard to the copyright status of the images. TheBernFiles 19:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical issue

Just a technical issue: Why {{flickrreview|adminname|date}}? Why not {{flickrreview|~~~~}}? -Samulili 14:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the template works that way. And I've learned that {{flickrreview|~~~|~~~~~}} doesn't work.

This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 15:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC) by the administrator or reviewer Username, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date.

does, though. -Samulili 15:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SWF or OGG files for wikipedia/wiktionary/wiktionaryz

I can create 50000 .swf or .ogg files with English words pronounced by free TTS system - how can I upload the files into commons and how difficult is it to connect them with definitions in wikipedia/wiktionary/wiktionaryz? --Arael

Mass uploads can be arranged, but we can't accept SWF files. Once all the files are uploaded, you could set up a bot on Wiktionary to add the files to all of the pages, but as with any automated process, there will likely be problems along the way. Could you please upload a few sample OGGs? My personal opinion is that such recordings are probably not worthwhile—actual pronunciations by native speakers would be more valuable. Also, have you checked Category:English pronunciation to make sure that there will be no duplicates? ~MDD 46 96 19:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before you do anything like this, please raise the issue on wiktionary and/or wiktionary-z and gauge whether there is community agreement that these files are useful and will be used. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the license of your free TTS system ? Teofilo 14:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter? See controversy in the History section of w:Deluxe Paint. Or is the TTS program considered copied into its output such that it would need a Bison style exception? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 03:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It matters because if it's acceptable, we should convert his TTS into an extension and use it directly rather than uploading a zillion files (like TeX for math). I've wanted to do this for a while, but couldn't find any free software TTS that could read IPA. --Gmaxwell 17:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PA-955.svg

After I uploaded a new image to overwrite the image that previously existed at Image:PA-955.svg, the obsolete image still displays as the current image, despite a number of attempts to correct this issue. Does anyone know why the displayed image refuses to update? --TwinsMetsFan 00:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be that the thumbnail does not regenerate. I would try with a different resolution thumbnail. Dori | Talk 00:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recurring problem. See COM:FAQ "Why is the old picture and not the new uploaded picture on my screen?" pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that with no success. Usually, when I overwrite an image with a new one, the new image appears after a single refresh. This is the first time I've seen the image refuse to update. --TwinsMetsFan 01:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vagaries of the servers, or some other deep technical thing we can't do anything about, except complain vociferously. :) pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dealed the same with another image yesterday. Seem impossible to kill! I think it has to do with the measures taken to avoid the image missing problems. Now the images are more aggressively cached. I have complained a little, but you can do it too ;-) Platonides 20:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As a workaround you can use the new one in articles by using a new non-cached size. Platonides 20:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the image finally updated sometime last night. Gotta love technology. =) --TwinsMetsFan 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had similar experiences a few weeks back. Purging didn't seem to help. In Safari, hitting refresh didn't help either, though it did with Firefox. Interestingly, if I got the URL of the actual .jpg thumbnail and added a "?" to the end, I would suddenly get a thumbnail of the new version, even in Safari. I suspect that the issue is caching proxy servers owned by ISPs somewhere along the line... they are caching the old image. Adding the "?" means it's a different URL and thus avoids the cache, and I also suspect that Firefox's refresh adds additional HTTP headers which ensure bypassing the proxies, whereas Safari does not. It's just a theory, but it seems to fit. After a day or two, the proxy caches will expire and the new version will then appear. Carl Lindberg 09:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename category

How do I request a rename for a category ? I know the commands in Wikipedia, but not here. Is there a page that lists of these types of commands ? Thanks 64.229.210.236 15:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "commands", but you should feel free to start a conversation at the appropriate Category talk page. Jkelly 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commands as in script Cfd etc. 70.51.198.57 01:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to User:Orgullobot/commands/documentation to see how to request a rename. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if a thumb is broken?

File:20030726 26 July 2003 SHIBUYA109 Shibuya Tokyo Japan.jpg

109 building

What does one have to do to fix a broken thumbnail? Shinobu 12:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the thumb shows a red link? In that case, the image has probably been deleted and the thumbnail should be removed. --tomf688 (talk - email) 01:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the bottom half showed garbage - seemingly random pixels. But now it appears to be magically fixed somehow. Shinobu 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did an action=purge on it when I saw your message here, and forgot to write here after. If thumbnails are broken and the original is ok, purge deletes the thumbnails and they will be recreated later when needed. Sorry, no magic. --Para 16:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category Tracker Bot

I got a non-specific request that User:DFBot's category tracking functions might be useful on Commons. Not being very familiar with the day to day functioning of Commons, I wanted to come here to see if others agree and how they might want it used. Dragons flight 16:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has work categories as well. A full list would take more thought and consensus, but some good categories to track might be CAT:CSD and Category:Unknown for starters. This is important because commons currently has giant backlogs in some important work categories... putting numbers on them would help. ++Lar: t/c 08:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Against policy
Category:Other speedy deletions
Category:Duplicate
Category:Incorrectly named
Category:Deletion requests
Category:Unknown - July 2006
Category:Unknown - August 2006
Category:Unknown - September 2006
Category:Unknown - October 2006
(etc - these are subcategories of Category:Unknown)

--pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specific Spanish PD?

Hi, is there any specific PD rule for Spain that allows us to use files that were made by an author who died in 1965?

