Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010/08

Crediting OpenStreetMap contributors precisely

I know that it's currently customary to upload maps from OpenStreetMap using {{OpenStreetMap}} which creates a generic "OpenStreetMap contributors" attribution, not crediting the individual OSM contributors who worked on the data used. I also know that OpenStreetMap itself doesn't require more than this according to http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright/en (Individual OSM mappers do not request a credit over and above that to “OpenStreetMap contributors”); however, OSM has chosen CC-BY-SA as their license, which can be interpreted as requiring to credit every single contributor. Again, OpenStreetMap says that this is not the case at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ ("There is some lack of clarity about whether a formal requirement exists in the CC-BY-SA licence to credit every single OSM contributor. We do not believe this is practical or desirable and therefore the above standards have generally been adopted"), but it seems that the license was originally chosen without giving much thought to its implications and the matter remains slightly unclear. See also this older discussion at COM:VP - Longbow4u says there:

"The problem is that the creator of OSM (Steve Coast) had initially only a very superficial understanding of CC-BY-SA when he created the product (OSM map). He should have chosen that attribution to the project is enough (Copyright Openstreetmap under CC-BY-SA 2.0). He did not. So attribution to "OpenStreetMap contributors" is the only sensible choice at the moment."

A suggestion was then made to give attribution through a link to the history of the map (excerpt) used. This is what I would like to do in an OSM map I uploaded - although it's more than OSM asks for, I would like to be 100% on the safe side - better give too precise attribution, I think. The file in question: File:Kapuzinerkloster-solothurn-lage.svg. There, I complemented "OpenStreetMap contributors" with a link to a history page. Problem: The history page is for a somewhat larger map area and therefore also surely contains contributors not contributing to the excerpt I made. How can I generate a link to exactly the right area in order to generate a contributors list covering only the area used? OSM doesn't let one zoom in that far. Well, however - maybe the general opinion is that this effort to credit OSM contributors exactly is needless anyway? Gestumblindi (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the OSM project should have invested more effort in correct attribution of the respective authors of map snippets. However, instead there is an ongoing effort to change the license of the OSM project licence change from CC-BY-SA 2.0 to ODbL 1.0. I think this will go hand in hand with an copyright assignment to the OSM Foundation, so perhaps individual attribution of mappers is on the way out, anyway. Greetings, Longbow4u (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

{{Coa Information}} → {{Information}}

Proposal: move from one template to another in order to use the means of internationalization of the texts, as well as the automated recognition of parameters.Crochet.david (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Was in use on less than 10 pages. Replaced and deleted the template. Multichill (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

template feedback / help

following the last community chat I finally got around to creating a new template for media which is illegal down here in Aus. (it's one of many of these tags).

I dropped a note to a collaborator for feedback and a wee bit of help, but obviously timed it badly - D doesn't seem to be around this week. So I thought I'd swing by here for feedback, and to ask if someone might be interested in popping the template on media within Category:Erotic_activities_involving_children - which is a pretty clear application. I strongly agree with the commons practice of warning downstream users of their legal obligations, and advising them where accessing material may involve breaking local law. Privatemusings (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Be very careful with the 'illegal' language. We are no lawyers, so the category should be 'Possible illegal images in Australia'. That en:Child pornography laws in Australia article needs some serious work btw. Like it doesn't even refer to/name the actual laws themselves. I would also not call it a legal disclaimer, it is a warning. I'd start with the 'plain' reader targeted language, and end with referring to the specific Australian legal requirements. Would also be nice to refer to something that covers Australia (not just NSW). Possibly add that the materials are hosted in the US, subject to US law. TheDJ (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously feel free to dive in a make any changes you think would help, DJ, I think your points are good, so I'll try and incorporate them myself too.... btw. because we'd seek to cite a specific law, the template possibly should be called something like 'media which contravenes australian child pornography laws' - ie. there may be other material which is illegal for other reasons. That's a bit of a mouthful though, and maybe a bit incendiary, I dunno - any other ideas for the name? Privatemusings (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would leave any "legal disclaimers" up to the Foundation's legal counsel. If we keep playing lawyer pretty soon every file will be marked with all kinds of dubious warnings based on what some non-lawyers interpreted the law to be. There's too many countries and too many laws. There's a reason why we say "The laws in your country may not recognize as broad a protection of free speech as the laws of the United States or the principles under the UN Charter and, as such, Wikimedia Commons cannot be responsible for any potential violations of such laws should you link to this domain or use any of the information contained herein in anyway whatsoever." This is not our job. In fact, it may even be legally dangerous to do this. If we have all kinds of warnings, people will have reasonable expectation for us to warn them about all legal issues and when we fail to do that (which is inevitable with sheer amount of laws around the world and that fact that this is a user-generated site run by volunteers) and something happens to the unaware reuser, there can be lawsuits brought against the WMF. Of course, I'm no lawyer either but it doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Rocket000 (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We should follow en:Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Multichill (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I might be missing something about Australia, but I thought New South Wales was just one part of the country. Docu  at 10:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

< @multi - I think you're suggesting that these tags (used on lots and lots of images etc. currently) should probably be removed? - I don't agree, but I do think changing that practice probably warrants a bigger, broader discussion. @docu - yeah, NSW is one of the 8 states and territories of Oz, my reading of the paper linked in the template is that the other states share comparable language - perhaps that suffices, or perhaps we need to find more information? - thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Massive file importation

Hello,

I'm looking for a software that can upload many files at the same time because I converted all the Diagrams of road signs of Belgium into SVG. I have 221 files and I don't want to import them manually one after the other. Is there an existing software to do that?

Thanks in advance Vascer (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Batch uploading is probably a good place to start. Multichill (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Commonist is quite nice for that. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 19:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Amada44 for the application, now I'm going to ask for an AutoWikiBrowser account to change the licence of all files. Vascer (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

end of wooden cars in Oslo

I took this picture is Oslo of the last run of the wooden cars. File:Oslo Holmenkollbanen end 1.jpg Unfortunately I dont remember the date or year I took the picture and it is not marked on the slides. (I suspect late ninetees) I have some pictures from the same time, but I would like the date before I upload them. Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd say what you provided for Oslo Holmenkollbanen seems good enough for our purposes, and similar should work for other images. Tabercil (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The ticket machine in the background started deploying in January 1994, so it is definitely later than that. The last regular run of the wooden cars was 1995-03-02. However, the public could rent cars from the 600 series for several years after 1995, and the "Turvogn" designation suggests that the depicted car was not in ordinary traffic when you took the picture. I have tried searching Norwegian newspaper archives for more dates, but haven't been successful. Regards, --Kjetil_r 14:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Swedish Tramway Society has an entry on the OS 600 teak rolling stock. Unfortunately, it does not list a value for when they were taken out of service. However, the entries that are available for individual units (Hkb 604, 605, 609 and 611) all suggest that they were decommissioned in 1995. So perhaps {{other date|ca|1995}}? —LX (talk, contribs) 14:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

MOTD

Commons:Media of the day

I think we have to talk about the missing MOTD templates this month. Some may think, we don't have enough media data in stack, and some may think that there is not put much emphasis creating a MOTD template. On the following days of July 2010, we did not have a MOTD template: 16 · 17 · 18· 23 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29

Why is it like that? Maybe a lot of admins are on vacation ... (see also MOTD disc.) --Mattes (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

On the days there is no MOTD, it shouldn't really appear on Main Page (Talk:Main_Page#.22No_media_of_the_day_today.22_.282010-07-17.29). Unfortunately, the admins doing main page maintenance are on holidays too.  Docu  at 04:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Mattes, the MOTD can be chosen by anyone. If you notice one is missing, you are very welcome to choose it. It's just like selecting a POTD from amongst the Featured Pictures. Docu, I personally don't mind showing the message "There is no Media of the Day today." I think that will actually encourage people to find one. That's why I didn't respond to your request to hide it, but maybe another admin will. --99of9 (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello 99of9, I really would like to create the templates (lots of ideas). But I'm not enabled to do so; they are editprotected. Except I was doing something wrong ... --Mattes (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Try adding one a few weeks in advance (just click on a redlink "Choose a new media file"). I'm not up on how cascading protection from the main page works, but I'm guessing it only applies near the day itself (perhaps this is the reason for the evidence Docu provides in the next point!). --99of9 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

99of9: apparently it didn't on 16 · 17 · 18· 23 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 --  Docu  at 05:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The encouragement was enough on the 19th and 31st. Obviously it doesn't force anyone to do anything! 99of9 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's actually a good idea for the media of the day to be selected on the day. I think if these should remain on Main page, one should at least attempt to select them a few days before.  Docu  at 20:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons' experiences of ImageAnnotator

The ImageAnnotator gadget has recently been enabled on en.wikipedia for a trial. When I publicise this, people are bound to kvetch that doing so was a terrible crime laden with risk and woe. It'd like to be able to report that Commons users and admins found the gadget to be a net positive. So can I ask:

1. when was ImageAnnotator enabled on Commons?
2. have there been significant technical problems with it?
3. has it been abused to a significant degree, and if so how?

Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I found a rather annoying. Vere seldomly I see annotations, which actually provide additional info; And also that sentence "this image contains annotations ..." blows ups the size of |thumb| images too much--DieBuche (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So far I've seen exactly one useful application of this feature, incidentally still present on this page at this moment. I have removed one irrelevant annotation from an image in the past (been a while, don't remember what it was). Other than that, the feature doesn't seem very popular. --Latebird (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at Category:Images with 10+ annotations. OTOH, I don't think that image annotations displayed on thumbnails are really that useful (at least not with the default size of thumbnails). As for abuse: there has been some in the past, mostly with annotations added by anonymous users (IMHO it was more a matter of silly notes than real vandalism, but that's just my impression, I have no numbers on this). Personally, I like them and use them to name places in panoramic photos and to link to other images displaying details (shameless plugs here and here). --Ianezz (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I found annotations useful when I uploaded this image [1] on Flickr. They are called "notes" on that site. SV1XV (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember when it was first enabled, but I remember that a lot of people were complaining it was mostly used inappropriately (putting the whole description of the image in a small image note at some random position), or for vandalism. At the time, I had a similar feeling, but I think this is bound to happen with new features; people will experiment with it, but when the novelty wears off, this kind of misuse tends to disappear. But you should expect some strong reactions against it at first; here, only a few weeks after it was introduced, a few people actually wanted the gadget to be disabled because they doubted it was a net positive for Commons.
So what about now? Regarding vandalism, from what I can see it's not really an issue anymore (no more than plain vandalism of the description page). But as you can see, some still think it's pretty much useless. I disagree with this assessment. People use it at COM:FPC to easily point out flaws in an image, and I find it quite useful for astronomical images, to indicate the name of the objects or link to other views on Commons. So definitely a net positive; maybe a small one, but positive nonetheless. –Tryphon^☂ 08:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it was added around June 2009. I find it very useful in specific cases, such as group pictures (example). The technical issues were ironed out a long time ago. I agree with Tryphon about the misuse. Pruneau^talk 09:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Positive experience as far as I am concerned. I find this gadget quite useful, for instance to document images on geographical subjects (example), or to add located and precise textual notes (example). Per Tryphon, I also find interesting the possibility of embedded images in a main picture (example, see the annotation "Uphill view towards this location a few months earlier"). However, it's a pity that all these annotations are lost when one looks at an annotated image through most Wikipedias, as the gadget isn't emplemented there. --Myrabella (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Last time I checked Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, how ImageAnnotator fit into that? Shouldn't the images just be moved here so people can add notes? Multichill (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles in Wikipedia are often illustrated, aren't they? But if the reader of an article in Wikipedia clicks on an annotated image inserted in this article, he/she won't see the additional info given by these annotations: example. Some Wikipedias have implemented the gadget yet (hu:WP at least), and you can test it on en:WP for reader's experience: en:Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator. --Myrabella (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it be used for QI candidates, to highlight areas which need fixing. Never used it myself. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As soon as Commons starts accepting fair use and US-only pictures, they can just move the images here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My concern is not that WP users could add their own annotations directly in their home WP, but just that they can see annotations when these latter have been added on images uploaded in Commons. Anyway, that's not the matter—do you find the gadget useful for Commons images? --Myrabella (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I find it very useful. Much better than when people include in the image itself for example an arrow or text to explain something. Wouter (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't like annotations placed on images. They tend to cover up images and make them useless for many purposes (sample: File:View from Rosenhorn.jpg).

Image annotator allows to do the same, but users only view them when they choose to do so by placing the mouse pointer over them image.

Currently most Wikipedia's lack support for users to read annotations at least on file description pages. I think this should be made available there as soon as possible.  Docu  at 20:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Should Category:Gabe Gross include the category Auburn Tigers football players although there are no current images of the subject as a football player?

Oakland A's baseball player Gabe Gross is a former quarterback for Auburn. My understanding of how the category system works is that the subject category for him can be categorized as such even though it currently doesn't have any media of him playing football at Auburn, because the lack of media here depicting him as such doesn't change the fact that he was an Auburn football player, and should be so categorized. Is this accurate? The closest thing I could find about this in the help pages is the first line of Commons:Categories#For more appropriate categorization, "Pages (including category pages) are categorized according to their subject, and not to their contents, because the contents are generally not a permanent feature of the category page." UCinternational and me have a disagreement of whether or not to include this category, so I am seeking some clarification. BrokenSphere 23:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If you had enough photographs of each, you could end up with subcategories for his baseball pics and his football pics. Do categories about people get subcategorised that way? Maybe you could add a text note on the category page that he was a football player, rather than use a category tag? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about subcategorizing two-sport athletes by the respective sports they are depicted playing. I don't see the need to do this, now that you mention it.

Basically I feel that the Auburn Tigers football players tag is more specific and descriptive than Alumni of Auburn University and not to categorize Gross as such is inaccurate, even though what is currently present only shows him playing baseball. BrokenSphere 01:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if he was a Auburn football player, that would be an appropriate parent category for Ross. Commons:Categorization makes that pretty clear. Think of it another way...say a famous singer was a member of two well known bands, but for some reason images of him playing in one of those bands were not available. You wouldn't exclude that band as a parent category for this reason...he's still known for being a member of that band. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you say it is appropriate that Category:Auburn Tigers football players is filled with photos of baseball players? --UCinternational (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If those people are/were also Auburn football players, then of course. We also want off-field photos, etc., if we can get them, and they would also go there. Particularly in a category named for the person. The fact we have pictures of a person somewhere other than a football field does not change the fact that the person is or was an Auburn football player. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, we have pictures of Barack Obama before he became President, but his category is still in Category:Presidents of the United States. Powers (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Auburn tigers should not include the category of any person, thats not hierarchical categorization and an common error in our category system. In 20 years the category will be blown up with 100rds of categories with 1000s of media files and the use of the categorization over time will inevitably go to zero and the number of media files that is realy related to Auburn Tigers will be much lower. This wrong categorization is avoidable in two ways: 1) split up player categories, example 'Gabe Gross playing for Auburn' and categorize this subcategories. That resolve most of the systematic problems and add an player only to the team/club he was playing for, but it will not increase the use of the Auburn tigers category and still the value of this category will decrase against zero over time. So 2) split the Auburn tigers category into seasons, this also allows further date or season categorization. I build an example in Category:Players of FC Bayern München, thats soccer but very similar. The navi bar in the 2009/2010 category was added to bring back the lost ability to navigate vertically through the player biography. --Martin H. (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to disagree more :-) Most certainly not an "error" at all. If we ever get enough photos, then certainly we should be able to subcategorize in more ways, and things like the above can be done. [And even your categories have off-field photos; which by your logic is incorrect.] Until enough images surface though, the current way is perfectly fine. I would think that given enough images, we would want to subcategorize both on seasons, *and* on overall, all-time names. It is not either/or. For similar reasons, Category:Iván Rodríguez is a subcat of all the baseball teams he has played for. If there are enough images which make team-specific subcats better for navigation, then of course. Often though people are trying to find pictures of a person in general, and different people will use different paths through the category system to find that -- no reason at all that the Auburn path is incorrect for Gross. If you really want to split categories up into "Category:On-field Auburn football players", and a "Category:All-time Auburn football players" to hold person categories, sure, go head. It is normally not an issue until we get enough images or subcats though, and those two types of categories are almost always combined, as splitting them usually feels like overcategorization. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Categorizing players by their team/club is done on the English Wikipedia at least (I notice that the German Wiki may not do this). I also fail to see how Auburn Tigers football playes isn't hierarchical: it's a subcategory of Category:Auburn University athletics (though better suited to Auburn Tigers football), Category:College American football players, and Category:Alumni of Auburn University. At a glance this category helps me see who do we have media for in Commons who ever played football at Auburn.

I also see a couple issues with categorizing players by year as with the FC Bayern München example:

• What if a player is with the club for several years? If they're with the club for 5 years this spreads images of them out over 5 categories vs. collecting it into one that is specific to them. I think this then actually makes it harder for people to find what they're looking for because then they have to research when did X play for FC Bayern München and look across all the categories that he was with the club, and even then they may not find what they're looking for. If there are many images of one person in a specific year, then a John Doe in 200X as a person subcategory can be created.
• Why not create season-specific categories for the club as a whole? E.g. 2009–10 FC Bayern Munich season, which is also an existing article. The category can now link back to that article.

BrokenSphere 19:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the approach mentioned above contains serious problems. If we have a photo of a player in each club he played for (at least one photo a season), it would work (however, it would be rather difficult to find the necessary player if photos do not have good names). If a player was not pictured at least during one season of his career, this approach would fail. Commons' categories are to help people find images by any relevant criteria. People looking for pictures of the players of some club are not supposed to look for the players in exactly that club. If a person wants to find, say, pictures of the most notable players of some small club, he/she will most likely search in the category of the players of this club, but a player of some most famous players in the national team will normally be OK. Moreover, if a player spent two or more seasons in the club, but there are photos of only one season, aren't they good enough to illustrate player in that club, or does season matter that much? As for me, if I want to find a photo of a player in some club, it's not important in what year it was taken. Off-field pictures of players, photos of players in national teams and pictures of retired players are another problem. And finally, it's much easier to find the player while looking through the list of subcategories then by searching in the gallery for the photos which may have not very good names (as player's subcategories are not supposed to be categorised to players' categories). In other words, it is important to categorise players' categories to all categories their subject played for, as it helps make search easier. Creating two categories, one by season, another one for all-time players may be a good solution, another option is a gallery for team's pictures season by season, like History of Auburn Tigers with subsections for each season. Removing categories of clubs a player played for, but was not pictured while playing for, will significantly decrease usability of these categories — NickK (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

August 1

Immediate deletion

I wanted to create a category page for Sándor Bródy (Hungarian writer), but I made a simple Sándor Bródy page instead. Couldn't find a template to flag it for deletion, so can you please do it for me? Thanks in advance! Pasztilla (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 19:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Pasztilla (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2

Excel copyright query

Could I upload a copy of a graph generated in Excel (given that I created the spreadsheet myself), or would this be considered a screen-shot of copyright software? (Cross-posted from w:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions) Tivedshambo (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If the data is yours, then I doubt that Microsoft has any legal copyright that it can excercise over you. TheDJ (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

People make (and copyright) charts generated with other people's software all the time. No problem. Just make sure that you don't upload screenshots with copyrighted Microsoft elements. - Jmabel ! talk 22:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A chart you make in excel is generally not copyrighted (except by you), unless the chart includes certain copyrighted trademarks/logos.Smallman12q (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Losing secure connection going between Commons and Wikipedia

I have a unified account and usually log in to Wikipedia using their secure server (i.e. an HTTPS connection). When I am at Wikipedia and I click a wikilink to Commons, I am automatically logged in to my unified account at Commons. But when I go from Commons back to Wikipedia I lose the secure connection (i.e. it goes from an HTTPS connection to HTTP). For example, if I add a wikilink from here to Wikipedia's main page using [[w:Main page]] like this w:Main page, the wikilink is an HTTP link instead of HTTPS. Is there a way to make a wikilink stay secure (i.e. maintain the HTTPS connection). Thanks for any help. - Hydroxonium (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I can reproduce the problem. I remember the same issue was fixed at de.wikipedia some weeks ago: de:Wikipedia:Fragen_zur_Wikipedia/Archiv/2010/Woche_04#Secure-WP_und_Interwikilinks. The mediawiki config needs to be changed - I have asked de:User:Merlissimo if he could do the same here - or give hints how to do it. Probably you could also write a hack in your monobook.js to replace all http://xx.wikipedia.org links by their HTTPS equivalent. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Saibo. I just noticed that when I go to the Wikipedia login page and click the link for the secure server, I am transferred from en.wikipedia.org to secure.wikimedia.org. If I then go a category, such as w:Category:Insects and click the "Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Insecta" link, then I am still at secure.wikimedia.org as opposed to commons.wikimedia.org. I am certain that's why I was automatically logged in to Commons.

I ran some tests and this seems to be an issue for all the interwiki links. I ran a test on Wikipedia and created the wikilink [[commons:Category:Insecta]], and again I was taken from the secure server to the regular one. Please note that the commons wikilink does not work here at Commons, only over at Wikipedia.