I'm asking because of Category:Feria de Ayerbe and this discussion with the uploader. I'm unsure, also because I don't understand his answer in Spanish (presumably). I thougth about deletion requests for the photos already, but hesitated because of the amount of images. --Überraschungsbilder 03:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I go talk with him Platonides 07:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :-) --Überraschungsbilder 05:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some problems with thumbnails and svg-fileformats

I have created couple svg logos and pictures with CorelDraw and Inkscape. I have some problems with tumbnails, commons don't display the thumbnail or thumbnail don't maintain aspect ration.

Examples:

1' Why thumbnail is broken? , http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/SUV.svg

2' Why thumbnail don't maintain aspect ration, if image(size/area) isn't square(a*a)?

, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/EScow_sailplan.svg

--Joni Inkala 07:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)--84.251.71.7 07:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 - I guess the thumbnail is broken for being too large. When files are too big or if the rendering takes too much time, thumbs aren't produced. Image isn't blacklisted.

2 - Because it says it has width="100%" height="100%" instead of values, maybe?

Platonides 08:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I'm seeing the stroke width is not congruent with the image as whole. Probably like Platonides says... This should all be in pixels. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 17:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thumbnail seems to have corrected itself. ~MDD 46 96 17:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Size stats

Distribution of the sizes of our images. The largest JPEG is a 18000x18000 astronomy montage. David.Monniaux 20:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The median size of image files is more than half million pixels. Right? --Juiced lemon 09:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratio stats

Images	Ratio
201436	1.33
61803	0.75
40633	1.00
37839	1.50
20991	0.66
14287	0.62
12942	1.60
10734	1.25
10552	1.49
10352	0.80
~~	~~

--Gmaxwell 18:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons propaganda

Hello. I am currently working within the Marketing committee on promotional documents about Commons. I would like to have your opinion on two points:

What does the wiki technology brings to Commons?
What are the advantages of Commons over other websites proposing free medias?

Thanks for your help! guillom 15:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. (2) is easy, Commons integrates with all the lovely Wikimedia projects and commons is committed to free in the sense of freedom rather than free as in no cost (few other sites share a similar commitment) :). (1) ... *editability* is important and it allows us to collaborate on descriptions, translations, etc.. But Wiki by itself is actually a poor fit for the sort of structured metadata that media needs... and most people seem to agree that in the future we must replace or enhance mediawiki to better fit these needs. --Gmaxwell 18:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One advantage of Commons over some other websites is probably not its technology, but its community, and the power the community has to remove contents that do not fit the standards. On Flickr, if I tag a car with the keyword "bicycle", will anybody care ? (I ask the question - I do not know the answer) Teofilo 19:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is something right about this, but I don't think that we are yet at a place where we can promote the ability of users to find what they are looking for. Jkelly 20:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For (1) and (2): We will soon (?) have InstantCommons, which will be an enormous boon to anyone anywhere using a MediaWiki wiki. Apart from this, there are not many advantages at all to using wiki software. (Mass) uploading is a hassle. We cannot even choose a sort key for categories, or search in any meaningful way for different types or sizes etc of media.

Also for (2): We have a strong multilingual community that is backed by contributors from dozens of languages. This is a real strength and it will only get stronger. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for (2) its the community though we may not always agree, there is respect for the work of individuals. The best images are highlighted with COM:FP, COM:QI.

(1) Meta has problems with sorting, searching, labeling, bulk uploads and displaying of media effectively combining any three requires the constitution of a contautionist. Gnangarra 16:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointer to Commons:InstantCommons ... (what is it?) please? ++Lar: t/c 17:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.de/search?q=instant+commons&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 -> meta:InstantCommons --Chrislb 19:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hydro - license

The Norwegian concern Hydro (mainly petroleum-related business) has a multimedia repository, made public on the following terms:

© Copyright information Information appearing on www.Hydro.com is the copyright of Norsk Hydro ASA. Norsk Hydro endeavours to ensure that the information is correct but does not accept any liability for errors or omissions. Users are permitted to copy material from Hydro.com, for use on other websites, or in any other medium, print, electronic or otherwise, without the prior written permission of Norsk Hydro. An acknowledgement of the source must however be included whenever :Norsk Hydro copyright material is copied or published. Some of the reports on Hydro.com and other Norsk Hydro websites include links to external websites. These links are included to give you the opportunity to explore an issue in more depth. Norsk Hydro is not responsible for the content of these Internet sites.

The link to the repository is: http://www.hydro.com/en/press_room/gallery_multimedia/image_gallery/oil_energy/index.html

My Q is: would the abovementioned be compatible with usage in Commons? Should a designated template be designed?

Any answer to this would be appreciated, before I would go on uploading pics. --Lipothymia 21:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text doesn't explicitly specify that commercial and derivative works are allowed so an e-mail asking them to clearify this might be useful. /Lokal_Profil 00:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says use on other websites, or in any other medium, print, electronic or otherwise. any other medium...Otherwise sound to me like "That photobook you are going to publish next month". They are works made on commission, so no photograph copyright is involved. I think the images are pretty good for us. --Jollyroger 18:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer might still have to be credited since Norway most likely have a copyright law which is harmonised/similar to the EU copyright law. /Lokal_Profil 23:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures I have browsed, do not have any photographer stated, but yes - Norway has copyright laws similar to EU jurisdiction. --Lipothymia 11:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent a mail to the communications director at Hydro, awaiting their answer about commercial reuse of the material. --Lipothymia 11:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theodor Pallady

I notice that several (perhaps all) of the images in Category:Theodor Pallady are marked as public domain. Pallady lived until 1956, and I believe that many of these works date from 1923 or later, so I'm not at all sure that the PD claim is legitimate. Can someone who knows more than I about this have a look? Thanks. - en:Jmabel | talk 21:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, on another Romanian artist, the licensing on Image:Dimitrie Paciurea - Himera pamantului.jpg is almost certainly wrong, because it is a license specific to a 2-dimensional work and this is a sculpture. I believe the work is pre-1923; Paciurea lived until 1932. - en:Jmabel | talk 21:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed your [[Category:Theodor Pallady]] to [[:Category:Theodor Pallady]] , to avoid having this page added to that category, and so that the category text would appear. ++Lar: t/c 05:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New language for special characters

Hello, can you please add Lithuanian language with these letters Ą ą Č č Ę ę Ė ė Į į Š š Ų ų Ū ū Ž ž in the drop-down special character menu (which is visible in edit mode). Thanks! Renata3 12:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Matt314 14:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unpersuasive "licensing"...

This contributor has uploaded several photos of the band Genesis, with the only explanation being that a fan site claims to only host "public domain" images. Well, I find this incredibly unpersuasive, but I was hesitant to just delete them without knowing the customs at Commons. What should be done?--Jimbo Wales 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source site says: "If you have some fan photographs to share, mail me at XXX Please do not send me copyrighted photographs." That gives no confirmation of the license of the images. Further the site itself has a (c) notice and no assertion anywhere that these images are free. In those circumstances, I'd probably {{Nld}} tag the images and see if we get permissions - it can probably wait a week.--Nilfanion 21:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the source site is not the real source... we have no idea who the original photographer was. I agree with Nilfanion about tagging them with {{nsd}} or {{nld}}. ~MDD 46 96 00:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I assume the "please do not send me copyrighted photographs" message is to prevent the site owner from getting into copyright trouble with people sending images that are unfree/not theirs. It is by no means a message that means all images on his site are free to use. --tomf688 (talk - email) 00:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing proper names

As an important problem in Commons is to identify what thing(s) is or are in a picture, I suggest to categorize systematically proper names (in connection with the picture) for every name which has an entry in the english wikipedia (or for every english name which has an entry in other wikipedias).

Remind that, according to Commons rules, categories are in English.

Example1:

the current categories are: Category:People of Germany | Category:1878 | Category:1943 | Category:Designers | Category:Artists; these are very curious properties for a lamp.
what I suggest: Category:Art Deco | Category:Electrical lamps | Category:Friedrich Adler (artist)

Example2:

the current categories are: Category:People of Germany | Category:Men
what I suggest: Category:Emil Krebs, because there is an entry in the deutsch wikipedia de:Emil Krebs, and we should have the same title in english.

This concerns also locations and objects names. Are you agree with me? --Juiced lemon 11:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are many categories that do exist, like Category:Charlton Heston, Category:Katie Couric, and most of the subcats of Category:Writers from the United States. The ones you suggested just have not been created yet. Zzyzx11 15:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, I do definitely agree that there should be more categories like those ones. Zzyzx11 15:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lamp categories are obviously from CommonSense, and they are just wrong, so just remove them. No one needs permission to do this.

I think it depends how many pictures there are and how many there are likely to be. If there are only two, I would probably just create a gallery for them.

If you are suggesting that every Wikipedia entry that is a proper noun should automatically have a category here, then I disagree. We should just make the categories according to our own needs. Sometimes they will have the same name, sometimes not. Sometimes we have a category where they don't have an article, and vice versa too. I am not sure what you are suggesting that is a new idea. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons can only work with proper Categories, the more the better (as long they are reasonable). --Chrislb 20:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are numberous images which are categorized with proper name properties. This bad practice overloads the servers, which have to send thumbnails, rather that text information.

The idea is to replace proper name properties by proper name in image files. We can also create an article titled with this proper name and put the image in a gallery, with the same result. I don't like this alternative for numberous reasons, in particular because it is ineffective: you have to edit 2 files rather than one. So you have to spend twice the normal time to remove inadequate categories in hundred of thousands files.

Therefore, yes, I suggest to create a category each time we have a file with an trivial proper noun, if the subject (regarding the proper noun) has a article in any wikipedia AND if we can find easily the english name for this category.