I am not too concerned about myself, but I'm thinking this could be a security issue for others, such as people in China or other parts of the world. I'm not sure what can be done about this, but I think people should be aware that they can go from the secure to standard server when going between the different WMF projects. Thanks for the help. - Hydroxonium (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

On dewiki all links to wikimedia projects are changed to secure by using javascript in Common.js [2] by subscript de:MediaWiki:Common.js/secure.js Merlissimo (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Similar for English Wikipedia en:MediaWiki:Common.js/secure.js. TheDJ (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both! Of course it's not prefect since enabled JavaScript on the user's browser is needed for this workaround. But better than nothing: Could a Commons' admin please do similarly for Commons? --Saibo (Δ) 15:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Before I enable, I have invited comments from other maintainers MediaWiki_talk:Common.js#Always_secure. TheDJ (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thanks very much for the help everybody. It seems several people are aware of this issue and that's why the javascript solution was created. I was just wondering if a non-javascript solution is being looked into. Or if this issue is on a todo list somewhere. Being a new Wikipedian, I am still learning my way around and haven't been able to find the answer anywhere. Thanks very much. - Hydroxonium (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is bugzilla:5440. I do know that some work is being doing on the interwiki system at the moment, but I doubt that is enough to fix this. The biggest problem is that mediawiki currently doesn't really 'know' the secure version of an interwiki link. It only know it's 'own' form (secure or otherwise). That is also why when you have pasted external links in the wikicode text, those are not rewritten to secure versions (or secure versions back to normal version when you don't use secure.). It only really knows how to output on the fly generated links in a secure form. TheDJ (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are good! I never would have found that. Thanks so very much for all the help and input. It is very much appreciated. - Hydroxonium (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have enabled the script.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

RESOLVED - Thanks very much, TheDJ. I am calling this one resolved if nobody has any objections. - Hydroxonium (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

July 30

Gold helmet in Plovdiv museum

Way back in 1981 we were touring Bulgaria and somehow I had discovered that the museum at Plovdiv held a golden helmet. After difficult explanations we were able to see it. Now I am trying to discover a bit more about it: Wikipedia is currently showing such a helmet which it says is in the National Museum of Bulgaria. The article containing it is under a 7-day threat of removal unless more supporting references are supplied.

Is this the same helmet, moved? Is there any more accessible information about it?

Is this the right place for such a question?

Yours hopefully, -

Theo Tulley.

• You'd to better off asking in Wikipedia, (either on their village pump or the reference desk) than here on Commons. A link to the particular article that is under threat of removal would be a good idea, too. - Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

August 3

US ---> U.S.

On the upload page for military images "US" on the license options etc. should have periods. That is how it is written on military uniforms. Sorry it's so trivial but it's been bothering me for a while. Marcus Aurelius (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) does not seem to give clear guidance on this. I doubt if we can rule on this problem from the Help desk. You would probably have to ask on the COM:VP to find out who decided to use "US" on the upload form and what their reasons were. --Teratornis (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Discussion moved. [[User:Marcus Qwertyus|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">'''Marcus'''</font>]] [[User talk:Marcus Qwertyus|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Qwertyus'''</font>]] (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done [3] Rocket000 (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

August 4

Uploading of new versions breaking

It looks like there has been a change to MediaWiki (guessing here) affecting uploading new versions over existing images. If you use the "Upload a new version of this file" link on the file page the upload proceeds as normal (with usual warning prompts).

However, if you use the standard upload forms, you do not get "&wpForReUpload=1" in the URL. The upload then gets stuck in an a loop bouncing between an upload warning that prompts you to "submit modified file description" and the base upload form, without actually permitting the upload.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a bug in the enhanced upload forms of Commons. Have you tried this on enwp or another place ? TheDJ (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"nominate for deletion" is gone

My "nominate for deletion" toolbox entry is gone. Why? --ALE! ¿…? 08:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Which skin & browser are you using?--DieBuche (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you still link MediaWiki talk:Quick-delete.js in your monobook.js, but the script has been moved elsewhere. Perhaps this has something to do with your problem? --Ianezz (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not as I changed to the new skript and still do not see the "nomination" button. --ALE! ¿…? 09:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the problem that you're seeing, but this was the case for me anyway: The Quick Delete gadget was recently switched to a new version of the script, which can be found at MediaWiki:AjaxQuickDelete.js. As discussed at MediaWiki talk:AjaxQuickDelete.js#Missing links on some images?, the deletion toolbox entries are not available for files that already have problem tags. I guess we haven't decided if this is a bug or a feature yet. :) If you click on edit, the links appear. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is also not the problem as I wanted to nominate File:Ep-straatsburg.jpg which does not have a problem tag. --ALE! ¿…? 09:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have a similar problem, as I said below. I'm using Chromium with the Monobook skin, and trying with the image above, the links show up the first time, but then disappear. Clicking edit shows the links again. I also noticed now that if I reload the page several times, they reappear eventually, but then go away again and so on. There doesn't seem to be any pattern for this behavior. –Tryphon^☂ 10:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking into it now. @ALE! are you using Chrome or Chromium as well? @Tryphon, Could I get OS and exact version number?--DieBuche (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, found the caveat. I'll fix in one sec--DieBuche (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. It's a known problem with webkit browsers (their JS execution is too fast, so they try using addToolLink before the function is even retrieved from the cache). Fixed now. (Clean you cache in Chrome using the "under the hood" pref pane). ALE!, could you confirm?--DieBuche (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, but I am using IE7. The problem is not fixed for me. --ALE! ¿…? 13:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Normally I would say you should get a working browser, but today I feel like fixing funky MSIE bugs, so here you go ;). You need to go to "internet options" & delete "temporary files"--DieBuche (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not in all environments one is free to choose the browser. Thank you! It seems to work now. --ALE! ¿…? 17:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that was it! Working perfectly for me now, thanks! –Tryphon^☂ 12:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Need your guys opinion: Would you rather have the tags signed by --~~~~ or by ~~~~ (without dashes) ? --DieBuche (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Without dashes. If someone wants to systematically add dashes before their signature, they can customize it in the preferences. But if you don't want the dashes, and they're added by default, there's nothing you can do (or is there?) –Tryphon^☂ 07:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer without en dashes (as I have a custom em dash in my signature), but I lost the argument at Template talk:Delete#Why_have_the_--_been_added.3F.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also not put the "--" directly in there. If someone wants them, they can still write "Reason for deletion. --" and have them there. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, forgot to update here: the dashes are gone since a few days ago; if you still get them, you'll need to clear your cache--DieBuche (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Questionable photographs

I have concerns I would like to raise about some of the photographs on this website. I am aware there is some controversy here about what is pornography and what is educational, but I have also raised the issue of several images which appear to have been taken within minutes of each other but seem to serve little use other than to show young women nude. I have nominated several photographs for deletion based on this reasoning, that there is no educational use for so many pornographic photographs, only to be slapped down by a small group of like-minded users who consider it to be an 'attack' on this site. What, for example, does this image achieve: File:Sabrina Deep adjusted.jpg? Or this: File:Kelly Madison 3.JPG? How can this image be educational: File:Demi Delia 1.JPG? Or these two photographs File:Angelina Ash 3.jpg and File:Angelina Ash 4.jpg which only appear to differ based on the amount of whipped cream on the body of the woman.

Wikimedia Commons needs to have a good long think about what is available on the site. I'm not attacking it, but I believe there should be some kind of effort to clean it up to return to the true educational purpose it was set up for. The Cleaner (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In general, each of those images is useful for illustrating the work of a notable pornographic model or actress. Images such as the Angelina Ash series are also useful for illustrating specific fetishes. Powers (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Commons:Nudity: "If a new image depicts something we already have an image of, but in a better way, the older image may be considered for deletion." Kaldari (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay... and? Powers (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

kuch..... (can the real puppeteer stand up now!). Multichill (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Puppeteer? The Cleaner (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Wikimedia Commons is supposed to serve as a common repository of images for all the Wikipedias. It's not this site's place to be telling en.wikipedia that it can't have articles on these four women, or at least, that they can't illustrate them. There are scope restrictions that would affect the pictures if they were just uploads of random amply proportioned women with no particular point (i.e. "snapshots of yourself and your friends" are unwanted). Wnt (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree entirely with the quote from Kaldari above: "If a new image depicts something we already have an image of, but in a better way, the older image may be considered for deletion." (even if the images are considered educational, and I don't personally think they are, we should really choose just one of the whipped cream ones and discard the other one, or better still, look for the perfect image that depicts this in a tasteful way, which is possible). The trouble with this is who decides what is "better" or "different"? It only takes a bit of imagination to see that this doesn't really limit anything. My view is that in paper encyclopedias and reference works, people were limited by paper and money, and were forced to select the best and most relevant images, as well as adhere to well-defined editorial standards, and discard (or archive) the rest. In an online encyclopedia, these restraints don't exist, but we should show some restraint (this is not censorship, just common sense) and try and ensure such images are used, not just placed here for people to browse. It is relatively easy to measure and track the use of images in the projects that Commons serves, but it is less easy to measure the use of pictures that people view by clicking things like the "Commons category" or "Commons page" links on WMF projects. It is also harder to assess the use by non-WMF projects (i.e. the role Commons plays as a freely licensed image depository for the whole world, something I think that goes far outside the realistic aims of the WMF mission). There are some models where it makes sense to have millions of images with only a small percentage actually used, but I don't think that model is sustainable for Commons. Something radical, like flagging up images that are not used in any projects after being here a year, is needed, with projects being asked to link to Commons gallery pages rather than categories (as a better way to track use of images that projects want to link to). There is also a specific problem with one of the images, but I'll flag that up below in a subsection. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Although I don't know the current technical limitation of the WMF, it's conceivable that things could get out of hand very quickly. Who would be the one to handle a cleanup script for old orphaned files? Micahmedia (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A site in which images were deleted if not used in any Wikipedia article for a year would be a very different site than Commons now is. It would decimate the "Tree of Life" project, for one thing (and encourage manipulation of Wikipedia articles). Who is supposed to go through two million files that have been "flagged by a script" anyway? AnonMoos (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The idea is that the software would do this automagically to all images (images that had never been used at all would be marked as such in some way and appear different when viewed on Commons). Generally speaking, it would be nicer if it was easier to see which images are in use or not. Categories are a poor way of organising images, especially when you have categories with hundreds of images. Categories only really work if you have efficient subcategorisation. The classic signs of areas of Commons ending up as a dump of unused and unorganised images is categories with hundreds of images in them with no discernable order to them. I spent an evening going through Category:Maker Faire 2008, and it was difficult to see which ones were in use on other projects, and which ones were sitting there uselessly (some lacked basic information that would be needed to use them in any useful way). Is there a tool that lets you see how images in a category are being used? And is there a way to tell if an image is being used in the "Tree of Life" project? Oh, and I've looked again at the two "whipped cream" images and I think only one of them is needed - would I nominate them both for deletion to see which one should be kept? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You can use the GLAMorous tool. A photo that is not used today doesn't mean it will not be used tomorrow. Okki (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A specific tool for a specific purpose is more likely than radically changing the basic nature of the site... AnonMoos (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OTRS permission confusion?

Could someone check whether the OTRS permission for File:Sabrina Deep adjusted.jpg is for the cropped version File:Gram4.jpg, as it seems that the "adjustment" here was to resurrect the uncropped version. Is it acceptable to do this without checking with OTRS? Note that the cropping occurred immediately after upload of File:Gram4.jpg. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I have asked this question at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard (which I have only just found) instead. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Clipping images on Wiki is possible, but…

If we have an image, say, of 12 megapixels, a thumbnail will hide small details. Do you distinguish any face on this picture? Do you even see a notebook? Doubtful. Let us suppose that we interest only in its part about 1000×800 pixles. Of course, we could crop the file offline and upload a cropped version, but this have many disadvantages. Alternatively, we can use some tricks (see and discuss the test page) to show only relevant part of an image. I am not a Web designer, my interest are far from this, hence I ask somebody to develop it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hiding parts with css isn't that good of an idea, since we load the whle image anyway. Best imho, would be to do it via imagemagick, but you should really rather file a bug at bugzilla--DieBuche (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you propose some extra parameters for [[Image:…]] tag, to crop an image via MediaWiki? IMHO the server side will unlikely be upgraded soon to allow this, and some usable solution for wiki users (not necessary really useful) would help to estimate the need and make the change request better. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is a far better solution than using CSS. It is discussed in bugzilla:7757. TheDJ (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that MediaWiki should be able to crop, I surprised that this was proposed as early as in 2006 with no progress in 4 years. But now, we can make a template currently using CSS like {{Wide image}}, but later to change the implementation to server side cropping. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

How would this work when a downstream user tries to copy the page and include images? Will they be able to include the image the same way or will this function break for them? What about someone who tries to print an article or other item that includes the image cropped in wikitext? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

From the image cleanup perspective, it's quite annoying when I have to clean up the original image as well as 2-20 detail images of various portions of the image by re-cropping them from the cleaned-up original image. Worse yet is when somebody just plain doesn't bother to do this. A crop feature in the image syntax could help avoid this problem. On the other hand, images are often modified during cropping (e.g. to adjust levels), and in this case this syntax would not be helpful. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The big problem with any cropping syntax, is how much it relies on the original. If someone changes the dimensions or aspect ratio of the original image, all your cropped image transclusions go potentially bust. We need a better in browser crop + derivative tracking system. I think that is the better approach. TheDJ (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just an idea: If a crop via cropping syntax would be possible it should probably refer to an image version in the syntax. This would prevent "bust"s. --Saibo (Δ) 13:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The same "problem" does occur with the image annotations (section right below), doesn't it? --Saibo (Δ) 13:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Import jQuery from common.js

Anyone minds me adding it? This would enable gadgets to actually use it, right now we can't or if we do, we have to code a non jQuery replacement for older skins as well, which in turn makes using jquery more complicated than not using it.--DieBuche (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

 Comment In the next revision or so of MediaWiki, it will be available to all skins on all pages anyway. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. I don't need it right now anyway. Do you now which rev / bug it is?--DieBuche (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

See mw:Manual:$wgJQueryOnEveryPage and rev:r65962. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This probably won't happen until the new resourceloader is finished, and I have to say, that thing is gonna be awesome. It has everything you can ever want. On the fly minifying, debug modes, bundling, caching, localization and versioning, it's gonna be the holy grail of efficient, yet non-static, JS and CSS delivery. I can't wait. TheDJ (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

AjaxQuickDelete further extended

Fresh from the press: If you clear your cache, you should now see a "Move page and replace usage" button on every {{Rename}}. Clicking it confirms the name and reason & then moves the file, notifies CommonsDelinker and removes the, then redundant, {{Rename}} template. Also some rather rare bugs with the "nominate for deletion" script are fixed (231 & spamblacklist). --DieBuche (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

W00t, that is gonna be soooo useful. TheDJ (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work for my Safari... :( TheDJ (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Weird, I'm developing in Safari. What (and on which image) exactly happens? Do you see the green link in the template? Could you right-click on the page, select "inspect element" & and in the new window go to the console tab: Any errors reported?--DieBuche (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I found a bug: I could not move the file (because I'm not an admin), but the script did remove the template from the description page. - Erik Baas (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

How did you manage to see the link? Anyway, fixed, i forgot to return; after displaying the warning message--DieBuche (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Using "EditCSS" (a Firefox plug-in) I added div {display:block!important;} to the stylesheets. - Erik Baas (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Move page and replace usage" button is not working for me. It gives me the error message "An error occurred while nominating the file for deletion. To nominate this file for deletion, please edit the page to add the {{Delete}} template and follow the instructions shown on it. A detailed description of the error is shown below: API request failed (editconflict): Edit conflict detected." After refreshing the page following the error, I notice that the rename has taken place, but do not know if articles using the old filename have been updated. I am using Mozilla Firefox 3.6.8. (Also, perhaps the button should say "Move page and apply the new filename"?) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, this is logical and due to a change I made. I have changed back the code while further pondering about how to get this properly implemented... It's a challenge :D. TheDJ (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo workshop in Paris on 4th and 5th of September 2010

Hello,

a photo workshop will be held in Paris on the 4th and 5th of September.

The photo workshop in brief Who? -- any interested Wikipedian, Commonist or other, newcomers and old hands alike Where? -- Paris, Cité des Sciences (Saturday 4) and FPH (Sunday 5) What? -- meeting to exchange photo tips and put them into practice by producing content for Commons When ? -- 4th and 5th of September, from 10 AM up to 8 PM How? -- talks, training by coaching, and production of content in small groups What means? -- Wikimédia France

Anyone interested is invited to subscribe or update their informations here. Note that the course will be given in French, but that many participants speak English well enough to coach English speakers. Rama (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: the exact locations are now official. See here. Rama (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete account

While I thought to be registering at en.wikipedia, it turns out I have registered myself twice at wikimedia commons. I there for would like to withdraw my last registered account williwaw10. Can someone explain to me how to do that? I am also registered as Williwaw. Thank you for your time...--Williwaw10 (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We can't delete accounts, what I could offer you though, is to redirect your old one to the new one.--DieBuche (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you also redirect the nwew one to the old? I seem to be able to log in with my old account on nl.wikipedia --Williwaw (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. It might be helpful if you visit Special:MergeAccount to unify your nl & commons "williwaw" account--DieBuche (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"nominate for deletion" is gone

My "nominate for deletion" toolbox entry is gone. Why? --ALE! ¿…? 08:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Which skin & browser are you using?--DieBuche (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you still link MediaWiki talk:Quick-delete.js in your monobook.js, but the script has been moved elsewhere. Perhaps this has something to do with your problem? --Ianezz (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not as I changed to the new skript and still do not see the "nomination" button. --ALE! ¿…? 09:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the problem that you're seeing, but this was the case for me anyway: The Quick Delete gadget was recently switched to a new version of the script, which can be found at MediaWiki:AjaxQuickDelete.js. As discussed at MediaWiki talk:AjaxQuickDelete.js#Missing links on some images?, the deletion toolbox entries are not available for files that already have problem tags. I guess we haven't decided if this is a bug or a feature yet. :) If you click on edit, the links appear. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is also not the problem as I wanted to nominate File:Ep-straatsburg.jpg which does not have a problem tag. --ALE! ¿…? 09:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have a similar problem, as I said below. I'm using Chromium with the Monobook skin, and trying with the image above, the links show up the first time, but then disappear. Clicking edit shows the links again. I also noticed now that if I reload the page several times, they reappear eventually, but then go away again and so on. There doesn't seem to be any pattern for this behavior. –Tryphon^☂ 10:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking into it now. @ALE! are you using Chrome or Chromium as well? @Tryphon, Could I get OS and exact version number?--DieBuche (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, found the caveat. I'll fix in one sec--DieBuche (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. It's a known problem with webkit browsers (their JS execution is too fast, so they try using addToolLink before the function is even retrieved from the cache). Fixed now. (Clean you cache in Chrome using the "under the hood" pref pane). ALE!, could you confirm?--DieBuche (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, but I am using IE7. The problem is not fixed for me. --ALE! ¿…? 13:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Normally I would say you should get a working browser, but today I feel like fixing funky MSIE bugs, so here you go ;). You need to go to "internet options" & delete "temporary files"--DieBuche (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not in all environments one is free to choose the browser. Thank you! It seems to work now. --ALE! ¿…? 17:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that was it! Working perfectly for me now, thanks! –Tryphon^☂ 12:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Need your guys opinion: Would you rather have the tags signed by --~~~~ or by ~~~~ (without dashes) ? --DieBuche (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Without dashes. If someone wants to systematically add dashes before their signature, they can customize it in the preferences. But if you don't want the dashes, and they're added by default, there's nothing you can do (or is there?) –Tryphon^☂ 07:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer without en dashes (as I have a custom em dash in my signature), but I lost the argument at Template talk:Delete#Why_have_the_--_been_added.3F.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also not put the "--" directly in there. If someone wants them, they can still write "Reason for deletion. --" and have them there. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, forgot to update here: the dashes are gone since a few days ago; if you still get them, you'll need to clear your cache--DieBuche (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Questionable photographs

I have concerns I would like to raise about some of the photographs on this website. I am aware there is some controversy here about what is pornography and what is educational, but I have also raised the issue of several images which appear to have been taken within minutes of each other but seem to serve little use other than to show young women nude. I have nominated several photographs for deletion based on this reasoning, that there is no educational use for so many pornographic photographs, only to be slapped down by a small group of like-minded users who consider it to be an 'attack' on this site. What, for example, does this image achieve: File:Sabrina Deep adjusted.jpg? Or this: File:Kelly Madison 3.JPG? How can this image be educational: File:Demi Delia 1.JPG? Or these two photographs File:Angelina Ash 3.jpg and File:Angelina Ash 4.jpg which only appear to differ based on the amount of whipped cream on the body of the woman.