An image with half million pixels needs 1.5 million bytes before compression. How many bytes may we spend for the category which help to find it? --Juiced lemon 11:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Updated. --Juiced lemon 15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with pfctdayelise; it has no sense to have a category for only one page or one photo. Categories should be used to contains more than one ategory\page\photo. Please don't continue to create such structure ( it also make browsing noising because of the deep of the category structure) until a decision is taken by the community. --mac 11:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I create a category, there is always one page or one photo. Therefore, no, I shall not stop to create new categories. --Juiced lemon 13:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a breath and read carefully; more than one photo (i.e at least 2 photos). I don't agree with your behaviour. I don't think that you're the mouth of thruth, so can you please consdier to discuss with other users how to organize pages? I think that a category has a sense when there are at least 2 subcategories or two pages or two photos. Having, let's says, London, church of london, cathedral of london that contains only one page cathedral of london doesn't make much ssense to mee and force me to browse deeper than necessary. --mac 16:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume that I have tens of Chile pictures to recategorize. These pictures show various places in Chile. My categorization policy is to do the most complete job as possible. So, in such case, I usually add the place name. Chile is divided into thirteen regions. Each region is divided in provinces. I think that the suitable (for Chile places) place name is currently the province name. There was not initially nor province category, neither region category. Must I give up to build up the categories for the administrative divisions of Chile, because I am not sure that there will be more than one image in a category? --Juiced lemon 16:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sometimes I find lonely images in Category:Finland, image from a municipality that does not yet have a category of its own. Even though there is just one image, I'll make a new category. But it's not because I have a some policy about proper names. It's because a) most municipalities of Finland already have a category b) a municapility is already a pretty "high-level" category c) I can expect that in the coming years, there will be more images from that municipality. But if the image is used in an article about a small village in that municipality, I won't make a category for that village.

Summa summarum: things are complex and sometimes fuzzy logic beats binary logic. -Samulili 17:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: should POTD be only FPs and QIs?

Starting from Jan 1 2007.

Vote here: Commons talk:Picture of the day/Poll

--pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will this poll be announced for users of languages other than English, or is it intended only to clarify the English language instructions (which are different from most other languages I can read)? Man vyi 06:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will be announced if you (and others) care to do so. :) I also encourage people to write a one or two line translation of what the poll is actually on. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Issue involving stock.xchng

A large number of people have been uploading pictures from the website http://www.sxc.hu/ and tagging them with free licenses. Unless the person who uploaded the picture is the creator of this picture in the fist place, this should be stopped. Why? These pictures are released under non-free licenses, so unless the creator explicitly re-licenses them, it is illegal. Allow me to quote the stock.xchng license:

You may not use the Image

For pornographic, unlawful or other immoral purposes, for spreading hate or discrimination, or to defame or victimise other people, sociteties, cultures.
To endorse products and services if it depicts a person.
In a way that can give a bad name to SXC or the person(s) depicted on the Image.
As part of a trademark, service mark or logo.
SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS!

Always ask permission from the photographer if you want to use the Image

In website templates that You intend to sell or distribute.
For creating printed reproductions that You intend to sell.
On "print on demand" items such as t-shirts, postcards, mouse pads, mugs (e.g. on sites like Cafepress), or on any similar mass produced item that would contain the Image in a dominant way.

Surely this is not Free.

--Munchkinguy 21:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it isn't. I noticed this the other day myself, but I recall a discussion either here or at Wikipedia regarding this issue. I thought the issue may have been resolved, but don't quote me on that. It sounds like it needs to be readdressed either way. --tomf688 (talk - email) 23:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is here- recent uploads are liable to deletion.--Nilfanion 23:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Бандурист

User:Бандурист has uploaded a lot of photos claiming that he is the copyright owner and that he released them into the public domain. I don't believe that he is the copyright holder... what are other's opinions? I want to tag all of his images with {{nsd}}. ~MDD 46 96 05:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The old pictures look like scans. May be it can be clarified by directly contacting the uploader by somebody which knowledge of russian language. Beyond the copyright question, the description of most of the pictures is somewhat scanty. --Túrelio 06:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be more precise it's more likely Ukrainian uploader. I left message on talk page. --EugeneZelenko 14:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Size for FP and QI

I have started a discussion article on what should be the size requirements for images being promoted to COM:QI and COM:FP. The discussion is Commons talk:Discussion on Image size please participate, from this discusion a proposal for specific requirements can be developed. Gnangarra 07:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of FOTW flags

{{FOTWpic}} says that flags from the FOTW site are non-commercial only, and might be deleted any time. This is totally wrong. FOTW has absolutely no influence over the copyright status of the flags, because they were not the ones that created them in the first place. Simply recreating an image does not give you any sort of copyright over it, nor does it invalidate previously existing rights in any way. If I photocopy (or even recreate pixel by pixel) Mona Lisa, the resulting image will still be in the public domain.

The warning should be therefore replaced by another warning about uncertain copyright status, and each flag should be examined independently wether it is - by age, by simplicity, or by that certain country's laws - in the public domain. If it is, FOTW's claim of copyright is invalid, and there is no problem with using their image (though we might want to replace it with an SVG at some point). If it's not in PD, the claim is still invalid, but the flag is copyrighted, and probably cannot be hosted on Commons.

--Tgr 12:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All relevant discussion is at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#FOTW_images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 13:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, but I don't see much relevant there (except a few users making the same argument I did, and being ignored). Besides, I think this is a community issue, and should be rather discussed here than on AN. So can I remove the scary hand part from the template, or did I miss a counterargument somewhere? --Tgr 14:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Internet

I suggest create a free image to represent Internet (and open services, like Usenet, irc and so on). —the preceding unsigned comment is by 82.159.136.238 (talk • contribs)

You might want to post your request on Commons:Picture requests. Zzyzx11 04:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming the country subdivisions in Commons

The Commons:By location category scheme says:

The general pattern shall be: “[object name] of [place name]” (Where place name uses the spelling in the English wikipedia).