Wikimedia Commons needs to have a good long think about what is available on the site. I'm not attacking it, but I believe there should be some kind of effort to clean it up to return to the true educational purpose it was set up for. The Cleaner (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In general, each of those images is useful for illustrating the work of a notable pornographic model or actress. Images such as the Angelina Ash series are also useful for illustrating specific fetishes. Powers (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Commons:Nudity: "If a new image depicts something we already have an image of, but in a better way, the older image may be considered for deletion." Kaldari (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay... and? Powers (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

kuch..... (can the real puppeteer stand up now!). Multichill (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Puppeteer? The Cleaner (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Wikimedia Commons is supposed to serve as a common repository of images for all the Wikipedias. It's not this site's place to be telling en.wikipedia that it can't have articles on these four women, or at least, that they can't illustrate them. There are scope restrictions that would affect the pictures if they were just uploads of random amply proportioned women with no particular point (i.e. "snapshots of yourself and your friends" are unwanted). Wnt (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree entirely with the quote from Kaldari above: "If a new image depicts something we already have an image of, but in a better way, the older image may be considered for deletion." (even if the images are considered educational, and I don't personally think they are, we should really choose just one of the whipped cream ones and discard the other one, or better still, look for the perfect image that depicts this in a tasteful way, which is possible). The trouble with this is who decides what is "better" or "different"? It only takes a bit of imagination to see that this doesn't really limit anything. My view is that in paper encyclopedias and reference works, people were limited by paper and money, and were forced to select the best and most relevant images, as well as adhere to well-defined editorial standards, and discard (or archive) the rest. In an online encyclopedia, these restraints don't exist, but we should show some restraint (this is not censorship, just common sense) and try and ensure such images are used, not just placed here for people to browse. It is relatively easy to measure and track the use of images in the projects that Commons serves, but it is less easy to measure the use of pictures that people view by clicking things like the "Commons category" or "Commons page" links on WMF projects. It is also harder to assess the use by non-WMF projects (i.e. the role Commons plays as a freely licensed image depository for the whole world, something I think that goes far outside the realistic aims of the WMF mission). There are some models where it makes sense to have millions of images with only a small percentage actually used, but I don't think that model is sustainable for Commons. Something radical, like flagging up images that are not used in any projects after being here a year, is needed, with projects being asked to link to Commons gallery pages rather than categories (as a better way to track use of images that projects want to link to). There is also a specific problem with one of the images, but I'll flag that up below in a subsection. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Although I don't know the current technical limitation of the WMF, it's conceivable that things could get out of hand very quickly. Who would be the one to handle a cleanup script for old orphaned files? Micahmedia (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A site in which images were deleted if not used in any Wikipedia article for a year would be a very different site than Commons now is. It would decimate the "Tree of Life" project, for one thing (and encourage manipulation of Wikipedia articles). Who is supposed to go through two million files that have been "flagged by a script" anyway? AnonMoos (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The idea is that the software would do this automagically to all images (images that had never been used at all would be marked as such in some way and appear different when viewed on Commons). Generally speaking, it would be nicer if it was easier to see which images are in use or not. Categories are a poor way of organising images, especially when you have categories with hundreds of images. Categories only really work if you have efficient subcategorisation. The classic signs of areas of Commons ending up as a dump of unused and unorganised images is categories with hundreds of images in them with no discernable order to them. I spent an evening going through Category:Maker Faire 2008, and it was difficult to see which ones were in use on other projects, and which ones were sitting there uselessly (some lacked basic information that would be needed to use them in any useful way). Is there a tool that lets you see how images in a category are being used? And is there a way to tell if an image is being used in the "Tree of Life" project? Oh, and I've looked again at the two "whipped cream" images and I think only one of them is needed - would I nominate them both for deletion to see which one should be kept? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You can use the GLAMorous tool. A photo that is not used today doesn't mean it will not be used tomorrow. Okki (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A specific tool for a specific purpose is more likely than radically changing the basic nature of the site... AnonMoos (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OTRS permission confusion?

Could someone check whether the OTRS permission for File:Sabrina Deep adjusted.jpg is for the cropped version File:Gram4.jpg, as it seems that the "adjustment" here was to resurrect the uncropped version. Is it acceptable to do this without checking with OTRS? Note that the cropping occurred immediately after upload of File:Gram4.jpg. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I have asked this question at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard (which I have only just found) instead. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Clipping images on Wiki is possible, but…

If we have an image, say, of 12 megapixels, a thumbnail will hide small details. Do you distinguish any face on this picture? Do you even see a notebook? Doubtful. Let us suppose that we interest only in its part about 1000×800 pixles. Of course, we could crop the file offline and upload a cropped version, but this have many disadvantages. Alternatively, we can use some tricks (see and discuss the test page) to show only relevant part of an image. I am not a Web designer, my interest are far from this, hence I ask somebody to develop it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hiding parts with css isn't that good of an idea, since we load the whle image anyway. Best imho, would be to do it via imagemagick, but you should really rather file a bug at bugzilla--DieBuche (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you propose some extra parameters for [[Image:…]] tag, to crop an image via MediaWiki? IMHO the server side will unlikely be upgraded soon to allow this, and some usable solution for wiki users (not necessary really useful) would help to estimate the need and make the change request better. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is a far better solution than using CSS. It is discussed in bugzilla:7757. TheDJ (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that MediaWiki should be able to crop, I surprised that this was proposed as early as in 2006 with no progress in 4 years. But now, we can make a template currently using CSS like {{Wide image}}, but later to change the implementation to server side cropping. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

How would this work when a downstream user tries to copy the page and include images? Will they be able to include the image the same way or will this function break for them? What about someone who tries to print an article or other item that includes the image cropped in wikitext? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

From the image cleanup perspective, it's quite annoying when I have to clean up the original image as well as 2-20 detail images of various portions of the image by re-cropping them from the cleaned-up original image. Worse yet is when somebody just plain doesn't bother to do this. A crop feature in the image syntax could help avoid this problem. On the other hand, images are often modified during cropping (e.g. to adjust levels), and in this case this syntax would not be helpful. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The big problem with any cropping syntax, is how much it relies on the original. If someone changes the dimensions or aspect ratio of the original image, all your cropped image transclusions go potentially bust. We need a better in browser crop + derivative tracking system. I think that is the better approach. TheDJ (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just an idea: If a crop via cropping syntax would be possible it should probably refer to an image version in the syntax. This would prevent "bust"s. --Saibo (Δ) 13:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The same "problem" does occur with the image annotations (section right below), doesn't it? --Saibo (Δ) 13:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Import jQuery from common.js

Anyone minds me adding it? This would enable gadgets to actually use it, right now we can't or if we do, we have to code a non jQuery replacement for older skins as well, which in turn makes using jquery more complicated than not using it.--DieBuche (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

 Comment In the next revision or so of MediaWiki, it will be available to all skins on all pages anyway. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. I don't need it right now anyway. Do you now which rev / bug it is?--DieBuche (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

See mw:Manual:$wgJQueryOnEveryPage and rev:r65962. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This probably won't happen until the new resourceloader is finished, and I have to say, that thing is gonna be awesome. It has everything you can ever want. On the fly minifying, debug modes, bundling, caching, localization and versioning, it's gonna be the holy grail of efficient, yet non-static, JS and CSS delivery. I can't wait. TheDJ (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

AjaxQuickDelete further extended

Fresh from the press: If you clear your cache, you should now see a "Move page and replace usage" button on every {{Rename}}. Clicking it confirms the name and reason & then moves the file, notifies CommonsDelinker and removes the, then redundant, {{Rename}} template. Also some rather rare bugs with the "nominate for deletion" script are fixed (231 & spamblacklist). --DieBuche (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

W00t, that is gonna be soooo useful. TheDJ (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work for my Safari... :( TheDJ (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Weird, I'm developing in Safari. What (and on which image) exactly happens? Do you see the green link in the template? Could you right-click on the page, select "inspect element" & and in the new window go to the console tab: Any errors reported?--DieBuche (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I found a bug: I could not move the file (because I'm not an admin), but the script did remove the template from the description page. - Erik Baas (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

How did you manage to see the link? Anyway, fixed, i forgot to return; after displaying the warning message--DieBuche (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Using "EditCSS" (a Firefox plug-in) I added div {display:block!important;} to the stylesheets. - Erik Baas (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Move page and replace usage" button is not working for me. It gives me the error message "An error occurred while nominating the file for deletion. To nominate this file for deletion, please edit the page to add the {{Delete}} template and follow the instructions shown on it. A detailed description of the error is shown below: API request failed (editconflict): Edit conflict detected." After refreshing the page following the error, I notice that the rename has taken place, but do not know if articles using the old filename have been updated. I am using Mozilla Firefox 3.6.8. (Also, perhaps the button should say "Move page and apply the new filename"?) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, this is logical and due to a change I made. I have changed back the code while further pondering about how to get this properly implemented... It's a challenge :D. TheDJ (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo workshop in Paris on 4th and 5th of September 2010

Hello,

a photo workshop will be held in Paris on the 4th and 5th of September.

The photo workshop in brief Who? -- any interested Wikipedian, Commonist or other, newcomers and old hands alike Where? -- Paris, Cité des Sciences (Saturday 4) and FPH (Sunday 5) What? -- meeting to exchange photo tips and put them into practice by producing content for Commons When ? -- 4th and 5th of September, from 10 AM up to 8 PM How? -- talks, training by coaching, and production of content in small groups What means? -- Wikimédia France

Anyone interested is invited to subscribe or update their informations here. Note that the course will be given in French, but that many participants speak English well enough to coach English speakers. Rama (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: the exact locations are now official. See here. Rama (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this image really free?

Is File:The Crown Princess of Sweden ties the knot.jpg really free? I uploaded it yesterday. I found it on flickr, where it was licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 Generic license. However, I have a bad feeling about it. Can someone check it? Surtsicna (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of compression issues. Looks like a frame from a digital movie. Looking at other images in the same set, my suspicions seem to be confirmed: "Crown Princess Victoria marries her Prince, Daniel Westling in Storkyrkan, Sweden 2010_06_19. SVT1 webb image. Enhanced". It seems the photographer was playing a bit with his photoshop tools. Not sure what kind of copyrights SVT1 has on an event/recording like this. Note that other photographs by this photographer are collected in this category. TheDJ (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say just those images from inside the chapel are problematic regarding the wedding. As for the category on Commons, my gut feeling from a quick go through is that the Flickr account holder actually did take them. Tabercil (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete account

While I thought to be registering at en.wikipedia, it turns out I have registered myself twice at wikimedia commons. I there for would like to withdraw my last registered account williwaw10. Can someone explain to me how to do that? I am also registered as Williwaw. Thank you for your time...--Williwaw10 (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We can't delete accounts, what I could offer you though, is to redirect your old one to the new one.--DieBuche (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you also redirect the nwew one to the old? I seem to be able to log in with my old account on nl.wikipedia --Williwaw (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. It might be helpful if you visit Special:MergeAccount to unify your nl & commons "williwaw" account--DieBuche (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Juan pablo cruz.jpg

Hi, I have some concerns regarding the privacy of the owner of this card File:Juan pablo cruz.jpg, even more because of the file description by the uploader ("la vaca lechera" means "the milking cow"). Is it OK to have this image identifying the student or should all private info be removed from the image before reuploading it? Or should the file just be deleted? I'm laying this one on you, experienced commons users. Cheers --Santosga (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Especially the subtitle suggest it was uploaded without consent, and purely as attack image. deleted.--DieBuche (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I had suspected as much. --Santosga (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

August 6

noinclude/includeonly on edittools

+

The edittools appear below the input box on the edit interface. You might have noticed that <noinclude></noinclude> and <includeonly></includeonly> don't appear any more when clicking edit here on village pump.

• It was replaced with {{Outdent}}. This appears also on any other page in Commons namespace (sample)
• For file namespace, it now holds {{Rotate}} and {{Rename}} (sample)
• For category namespace, it lists {{Move}} (sample)
• <noinclude></noinclude> and <includeonly></includeonly> are still available when editing in template namespace (sample)

We could add some other tools or remove some of this initial revision. Please feel to suggest changes here or on MediaWiki talk:Edittools.  Docu  at 20:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment, I can still see the <noinclude></noinclude> and <includeonly></includeonly> here, but I don't see the outdent template (and yes, I bypassed my cache) --by Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 06:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime Rocket000 reverted it here is his explanation: QUOTE Yes, it's true certain buttons aren't that useful in certain namespaces, but that's no reason to remove them. People get use to a certain interface and want things they click on always in the same place (especially if you got them mapped out in your mind and use them almost without thinking; a minor change throws you off). Adding a button or two or replacing something like #REDIRECT with {{category redirect}} (great idea, btw) is fine but please don't change it anymore than that from one namespace to another. I also don't think we should be encouraging things like {{Outdent}} (which isn't common enough to be put in here). I removed the "no reason"s because they just take up room (and are monolingual). Rocket000 (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) UNQUOTE

If there is no use for noinclude/includeonly why display it? It just confuses users. BTW, to address a comment in your edit summary: it's not used in creator namespace either and we don't really want to encourage its use in namespaces other than Template namespace. ---  Docu  at 11:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't have a very high opinion of our users do you? Just so you know I didn't revert all of it. The main issue was that you were removing buttons that people are used to being there. We could do all kinds of things with it. Like remove code and pre and namespace on everything but templates, remove gallery from everything but galleries, remove nowiki because who uses that!? We have to maintain some sort of consistency. You're right about the creator space, I was thinking about {{Creator}}. Anyway, I think there's someway you can change it with your .js (although I'm not sure). BTW, your example above is breaking the actual buttons (check when editing this page). Rocket000 (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's just me that gets confused an interface cluttered with useless elements.  Docu  at 07:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Slide show questions

Hello, two questions about slide shows:

• The slide show gadget which works on categories and gallerys in commons, doesn't work properly; many images don't show up but show a +. Why is that?
• Can I / how can I put this gallery in a slide show in wikipedia articles, in order to accentuate the movement it represents:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Greetings. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

1. I think the script hasn't been maintained for a while....
2. Not possible imho--DieBuche (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Deutsche Fotothek question

What do we do with a Deutsche Fotothek image with an obviously erroneous name and description? e.g. File:Fotothek df pk 0000141 004 Kinder spielen im Sand.jpg, one of several hospital images identified as children playing in the sand. - Jmabel ! talk 05:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently there are 31 of these Special:Search/Kinder spielen im Sand. Obviously the files should be renamed and the description updated, but maybe Fotothek wants to set up a process similar to the one with the other archive (if it doesn't already exist).  Docu  at 06:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If you find any mistakes, please put them at Commons:Deutsche Fotothek/Error reports. Multichill (talk) 09:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I'll do. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons in Iran

For what it worth apparently commons block is now lifted in Iran Mardetanha ^talk 13:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yah! Any idea what triggered the blocking and the unblocking? Multichill (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's great news!!! But I also wonder what triggered this. –Tryphon^☂ 13:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Still not clear for us too , it might be even temporary but anyway it's Good news Mardetanha ^talk 14:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it worth , commons is blocked again Mardetanha ^talk 13:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Need help with upload process

One contributor got authors approval to upload this picture on Commons. It was done by artist that already released some pictures here. Now, neither this user, nor artist are sure which copyright tag to put, and I am unsure if there is anything else that needs to be done in the sending process. The author answered:

You may use the Spartan illustration on wikipedia. Just make sure my name and copyright is visible. Make it clear that I retain all copyrights...

Should we put something like Author of this picture anyone to use it for any purpose or something like that? It seems consistent with the other pictures of the same author, they are in PD, with author's name clearly stated. Please, could someone help me? -- Obradovic Goran (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

First, you'll need to forward this to COM:OTRS & secondly the permission is not really acceptable. Ask him to release it under a free licnese, for example cc-by-sa--DieBuche (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response. The process is now clear to me. I advised the user to ask for the standard e-mail consent templated here. -- Obradovic Goran (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to drop me a note on my talk, as soon as you send it to OTRS, and I process the ticket--DieBuche (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

August 8

Requested move

I don't seem to have a move tab. Please could someone who does move my new file File:Moon with 30mm lens and x2 extender.JPG to File:Moon with 300mm lens and x2 extender.JPG. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You can use the {{Rename}} template available on the lower right corner of the edit screen.  Docu  at 09:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done SV1XV (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Patroll Backlog

Dear Patrollers and all who want to become Patrollers

We have quite a backlog at the moment. A little help would be great! I can only recommend Krinkels RTRC tool!

A few patrols a day keep the vandals away ;-) Amada44  ^{talk to me} 19:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I just became a patroller. Looking at New pages I see only 2 lines in yellow. On the page Recent changes I see many lines with the red exclamation mark, but when opening one I don't see a link like "[Mark as patrolled]" in the right bottom corner of the new page. The total number is less than 100. Where is the rest of the more than 7200? Thanks, Wouter (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

On recent changes, the [mark as patrolled] is above the diff, not in the bottom of the page, check this for the backlog, also there is a video-tutorial for new Patrollers. --by Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 01:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC) PD: I also ask for help :-) from patrollers and admins too

Renewing a picture

I like the idea of being a deletionist, but I do not wish to be one. I wish to be the person who edits and replaces the pictures that are illegal in any country and/or have any other problems. Can somebody answer:

1) How do I replace a picture? 2) Could I get other people to request my help as I have "alot" of free time.

Thank you for any help, John Aplessed

If you want to replace an image it means that you have a better image. My suggestion: just upload that better image and put it in the right categories. Forget in first instance about replacing and deleting images of others. Wouter (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have a lot of time, here are some things you can help to do:

• Visit "Category:Wikipedia requested images" at the English Wikipedia to see what images people have requested, and try to fulfil some of the requests by taking photographs and uploading them to the Commons.
• Visit "Category:Media needing categories" and help categorize images.
• Visit the pages listed at "Commons:Deletion requests#Open requests" and comment on whether you think the pages nominated for deletion should be deleted or not. However, familiarize yourself with our deletion policy and project scope first.

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

how do i put an article on my facebook page

how do i put an article on my facebook page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogeared007 (talk • contribs)

Just use the link in the adressbar of your browser?--DieBuche (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think he means that [Wikipedia] tab in some pages, which I don't know who is in charge of that... --by Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 01:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

google search for facebook wikipedia - 7th hit: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21721 . If I got it correctly it's facebook itself. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Licensing (could be) Made Easy

All of this public domain, 3.0 attribution, this and that, is confusing the heck out of everyone. I, and a zillion wikipedians are going insane. How about a number system:

• 1. Public domain
• 2. 3.0 blah blah
• 3. CC-BY-3.0 on your mother's side twice removed
• 4. Creative Commons better get...
• 5. Huge No-No

Do you see what I mean? Some number system so we can be told: "Your image must be a 4 or higher." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

See #Official launch of the Upload wizard prototype, that's an attempt to make it easier. Multichill (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It's helpful to me because my uploads are sometimes blocked, due to the country I live in. This way, I know if it fails before wasting time adding other info. Also, the old way presents a box to fill out. Then, after a minute, switches all by itself to another format. I then have to type everything over again.

But this new system still presents novice visitors with questions like:

• Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0
• Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
• Creative Commons CC0 Waiver

The average Joe won't have a clue, and will often just pick one and the image will wind up removed. Even if he tries to find out the difference, the documentation is large and confusing. That's what needs to be addressed. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's your own work, tell the upload wizard that and select one of the options it gives you, and you won't have a problem. If it's not your own work, then the problem is hard, because the issue is hard. You have to know what you're doing to legally upload someone else's work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

For my own stuff, I'm okay. But sometimes I have probs even with US fed gov images, because they are loaned from somewhere else. Drives me batty. Thanks though. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

August 9

"Did you mean: ...?"

It really irks me when commons asks me e.g. if I wanted to search for Frank Lappa when I search for Frank Zappa and when I then click the suggested Frank Lappa search, it produces zero results. Could the suggest feature be so improved that it wouldn't suggest searches with zero results? I mean, that'd be wonderful and save us all some time. Thanks, bye! 85.76.37.50 15:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that uses Google's suggestion service, which we don't have much control over. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

We do not use Google's suggestion services, nor does any part of our search has anything to do with Google. Search suggestions sometimes suggest stuff that yield zero results. The main reason for this is that we don't have enough servers to run each query twice - once for what you typed it, and once for the search suggestion. Thus, we rely on our search suggestions to get things mostly right, which sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't. Unfortunately, there is currently no-one working on this due to shortage of volunteers, and we do not have funds for additional servers. --mw:User:Rainman 16:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia and FBI in logo use row

I noticed this BBC news story today (though I had seen the news earlier somewhere else): Wikipedia and FBI in logo use row. As the image is hosted here on Commons, I thought it would be a good idea to flag up the story so people here are aware of it (though I'm sure many people have already seen the story). It might also be worth discussing whether this affects any other similar images or not (what applies for similar logos in other countries, for example). Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering Godwin wrote back and said "you're wrong", I don't think we need to do anything. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

But it was worth flagging up the story? I thought it was interesting. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I found Mike's letter pretty hilarious. --DieBuche (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It was funny, wasn't it. :-) I didn't quite understand all of it though. I was hoping someone could also explain in slightly less legal terms what the argument was about, and what exactly you are allowed to do with the FBI logo image (there seems to be a disclaimer on the current image restricting how it can be reused). File:US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg: "Public domain from a copyright standpoint, but other restrictions apply. In the US, unauthorized use of the FBI seal, name, and initials are subject to prosecution under Federal Criminal law, including 18 U.S.C § 701, § 709, and § 712." also "This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status." Is the bit about "restrictions independent of the copyright status" similar to the way in which personality rights restrict the reuse of some images, but doesn't affect how "free" an image is? So are you allowed to modify the FBI logo and/or print it on a T-shirt or something, or could that get you in trouble in the US? Also, some of the files don't have those tags on them: File:FBI seal.svg, File:FBI seal.png, File:FBISeal.png. Should all those have the same tags on them? And what about this image: File:FBI Badge.jpg? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In the language of Commons this is a non-copyright restriction, like trademarks, since it does not restrict distribution or derivative works, only how a work may be reused in certain limited contexts outside of WMF projects. The situation is very similar to currency (Commons:Currency), which is mostly PD in the US but subject to counterfeiting legislation. We may choose to add a warning to the file description page, as we do for several other types, but I don't personally think it'd be very useful in this case. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Got it now (I think). That page was helpful, thanks. The analogy with currency counterfeiting seems the right one to make here. I noticed that a {{Counterfeiting}} tag exists and some currencies have restrictions on resolutions. I suppose it is possible that a case could be made for tagging and/or limiting the resolution of the image of the FBI logo, but if things change and anything like that needs doing, I guess we would be told. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The SVG version of the FBI seal has the {{Insignia}} template, which seems more than enough to me. If we have to make specialized templates for every insignia/seal/coa/medal then we will have more of them than we can manage. For the SVG, the specific law is even mentioned in the Permission field. TheDJ (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Regarding the mike's legal argument: The FBI actually misquoted one law "Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia" to "Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses insignia" but according to some principle called ejusdem generis the "other insignia" part is only meant to clarify the previous list, "where general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words." See the full letter here--DieBuche (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on that: en:Ejusdem generis. --Carnildo (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope it is acceptable (since it is relevant to this discussion) to mention this deletion discussion here. One question I do have is whether (because the argument being proposed for deletion has changed since the start of the discussion) it is acceptable to restart the discussion with the (IMO) more valid reason for deletion, or to point out the later reason to those who commented early on in the discussion? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Transfer FROM Commons

Q1: Can users transfer files from Commons to Wikipedia without downloading and re-uploading? Q2: Can admins transfer files from Commons to Wikipedia without... etc...? --Nepenthes (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes & yes. I guess this is for unfree files. Use imagetransfer.py (part of pywikipedia). Multichill (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

How does one use pywikipedia? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Install python (google it); download pywikipedia; cd into the directory; use like

python imagetransfer.py -Arguments

--DieBuche (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just use CommonsHelper and tick the "from commons to project" box--DieBuche (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I think I'll just do that as I'm familiar with CommonsHelper. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Jack for asking my questions ;) (I had the same anyway...). I tried the CommonsHelper now - however, it does not work without downloading and re-uploading the file. Python I don't want to install as I only have 20 or 30 pics to transfer. Somebody willing to do that for me? (from Commons to WPde because of FOP issue in the United Arab Emirates). I would post a big "You are my hero" on the disc page in return... haha... Thanks --Nepenthes (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What about CommonsHelper2? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It probably works without down-up-loading if (and only if) you enter your TUSC accout for de.wikipedia. Are these pics going to be deleted on Commons? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 15:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm, I used CommonsHelper2 and also the TUSC account. But still it tells me: "ATTENTION : Direct upload works only at commons!". So it looks like it only works the other way round...? Yes, Saibo, these pics are going to be deleted on Commons and actually some of them were already deleted. I included now a list of all pics that I would like to transfer from Commons to WP de (all these pics are allowed on WP de but not on Commons due to FOP):

• File:Yas Marina Hotel 001.jpg
• File:Yas Marina Hotel 002.jpg
• File:Yas Marina Hotel 003.jpg
• File:Yas Marina Hotel 004.jpg
• File:Yas Marina Hotel 005.jpg
• File:The Landmark Abu Dhabi 001.jpg
• File:Etihad Towers 002.jpg
• File:Trust Tower Abu Dhabi 001.jpg
• File:Etihad Towers.JPG
• File:Capital Plaza Abu Dhabi 001.jpg
• File:Sun Tower and Sky Tower Abu Dhabi.JPG
• File:Capital Gate Abu Dhabi 001.JPG
• File:The Address 001.jpg
• File:Rose Tower 002.JPG
• File:Rose Tower 001.JPG
• File:Burj Khalifa 005.JPG
• File:Burj Dubai 001.jpg
• File:Yas Marina Circuit 003.JPG
• File:Metro Dubai 003.jpg
• File:Metro Dubai 002.jpg
• File:Metro Dubai 001.jpg
• File:Business Bay Dubai.JPG
• File:Shaikh Khalifa Medical City.jpg
• File:Catholic church in Dubai.jpg
• File:Evangelical church in Dubai.jpg
• File:Dubai Metro train.jpg
• File:Yas Marina Circuit 002.JPG
• File:Yas Marina Circuit 001.JPG
• File:Ferrari World June 2009.JPG
• File:Atlantis Dubai.JPG
• File:ADMA-OPCO long shot (Nepenthes).jpg
• File:Royal Meridien Abu Dhabi (Nepenthes).jpg
• File:ADMA-OPCO close (Nepenthes).jpg
• File:ADMA-OPCO (Nepenthes).jpg
• File:Saadiyat Bridge (Nepenthes).jpg
• File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque.jpg

Some of the pics were already deleted due to FOP:

• File:BurjDubai.jpg
• File:The Index 001.JPG
• File:EmiratesTowers.jpg
• File:Almas Tower.jpg
• File:Burj Khalifa 002.JPG
• File:Burj Khalifa 003.JPG
• File:Burj Khalifa 004.JPG
• File:Burj Khalifa 006.jpg

Maybe somebody could help...? ;) --Nepenthes (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Of course, if the tool says that TUSC does not work the opposite direction it is like it is. I will help transferring. Please strike (<s>File:foobar</s>) the file's already transferred. Should we upload using the same name? Inclusions in the de.wiki will then automatically use the de.wiki version. Probably not the best thing if not all files here get deleted. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 22:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you able to transfer without down/re-uploading? Btw, are you admin on Commons? Because then you could directly delete the file after transferring? If not, it would be great if you could just transfer with the same file name. So once a file will be deleted on Commons, the same file on WP-de will be used. I can take care of proper file description and tagging after transfer. Thanks Saibo! --Nepenthes (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No I am not able to transfer without down/re-uploading. I am not an admin on Commons. Why should the files be deleted if no deletion request has been opened against the file. Even if there is no FOP in UAE - do all these buildings exceed the de:Schöpfungshöhe in UAE? The same file name would be good if all files on COM get deleted - but if not it wouldn't be good. Well, let's use the same file name. If the outcome is that some files on COM won't be deleted their copy on dewiki could be simply deleted then. I will start to transfer probably in about four hours starting at the bottom of the list and strike those transferred. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 17:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried the first one. The problem is that Commonshelper 2 does not translate the info template. The whole description needs to be filled in manually. I will not transfer any file for now. Maybe somebody has a better idea. Probably someone used to use the pyton script imagetransfer.py could transfer them. --Saibo (Δ) 21:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I also tried now with manual down- and re-upload but it's a real nightmare with the file descriptions. Everything needs to be changed manually. Why I want them to be deleted and transferred? Because every once in a while somebody will delete one of these files anyway (see end of my list the deleted ones which I cannot access anymore). So after some months I assume all of the others will be gone also therefore I wanted to rescue them before all are lost. --Nepenthes (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I just read: Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Category:Burj Khalifa. Well, maybe someone with the above mentioned skript (m:Pywikipediabot/imagetransfer.py) wants to help. If this script is able to fill in the Infomation template automatically - I doubt it a bit. If not ... we respect the non-ex. FOP in UAE. There are also other things to work on. Maybe they change law someday. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 17:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Copy right question

image in question

I have uploaded a pix here under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, but it is now being used for commercial purposes without any attribution. What should I do here? B. Gibson Barkley (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Depends on wether or not you mind. If you mind, the first thing to do is to write them a letter, explaining who you are, and requesting rectification of the problem. If the rectification is not possible, a good idea is to ask for monetary compensation against the normal fees for such works and such uses. I would try to keep the whole thing as much as an "educational experience" as possible for them, unless they really are in it to rip you off. Then it might be time to approach a lawyer. There might be some useful information here. TheDJ (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

thank you, I realized when I uploaded the Image that it might be used this way but this is absurd. B. Gibson Barkley (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is image is it about?--DieBuche (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I study new religious movements (commonly called cults), as a Value free social scientist I do not judge groups for their "heretical theology." I took the photo of one of their ritualistic wedding dances. I receive "google alerts" when one the groups I study gets mentioned in the news and was tad dismayed when I saw one of my photos was in the middle of a hit piece on the group. I sent them a letter (per TheDJ's advice) to them and they have removed it. thanx again for your help. B. Gibson Barkley (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

even the site of the "free christian press" is a blatant copy of the new york times site. I thought those guys believe in certain values...--DieBuche (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, good for you that they removed it - they could also have chosen to use it correctly under the CC-BY-SA license, which could have been even more irritating for you, I assume, as your name would have appeared there. This is one of the reasons I usually prefer a license that doesn't require attribution (i.e. PD resp. CC-zero), as you have no control over who is going to use your images in which context. I prefer no attribution over attribution in a context I don't want to be associated with. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported allows some limiting of what they can do. I still have control over "moral rights" they would also have to licenses their site under free license (which no one on earth would do for profit). So I am happy with the licensing.

Interesting variation on "flat earth" geography, let alone the "Armageddon - wedding" link. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No not flat earth Geography, they maybe on the "cutting edge of creationism" but no. the pupose is a bit clearer with these two destroying the earth to make a new Destoying sin to enter a golden age. B. Gibson Barkley (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is why I usually avoid taking pictures of people without them knowing it will be uploaded to Commons (and what that entails), as I think there are considerations of ethics over releasing an image under a free license so that anyone can use it and you (or the people in the picture) have to pursue them if they use it in a disreputable way. There is only so much the {{Personality rights}} tag can do. Sometimes, though, when I get the chance to photograph a celebrity, the temptation is too much! :-) Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

August 5

LGBT categories

I recently had occasion to move File:Roy Cohn.jpg from Category:LGBT politicians to Category:LGBT politicians from the United States, but I was wondering (for him and for a few others) how appropriate is the designation. Cohn never publicly acknowledged his (undoubted) homosexuality, and I would normally hesitate to apply the terms "gay" or "LGBT" to such a total closet case, especially in conjunction with "politician", where the conjunction suggests someone who actively engaged in politics as gay (/lesbian/bisexual). (Similar issue for lesbian or bisexual; transgender can be clearer if the person lived publicly as each gender at a different time, even if they never embraced a transgender identity.) Others' thoughts on this? - Jmabel ! talk 00:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

en Wikipedia has a policy on this - en:WP:BLPCAT. There is a prior discussion [4] and proposed policy here. Benchill (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a lot of relevant conclusions there. Of course we should not attach these categories where the matter is doubtful. The question is more a matter of connotation: does "lesbian, gay, or bisexual" in these categories mean open embrace of such an identity, or simply being known to have performed certain sexual acts? - Jmabel ! talk 02:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that a bit of cautious editing judgement is needed - there is still prejudice against LGBT individuals, after all - let's not be silly about this: Obviously, people like Oscar Wilde, James the VI and I of Scotland and England, and many other historical personages may and likely should be classified in that tree, even if they never embraced the label for obvious reasons. I think we may lump Roy Cohn, who died in the early 80s, in with this group.

Presuming we all accept that it's alright to classify the non-recently deceased, all we need to do is make a decision on a few categories. First off, I don't think that we need worry about these:

• Living or recently deceased, known to have embraced LGBT identity: Uncontroversial: They get added to the category.
• Recently deceased, killed because of LGBT identity: There's probably a category for that.
• Living or recently deceased, speculation they were LGBT: We usually only classify with good evidence. Leave out.
• Person is in a country where homosexuality illegal: Only consider classifying if it will not do harm to them; e.g. a campaign to get them freed is based on their LGBT status.

That leaves us to deal with:

1. Living, known to be LGBT, but not openly. May or may not have attempted to deny status as LGBT - and this may or may not change what we decide to do.
   • Pros: Are members of categories
   • Cons: Do we have the right to out them? If they denied their status, should we insist otherwise?
2. Recently deceased, ditto
   • Pros: Are members of categories. Deceased status may mean that they can't be hurt by any prejudice.
   • Cons: So long as the evidence of their LGBT status is good, I don't see too much of a problem in most cases
3. Subject of a gay sex scandal, e.g. w:Ted Haggard, an evangelical preacher who attacked gays, and also had sex with them.
   • Pros: Already outed; are members of categories
   • Cons: Given the circumstances of their outing, they may be very eager to deny it, and our classifying them according to the scandal MIGHT cause issues.

So, thoughts on those three situations? Objections to anything I said before that? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's so much easier when your new favourite musician just says she's a lesbian. I'd personally go for more based on the identity than the act - I see no reason why straight musicians shouldn't be categorised under LGBT musicians if they play at pride festivals and such. Just remember that in these cases describing someone as male or female can be offensive as some people don't identify as either. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it extremely confusing to users if images of musicians are placed in "LGBT musicians" simply if they appear at a pride festival? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"A", no, but I feel if they're regulars, it's not unreasonable. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If anything, I think a straight person probably would be best placed into a "Gay Activist" category. As for how to categorize people in general, I think subjective categories should only be added when the subject themselves view it to be true. So Category 1 above, I say No. Category 2, Yes if there are reliable sources for it. Category 3, No unless the subject does identifies him/herself as LGBT (e.g., en:Jim McGreevey). Tabercil (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over antisemitism category

I would like to get some community input concerning a dispute over this image. There is agreement over adding Category:Flag burning and Category:Anti-Zionism. In addition I would like to add Category:antisemitism. My thinking is that Categories are intended to make it easier for people to find images suitable to their purpose.

It is not our business as Commons editors to pre-determine how a particular image is used. In this case the image can best be categorized as

1. Flag burning,
2. Anti-Zionism, and
3. Antisemitism.

It seems likely that there will be people searching in all three categories who will find this image useful, and Commons editors have no business censoring how an image will be used. Since it is likely that some people searching Commons for images in the Category:Antisemitism images will think this image useful to their purpose, not adding the category could amount to a form of censorship.

At the moment the filed is locked to prevent further revisions to categories. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Malcolm failed to present the issue in a neutral manner. There is debate over if the image should be categorised as Antisemitism or not. The Anti-Zionism category was suggested as a compromise. As the image shows an objection to the state of Israel (or it's actions) the issue regards if criticism of Israel always is antisemitism or not. As Rama earlier stated "I would like to stress that in many countries, public expression of antisemitism are punishable by law. When not specifically sourced, the term "antisemitism" can therefore constitute not only an insult, but downright defamation and libel. Uttering it gratuitously or lightly is a very disruptive behaviour.". // Liftarn (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

People consider pictures of the Palestine Occupation as pictures of genocide. As Commons editors have no business censoring how an image will be used, would you show us the good faith of adding that category to those images? Not adding controversial categories is not taking a stand on issues; if they want a picture of the flag of Israel being burned, or anti-Israel activity in general, they can find it under the obvious categories.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not try to present the issue in a neutral way because it is obvious that I am involved on one side of the issue and assumed that you could present your side better than I could. I did inform everyone on the image talk page that I had started a thread here. I think my dealing with this was fair, and certainly intended that it would be. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a burnt flag - it looks like someone painted it to me - imo a flag is made of some sort of cloth and has rings to allow it to be hauled up a flagpole. Do we have a category burning representations of flags? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

wikt:Flag says "A piece of cloth, often decorated with an emblem, used as a visual signal or symbol." I think this fits in the broadest definition of flag; I find a couple Google hits where a flag decal was referred to as a flag, for example. And I'm not sure that trying to re-categorize this is a win, since we're likely to end up with this in a weird category on its lonesome away from the most similar items.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is painted on a large piece of paper that at one point was folded in quarters. That does not change the symbolism of the act. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any context that would indicate that the image definitely expresses antisemitism. Without such context, putting it in such a category isn't very NPOV, in my opinion. Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kaldari. This is anti-Zionism, a protest against the Israeli state. What about the burning or defacing of US flags in demonstrations? Is that a racist act against the American people or a protest against the policies pursued by the US government? In both cases it could be either, or both, but without further information that cannot be judged. By labeling this *anti-semitism we are not being neutral as we should be but expressing a political opinion. That damages our credibility and reputation. Category *anti-semitism should be removed and if it is to be replaced by anything it should be *anti-Zionism. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for some background information I want to point out the WP article New antisemitism, which discusses the idea that some of the more extreme criticism of Zionism and Israel (and I doubt that flag burning deserves to be dignified with the designation 'criticism'), although apparently anti-Zionist, are actually antisemitic. Certainly, criticism of Zionism and Israel is not antisemitism if it aims at rationality and at improvements in the Israel. But calls of the destruction of Israel, and irrational hate acts (such as burning the Israeli flag), can reasonably be considered as antisemitism disguised as anti-Zionism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to break the debate cycle. Why not just place it in Category:Burning flags of Israel and avoid all the subjective debate concerning whether it is anti-this or anti-that? For all we know it might be part of a ceremony such as this American flag burning. -84user (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Curiously enough that image is categorised as Category:Anti-Americanism, but then I guess anti-Americanism refers to the country and not the ethnicity. // Liftarn (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Hezekiah's Tunnel

Well, I'm trying to create a new category for lots of pictures I took in Hezekiah's Tunnel, as can be seen here. Apparently, I can't figure out how to do it right. Can anyone take care of it? Also note that there are another 4 pictures uploaded by others, under the misspelled category name "Hezekiahs Tunnel" (as can be seen here). I think they should also be moved to the new category. Thanx! Tamarah (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tamarah. I think you should use the categories given at the category 'Hezekiahs Tunnel' and use them to category your new category (just copy and paste). Then move the other pictures and redirect the old category as it's spelt incorrectly. You could also add Category:Hezekiah. Hope that helps. If you are still having trouble or you'd like me to do it just let me know. Regards, Anatiomaros (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, all sorted! Anatiomaros (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast (: thank you for your help! Tamarah (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories have disappeared

Hopefully someone can puzzle this one out: File:Luteranskaya cerkov Svyatogo Petra.jpg clearly has categories present, but they don't show up on the image page, and the image is not be categorised in them. I can't see anything in the description page itself that would be causing this, and the categories are not marked as hidden. Eh? — Huntster (t @ c) 22:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There was an incomplete /nowiki tag in there - fixed now. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Matt, I feel silly now. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

August 10

Marking and Tagging the Public Domain: An Invitation to Comment

Creative Commons is inviting people to comment on their new Public Domain marking. This might be interesting for us. --Ainali (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I more than welcome this. Eventually it will make our material easier to 'discover' as free materials. On a related note, isn't it about time that we do away with our self defined 'PD-self/user/w' templates ? CC0 is much better for this purpose due to the elaborate amount of international legal work that has gone into it. TheDJ (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why should I be forced to use a dedication statement that I don't want to use? I'd much rather use a simple PD-self for my own works. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Selling high res versions?

Assume I upload a photo taken by myself having less resolution (like 1 Mpixel) than the original. Is it ok to write as comment to the photo that the full resolution photo is copyrighted and can be purchased by using a user dicussion page or an email address? Is it forbidden in some licences, maybe allowed if using "public domain"? --136.1.1.154 11:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You are allowed to sell pictures from this site, but I don't think You will be allowed to use commons.wikimeda.org as a place for Your marketing.

The licence-texts don't forbid it, but the site-policy. -- Lavallen (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have a policy forbidding this. Arguably, if the practice encourages people to license content to the Commons, we may not want to stop people from doing it. However, the content uploaded to the Commons must be useful for the project – if editors upload small thumbnails which are not usable in articles merely for the purpose of advertising the originals, these can be nominated for deletion. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Same topic: de:Wikipedia:UF#Wie_kann_ich_meine_urheberrechte_optimal_schützen??? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

For those of us who don't speak German, what was the result of the debate there? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say that there was no "result" or consensus. As I am involved in the discussion I prefer not to give a translation of the arguements. You could try the bad translation by google (third section) in the meantime. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Uploading low resolution images under free license is allowed, bur making publicity for selling a related item (higer resolution picture) is not allowed, is my opinion. So if the upload contains a reference to selling, that reference must be removed. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC)My position is that uploading low-res only (especially when) accompanied with some sentence ("Contact me via bla@example.com to get the high-res") is advertising in the Wikipedia. Also if someone uploads only low-res he is not creating free content - one of our project goals. Low-res cannot be used in some applications (like printing). In addition: If someone has uploaded a low-res photograph of (for example) a famous building maybe others will think "we already have a photo - I do not need to take one and upload it". --Saibo (Δ) 15:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, I disagree. Obviously, if the uploaded version is very small, it is not very useful to us. But I see absolutely no problem with a user uploading a medium-resolution version of an image, with a link to "contact me for licensing a higher-resolution version of this image." It's not what we'd prefer, but it's better than not getting the image at all. Powers (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Using this argumentation we could also install standard third-party advertisement banners if we use the generated income for buying books/licenses/younameit for Wikimedia authors. Scheme: money/content for ad space. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Oh, and of course my last point ("in addition") could still happen. --Saibo (Δ) 15:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a very big difference between selling ad space to third parties, and letting content contributors mention that higher-resolution versions are available. Powers (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Which one? Both is: Getting a direct benefit for the project (money for servers / images) in exchange for a benefit for the "third party" (ad space). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC) One came to my mind: The ads for high res images probably have a way better price/performance ratio for us than usual internet ads. --Saibo (Δ) 21:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It´s a wiki. Everyone can remove such ad links. Just do it!

@topic: I prefer "really" free images. Thus it´s better if we have no image instead of one that is not really free in any way... And ad links are a no-go... Chaddy (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

← I recall that this issue has come up before, and that some uploaders do have a practice of indicating that they are willing to sell higher resolutions of images (or images with less restrictions on use, e.g., without any need to attribute the photographer). Unfortunately, I can't seem to locate the discussion in the archives, though I recall that the conclusion of the discussion was that the practice was acceptable. Nonetheless, consensus can change, so if there is now consensus that we should not encourage uploaders to use the Commons for this sort of advertising, then a policy can be drawn up. More comments are needed, of course, but it seems to me that at this point there is no consensus on prohibiting the practice. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A lower resolution is not to bad. From 600px (in width) upwards images will be fine for most WP projects. Somehow I find that better than what some pro photographers do to 'protect' their images from being used: licensing as GFDL-only. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 16:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant GFDL-1.2 only which is not compatible to CC-by-sa. If an image with GFDL-1.2 is used in print, you have to print the whole GFDL license on the same print. Quite a lot of pro's used the Opt-out to protect their images like that. Here an image as an example. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 07:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It´s the other way round: GFDL-only is the much lesser evil... Don´t forget: GFDL-only is a free licence and compatible to CC-by-sa.