I AM THE QUEEN OF THE WORLD AND I RULE VERYONE! ANYBODY WHO IS UGLE, WILL BE DESTROYEDDDDDDD!! SO, heck yes im radicalll. Example: w:Tarapacá Region, one of the thirteen regions of Chile; is the place name Tarapacá Region, or Tarapacá (Region was added only for disambiguation)? In the second case, the name will be Region of Tarapacá. Notice that w:I Region of Tarapacá redirects to w:Tarapacá Region. What is your choice? --Juiced lemon 10:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the prevalent practice now? As long as people remember to put the pipe trick stuff on to get things to sort right (Region of Tarapacá should sort to T, not R) "Region of" is not bad... but using "Tarapacá Region" does not require people to remember that trick. ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the numberous counties of the United States, I think that the prevalent practice is to retain the title of the matching en:wp article. Sometimes, this title uses the “of” form (See w:Canton of Zug) : I don't know the reason for that.

Happily, in most cases, this problem does not occur, because there is no need for disambiguation (See Category:Provinces of China).

If both forms are correct (in english), I suggest to keep the form which looks like the native form. Examples

Category:Region of Tarapacá because w:Tarapacá Region differs from the native form (spanish) es:I Región de Tarapacá
Category:Brest Voblast because w:Brest Voblast looks like be:Берасьцейская вобласьць (вобласьць means Voblast, Берасьцейская is an adjective). --Juiced lemon 16:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi's

OK, I am new and I do not know all rules. So I am asking.

http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slika:Hermann_Wilhelm_Goering_Offiziell.jpg - this image is on commons but on the english wikipedia it is on the free use licence. I trust the commons so I used that one, but ow about this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Josef_Goebbels.jpg - it is same as goering, same author and everything and it says that its (c) has expired. Can I put it on commons.

--Edgar Allan Poe

No, you can't. The photographer, Heinrich Hoffmann, died in 1957, so you can't upload the photos to WikiCommons until 2028. Thuresson 19:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tkat is OK, but why do meny Nazi pictures go on wikicommons. I read somewhere that most Nazi picture have an unclear coprught status. I alos read that it is presumed that the copyright expired beacuse the former country laws of the 3rd Reich do not exist beacuse the country itself does not exist. So tha pictures taken in the period of the 3rd Reich must be in the Public Domain. So even that Hoffman died in 1959, the picture were protected by an today unexisting coutry law of copyrught. So if the country is fallen apart and the pictures were taken in the period of the country existance and in the coutry itself the should be in thePublic Domain. So it means thet they can be uploaded. Am I right or is it still fobidden to upload them.

--Edgar Allan Poe 20:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the Göring image now; it's been discussed and deleted several times before. Germany continued to exist after the Third Reich fell, it just had a major political renovation. Cnyborg 20:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but how did it have a major renovation. Look at the history and you'll see that the 3rd Reich and (West) Germany are two different countries with different laws and evrything. So I think that it should be alowed to upload the pictures fom 1933-1945 on wiki under PD. --Edgar Allan Poe 21:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you'll find many lawyers who agree with you on that. In terms of copyright treaties and the like, modern Germany is considered to be the successor state to West Germany and East Germany, which are the successor states to Nazi Germany, which is the successor state to the Weimar Republic, which is the successor state to Imperial Germany, which is the successor state to Prussia and a bunch of other German states, and so on. --Carnildo 23:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The German government is the legal successor to the NSDAP (Nazi Party) and I believe they set up a special company (Transit Gmbh) to handle that material. The images you note are used under the "fair use" exception to copyright, which can be used with any copyrighted image regardless of source on English Wikipedia (provided that fair use really does apply, as it is pretty limited). However, commons does not accept fair use images, so they can't be uploaded here.

Interestingly, Nazi material seized by the UK and US during the war may in fact be public domain in the UK[5][6], and (if the copyright of the seized material is owned by a foreign government and not a private individual or company), it is also PD in the U.S. under a specific exception to URAA restorations[7][8]. However, the material would still be copyrighted in most other countries, and as such would not be acceptable for commons either. Carl Lindberg 05:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Village pump-url and language preference

I currently am using French as my language preference. Although MediaWiki:Village pump-url/fr looks OK, the link provided in the side bar is the English Village Pump, with both an English title and a link towards the English speaking page. This is strange. As far as I can remember, everything was OK just a few days ago. This problem appears only with the Village Pump link. Main Page/Accueil or Welcome/Bienvenue are displayed in French with links to the French speaking pages.

The same problem also appears if I select German as my language preference. Teofilo 00:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, blame me. I changed the english language version to enable the mouseover tip; it seems one of those changes has broken the alternate language links. I'll go around and fix it all later.--Nilfanion 16:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Favicon problems

There has long been a problem with the Wikimedia Commons favicon, that exists on none of the other Wikimedia sites. I regularly use several Mac OS computers, (Intels and PowerPCs) and the browsers Safari, Shiira, Camino and Firefox, but of these only FIrefox displays the favicon here correctly. Though many months ago there was a brief period when a favicon displayed in my other preferred browsers they now simply show what appears to be a white rectangle. Of the browsers I have tried but more seldom use, Opera, Netscape and SeaMonkey, also display it correctly, and SunriseBrowser and iCab do not. I assume it is some minor issue with either the image format or its placement in the code, that interfere with browsers using KHTML and adaptations of the Konqueror engine, and even some using Mozzilla's Gecko, but no one seems to have mentioned it, so I am doing so now. All other Wikimedia projects display their favicons fine in all the browsers that I use. ~ Shadow 22:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since no one have answered I belive you should report the favicon bug to bugzilla.wikimedia.org and list all browsers where the icon doesn't get displayed correctly. --Nux (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