But only uploading images with a low resolution saps the idea behind "free licences". I don´t think we should support this... Chaddy (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm seriously mis-remembering, GFDL was compatible with CC during a narrow window when the project transitioned, but all-in-all, it is not similar. Authors and photographers license their works as GFDL to "claim" free use, but given that the work becomes encumbered with an enormously unwieldy license requirement (that is, must include entire GFDL license text with each instance of the re-use), those works (especially images) rarely see any kind of re-use. And I entirely disagree with the idea that lower-resolution works are anti-free license. We should be grateful for whatever a works creator decides to contribute, regardless of resolution. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As Huntster says, we should be grateful for whatever a works creator decides to contribute, but is not OK to use Commons as way to sell the high-res file, that is advertisement and falls outside Commons's scope --by Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 22:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree on GFDL-only -- that makes it a lot more likely that people unwittingly create incompatible derivative works (and, frankly, when used intentionally for visually-oriented works because of the unwieldy requirements for re-use, is not really in the spirit of "free") . Copyright owners have the perfect right to do what they want with their works; if they wish to donate lower-resolution images only, and those images are still of use, then great, we should take them with appreciation. That said, you would probably want to keep any advertising very low-key; a simple mention that higher resolution versions are available and a basic link (or other contact info) would seem to be enough. And if the commons user page is the primary web presence, that probably would not fly either. I'd say it is preferable to put most such advertising on the web elsewhere, and link to it from here. Ideally, the primary purpose here is to work on making a better media repository; when it appears otherwise is when there may be issues. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy for people to only release a low res version of an image under a free licence, as long as that version is useful for us. It's much better than nothing. In fact, Commons:Flickr#Lower_quality_images even advises people to ask for a low res version when the author is not willing to release the high res version. It is very easy to find many examples of useful files where the author states that they can be contacted for other licensing terms: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I don't have an issue with any of those files. Pruneau^talk 09:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen such things already, and I must say that resolution isn't everything. A lower resolution image isn't necessarily bad (they can still be used in quite some places) and a high resolution image isn't automatically good, there is other stuff that matters even more. So I'd be happy about the images that these people provide us and not scare them away from here. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You forget that low-res images are - especially in print works - almost unusable. With high-res GFDL-only images you don't have this problem (and in books the license text isn't a problem, too). Hence both things constrain usage of our material outside of Wikipedia and the internet... Chaddy (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree with that as well. For example, I believe most books that reprint Wikipedia articles simply use the version of the image that already is shown in the website article... 200-300px. No, they might not work as full-page illustrations, but they get the job done and look just fine doing it. And the GFDL license is, what, three to five pages of printed text in book form? Publishers usually don't like to throw away that much material when they could easily just tell the author to go stuff the image. Also, in my opinion, our first priority is to our Wikimedia projects, not to the theoretical reusers. Certainly, we want to take them into account (which is one of the reasons most or all projects transitioned *away* from GFDL), but I see it as a case of "You can use it if it's here, but don't complain since you're getting it for free". — Huntster (t @ c) 06:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand governement switches to CC-BY.

Apologies if this has been mentioned already. The New Zealand government has switched to CC-BY-3.0 as the default licence for their works. This is promising! Pruneau^talk 11:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What was the default license before? Powers (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Presumably just Crown Copyright (see {{PD-NZ}}), which I think was non-retroactively extended from 50 year to 100 years after publication in 1995, meaning no more government works will become public domain until 2045. So yes, this seems quite promising. I do see that their policy does allow for NC, ND, and SA CC licenses in some situations, so we do need to be careful to look for the specific CC license (BY and SA are OK, NC and ND not, as usual). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hand drawn maps?

I dont have enough skills to make nice graphics for illustrating military history articles on Wikipedia. However I have made some hand-drawn maps. Can these be uploaded and displayed? AshLin (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as you add any relevant disclaimers (eg. "Maps not to scale" or "Maps accurate to x distance"), I don't see why not. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I assume you mean the phrase "Map not to scale" appears on the diagram itself. AshLin (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant in the description, but either one is acceptable I suppose. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. AshLin (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Official launch of the Upload wizard prototype

As anticipated not too long ago, the prototype for the new Upload Wizard, has now officially launched. Be sure to read the Questions and Answers on this topic and share your thoughts. TheDJ (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Launched where? The prototype existed before and Special:UploadWizard is a 404--DieBuche (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TheDJ, you beat me to the Village pump :) DieBuche: Yes, the prototype existed before, but we hadn't advertised it because we weren't ready to deal with the flood of feedback. Now, we are officially inviting the community to test it. guillom 17:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I very much wish you hadn't co-opted the Usability feedback page for this narrow purpose. Powers (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I very much wish you hadn't posted the same message in three different places, especially since it's so misguided. But wishes are rarely granted. guillom 17:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, every couple of days I tried a different method to contact you, as I received no response to the initial query. I was trying to get some sort of response to what I considered an urgent issue. It's not common for users to simply change the scope of a page without discussion; how was I to know it was "your" page to do with as you wished? Powers (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Raboe001/licence

In regards to User:Raboe001/licence, the MLD language switch seems to work in the tempolate page itself, but the language switch option doesn't appear in practice when the template is used in files. I remembered it working earlier... See File:Vittorito 01.jpg as the testing ground WhisperToMe (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I see - the language switch button moved to the top of the entire body of text. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Better user interface for move tab

Per this old thread Commons should have a more uniform user interface by:

1. Changing the name of the "move" tab to "move/rename" - I think that makes it clearer how to change a file name. This can possibly be done by an admin at MediaWiki:Move
2. Always displaying the "move" tab, even if the user is not confirmed - it is a common question from new users I think, and a graceful error message would help. The bug I filed is marked as "wontfix".

 Support doing #1 right now, and voting for #2 in bugzilla (you need an account to vote there unfortunately). Cheers, --Commander Keane (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

 Comment I talked about this to diebuche recently. It can easily be integrated into the AJAXQuickDelete javascript probably. TheDJ (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

 Support 1, 2 is a suggestion that I entered 2 years ago (for the delete tab too): even for files, categories, ... When the person has no right to do so, at least the interface is uniform and can explain why and what to do. Should cut 20% of help and VP traffic. --Foroa (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with putting it into the AJAX deletion script. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

 Comment no opinion about 1. We can implement 2 ourselves, no need to change the software. Would of course be very cool if a user without move rights can click "move", gets a popup ("new name" and "why"), fill this out and a {{Move}} or {{Rename}} gets added. Multichill (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be not too easy, users should at least need to answer 3 yes/no dialogs, otherwise we will be even more overwhelmend with such requests. --Foroa (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

DynamicPageList (DPL)

Hello! I wanted to ask, do you have installed DPL installed here, on Commons? I tried using both the Wikimedia one, and the third party one. And no one worked. The page where I tried to use them is my user page. Thanks --Tucayo (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

When you look at Special:Version you can see we don't have de DPL activated here, most of the WikiNews languages have them activated, you could try there maybe. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 19:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Inkscape Question

I'd like to be able to do work on maps, and for the most part, I'm not bad, but there is one thing I can't figure out. As you can see on this map, several states are diagonally striped in two different colours. Could someone people give me instructions on how, if I took this blank map, I could make a section diagonally striped, and select the two colours I want? I'd really appreciate it. Fry1989 (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

August 13

Classic Monobook

The Classic Monobook gadget appears to be broken. I have verified I have it selected and yet that hideous background started showing about a week ago for me. Please fix the gadget. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 03:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I just tested it, and it seems to be working just fine for me. Perhaps try bypassing your browser cache. TheDJ (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Browser cache did the trick. Thanks. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 19:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

All bots broken

In case you're wondering why no bots are editing Commons at the moment: When you try to put a page at Commons using the api you'll get this error: {"error":{"code":"maxlag","info":"Waiting for 10.0.0.238: 217514 seconds lagged"}} The bot will wait, try again and get this error again. This will get your bots stuck in an endless loop. Multichill (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be working again (bot invasion!). Multichill (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding some more translations to Translatewiki

I was wondering if some translations could be added to Translatewiki so that they can be used here. I'd like to move the common DR templates there, so that we can get rid of the {{LangSwitch}} within them and making the DR log pages easier. It would be the following translations: {{Vd}}, {{Vk}}, {{Comment}}, {{Question}}, {{Delh}}, {{DRbox}}, {{Vote move}}. Please advise on the next steps. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Asked: Suggestion for categoryname.

Hello, I want to put these games with a small bouncing type ball in one category. Does somebody have a good catname suggestion? Category:Balle pelotte - Category:Frisian handball - Category:Frontenis - Category:Gaelic handball - Category:Jeu de paume - Category:Pallone - category:Pelota - Category:Pilota valenciana - - Category:Squash - Category:Tennis - Category:Wallball and possibly also Category:Rock-It-Ball. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Doesn't sound like a good way to categorize ball games, in my view. How small is small? As small as a ping pong ball? A tennis ball? A boule used in pétanque? I'd say "Category:Ball games" is adequate, or find some other better distinguishing characteristic to group the subcategories (for example, games in which balls are hit with rackets, games in which balls are hit with paddles, games in which balls are rolled on the ground – these are just off the top of my head, so I haven't thought the matter through properly). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not only the size, they are historically related which makes it interesting to put them together. But under what name? --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "Category:Games derived from Jeu de Paume" (or whatever the common ancestor is)? Pruneau^talk 12:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I added descriptions to some of them along with interwiki's and the same words and links come back all the time: pelota, pelote, pelotte, kaatsbal ... In other words, they seem to be regional variations of the smae game. Could be interesting to make an interwiki matrix ... --Foroa (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Pruneau, I had Games related to Jeu de Paume in mind, but hesitated as it is a mix of languages. Is Jeu de paume commonly used in english? Foroa, that interwiki matrix sounds interesting, how should it look like? --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no English name for the sport except en:Jeu de paume. Powers (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

As the groups seems interesting, you could start with "Games related to Jeu de Paume" or "Games derived from Jeu de Paume" even if eventually someone would want to rename it.  Docu  at 13:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Kurdish-inhabited area by CIA (1992).jpg: knowledgable help requested

Either I am misunderstanding what is going on at File:Kurdish-inhabited area by CIA (1992).jpg or someone else is. My understanding is that a map that is attributed to the CIA at a particular date has been altered. It may or may not be more factual as to what are actual Kurdish areas, but as I see it the summary is now inaccurate, and even if it is more factual there should probably be two different images, one showing what the CIA said in 1992 and the other showing the derivative work. But User:Leosan, for one, seems to think I misunderstand. And perhaps I do. I think some other eyes are needed. - Jmabel ! talk 21:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that a large change such as that should be uploaded under a separate file name. Powers (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If even the map's content (different size of bright area) is changed it should be definitely a new file (derivativeFX helps). By the way: jpg is the worst file format for a map which was changed several times based on the the previous version. Should have been converted to png. Best is now to save the new version as png and upload it as a new file to be prepared for further changes. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Jmabel and those others that reverted back closer to the original (which itself might have been modified from the CIA original). I noticed some of the other maps in Category:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions and Category:Maps of Iraqi Kurdistan have been recently updated. I have reverted a few with a request to please upload derivatives as new files. -84user (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

August 14

A proposal

There are a lot of undecided deletion requests. I propose a formula, similar to what other public sites sometimes have, to be put there: If you are of the opinion that showing this picture on this website infringes any right you possess, we will ask you to let us know. If your claim is justified, we will delete the picture from this site. --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain a bit more. Your proposal is about getting things deleting, undeleting requests is about getting things undeleted. Multichill (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about undeletion requests, I am talking about deletion requests on which no decision could be taken and which remain week after week on the list of deletion requests and where admin after admin does not take a decision. Such an invitation to people who may have rights (if they ever visit the filepage) to react, could permit to take the file out of that deletion requests list and still have it marked. --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, misread your note. Has been a while since I visited Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests ;-) Multichill (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That seems a sensible way to lessen the way too long backlog we have. A couple of things are not clear to me. Am I to understand that this means closing the DR as "unresolvable without further information" or some such formula, and perhaps placing the file in a new subcategory for such files? When you say "to be put there" do you mean the DR or the file page, or both? As long as this is limited to questions of copy/personal rights and that those claims are verified by email this seems a good idea (verification should be strict otherwise it would be open to abuse, of course). Anatiomaros (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

PS We would also need an agreed time limit before this kicks in for any given unresolved DR. Anatiomaros (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Gottlieb free of licence photos...

...released by the Library of Congress, in case it's of your interest. Regards, Gons (¿Digame?) 17:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC).

If you click on the license details: "These facts do not mean the image is in the public domain, but do indicate that no evidence has been found to show that restrictions apply." So we need to be careful and check, but some/all are surely interesting to have. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There's also a license tag: {{PD-Gottlieb}}. And if you follow the link in the tag you'll find the homepage with the photos in categories - and high quality tiffs. Would be great if we could get these tiff versions by bot which needs to upload automatically a jpg saved from this tiff. The tiffs have a way higher quality than the images in flickr (checked with the first in flickr (Henry Allen)).

But it looks most images are already transferred: Category:Photographs by William P. Gottlieb. Sadly not in the highest quality (example File:Bill_Harris_1947_(Gottlieb).jpg vs. tiff here). --Saibo (Δ) 21:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The LoC's golden rule is: Rights assessment is your responsibility. Since the LoC is pretty userfriendly they usually provide so called "Rights and Restrictions Information" on images. For William P. Gottliebs pictures you can see this copyright info here. Given the fact that "the photographs in this collection entered into the public domain on February 16, 2010, but rights of privacy and publicity may apply" there needs to be a closer look on the topic. The Library's copyright information is not similar to the tag system of commons or its policies. It some cases it's clear which license applies - Carol M. Highsmith's photographies provided by the LoC for instance are part of the public domain.

The Gottlieb's pictures are within the public domain as stated by the LoC. To verify if this applies to a upload on commons you'll need to check:

• a) the copyright situation for this item via US-copyright law,
• b) if different - the copyright law of the country where the picture was taken,
• c) if different - the copyright law of the country from which you upload the item.

If the answer to all three questions is public domain you're fine. Otherwise check if different commons-suitable license would apply.

In this particular case we need to check the personality rights of famous people within US-copyright law. Look here for en:wiki's official guideline on the public domain. For info on personality rights with public domain I recommend reading this article.

Conclusion: We doubtlessly head for non-commercial use here. On my behalf I think we are fine with using the {{PD-Gottlieb}} tag, though this hole issue might need some official character (guideline, admin, etc.)

A bot would indeed be a helping hand. Nonetheless I object this idea - the process of automatisation, especially for metadata, is not this improved yet. ATM I try to introduce a tool to do so. Thanks for the great support of Any1s and Magnus Manske.

Regards. --Peter Weis (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's forget the bot thing. I think it would be useful to create some kind of coordination page to coordinate the helpers efficiently and to assure that we fully transfer the collection in highest quality. As there seems to be no coordination currently everybody helping needs to start from scratch and needs check if a specific image is already uploaded. I would propose to create Commons:LoC Gottlieb (similar to Commons:Tropenmuseum or Commons:Robert Lavinsky) containing at least some kind of table/list which images/categories are already transferred and a license discussion/explanation similar to the one above. That's just an idea/suggestion – I don't have free time to help here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way: Here is a side notice regarding tiffs: de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Bilder#Update Serversoftware. It seems we do not need to wait until 2015 for tiff thumbnailing support ;) Then we could omit saving the high-res tiffs as jpegs. In case we want the big tiffs since they consume much storage space - we have enough, don't we? --Saibo (Δ) 00:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Afaik commons limits uploads to 100mb - if working with tiff data from the LoC or other institutions providing imagery in similar size, this is ridiculous. There is enough imagery beyond 100mb up to 500mb which can be find in the archives of the LoC. I am afraid other institutions or private persons who could provide material of that quality are prevented from doing so by this limitation. Anyway I support your idea of creating a project page for the Gottlieb collection. My focus is on other projects atm. I am looking forward to work on this in september.

Regards. --Peter Weis (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Is File:George Wettling Gottlieb.jpg ok as PD? see Commons:De minimis -- Cherubino (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

August 11

Over a million Geograph images

Hi everyone, I'm very pleased to announce that I'm going to upload over a million Geograph Britain and Ireland images. About half a year ago I uploaded the first 250.000 images and now I got the remaining 1,5 million images. This is going to improve our coverage of the UK and Ireland a lot. I'm currently preparing the upload, technical discussion and feedback can be put on the batch uploading page. Multichill (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much! I read the technical stuff on the batch uploading page - impressive! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh my .. Good luck, I think you really need it.  Docu  at 07:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, based on past experience, it is also going to create a categorization nightmare. -- Jmabel ! talk 21:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... Perhaps we should stop for all new uploads to Commons to prevent any new mess. And if we delete all files that is not used it will be easier to maintain the rest. Or perhaps we should just try to do better this time :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I was by no means suggesting that we shouldn't take them all, just that we should have a plan for what to do with them. - Jmabel ! talk 03:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a plan. Multichill (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Alexander and Diogenes

If anyone has Edwin Landseer's Alexander and Diogenes, then Category:Diogenes and Alexander and w:en:Diogenes and Alexander#Artwork will both benefit from it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:French_books

Why does this redirect to Category:Books from France? What if the book is merely in the French language? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 15:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This definitely needs sorting out. It seems we have no category for *French-language books although we have *French language literature (strictly speaking I think it needs the hyphen: 'French-language literature'). Many countries publish books in French, of course, and French literature flourishes in places such as Switzerland, Québec and Tunisia: I have dozens of books in French by Tunisian authors, for instance. Anatiomaros (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

And there are books from France which aren't in French. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Several years ago, some people went through most of the "Xian Y" type categories and replaced them with "Y of X" type names, due to ambiguities often involved in nationality adjectives, ethnic adjectives, etc. If you want to create a category for French-language books, it should be "Category:French-language books" or "Category:Books in the French language" etc., and not merely "Category:French books" (since this short name would involve the same ambiguity which was found objectionable in the past). AnonMoos (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

External links not opening in new tab

This is a really minor point but has had me wondering for a while. When I view the English Wikipedia using Mozilla FireFox 3.6.8 and click on an external link, the website opens up in a new tab. However, this doesn't happen when I view external links here at the Commons. Is there some way I can make an external link open in a new tab here? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Use the middle mouse button? --Latebird (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Gee, I never knew you could do that! But why does the way external links work vary depending on whether one is accessing the English Wikipedia or the Commons? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. I'm also using Firefox 3.6.8, and external links on Wikipedia open in the same tab, just as they always have. Powers (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Forcing any links to open in a new tab/window is a bad thing. This should be the user's decision. Of course the user will need to know how to do it ;-) (en:RTFM). However, is it possible that you have some kind of hack in your skin.js on en.wikip to force external links to open a new tab on. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we force all users' external links to open in new tabs! And as far as I am aware I didn't add anything special to my .js page. I'm really puzzled by the different behaviour of my browser in Wikipedia and the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Error creating thumbnail error/blob.c/OpenBlob/2498

When accessing the thumbs of the image (eg 290px) I get:

"Error creating thumbnail: convert: unable to open image `/mnt/thumbs/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/CNPP-III_unfin_5_and_6_in_2008.jpg/290px-CNPP-III_unfin_5_and_6_in_2008.jpg': @ error/blob.c/OpenBlob/2498."

What's the problem here? The 120px thumb works for some reason (it's from the file version history table). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, the image itself is File:CNPP-III_unfin_5_and_6_in_2008.jpg... AnonMoos (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to work now--DieBuche (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Abigor (talk · contribs)

Abigor (talk · contribs) claims that if screenshot of FREE COMPUTER SOFTWARE contains the blue windows bars what contain buttons maximize minimize and close etc. that they are need to delete!! that is not serious. It's only a bar with three buttons how it can be copyrighted. could someone else explain this better! THANK YOU --Olli (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please start a deletion/undeletion request for the specific files. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

THANK for your answrew.but it 's doesnt solve that problem. Abigor (talk · contribs) is too accurate! Coudl some one else say are windows buttons really copyrighted?? --Olli (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, quite easily. Why don't you crop them out? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Because here is very lots of picutres what have those borders -.- --Olli (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Usually these parts of the picture are De Minimis, as they are not the main subject and do not make up a big part of the image. So while they are copyrighted, we shouldn't have a problem by showing them. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

So it's ok to upload pictures what contain part of Windows (titlebar, and the buttons, not anything other) of free software? --Olli (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No, its not just okay to upload parts of microsoft software, you still need to try and crop of as much as you can. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 09:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

.... its' just few buttons and the title bar.. --Olli (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

could chrisiPK answer please? --Olli (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

i m waiting thanks --Olli (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Rarely is it ok per the de minimis argument, however the XP-style buttons in File:7zip Finnish.PNG are too simple for copyright, IMO (opinions may differ). Vista-style ones are borderline. Either way, I suggest simply uploading a cropped version and avoiding that whole discussion. Rocket000 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

August 12

Commons:Category scheme Commons maintenance

Hi, I'm thinking what to do with this page and it's subcategories. Now we have templates like {{Mld}}, so maybe we should move translations to category page and move these pages to archive? It will be simplier and more coherent with other Commons' pages. Yarl ✉ 23:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been planning to overhaul that whole system for a while now, but it's kinda a big job. The descriptions should definitely be placed on the category itself, however, I still think having a page that provides an overview of the whole global maintenance category scheme will be useful (not in the state it is now). Also, having a example of what a local maintenance category scheme should look like is helpful. Rocket000 (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

August 16

Copyright on a special image

Hi everybody,

I think I know well the copyright rules on works by living artists on Commons. But I've a special case to submit to your advices : this picture on Flickr of the UN's Palace of Nations in Geneva where the ceiling is made by the spanish artist Miquel Barcelo. Considering that the main subject of the picture is the room and not the artistic work (which represents approximately 30% of the total size of the picture), I was wondering if the freedom of landscape principle can be applied in this particular situation ? Though, if by principle it is OK, but in pratice one may consider that 30% is too large, can I crop the image (as the CC licence of the author of the image authorizes) to less than, let say, 20% of the surface and then import it on Commons ? Thanks for your advices.--LPLT (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the issue of whether the ceiling only makes up about 30% of the whole image is relevant. Thirty percent (or 20%, if the image is cropped) is clearly not de minimis, so in my view the freedom of panorama rule would still need to be complied with. According to "Commons:Freedom of panorama#Switzerland", it is not clear whether freedom of panorama in Switzerland applies to artworks that are installed indoors. I wonder if this means we can push the boundaries and assume that it does until a formal complaint is made? I'd like to hear other editors' views on this. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Another thought – is it your intention to use the image to illustrate an article on the Palace of Nations? If so, what about cropping the ceiling out of the picture completely? On the other hand, doing this might be strange as the ceiling is one of the distinctive features of the chamber. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Two remarks : my goal is to keep the maximum of the ceiling since I want to illustrate Miquel Barcelo's works ! The room doesn't not matter for me. A second point is legal : the UN in Geneva, as in NYC, should benefit total extraterritoriality. Thought, which country's laws are applicable ?--LPLT (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're using it to illustrate the artist's work, then de minimis cannot apply regardless of how much of the image the artwork makes up. --Carnildo (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My responses to LPLT's comment:

• As I mentioned, it may well be that you can rely on the law relating to freedom of panorama in Switzerland to use the photograph. Due to the current uncertainty in Swiss law as to whether freedom of panorama applies inside buildings, perhaps we can assume that it does unless the copyright owner makes a formal complaint. (But I'd like to hear what others think of this.) If you can rely on freedom of panorama, then it doesn't matter whether the image shows 20%, 30% or even 100% of the artwork (i.e., de minimis is not relevant).
• I'm not aware of any legal rule that exempts UN premises from copyright laws. (Criminal laws might be another matter, because of diplomatic immunity.) The Palace of Nations is in Geneva, Switzerland, so I would expect Swiss law to apply to photographs taken in the building. But if someone knows better, please share the information.