FWIW, I'm using the Panther version of Safari, and it displays the favicon just fine. Carl Lindberg 06:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright interrogations

User:Ibrahimjon has loaded artists depictions of a few classical persian poets, claiming is the author of the images. I feel like the images were taken from a book, so the licences given are not necessarily the "good ones". Can someone see Image:Omar Khayam.jpg, Image:Saadi sherozi.jpg, Image:Abduabdulloi Rudaki.jpg, Image:Adbulkosimi Firdousi.jpg, Image:Abuali Sino Avicenna.jpg, Image:Loik Sherali.jpg, Image:Abdurahmoni Jomi.jpg, Image:Nizomi Ganjavi.jpg, Image:Zebunisso.jpg, Image:Ubaidi Zokoni.jpg, Image:Nosiri Khusrav.jpg, Image:Kamoli Khujandi.jpg, Image:Hofizi Sherozi.jpg. Thanks. Fabienkhan 09:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Jpeg format issue

I noticed that for .jpg pictures, files saved in Photoshop as Baseline ("Standard") works here but those saved as Progressive do not, that is they can not be displayed properly. Shawnc 08:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an artefact of the way the thumbnailer works (the thumbnailer is the program that reduces the size of images down to the requested size).

With progressive JPEGs, the thumbnailer decompresses the whole image in memory before resizing it. In contrast, with baseline JPEGs, the thumbnailer decompresses the top of the image, resizes it, and then the part of the image beneath, and so on until the bottom of the image.

Thus, the thumbnailer needs much less memory for baseline JPEGs than for progressive JPEGs. The memory size needed for color progressive JPEGs is 4*width*height bytes. There seems to be a limit of 16 megabytes of RAM imposed by our setup, probably in order to avoid denial-of-service attacks. This means that color progressive JPEGs larger than 4 megapixels cannot be resized.

Please use baseline JPEGs. Preferrably, do not decompress then recompress the image using some image touchup software, which will result in some additional loss of quality. Instead, use software such as jpegtran that can perform conversions of JPEG images without loss of quality. David.Monniaux 16:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, progressive JPEGs are intended for use when downloading from the web (while being bigger) so you can start viewing it before the whole image is loaded. As we provide thumbs there's no such need. Platonides 12:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a workable if slightly inefficient system that has been established to deal with the copyright status of these thousands of uploads. However, it has a number of flaws. The most serious in my opinion is the restriction to admin-only review. That was created to get a reasonable sized start group for the process - all admins are presumably trustworthy enough for thse things. However, just admins is not in the wikispirit and is far too restrictive. I'd prefer to restructure it so that many more users can do reviewing. As this system depends on trust, I think the best system would be one where a user applies to a non-bureaucratic process saying why they can be trusted, then gets approved and can start reviewing. This would massively increase the workforce for this chore, would give experienced users from other wikis a helpful task to participate on Commons (a good way to gain more admins here) and so on. It might be worth setting up a Commons:License validation page or similar to monitor these imgs, copyrightedfreeuse and so on. Any thoughts?--Nilfanion 22:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Opening it to everyone is, unfortunately, not a real option since that would leave the system completely open to abuse through sockpuppetry and users cooperating to validate each others' uploads. A simple process would be good here, no long voting period but rather a simple approval. It should be possible to base that on fairly objective criteria, by looking at the user's contributions here, or in the case of experienced users from other projects, their history at the relevant project, perhaps with a minimum amount of contributions as part of the criteria. Obviously, there should be no outstandig license problems, and no major history of license problems (newbie mistakes are in my view acceptable as long as the user has demonstrated that he or she has learned how it works; I think most or all of us stumbled a bit at first. Apart from getting this huge task done more quickly, this is a good recruiting ground for more admins. Cnyborg 23:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We really just need people who have a basic understanding of copyright and who have had good behavior in the past. That is what wikis are about, after all... ~MDD 46 96 00:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Magnus Manske could easily whip something up to help us out I'm sure. But I am more and more thinking that this is a flawed process anyway. How will we ever know if a non-admin has reviewed an image? I'm inclined to aree with user:Para that a bot should do it. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the name and date parameters are included in the template, it can be improved. For example, the username field could be adapted to put the images in Category:Flickr images reviewed by User. The biggest advantage of this system is it can be done right now and we can start getting a degree of confidence over our images. In the time it would take a bot to be created and its flaws ironed out, we could lose our chance to validate license info for many of the ~10K images. This template also provides a structure for a bot to dump info directly on the image; which is the most useful place. If we could trust the linking to flickr all the bot would have to do is find the license info. However, we also have to check to see if the commons image is the same as the flickr image its "sourced" from; getting a bot to do that reliably will be tricky due to rotation, cropping and resolution changes (all possible). Then there's the case where the flickr user claims copyright over someone elses work. So yes this is flawed, but pure bot review is flawed too and its naive to think of a bot as a silver bullet - that is a technical change by Flickr ;) The most reasonable solution is to have a system for a bot to do reviewing and to allow humans to do it too, they can complement each other and is a more "wiki" solution. This framework is expandable to allow that; as an example, we could add an extra check to the template on the lines of {{humanneeded}}. This would give the bot a way of flagging for human attention in cases it isn't sure on.--Nilfanion 07:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree that this seems like an obvious task for a bot -- it would be more accurate and faster than having admins (or regular users) do it. Also, it may make it more obvious if a dishonest user marks it as reviewed, as most of those edits would be made by the bot. The downsides would be that admins may be able to see if the Flickr user incorrectly licensed other people's photos as creative commons -- it probably does happen from time to time -- and if you consider the posting of a message to the Flickr user's page to be an important part of this process. 68.98.152.184 04:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Can one self review? I posted this image ( Image:BrassRing Flickr 206544455 48fdec2108 o.jpg ) and I know the license was good when I posted it. it gives the link into Flickr for the original ( http://flickr.com/photos/bradleypjohnson/206544455/ ) in the writeup. I'm an admin here. Shold some other admin review it though, to avoid potential conflict of interest? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think independent review is good idea. --EugeneZelenko 14:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this should either be turned over to a bot (at the end of which we will have a pile of images which have conflicting licences that can be reviewed by a process) or open the review up to non admins who have a decent contrib history and are not going to go daft. As it is there are ~6200 images needing reviewed. It will take admins very many months to get through that lot and is a not a good situation (the longer the review takes the higher the chance of images being licence changed in that time, thus the larger the final number of disputed images that we are left with - ie wasting a lot of peoples time). SFC9394 18:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

orphan images

some time ago I uploaded new versions of my coat of arms files. Now they all seem to have become orphans (except two files) although they are all in use and are listed in categories. When I uploaded the new version I didn't write anything into the editing box, maybe that's the problem? Anyhow my key question is: is this now a bad thing? Can the files be deleted by an admin because they are labeled as orphans? Do I have to do anything? he wierd thing is also that some files have become orphans without being changed lately. Answers would be highly appreciated. Cheers Spanish Inquisition 16:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice images! We don't delete orphans, we just want them placed into galleries or into categories so that users can find them. There's obviously some bug at work here; Image:Coat of arms fouhren luxbrg.png, for instance, is properly categorised but is showing up as an orphan on the toolserver list. Jkelly 17:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dont know where to post this, http://www.flickr.com/photos/markehr/sets/72157594343415679/ reuses some featured pictures, looks like copyvio in the Creative Commons cases

http://www.flickr.com/photos/drewsonne/tags/wikipedia/ also

I think you need to post on the talk pages of the authors of the images. They are the ones who can complain, and get this well-meaning Flickr user to repent. A polite message to the Flickr users, or to the management of Flickr, may also help. --InfantGorilla 18:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories in {{}}

Did I miss something? I found Image:Szekelyderzs_01.jpg that uses {{Category:Churches of Romania}}. That makes that the image is not only member of Category:Churches of Romania but also Category:Churches by country. I cant find a template like Template:Category:Churches of Romania or Template:Churches of Romania that would cause this. Is this some new secret feature? If yes, why don't pages like this explain it? --Ikiwaner 18:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an example of Transclusion of a non-template. {{Category:Churches of Romania}} includes the text of Category:Churches of Romania in the image. Here the {{}} should be replaced with [[]] - its clearly what was intended.--Nilfanion 18:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The {{}} brackets make that Category:Churches by country appears in the image without being mentioned explicitly. That't what I'm wondering about. If there is a system behind, why is not the whole category tree included? --Ikiwaner 18:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluding a category like this will add the content of the page Category:Churches of Romania not the content of the category; there is a subtle difference between the Category: page and the Category itself. As the actual page Category:Churches of Romania contains the text Category:Churches by country, this means that when it is transcluded like this, the image page will include the text that places it in that broader cat - so it is included. {{Namespace:Pagename}} will transclude the page Namespace:Pagename in just the same manner as a template call, no matter what space the page is in.--Nilfanion 19:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's clear now. It's a weird behaviour in this context. --Ikiwaner 19:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename an image

Is it possible to rename an image (Image:Torres del Paine.jpg => Image:Cuernos del Paine) so that it is updated in all the other wiki's that use wikimedia commons? This image is named incorrectly - it is not a picture of the torres (towers) but a picture of the cuernos (horns) which are about 5 kilometres away. (Technically the name is a little bit correct as both features are in the "Torres del Paine National Park"). The torres actually look like this: Image:Torres del paine at sunrise.jpg. --62.189.88.194 08:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC) (Ozhiker on wikipedia)[reply]

Please see the FAQ. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 million

We are approachig the 1 million images landmark. Any special celebrations?