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if Swiss copyright law applies, Swiss FOP certainly does not apply: inside buildings only if hall/room serves a transit purpose (underpasses, railway stations, and the like). Lupo 20:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. Another remark The Security Council Room in NYC showing the Per Krogh's (dead in 1965) tapestry may also be in the exact same case. FOP in the US does not work for artworks according to Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States but the picture has been accepted (the extraterritoriality factor which creates a blank or a case law ?). I knew this situation was a very tough one...--LPLT (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on whether the image "File:UN security council 2005.jpg" is acceptable for the Commons, so I don't think we can assume that it is. You are right that freedom of panorama in the US does not apply to the artwork shown in that photograph, so if no other law applies the photograph should be deleted. But someone who knows about laws relating to whether copyright subsists in UN premises will have to comment on the second part of your message. Personally, I'd be very surprised to learn that simply because an artwork is displayed in UN premises it ceases to have any enforceable copyright. I suspect that the usual copyright laws of the country in which the UN premises are continue to apply. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The {{Flickrreview}} bot is a big success -- how about a {{Milreview}} and {{Govreview}} bot

Let me offer my appreciation for those who created the {{Flickrreview}} bot. I suggest this bot has been a big success. (The related flickr related tools have also been big successes...)

For those unfamiliar with the tools, flickr is an image upload site that allows uploaders to pick a liscense. Two of the liscenses they allow are liscenses we recognize as free liscenses. And some uploaders graciously chose those liscenses.

Some flickr uploaders initially chose a free liscense, and then change their mind, and place a more restrictive liscense on the image. As we all know here, the intellectual property rights released under a free liscense can't be clawed back. Other flickr uploaders delete some of their older images, because they have a cap of how many images they can make available at any one time, and they want to make room for newer images.

When an image is marked with {{Flickrreview}} tag it gets visited by the bot, which confirms the image was liscenced with the stated liscense, when it was uploaded to the commons.

The bot works well. But it won't detect what some contributors call "flickr-washing" or "flickr-vio".

I recently suggested we consider adding a corresponding bot for images uploaded from .mil sites, one capable of confirming the image was from a military source.

This bot would be more complicated than flickrreview. Nevertheless I think some images can be recognized as being taken by a GI.

• A bot could read the images EXIF data. Some EXIF data confirms the image was taken by a GI.
• A bot could confirm the image had a valid Mil-ID.
• Could a bot reliably detect which captions corresponded to which images? Could the bot reliably detect when a caption asserted an image was "released", or when it was credited to a GI? I suspect it could not, as google's image search often searches the wrong captions.

I think even if only a fraction of the images from a .mil domain could be confirmed by a bot, that bot would still be useful. A {{Govreview}} bot would be useful too, but maybe even harder to write.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware of Category:Files created by the United States Navy with known IDs and similar categories? VIRIN's are very useful. Multichill (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why I promote those {{LOC-image}} and {{NASA-image}} etc id cataloguing templates. With an ID you should always be able to find back an image, even if it has been taken offline. Still a 404 should be no reason for a deletion. If the image LOOKS like a government image and if the uploader is in reasonable good standing, then a url going 404 after 5 years should be no proper reason for deletion. TheDJ (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it's enough just to check if the image uploaded = image on the URL. Copyright status and so on could be indicated in the EXIF, or be obvious because of other considerations. Trycatch (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

When source URLs for .mil images go 404?

In this deletion discussion an image where I thought had supplied the .mil page where I found the image, was nominated because the source URL was 404.

Over the last five years I have uploaded thousands of images from .mil sites. I am sure a substantial fraction of the URLs where I found those images have gone 404. Should I anticipate that those dozens or hundreds of images I uploaded, where the original source page has gone 404, will all be nominated for deletion? If so I think we can expect all our source URLs to go 404 -- eventually.

Do our upload pages check to make sure the source URLs uploaders supply aren't 404, when they are uploaded? If not may I suggest they should do this? Geo Swan (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There's currently no automatic checking of general source URIs. You can use {{LicenseReview}} to request manual review. 404 status for sources provided several months or years ago is not a reason for deletion unless there is some reason to doubt the uploader's claims. On a related note, it'd be nice if people could learn to use 301 and 410 also. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

License for signatures

I would like to know if it's possible to upload an image with the signature of deceased people (i.e. vo:Ragiv:ArieDeJongDispenäd.png). These were obtained from letters written by that person. If so, what kind of license can I use? Thanks and regards, Malafaya (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

{{PD-text}} is the most appropriate one--DieBuche (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

We have a specialized license template for that: {{PD-signature}}. Instructions are to be found at COM:SIG. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. I used {{PD-signature}} as suggested. Malafaya (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

New page for Library of Congress material

I have started a new page: Commons:Library of Congress‎. This goal of this page is to list all relevant information to material from the Library of Congress, as it applies towards it being hosted on Commons. I think it can be helpful for many people. TheDJ (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it is a good addition.--Jarekt (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

 Support Very good idea. Especially instructions for tiff conversion, upload, etc. should be posted here (will contribute myself).--Peter Weis (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

New proposed look of {{Painting}} template

There is a lively discussion at Template_talk:Painting#New_proposed_version_of_the_template --Jarekt (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Really a Voice of America image?

The recently uploaded File:Voa chinese Joan Chen 13aug10.jpg is purportedly “in the public domain because it is material provided by Voice of America, the official external radio and TV broadcasting service of the U.S. federal government.” But is it really? Could it not be as well from another source and republished by VOA? The website given as source, http://www1.voanews.com/chinese/news/20100814-Maos-last-dancer-100680404.html, is in Chinese, so unfortunately I do not know what the image caption there says. Could someone who understands Chinese check if this is really a VOA image? Thanks. Regards --Rosenzweig δ 15:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Google Translate suggests that that particular image may be fine, there are 2 film stills and the poster that are fair use though. However I leave it to someone who is fluent to confirm this. BrokenSphere (Talk) 18:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

South African currency copyright

Does anybody know if {{PD-SAGov}} applies to South African coins and banknotes? The images in Category:Coins of South Africa (Pound) only give the license status of the photographs. —innotata 22:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

August 19

Vectorization : how to know if somebody is already performing a task ?

Now here: Commons:Help_desk#Vectorization : how to know if somebody is already performing a task ? --Saibo (Δ) 15:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Procedural question

There are cases when a file already has a deletion request pending, and a regular user notices that there is a case for speedy deletion. What is to be done in such cases, flag for speedy deletion (as is done on English Wikipedia) or just note the situation in the deletion request? The procedures documented here are not specific as to which procedure to follow in such cases. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 17:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, tag it and assume whoever responds will close the DR. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd need a very strong case - clear and incontrovertible proof - to do that if a discussion was under way. Unless it's a truly urgent case it would be better to present the evidence at the DR and request a prompt closure (and deletion!). Anatiomaros (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Limited opportunity to import hard-to-access PD images from Flickr

This Mucha print can't be accessed remotely from LoC, but a nicely cleaned up version is in trialsanderrors' photo stream. There are a lot more great images in a similar situation.

Trialsanderrors, a user who used to be very active here but hasn't been uploading very many files here for a while, has been using Flickr for the last few years to post high resolution public domain files from the Library of Congress: http://www.flickr.com/photos/trialsanderrors/

Many of these images are only accessible from the Library of Congress premises, not online. The pro account is going to expire on August 14, meaning that after that these images will no longer be accessible in full resolution. For some images, there are lower quality versions on Commons already. For some, they aren't on Commons yet at all. Basically every one is a great images that should be on Commons. I'm going to go through the Lewis Hine photos if I can. But there's way more on this Flickr account than I can handle before the window closes.--ragesoss (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make an urgent request at Commons:Flickr batch uploading? Alternatively, it might be possible to use a program like Flickr AutoDownloadr to download his entire photostream. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I can transfer all of these images for you (excluding the exact dupes). But the images need to be checked. Are you (and/or some other people) willing to do that? If so, I'll fire up the bot tonight (CEST). Multichill (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I just fired up the bot, see Category:Images from trialsanderrors to check for the images. Multichill (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Any suggestions for a good review plan ? I was thinking to move each checked image from Category:Images from trialsanderrors to check to Category:Images from trialsanderrors if the copyright status is verified (easy to do with FF and cat-a-lot gadget), and then just tag, cat and cleanup from there. TheDJ (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good.--ragesoss (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As Raecky at en-wiki pointed out, the full resolution TIFF files are actually accessible if you figure out the file system for them. For the example thumb I used, it's here: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/cph/3g00000/3g03000/3g03600/3g03656u.tif . Still, many of the ones on Flickr represent a lot of value added from processing, cropping and cleanup. Also, I think a lot of the large ones will be compressed with the "progressive" option, which means we may need to resave them without that to get thumbnails to work. And I'm not sure if the LOC pages are just taking a different form, but I couldn't figure out how to make {{LOC-image}} work with them.--ragesoss (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I just contacted the original uploader using Flickr Mail to notify him that his images have been moved here. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. It would've been more useful if I'd been notified before the mass upload now puts my screen name in such prominent position in the file name. About licensing, Flickr forces me to choose one of their licensing options, which doesn't include PD, but in my view (which was and I believe still is Commons standard) mere digital restoration does not count as derivative work, so no need to include the CC license (and I don't want to come across as someone who misappropriates copyright). On the need to check, you can save yourself a lot of work if you sort out the images tagged [PD?] and [PDUS] and check those individually (my hunch is most of them won't pass muster). I only tagged images [PD] when there was clear evidence of the images haven fallen into the public domain. This includes for instance all photochroms, all WPA posters, all NCLC photos by Lewis Hine, all FSA-OWI photos, all of Ansel Adams' Manzanar photos, etc. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I was intending to contact you; things started moving faster than I expected.--ragesoss (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Well bots can change things if we want. 2 days is a rather short time. If the toolserver goes down by accident, we might have missed the opportunity a bit. TheDJ (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Just because my Flickr account goes into hibernation doesn't mean the files disappear. It's still possible to contact me here or there. I just find this lack of courtesy, which has become all too common on Commons, annoying. I put a certain amount of care into my uploads on Flickr, and even more to my uploads here, so I'm really not happy to see my screen name prominently attached to this careless mess. By and large, if people tag their images as CC on Flickr, it means "If you find something you like, feel free to reblog." It rarely ever means "Please grab my whole photostream and post it somewhere else without telling me." You can of course hide behind the fact that de jure it means the latter, but that goes back to the lack of courtesy to the uploaders I pointed out before. I also find it annoying that the bot grabbed the whole descriptions of the files, which contain a lot of Flickr-specific comments and which in my book are not in the PD. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I wrote 12 different answers here before hitting submit, but I just can't seem to put my thoughts into words on this one. So i'll just stop touching these and if someone want to delete them all, i won't object. TheDJ (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm trying to think of other solutions but I can't come up with any. One of the major problems is that I use different criteria for Flickr and Commons, so a whole batch of those images should not go on Commons but as it stands to be expected (as Commons is notoriously slow at deleting even obvious cases) they will stick around for a while with my name and comments attached to them. On the other hand, files such as this one could perfectly go up on en.wiki, even if they don't fit on Commons. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
            • • As I work on cleaning the bot uploads, I'll move the files so that your username isn't in there anymore. howcheng {chat} 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I don't know how to write scripts, but if it's possible to write a script that 1. strips the "Flickr: trialsanderrors" prefix from the file name, 2. retrieves the description from the LOC website (all images have links, either in the old form http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3b49222 or the new form http://loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3b49222/), 3. categorizes the Collection (e.g. Performing Arts Posters, National Child Labor Committee), and 4. posts a link to the Flickr version, we should be able to cut the problematic cases down to a manageable 200 files. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Is the bot still running? Because it looks like we're on the order of 500 short atm. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Of 1920 public images there are about 200 that are set to (C) or CC-NC, which (hopefully) shouldn't be picked up by the bot. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Alright, with the bot uploading 1724, the calculation works out okay. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I created a page for the upload if u wanna help solve the issue.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume it's ok to use the {{Rename}} tag and if we have the right to rename these as we process them correct? So I'm going to delete his description, put the description from LOC, strip source put source as LOC, etc... no credit to restoration? We should nail down a formal way to process these and if restoration needs attributed or not. Then we can start churning through these. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the restoration should be credited to the Flickr link ("This version from trialsanderrors on Flickr"), if only to make clear that this is not a compressed version of the original LOC file. I propose that we discuss further details on the batch upload page. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Since (not very surprisingly) the interest in this set evaporated after less than a week, I guess the best solution is to delete it wholesale. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

SRAW image

The only image on the SRAW (here File:Sraw.jpg) has been previously deleted from Commons, with the name of File:Predator SRAW.jpg, before re-uploading it I would like to know if there's some reason I shoulden't. By the way, I don't know how to search deletion archives, that's why I'm asking. Thanks, --Amendola90 (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• You can upload it here only if you can indicate a source which supports the claim that it is a US Federal Government work. A link to a government site where this photo is displayed is ok, or a full reference to a government book or magazine. SV1XV (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, looking at the page on the english Wikipedia it seems to provide a link to a site, it's public domain in the US, but it doesn't specify if it is so all over the world. So, being a work of the government, is it transferable on Commons?--Amendola90 (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, the link [5] is to a page where this is clearly tagged as a photo by Lockheed Martin, a private firm, so it is not free. SV1XV (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for your time, --Amendola90 (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Filepage.css

Soon, we will be able to use the page MediaWiki:Filepage.css to define CSS rules of the file description pages here and on other wikis. We could then move the formatting of templates like {{Information}} or {{Creator}} into CSS. I think that we should use this and use CSS for some templates and do it the following way:

• Add all styles that are also needed on other wikis to Filepage.css
• Import Filepage.css on Common.css with @import Filepage.css
• Add all stuff that's only needed on non-file description pages to Common.css, Vector.css and so on
• If we need to reference to only one skin in Filepage.css, use stuff like body.skin-vector or body.skin-monobook

I think that this way would reduce potential double work. Otherwise, we would need to add all the styles to Common.css and Filepage.css, which would be unnecessary with this method. Also, we must be extra careful when adding stuff there because errors don't only break Commons, but also 700 other wikis. What do you think of this method? Flaws, stuff to do better or anything like that? --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I might also suggest that, to avoid naming conflicts with local CSS rules on other projects, we should probably use some standard prefix (like "commons-" or "filepage-") for any class/ID names meant for use on file description pages. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Will the other wikis have to import it into their Common.css also? Right now we avoid using css for file pages because it doesn't work for other wikis that don't have those styles defined (or defined the same way). Rocket000 (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

When checking how {{Creator}} renders in various other languages (sample links here), I noticed that some don't have the required collapsing tables script. Similarly, annotations don't render in most other wikis.  Docu  at 05:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For collapsing tables and annotations to work, we would need a MediaWiki:Filepage.js also, which should be possible if the .css is. Rocket000 (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The .css file will be on all wikis by default, directly in the <head> HTML section. Concerning {{Creator}}, I'm wondering why this is actually collapsed by default. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

August 7

Thumbnail softness issue

moved comments on softness from above section --Saibo (Δ) 14:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It also looks like sharpening may have been turned off recently for thumbnails. Anyone know about this? The new thumbnails definitely look softer than before. Kaldari (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have submitted Bugzilla: 24834 for the original issue. I cannot tell about sharpening, but maybe you want to comment on the same bug. --Eusebius (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I had the same impression but only concerning my last uploads. They all look very unsharp. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I submitted Bugzilla: 24857 for the softness issue. Kaldari (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

from buzilla entry: "But for now I will just change our configuration to use 0x0.8 instead of 0x0.4."

Examples: soft (generated yesterday), sharpened (generated some minutes ago). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Related nice to have ideas:
1. Is it possible to enable the sharpening also as an option with pngs? Sharpening should depend on the image's content and not on the file format.
2. It would be nice to have the possibility to enable or disable sharpening via a parameter. Both, in the thumb's URL and in the wikisyntax for embedding images. Something like [[File:example.png|thumb|sharp|This is an example.]]. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

August 18

Category:Temporary categories for images from the New York Public Library

Is there a description anywhere of what we are trying to do with the images in the categories under Category:Temporary categories for images from the New York Public Library? If someone could lay out a general plan, I imagine there is a much better chance that a number of people could help get these into permanent categories. - Jmabel ! talk 05:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of these subcategories seem to be topical categories and others categories by author/publisher.

Personally, I'd keep the later. The former could be merged into topical categories (e.g. Category:Mirror Lake (California)) or renamed (e.g. Category:Stereo cards of the interior of the White House - maybe a better name could be found).

That being said, we still need to find a way to deal with the fact that we have quite a few reproductions of the same image (sample grouping: Mirror Lake (California), stereoscopic view number 9466)  Docu  at 05:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some have the potential simply to be renamed and become permanent categories. But other than those,I was also wondering about a plan along the lines of when the temporary category should be removed. For example, there are a bunch of these I've categorized into Category:Stereo cards of Utah and added what I think are appropriate additional categories to each, but I don't really know if it would be considered good or bad for me to strip out their "temporary" categories at this point. - Jmabel ! talk 05:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Strip them. More specific categories can be added by users interested in that particular category. If the category you added them in is the same topic as the temporary category then just remove the temp.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Step by step:

1. Pick a temporary category (Category:NYPL Stereoscopic views of the Hudson River and vicinity).
2. Find or create a corresponding topic category (Category:Hudson River).
3. Have a bot move the contents
4. Tag the temporary category for speedy deletion

Multichill (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Except that we presumably also want to do something to keep them all somewhere under Category:Stereo cards as well, no? -- Jmabel ! talk 05:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, step #2 should probably read "Find the corresponding topic category (e.g. Category:Hudson River) and create a corresponding subcategory (e.g. Category:Stereo cards of Hudson River).

Step #3 for Multichill is more like place {{Move}} on User:Siebot/Commands. --  Docu  at 05:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I just took a shot at one of these categories, which resulted in Category:Stereo cards of the Atlantic coast of Florida. I also went through and did at least a fair job of categorizing all the images, which was far more work.

I'm not at all sure that just going through the steps above, without going through and categorizing each image, is really a good idea. Having them in a temporary category reminds someone that there really do need to be properly categorized. When that is transformed to a permanent category, there is no such reminder. - Jmabel ! talk 00:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it depends on the category. Some of these are narrow enough that it's fine; others are nothing but the geographical area. - Jmabel ! talk 03:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote a little bot to assist the categorization process. New process for the user:

1. Pick a subcategory of Category:Temporary categories for images from the New York Public Library (for example Category:NYPL Stereoscopic views of the Brooklyn Bridge, New York, N.Y)
2. Add the relevant topic categories where the images should be moved to to this temporary categories (in this example I added Category:Brooklyn Bridge and Category:Stereo cards of New York City)
3. Wait for me to come by to finish the move

This will work on most categories. Hope this helps :-) Multichill (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

August 17

Highland - Highlands

There is a problem at Category:Highlands and its many sub- and subsub-categories. Highland and highlands are mixed. Can some Scottisch users have a look there, make proper move requests (category renaming requests) and do recategorisations? --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved the only one that was obvious (haven't checked sub-sub cats though) - MPF (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

See e.g. subcat Category:Nature of Highlands . --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm rebuilding the tree under Category:Highland (council area). Multichill (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OKE, thanks.--Havang(nl) (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done rebuilding the tree. Now images should be kicked down the tree and incorrect images should be moved out of it. Multichill (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Edward Knowles

Should this template be nominated for deletion Template:Edward Knowles? --P. S. Burton (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. I've nominated it for deletion – please participate in the discussion. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Are official portraits of Austrian politicians in the Public domain?

If you see template "{{PD-AustrianGov}}" better (and §7 UrhG) you see this german text:

§ 7. (1) Gesetze, Verordnungen, amtliche Erlässe, Bekanntmachungen und Entscheidungen sowie ausschließlich oder vorwiegend zum amtlichen Gebrauch hergestellte amtliche Werke der im § 2 Z. 1 oder 3 bezeichneten Art genießen keinen urheberrechtlichen Schutz.

(2) Vom Bundesamt für Eich- und Vermessungswesen hergestellte oder bearbeitete (§ 5 Abs. 1) und zur Verbreitung (§ 16) bestimmte Landkartenwerke sind keine freien Werke.

And this mean " exclusively or mainly for official use made of the official works". Oficial poratrit of statesman are maded by authorities, and becausue can be in public domain.