Commons:One million files Man vyi 16:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, watch this space, something that several folk have had a hand in is almost ready to announce. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See below... Wikimedia logo mosaic is live. Please edit it! ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of posters

Are posters that are younger than 70 years allowed to be on the Commons? This question has arised during the deletion request of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SPÖ election poster Sept 2006 003.jpg. What happens with posters that are theoretically copyrighted Category:2006 advertisements, Category:Advertisements, Category:Advertising, Category:Movie posters, Image:LabourCampaignPoster20050115 CopyrightKaihsuTai.jpg, Category:Political advertising, Category:Posters, Category:Advertisements by year...etc.? sincerely Gryffindor 20:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing special about posters. For that matter, there's nothing special about 70 years, either. Category:2006 advertisements looks problematic, as doesImage:LabourCampaignPoster20050115 CopyrightKaihsuTai.jpg, per commons:Derivative works. Jkelly 20:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing inherently special about posters, but posters are typically non-free. Photographs whose subject is a poster or which prominently feature a poster should be scrutinized and deleted if appropriate. ~MDD 46 96 03:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LabourCampaignPoster20050115 CopyrightKaihsuTai.jpg is, in my humble opinion, a borderline case, because it used to demonstrate incumbent advantage in the electoral system, not to make a derivative work off of the poster itself. There are similar examples that have been kept and some that have been deleted. / Fred Chess 15:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories names for albanian cities

There are some categories in cities of Albania that sholud be translated to english: is anyone in charge for such duty?((lol)) The categories are: Gjirokastra, Korça, Lezha, Lushnja, Peshkopia, Saranda, Shkodra, Tepelena, Tropoja. --mac 12:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why should they be English? I belive they should stay in there native language and any translations (if available) should be available on the category page. --Nux (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories should be in English. Translating category names into user language preferences is something that is being developed on the back end. Jkelly 17:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SVG image dails to upload / display properly

I uploaded this image, Image:Maslow's hierarchy of needs.svg (you can see what it's supposed to look like here), but it doesn't render correctly or something, I don't really know why it gets cut off. Is it the way I'm saving the image from Inkscape? Can anyone lend a hand here? Thank you. J. Finkelstein 18:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit the file by hand in a text editor. Change the width and height attributes of the SVG tag to 2000. Then add the viewBox attribute to the SVG tag and set it to -1200 -500 2000 2000. -SharkD 21:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've increased the viewBox to include the whole image but the text seems to be jumping around, also not all of the text is treated the same (last line in pyramid for instance). /Lokal_Profil 23:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem should be sorted now. The problem seems to have been due to (amongst other things) a non-supported font being used. /Lokal_Profil 01:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SVG thumbnail problems

I'm having problems with the thumbnails not showing up for this image. The image renders ok in IE and FireFox. -SharkD 21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What SVG program are you using to draw your images? Some SVG applications generate non-SVG standard code that other applications and browsers have trouble reading. Might I suggest you look into using Inkscape which seems to always use the standard SVG formatting. Zzyzx11 22:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, looking at the code, it says it was generated by Inkscape. Further investigation is needed. Zzyzx11 22:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried opening it with Inkscape and it won't let me. Some more fundamental problem? /Lokal_Profil 22:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it look like the image that it was based on Image:Perspective isometrique cube gris.svg was saved from Inkscape. Which probably means that SharkD's modifications was drawn using a different program, right? Zzyzx11 22:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the original by hand using a text editor. I think I figured out the problem: there was some French text that I added into the description field; this was causing the file to not be parsed. I haven't uploaded the new version yet to test it, as I don't have permissions to overwrite images (my account here is too new). -SharkD 02:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the new version is up. You can find it here. There are still some slight errors that don't appear in IE or FireFox. -SharkD 02:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unable to locate photo again

My name is Dawn Gombos, I am trying to locate the picture I found here a few weeks ago. It was a photo of the gravesite of Gyula Gombos, which contains an image of my family crest. My family is very interested in this.... Please help —the preceding unsigned comment is by Iron butterfly (talk • contribs)

Were you looking for Image:Gömbös Gyulasir.jpg? Zzyzx11 05:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Localsettings.php

How do I link to Inkscape in Localsettings.php to enable SVG uploads on my own MediaWiki installation?? I'm having a bit of trouble! --SunStone 21:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here we care about image files, not about MediaWiki configuration issues. See www.mediawiki.org

Lol :O You don't need inkscape to upload SVGs :D

Add .svg as allowed extension

If you want svg thumbnails too you need ImageMagick or rsvg. Platonides 21:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect Image:Nicholas Stern.jpg

This image will shortly be on the English Wikipedia main page. Thanks. Harro5 21:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —JeremyA 21:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SOS logo copyright doubt

I recently translated the French article about the anti-racism organisation en:SOS Racisme. I would love to use the image of their logo, which is here, in the FR Wikipedia, but I'm not sure if I can, given the {{Marque déposée}} copyright notice on the image's page. (I'm not even sure if it can legally be used on FR Wiki.) Any help would be very much appreciated! Thank you. Marialadouce 18:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright notice says Aux États-Unis d'Amérique, l'utilisation de cette image est soutenue comme étant une utilisation juste dans le cadre légal défini par le fair use., in otherv words: In the USA usage is possible under fair use criteria, and en:fair use is not allowed here. From en:Wikipedia:Fair use paragraph 7.3 I get the imprssion that the logo would be acceptible. TeunSpaans 20:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am not sure, however, what licence to choose for it, so I will leave that to a more experienced Commons user. It is here: Image:Main sos.gif. Marialadouce 20:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As TuenSpaans said, fair use is not allowed here. If you want to use this image on en.wp, you have to upload it directly there. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I got confused by TeunSpaans saying that it wasn't allowed, and then was allowed. I didn't realise that it meant that the criteria are different for Wikipedia and Commons. Cheers, Marialadouce 02:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2006/10