You agree? --77.48.29.30 07:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue is whether such official portraits of Austrian statesmen are "official works made exclusively or mainly for official use". What is the purpose for which such official portraits are created? If they are published in official government documents or websites, then I would agree that §7 UrhG probably applies and they are in the public domain. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, im agree. Oficial portrait of president are userfull for schools, goverment rooms and many others oficial institutes of the state. You can see here photo published at oficial Astrian presdient webpages http://www.hofburg.at/show_content2.php?s2id=20&language=en ... can im upload him under PD-AustrianGov?

You have to read the full paragraph. vorwiegend zum amtlichen Gebrauch hergestellte amtliche Werke der im § 2 Z. 1 oder 3 bezeichneten Art. Only works described in §2 are exempted. §2 refers only to literary works and explicitely excludes all other kinds of work (..sofern sie nicht zu den Werken der bildenden Künste zählen). The answer is clearly no. --Martin H. (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

images from article about president are part of literaly work... im see no problem --77.48.29.30 08:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, clearly a photographic work is not a work mentioned in §2 number 1 or 3.Even if included in an official text (note: the above website is not an amtliches Werk in terms of §7 Z.1) it will stay under the copyright of the photographer, see §1 Z.2 of the law as well as §6. The copyright belongs to the photographer, it is not transferable (§23 Z.3) and it not belongs to an authority as you may think according to your first posting. The copyright will expire 70 years following the authors death. --Martin H. (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not, owner of copyright are organisation. If you this in this way, you must delete American files, Bundesarchiv, Polish presidency files and many others. Not, you say nonsence. --77.48.29.30 10:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Fredy, I can only repeat what the law says, it is not my opinion or anything like that but a direct reference to the law. You can call the law nonsense if you like but this will not help you in this very clear case. --Martin H. (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What Martin H. says seems to make sense, based on § 2 Z. 1 oder 3. 77.48.29.30, I don't think you can draw any comparison with the laws of other jurisdictions such as Germany, Poland and the US. Each jurisdiction's laws are different. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I mean you're smart you saw through me :-D

The disadvantage of Germans is have brains instead of laws. Do you really think that that the German and Czech secondary school students and teachers do not use photographs without copyright permission? I'm studying at Central in the Czech Republic, cousin studied in Belgie at a high. And copyright is a totally ignored... --77.48.29.30 11:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not an argument we can accept here either. Just because other people may be doing the wrong thing does not justify us following what they do. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not, where it difference betwem fair use and this? ONLY in law. And law are only words on paper... --77.48.29.30 14:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a big difference between images that are free and images that may be made use of under a fair-use justification. We do not accept fair-use images here at the Commons, as this goes against the project's aim of creating a repository of free images. Laws are more than "words on paper" because they give people rights and are enforced by courts of law. Have you tried searching Flickr for free images of Austrian politicians? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

ALL schools of EU too breaking copyrigth... same status like me.. --77.48.29.30 17:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, also in Austria 'fair use' exists, see § 54 Z. 3 and 3a. of Austrian copyright law. --Martin H. (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Okej, why you do not use him? At Wikipedia, for example (im know, in multi-state language version it used law from country with biggest people content, but for austrian politicans im see no problem)--77.48.29.30 18:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Files on Commons must be published under a free license voluntarily by the copyright holder (thats not the case) or they must be public domain (thats also not given here). Other content is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons, this project. Read Commons:First steps. --Martin H. (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I know the rules, I just disagree with them :-)

But hey, at de. wikipedia im see NO fair use template. Why?

PS: I recently know that my family comes from Austria. :-D

Because de.wp is a free content project and fair use or Bildzitat is not allowed there. See de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Fair use. --Martin H. (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

why it not same case Romanian or Russian Wikipedia? --77.48.29.30 18:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Because every wikipedia comunity decides on their own if they switch to non-free fair use or if they keep their projects a free encyclopedia. See foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy point 2. --Martin H. (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Description field killed

Hiho, I edited the description of a picture with the result that it cannot be seen anymore: File:Roessler.png. Help is appreciated, thanks. --DaTroll (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Es gibt Probleme mit der Generierung von Thumbnails auf dem Server, könnte daran liegen, das File ist OK. --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ja, das hatte ich schon vermutet, ich meinte allerdings insbesondere auch dass die Bildbeschreibung im Description-Feld nun weg ist. Da steht nur noch: "Description Deutsch:" anstatt von "Description Deutsch: Roessler-Attraktor, von kku berechnet (numerische Lösung (mittels der Routine rkdumb, Runge-Kutta-Integration aus „Numerical Recipes“) für Parameter a = 0,15, b = 0,20, c = 10, 10.000 Schritte, dt = 0,5) und mit Gnuplot visualisiert, GNU-GPL". --DaTroll (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the description.  Docu  at 12:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I never would have found that. --DaTroll (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over antisemitism category, part 2

There is still no resolution to the dispute over adding Category:Antisemitism at File talk:Burned israeli flag - 27zapata.jpg.

I would like, if possible, to get some clarification over the intention in the use of categories in Commons. My understanding is that the categories are primarily a search convenience so that people can find images under the search heading they are most likely to use, and that a category is not a declaration of truth.

If that is correct, it would follow that if people are searching for images under "antisemitism" that those files they might find of use should actually be in category antisemitism, and the images should not hidden away in a category where the person doing the search might never find them.

I would appreciate comments. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Again you are misrepresenting the case. Should categories to be used as a political tool to promote the idea that criticism of the state of Israel and/or it's actions is a form of antisemitism? // Liftarn (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That is what I am asking for clarification about. I understand categories as a search convince, and think that not placing a useful category amounts to censorship. Liftarn, if I understand him correctly, thinks that a category amounts to a Commons declaration of truth on an issue involved with the image. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it is incorrect since there is no antisemitism pictured and I don't think Commons should be used for a political smear campaign. For your reference see en:Flag desecration where it says "such action is intended to make a political point against a country or its policies." Even at en:Flag_desecration#Israel it says nothing about it being a form of antisemitism. Categorisation should have some basis in reality. // Liftarn (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I might be more moved to accept that if you showed that you really believed in it and all its ramifications. Does Category:Pro-Palestine protests in the Arab-Israeli conflict go in Category:Protests against human rights abuses? I can provide you many reliable sources for that, and many people will search for them there. I've said this several times, and no answer; are you really willing to following on the logical consequences of your categorization rules even when they go against your political beliefs?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I have no objection to 'Category:Protests against human rights abuses'....as long as you and others drop their opposition to putting category:antisemitism on the Latuff cartoon files, etc. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That is an entirely different matter and that would also create a very nasty en:WP:BLP situation. I don't think it's worth that just because you dislike a certain artist. // Liftarn (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In other words, this is a political game, not a serious discussion of Common's categorization system.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A look at the discussion at File talk:Burned israeli flag - 27zapata.jpg shows that there are Commons users who do think it shows antisemitism, and I think it can be inferred that there are people searching Commons for images under 'antisemitism' who will find the image useful. Not putting the image in category:antisemitism seems to restrict access to the file, which I think is contrary to Commons intent. In fact it seems a form of censorship.

But I should explain to those not familiar with the issue, that the problem is not just this one image. There are many images that, I think should have category antisemitism that do not, and there has been a great deal to time and trouble, involving many Commons users, that has gone into these disputes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a political issue so it certainly will be difficult to solve. I think we should categorise images after what they show, not after what feeling some people may get when looking at them. // Liftarn (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a political issue, it is a Commons editing issue.

Commons:Categories says: The category structure is the primary way to organize and find files on the Commons. It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure. To allow this, each file must be put into a category directly. Each category should itself be in more general categories, forming a hierarchical structure. [6].

Wikipedia:Categorization says: Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject. [7].

In both WP and Commons the intention stated is that people who are looking for something are likely to find it where they are likely to look. A category is not a declaration of truth. It is just a search convince so that people can find what they are looking for. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If it wasn't for politics we would simply categorise it after what is in the picture. We see a photo of the flag of Israel (Category:Photographs of flags of Israel) and it has been burnt (Category:Flag burning). Simple, to the point and without drama. // Liftarn (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In my view, for Commons it is not a political issue. The purpose of Commons categories is to place categories that make it as easy as possible for people to find files, in the way they are likely to look for the files. Applying political considerations to prevent the adding of category:antisemitism, as you have done, amounts to censoring Commons. All that category says is that there is an issue. Commons should not be in the business of deciding political truth. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We're not arguing that Commons should be in the business of deciding political truth. Images should not be put in categories that are disputed. That's the best way to avoid deciding political truth.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"in the way they are likely to look for the files" (emphasis added). People looking for images to illustrate antisemitism would be best served if they were given images of actual antisemitism. Commons should not be used to push a certain political view (like in this case that criticism of Israe is the same thing as antisemitism). It's about as clever as adding Category:Terrorism to Category:Keffiyeh. If it is finding images you are worried about rather than a smear campaign it can easily be solved by in Category:Antisemitism writing something "If you are looking for files regarding opposition to the state of Israel see Category:Anti-Zionism" (and vice versa). // Liftarn (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Prosfilaes what you are saying is that you claim the right to limit access to any file you object to by creating a dispute. I do not think that is a good way to decide categories. Anyone with a political agenda could censor access to any file they chose just by saying that there is a dispute and by edit warring over it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no dispute being created here; there is a dispute in existence. You seem to have categories that you think shouldn't be put on the image; that's not unreasonable, but then claiming that that's censorship is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Liftarn, it seems to me that it would be your approach to categories that pushes a point of view. What you say is right is actually limiting access, and you think it is particularly you who gets to decide what category is ok. Why do you deserve that right to decide categories more than those who think the categories should be different than what you want? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually my viewpoint is the only way to ensure that no one pushes a viewpoint. Categorise after what we can see in the picture. If we would categorise after what some people think we would for instance categorise Category:Zionism under Category:Racism. Do you really think that would be a good idea? // Liftarn (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly Category:Antisemitism and Category:Anti-Zionism should each have some hat text pointing to the other, but they are by no means interchangeable. To take an obvious, extreme example, the Satmars are not Antisemitic.

Burning a flag may carry different messages in different contexts. It might mean hostility to an entire country and its people, but it might not. Quite a few Americans have burned American flags during war protests. Many would have vehemently rejected the category of being anti-American: they were just expressing extreme opposition to the government of the moment, or perhaps just to certain of its actions. I see nothing in this image to place it in a different category than that.

FWIW, just so people know where I'm coming from vis a vis Zionism, I'm an ethnically Jewish U.S. citizen. I favor a two-state solution for Israel/Palestine (mainly because, as my late friend Paul Zilsel once put it, the most likely alternative is the two radioactive holes in the ground solution). I'm not at all fond of the current government of Israel and am quite opposed to the continuing occupation of the Palestinian Territories. I don't particularly consider myself either Zionist or anti-Zionist, though clearly the settler movement would consider my anti-Zionist (and Hamas would consider me a Zionist).

Can anti-Zionism at times be tinged with anti-Semitism? Absolutely. But I think even then there is a very important difference between an Antisemite who hates Israel simply because it is a Jewish state and a person who, due to the geopolitics of the region, resents Israeli military domination and where that may have shaded off into negative views about Jews in general. Nonetheless, plenty of people who are extremely anti-Zionist still make a clear and sincere distinction between their negative view of the Zionist enterprise and their neutral or even admiring view of Jews as people. - Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Nicely put Jmabel, i cannot agree more with your interpretation. (excluding personal background info of course) TheDJ (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Jmabel, Thanks for the comments, which are interesting. Mush of what you say I agree with. But I am also a little puzzled because in the same paragraph you say 1st that "Burning a flag may carry different messages in different contexts", which I certainly agree with, and 2nd that "I see nothing in this image to place it in a different category than that", by which (if I understand you correctly) you say that this image should have only category:flag burning, a category that has only three images, one of which has no flag in the image. Seeing that many people are likely to think the image is antisemitic (a view that New Antisemitism may support), and that the intent of categories is as a search convince, why limit the image to one category?

This image is not particularly important, and even if it were deleted it would not be a very big deal. But I think the larger issue of how Commons images are categorized when the image deal with a controversial subject is very important and needs to be clarified. What I see happening now is that Commons editors are making political decisions about images, which I think they should not be doing, and letting that decide categories. What interests me is finding proper guidelines for image categories when the images involve politically charge issues. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually COM:CAT#Categorization_tips give suggestions. "what? / whom?: what or whom does the file show? What is the main subject?" It shows an Israeli flag so Category:Photographs of flags of Israel) and it has been burnt (Category:Flag burning). "where?: where was the image taken?" As far as I can tell it was taken at a protest rally against the attack on Gaza (check the other photos in the Flickr stream). So Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict protests. "when?: when did the depicted events happen, or when was the image created?" OK, we covered that with the previous category. who? I don't think that is really relevant here nor is how?. // Liftarn (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm: it doesn't matter what "many people are likely to think" the image is. It matters what we can be confident it is. Similarly, we wouldn't take a map of Hungary during WWII, showing the annexation of Northern Transylvania and categorize it as an image of the goals of present-day irredentists (though many Romanian nationalists would suspect that is an accurate characterization) nor an image of a lynching in the American South circa 1900 and categorize it in a manner connecting it to the U.S. Democratic Party (though the odds are strong that all of the lynchers would have been Democrats). It is a small, but probably legitimate, extrapolation to presume that someone who burnt the Israeli flag is anti-Zionist (viz. my remarks above on people burning the American flag for why it is not a given). It is a much larger extrapolation to presume that they are Anitisemitic. The Israeli flag is a symbol of the Israeli state, not the Jewish people. - Jmabel ! talk 15:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

How should we classify that the flag was burned in such a way to obliterate the star (which symbolizes Judaism) only?

Liftarn, I am still trying to get an explanation why you think that you have the right to decide what category will not go on the image. There are editors who think it quite justified, and you have been fighting it for days. You have even said you would rather have the entire image deleted rather than have category:antisemitism on it. What you may be doing is rationalization. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is true that I have tried several compromises, but none have been successful. What you might be doing is projection, but let's drop that subject and talk about the categorisation of images. Should images be categories according to what they show or not? Or, put in another way, should we just ignore COM:CAT and add whatever categories some editors may feel like? // Liftarn (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am talking about the rationalization of a political position, ie what it appears to be the justification of a single political view as being the only view of the Israeli/Palestinian dispute that has validity. That view is particularly the New Left position. The New Left position is that their total opposition to the existence of Israel is not antisemitic, but is in fact rather opposition to nazi-like behavior, as well as of Israel being a neo-colonialist manifestation that is inherently repressive, etc. For instance, Noam Chomsky's exposition of New Left view on the evil of Israel [8], and this essay [9] from the conservative The American Thinker, agree about what the New Left view of Israel is, but disagree on its correctness.

I have no objection to any user holding New Left views, but I do object to all efforts at censorship of Commons, including New Left efforts at censorship by trying to exclude categories that present images in a way they do not like. The only way Commons has available to approach the foundational Wikimedia Foundation concept of NPOV is through a balanced use of categories. Commons is an information site, not a political action site. If users fight to prevent adding categories to politically charged files, for political reasons, they are undermining the foundation of the Wikimedia is built on.

The suggestion, by Liftarn, that he would prefer to delete a perfectly good image, rather than allow a category he does not want, is very problematic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You've said this over and over, but it's always about the "New Left efforts at censorship". I see no evidence that you are willing to end your "censorship" of Israeli photos and let categories like genocide be added where the New Left would consider appropriate. It is not unneutral to tag a picture of a burnt Israeli flag as Category:Burning flags of Israel (if there's enough to support the category) and pictures of Palestinians killed in the fighting Category:Palestinian casualties of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict; but if you want to add Category:Antisemitism to the first one, I don't see why we can't add Category:Genocide to the second. It presents the image in a way that some don't like, but you wouldn't want to undermine the foundation of Wikimedia, would you?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I want to add category:antisemitism to the image we have been discussing. I do not know the images you want to add category:genocide and have not been involved with it.

The WP article on genocide defines it as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", which I think describes the mass murder of Armenians by Turks and the more recent mass murder in Rwanda. It seems to me that no matter how vicious you think the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, it may not rise to the level of genocide, and as far as I know there is no such WP article.

Your trying to hold this file hostage so that you can get dozens of files labeled the way you want impressive me as rather ugly behavior. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually as far as I can tell that was just a parallel to show you how your own ideas could affect other images on Commons. // Liftarn (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I would oppose the more extrapolated categories in both cases (genocide, Antisemitism). - Jmabel ! talk 01:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this image then a example of Christophobia, or simply criticism of Denmark? --P. S. Burton (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd have to guess just Denmark—that's all the internal evidence supports—though the other might be possible given a context. - Jmabel ! talk 01:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who reads the news understands the context. The issue is freedom of speech, and particularly if freedom of speech extends to the subject of Islam. Muslims have protested world wide against the publication of a series of cartoons, that were mildly satirical of Islamists, in a Danish newspaper. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Fetich trees in Belgium, Category:Fetich trees in France

Hello everyone,

I can't help disliking these names because of the alternative spelling. But how should they be renamed fetish trees in ... or would prayer trees in ... (after parent category) be better ? - Olybrius (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. According to the OED, fetich is an earlier variant spelling of fetish, and does not seem to be the commonly used spelling now. Alternatively, perhaps the person who created the categories was using the French spelling fetich, which would not comply with "Commons:Categories" which requires category names to be in English. Anyway, I agree that "Prayer trees in ..." is the best solution as it matches the parent category. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably the reason (French: fetich) and the easiest solution. Please rename them quickly before Fox News finds them and embarks on another censorship campaign (Fox Breaking News: "Wikpedia hosts arboral sex pictures!") Anatiomaros (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I nominated the categories for renaming, and this has been done. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The actual French word is fétiche (with an accute accent and a final e), but definitely not "fetich". So I have doubt that this is the reason of this name. verdy_p (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thumbnail problem 2010-08-19

There is an isse with rendering of new thumbnails (new thumbnail sizes of old uploads, too). Tech team is aware and working on it (IRC wikimedia tech channel: "Wikimedia servers administration | thumbnail problems, yes we know"). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is now solved, The cause is a bug in ImageMagick that does incorrect error reporting and thus causing stuck thumbnail jobs. Coincidence or not, animated gifs were triggering the problem. (when was the last time I said I hated those ? ). Due to this issue "File:Regular_Pentadecagon_Inscribed_in_a_Circle.gif" is temporarily deleted as the instigator of this problem. TheDJ (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How long will it take for the problem to be solved completely? It appears in the early post reporting this error, the thumbnails are not showing yet.--Banzoo (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the thumbnails in "Category:Parade of National Olympic Committees' Flags at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics opening ceremony" is still not rendering properly for me. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It has rendered just fine for me. Perhaps you have that HTML cached in your browser from yesterday. Try to bypass your browser cache. TheDJ (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Works for me, too. It's probably your browser's cache. --Saibo (Δ) 13:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's now working for me. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You may refer to this issue that was filed earlier, the problem doesn't seem to be fixed.--Banzoo (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, you're right. The thumbnails in "Category:Vault at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics" aren't showing up properly. But I figure that action is being taken, as I see a notice on the English Wikipedia advising people not to remove images that aren't displaying properly. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

SVG -> PNG conversion fails

Hey all. I have an SVG that won't thumbnail properly as a PNG, could anyone suggest what in particular the problem might be? It's UK interest rates. Textually it looks like this:

Extended content

<code> <svg id="svg4143" version="1.1" viewBox="0 0 820 480" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"> <metadata id="metadata4148"> <rdf:RDF> <cc:Work rdf:about=""> <dc:format>image/svg+xml</dc:format> <dc:type rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage"/> </cc:Work> </rdf:RDF> </metadata> <style type="text/css"> svg { <!-- SNIP --> } .plotline { stroke-width:4px; fill:none; } #plot0 { stroke:rgb( 74,126,187); } </style> <defs><!-- SNIP --></defs> <g transform="translate(39.03,31.92)"> <!-- gridlines --> <!-- #0 --> <path d="m0,400 760,0"/> <use x="-94" y="397" xlink:href="#digit0"/> <!-- SNIP --> <path d="m5.38,400,0-406.3"/> <!-- vertical --> </g> <g transform="translate(45,33)"> <path class="plotline" id="plot0" d="M 0,103 4.7785,103 4.7785,103 9.557,103 9.557,87.5 14.3354,87.5 <!-- SNIP -->" /> </g> <g transform="translate(45,428)" id="textline"> <!-- 1998 --> <use x="9.85" y="17" xlink:href="#digit1"/><use x="-43.95" y="17" xlink:href="#digit9"/><use x="-34.95" y="17" xlink:href="#digit9"/><use x="-18.35" y="17" xlink:href="#digit8"/><!-- SNIP --> </g> <g transform="translate(45,430)" id="prongs"> <path d="m 3.78,0 0,4" /><!-- SNIP---> </g> </svg></code>

From what's working an what's not, it would seem as though the style tag isn't supported. Apologies if that's old news, but I couldn't find any documentation anywhere for rsvg support, so I thought I'd check with more experienced SVGers and see if there was a workaround. Thanks, Jarry1250 (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with the thumbnail, can you point it out? I ran the file through the W3C Validator here, and although there is an apparently minor warning, it passed as valid. I can't help you with the markup, but I can suggest, if all fails, to go to the Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop and request it to be fixed or redrawn in Inkscape or Illustrator. That should do the trick. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 15:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did fix it in the end (swore I posted here to that effect?) turns out rsvg only supports classes and not ids in style tags. Or something like that. Jarry1250 (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

August 20

Secure HTTPS for thumbnails (upload.wikimedia.org)

Hello guys,

I always view wikipedia over https e.g. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wifi. I decided to sniff my own connection to see what info I can pickup about my session and I noticed that when viewing a page on the secure wikipedia all thumbnales are sent over http e.g. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Metro_Wireless_Node.jpg/220px-Metro_Wireless_Node.jpg. Given this infomation an attacker could easily decifher what page you are viewing so I was wondering if it was possible to load thumbnales over https when viewing the secure wikipedia.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.188.160 (talk • contribs) 2010-08-20T01:12:18 (UTC)

Indeed that's not the best thing - although you browser should (at least my Firefox does) display a padlock with an exclamation mark in the status bar (explained on mouse over). You could just turn off images in your browser to disable loading or block http://upload.wikimedia.org/* in your adblocker as a workaround.

Maybe the image servers are not accessible via https. Let's wait for answers by someone who knows. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

moved from Commons:Help desk --Saibo (Δ) 02:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Running secure setups is rather expensive (in both human and computer) resources. That is why it was never fully implemented. The most relevant bug regarding this specific issue is bugzilla:16822. TheDJ (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If they're not going to do it right, why not free resources by abandoning https entirely? Giving people a false sense of privacy seems irresponsible, doesn't it? Wnt (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's without applying a workaround (like the one proposed above) it is not enhancing browsing privacy very much - although a bit since your username and viewed article titles are not transmitted in plaintext (images: no direct username, sitenotices: no direct username, ...?). But, it greatly enhances security of your login/account data, even without a workaround. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet another thumbnail problem?

See also "Thumbnail problem 2010-08-19" above

File:View of an advertisement for the Great Atlantic Coast Line railroad, by Ober Brothers (Fernandina, Florida).jpg & File:View of an advertisement for the Great Atlantic Coast Line railroad, by Ober Brothers (Fernandina, Florida).png: I can't see thumbnails, and if I go to the file page I can't see the image, but if I click through on the upload date, it's clearly there. Does anyone have a clue what's going on? - Jmabel ! talk 07:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see thumbnails on both. Yann (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Both are working as usually. Try reloading with Ctrl+F5 (bypass your browser's cache). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that still doesn't do it for me, but as long as the problem is just on my end, it's relatively harmless. - Jmabel ! talk 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

My Firefox 3.6.8 also cannot see a thumbnail for either image (even after all purging), and for the first I did get one "Error generating thumbnail" for the 1280×752 px size (which cleared after Ctrl-F5, reload and purge). The other thumbnail sizes worked. Opera 10.61 shows all thumbnails.

Full error message: Error creating thumbnail: convert: AnErrorHasOccurredWritingToFile `/mnt/thumbs/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/View_of_an_advertisement_for_the_Great_Atlantic_Coast_Line_railroad,_by_Ober_Brothers_(Fernandina,_Florida).jpg/1280px-View_of_an_advertisement_for_the_Great_Atlantic_Coast_Line_railroad,_by_Ober_Brothers_(Fernandina,_Florida).jpg': @ error/constitute.c/WriteImage/1176. -84user (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange - even 1280px works for me (FF and Opera). So it's just not working in your Firefox at 1280px? That really seems to be some caching problem. Are you using a proxy? --Saibo (Δ) 23:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

1280px works for me. But smaller sizes still don't. No, I'm not using a proxy. - Jmabel ! talk 00:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Half an hour ago, all the image scalars were stuck again, due to issues with animated gifs again bugzilla:24871. The writer error of this image, was probably the precursor of the animated gif issue. It was probably on the first server getting filled up with stuck conversion jobs. After a purge, it happened to take another conversion server and a new thumb image was produced. TheDJ (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And for some reason the thumbnailing servers aren't doing anything at all anymore right now. Ariel is looking into it (already for 2 hours now), but the cause has not been identified yet. TheDJ (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And the problem is back... :-( - Erik Baas (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's hope it is the top priority for investigation on monday, when system administrators get back to work (ariel/apergos already spent most of his free sunday on this while he had different stuff planned). When it happens again though, drop into IRC channel #wikimedia-tech and ask for a restart of webserver7 on ms4. TheDJ (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This issue is affecting images at Welsh Wikipedia too, and presumably elsewhere. I've just added about a dozen images to articles there and only two showed a thumbnail view; the others were blank (with link to image). Seems nothing to do with size. What is strange is that other articles I've checked, with images in place for some time, seem fine. Also the thumbnails here of the images I've just added were showing as normal. (Using Firefox 3.68, no proxy, cache not an issue.) Really odd, not to mention annoying. Hope this gets fixed soon. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Image correction?

I think File:Scrotal epidermoid cysts.jpg may be a photo of idiopathic scrotal calcinosis, NOT epidermoid cysts. You can see here for additional examples of idiopathic scrotal calcinosis. If the community agrees, perhaps someone could rename the file and add it to the correct article? ---Kilbad (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Google gives some fairly graphic pictures of both [10] thus not sure what to do... --Jmh649 (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we'll need someone with medical training to advise us as to what the image shows. I suggest posting a message at the talk page of WikiProject Medicine. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this would be the best. I posted it at de:Wikipedia:Redaktion_Medizin, too. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 11:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

A user there identified it as probably a "Atherom" (translations see the blue words in entry "Atherom" here). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

August 22

Ugg

Can someone roll back my changes for File:Toronto zoo monorail.jpg? I have no idea what I did wrong, I never do in this abomination, but somehow I managed to delete my own upload and replace the existing one with my file. I would like to return this file to its original form, and re-create my new page with this image. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried a second time, and was VERY CAREFUL to ensure I was working on a NEW upload. It made no difference, I got an error and it attempted to save over the existing file again. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done by User:DieBuche here –Krinkle^talk 13:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Problems with large images

Something seems broken with thumb generation for large (big) images.

See for example File:360-degree_Panorama_of_the_Southern_Sky_edit.jpg, which gives non-existent thumbs :

Any idea ? Zeugma fr (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If using Photoshop try to save your images with best quality settings and baseline "standard". Here is the Adobe help on photoshop featuring this issue. I encountered similar problems too: File:Antarctica_1912_edit.jpg. Not sure whether this problem occurs only with large images. --Peter Weis (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned here Commons:File_types#Images --Perhelion (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Also happens with svg here, and sometimes even with smaller svg --by Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 21:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

SVG problems are unrelated. In your case it was an linked image on your computer's document folder inside the svg. I deleted linked image (...jpg) from svg code, autocleanup in inkscape, saved as normal svg. Maybe you wish to remove the subtitle at the bottom - that does not seem to be usual to have in svgs. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll resave the jpg with GIMP - as always and upload the new version. Usually this works. Will take some minutes ... Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... doesn't seem to work - last time I fixed the same problem doing so. Sorry. --Saibo (Δ) 23:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. It isn't even generating an error message, which is kinda unusual. The scaling software was updated to a newer version today (finally color profiles are preserved when scaling images), but i'm guessing this issue is a side effect of that update. TheDJ (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, this could be. This image had no color profile associated if I remember correctly. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way - it does not work with the old (previously working) file version, too: 612px (except the probably cached 120px version). old version of another file in 612px works. --Saibo (Δ) 01:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Tried to upload a version using sRGB and baseline "standard" - failed doing so. Perhaps someone else can contribute a solution. --Peter Weis (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a recent problem, did anyone already file a bug about this?  Docu  at 07:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Where to file the bug? In the few coming days, some featured pictures will be with no thumbnail when featured on the main page.--Banzoo (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Another image with the same problem? Can someone compare or control this? --Perhelion (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is the same issue as this, I have filed Bugzilla: 24834. --Eusebius (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently fixed now. --Eusebius (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Global usage links useful?

Currently you can see file usage on other wikis on an image. Do you guys think this is useful? (I do). I'm asking because it was just replaced with a link in the code. Multichill (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a lot more useful than usage on Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

noh! please keep it, or make it optional at least, I use it every day & don't want to click another link every time--DieBuche (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Something like this was there since several months. I use it many times a day. --Foroa (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a useful feature, but it does clutter the description page, and it is tedious to scroll down to view the categories (well, I have the categories on the top of the page, but this is not default). Thus, I think it does make sense to have it in a dedicated page.

(Maybe that with some JS magic, the content could be displayed when clicking on the link, so that people do not have to leave the page ?)

Jean-Fred (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

How about just using the vector toolbar js? It would even set a cookie, so that it appears expanded everytime once you clicked it.--DieBuche (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment: Bad, bad change. This is extremely useful to have there directly, so one can check if the file is used and if so, where and how many times. Not only for admins, but also for regular users, it's an extremely important tool for their work. And if people don't care, they don't see it anyway because it's at the bottom of the page. I mean, otherwise we could re-add the "Check usage" link, that one also required more than one clicks. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you if, as I said, it did not put the categories far, far away.

Maybe we could ask the WMF UX folks for their thoughts? Surely their input would be relevant.

Jean-Fred (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible compromise: just showing a click button when used somewhere, potentially a limited 2 line list with button. --Foroa (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment: This is definitely a useful feature. If it makes image description pages too long, perhaps a button or link can be added at the top of each page allowing viewers to jump directly to the bottom of the page by clicking on it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment: Having the list simply *there* on the image page is incredibly useful. Having to click a link to see anything is irritating, especially when going through a large number of images. Please simply restore the page list, or at most, collapse the list so it doesn't take up much space, but keeps a whole new page from loading. Preferably, allow for some kind of CSS code that would allow those of us who like it to keep it expanded by default. Surely this would be the best compromise? — Huntster (t @ c) 21:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment This is incredible difficult. As a reader, I want most clutter that is on the File pages gone, yet as a Commons editor, it is very useful. Perhaps we need an "editor" mode for File pages ? TheDJ (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't be every visitor also an editor? ;) However, I strongly support no change here! The direct visible list is very useful compared to only a link. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, what is the most useful is knowing that "there exists" some linking. Having to click on something when you know there is more is no real problem, clicking to see that there is nothing is a real pain and waste of time. --Foroa (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a VERY good point. Knowing if a file is in use is much more important than knowing where it is in use. If we can indicate that information in some way, then I don't need the list embedded to be honest. TheDJ (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree that "File usage on other wikis" is more useful than "File usage on Commons" and makes it easier to identify images. Personally I use the option in Special:Preferences/Gadgets: "Categories above content, but below image on file description pages", so I don't quite understand some of the users above.
  In any case, I don't see why categories here should be just next to "Privacy policy About Wikimedia Commons Disclaimers", except that it might be useful if you are trying to write encyclopedia articles on Commons.  Docu  at 08:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment On other wikis, the same links might be less useful, e.g. I don't see the point of :Wikipedia:File:Gavia immer1 BS.jpg#Global file usage, but I don't think Commons isn't necessarily the best place to comment on how it should be displayed over there.  Docu  at 13:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment While I understand that for some contributors it is useful extension and fine feature to have it on description page, I fully agree with removing global usage and suggest removing wlh from the same place. These information are not closely associated to file itself but categories and metadata are and these are far under gu and wlh and outside of readers' sight. For regular reader or reuser of the content it is not much important information and he is forced to download it with every single description (it might not be tahat much for broadband connecrion but there are lot of people with slower connection, just see how many users have accessibility issues with switch from monobook to vector). And while it is not closely associated with the file, it should available per request basis only. If it is really needed to have those links (I really do not see much point in it while it is not so helpful when it is not complete, without ability to sort, ...) it should be loaded on request via some AJAX script or generated after changing preferences. --Reaperman (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment extremely useful feature, when several months ago this feature was removed for some time, it was _pain_ to use Commons. Trycatch (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that it is perhaps not as useful for every user to have the global usage shown, but I think that in general for Commons as a service project to other Wikimedia projects, it is useful to know if and where the image is used. There are a few things that I can do: Limit the amount of usage shown to perhaps something like 10 or 20; Add a setting to disable showing the global usage on the image page, set it to disable by default and only enable on Commons. Thought? -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Imho we should disable (=only link) it on all sites except Commons (sites can enable it again if they want it). The current limit seems fine (only a small percentage of images reach it). Multichill (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this way re-user don't have it on their file description page.  Docu  at 04:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment - I don't think that this is a feature to hide away. Even from the user point of view, these links are valuable navigational aids, which point out the existence of other articles about the same topic. Remember that not every article will have exactly the same title in each language, and they won't all be linked properly from the main Wiki article. If someone notices a link from the photo, it can mean that Wikis in two different languages can pool their efforts instead of writing everything twice. I think the links should remain prominently displayed both at Commons and at individual Wiki image pages. I honestly don't even think of the image page as a presentation page, with its odd templates and legalese and thumbnailing - I think of the full size photo download page as the presentation page. Wnt (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment As I edit on a considerable number of Wikimedia projects I find it a very important feature and think it should be kept as is, or if needs to be changed for technical reasons, than at the very least editors should have the option to activate it. --Elekhh (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thumbnail problem?

Hi all. Does anybody know why the thumbnails (any size) of File:Pano Baalbek 1.jpg and many other Large images don't show anymore, and how to solve it? Is it MediaWiki's fault, is there a bug filed? The images don't show anymore in the Wikipedia articles, or anywhere else. Only the original file seems accessible. --Eusebius (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that ImageMagick was recently updated on the thumbnailing servers, but I'm not sure if this could be responsible or not. It could be a server timeout or memory limit. It would probably be a good idea to file a bug on it, so that the Ops can take a look. Kaldari (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't just a problem for large images --- see File:Pirosmani. Camel.jpg. Wnt (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am having a problem with File:Barrage_Daniel-Johnson2.jpg as well. It won't show-up as a thumb-nail on the DYK entry for an article or load in its window.--NortyNort (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Same here - normal image size, but no thumbnail for 6 out of 36 images: Sanatorium Dr. Kohnstamm. They worked all in 2010-07. By the way: the new thumbnail in bugzilla: softness does not load, too. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems we have another issue today with thumbnails in general. See#Thumbnail problem 2010-08-19. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My issues seems to have been fixed or it just works now. --NortyNort (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was another problem. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Bug is not fixed for relatively small image : File:Wy dit joli village P1050768.JPG. Pline (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently fixed now. --Eusebius (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

wikt:MediaWiki:Gadget-WiktSidebarTranslation.js

It would be elegant to import this gadget, especially for those who have never installed any additional fonts. It just translates the interwiki links into English (and has been translated in French today), you can test it by ticking it here.

Moreover, I would find judicious to adapt it on the user language, and to spread this new system on Mediawiki, Wikispecies a Meta after... JackPotte (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, those links should be in the native language. People not logged in would always get English. Anyway, translation isn't important, if you can't read it, you probably don't want to go there. Rocket000 (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nardthebard's international crisis (of the day)

Hi everyone. Just to let you know, Nardthebard (yes, I'm blaming it all on him) has created some deletion requests over cross-border and enclave photography - for instance, is a photo of a North Korean building taken from South Korea covered by SK's FOP laws or NK's? Is an American cemetery in Normandy under French FOP or American federal PD? Stuff with Switzerland and Italy. Etc. Thought you'd all like to know. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wwii normandy american cemetary.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:070401 Panmunjeom3.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:08FontanaCampione.JPG

Meh - I've just removed a couple of speedies that didn't seem speedy to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• You missed one of the other ones I nominated. Pictures of South Korea taken from the North. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 22:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

alt text

I've done some searches and cannot find an answer to my question...apologies in advance if I'm bringing up an issue that's been settled.

The use of alternative text for images is encouraged for obvious reasons. Since an image can be used in more than one article and/or in more than one wikipedia, why doesn't an image's commons page include its alt text? For some images, descriptive, concise alt text that complements (instead of repeating) the image's caption can about as hard to achieve as featured picture status.

What I thought I'd find in commons is a template which makes it easy to display an image's alt text in all languages for which it is available. I haven't found that. Thanks. 67.101.6.49 19:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Primarily due to w:Wikipedia:Alternative_text_for_images#Importance_of_context. Since the image derives context from the place where it is included, an alt on a description page can not cover 100% of the used contexts. An important problem here for instance is content language (with the non-lingual Commons backend, a difficult problem). See also bugzilla:19906. TheDJ (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The bugzilla entry in particular provided significant context for the issue, thought it went beyond what I was imagining. What I thought a commons template could do is identify a basic version of alttext that an editor could draw upon when creating the context-specific alt text. For example, for file:Rgb-compose-Alim Khan.jpg the commons alttext template would contain a more concise version of the following:

A large color photograph abutting (to its right) a column of three stacked black-and-white versions of the same picture. Each of the three smaller black-and-white photos are slightly different, due to the effect of the color filter used. Each of the four photographs differ only in color and depict a turbaned and bearded man, sitting in the corner an empty room, with an open door to his right and a closed door to his left. The man is wearing an ornate full-length blue robe trimmed with a checkered red-and-black ribbon. The blue fabric is festooned with depictions of stems of white, purple, and blue flowers. He wears an ornate gold belt, and in his left hand he holds a gold sword and scabbard. Under his right shoulder strap is a white aiguillette; attached to his robe across his upper chest are four multi-pointed badges of various shapes, perhaps military or royal decorations.

I don't have an opinion about whether you'd take it to the next step and have what I call "the basic version of the alt text" automagically become the default version of the alt text if no context-specific version is available. 67.101.6.49 20:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the alternative text is Commons's task. It's way too much work that should be done on the specific Wikimedia sites. And alternative text on Commons doesn't really make that much sense, since Commons really isn't accessible without image support. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Templates

Hello, sorry for my english, please feel free to fix it. Beria and me have working on a template for ask by email the change of the flickr license. Could you have a look on it and correct the mistakes ? The text is on User:Beria/request_templates. Regards, Otourly (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Did a quick improvement. You may also want to take a look at Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change. ZooFari 23:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that is not just for Flickr anymore. The ideia is create a model for every site (Panoramio, Picasa, Flickr, etc). Béria Lima ^msg 23:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Great idea and work, I appreciate it! Beria, there is something broken in your signature: the letters are bigger than a shopping center. ;-) Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 00:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I made some more changes to "Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change" to fix the English grammar, and also added some templates that I use. You may want to have a look for your own template. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Files won't display.

See also Thumbnail problem 2010-08-09 and Yet another thumbnail problem?

Is anybody having problems viewing stuff on the Commons lately? A couple hours ago it was fine, but now when I click on "latest files", thumbnails wont display anymore. Fry1989 (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the same for me too (Latest files). See also 'Yet another thumbnail problem?' above. Seems a lot of bugs with thumbs at the moment. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thank god. I didn't see the "thumbnail problem" post above, probably should have looked for that first. Glad it's not just me though. Fry1989 (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's everyone. I'd just like to know when these wretched bugs are going to get fixed. It's getting nigh on impossible to do any file viewing here now for the last few days. - MPF (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Our tech team is working on the problem ...

You can view the high-res full version of the file by clicking on the link (usually) below the preview. This loads the original file directly in your browser. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The current notice says that it concerns very large images. This is wrong, this also concerns very small images.

For example : File:Nuvola_apps_kmessedwords.png (which is a small PNG) fails to create even smaller icon thumbnails as well (used in horizontal navigating panels for categories and portals)... verdy_p (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, it affects images which were uploaded ages ago, and thumbs which worked 24hrs ago.... -mattbuck (Talk) 11:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yuck. --99of9 (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It also consideraly slows down the navigation in all Wikimedia projects, due to the time it takes for the images to be rendered. It also creates huge server performance problems.

I really think that the current version of the thumbnail generator should be immediately reverted, due to the bug, and then the new version be debugged separately on a test server. It has already caused several downtimes of all Wikimedia projects in the last few days. This bug is critical enough to justifiy this immediate version revert. verdy_p (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This File:Artvin-type boat in the Coroh river.jpg have no full version. Nothing. Geagea (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

August 23

SpoorkaartvanNederlandinjuli2010.jpg

I think this is a copy vio but I'm not familliar with the Dutch laws to say for certain. It's been copied from the nl wikipedia by a robot acting in good faith, but I'm suspicious of the original licence. Can anybody give some guidance on this? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed. clearly copyrighted work of the Dutch railway company. TheDJ (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Verifying the application of PD-RusEmpire

From en.wiki, someone pointed to a recent Big Picture containing a number of false color photographs from a century ago in the Russian Empire that would be invaluable to have on commons. We are having difficulty confirming if Russia's new copyright law (which puts the PD'ness of these images in 2014 if taking life+70 years) applies, or, as some previous uses of these photos have been included in Commons, that the license Category:PD-RusEmpire is still okay (post 2008). I have only found one small conversation before that didn't go anywhere, and given that nearly 5000 images (including at least one contained in the Big Picture shot) are using the PD license, it seems to be ok, but we want to confirm if this is the case.

To wit, the PD-RusEmpire tag claims that the works from the former Russian Empire (as opposed to Soviet Russia) retain the copyright issues from the former empire - thus most in PD - than the more lengthy Russian one, but unfortunately, I've no Russian language skills so I can't determine if this is still true in the copyright change text. --Masem (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thos photo as I can see from superficial glance are Category:Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky's photos. Geagea (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It is true that it looks like all the photos from Big Picture are on Commons already, but that still begs the question: has the PD-RusEmpire been reviews to assure that it still applies to all these pics (which they all appear to use based on a spot-check)? --Masem (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

See her. Geagea (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The PD-RusEmpire tag isn't brought up (may not have existed before then) but it appears the consensus is that the works as a whole qualify as PD per that tag. Good to know, though it would be helpful to still confirm that PD-RusEmpire license. --Masem (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Important discussion about the licensing of Prokudin-Gorsky's photos. I believe you can find his works in United States Library of Congress her. Geagea (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep. The Library of Congress purchased those works. They are definitely PD in the United States (URAA restorations would not have applied to them); and (while somewhat vague) there is a decent case that LoC acquired the rights and placed them in the public domain, no matter what the original term was. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The template:PD-RusEmpire is based on the current Civil Code (active since 2008). Alex Spade (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Deletion discussion about the P-G Collection images from 2007. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • And what? This discussion was prior to 2008. Alex Spade (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

August 24

Can't upload image, get "duplicate" error, which it isn't.

I'm still trying to upload an image of the Toronto Zoo's Dashaveyor. Yesterday when I tried it overwrote another file instead. Someone here fixed that by deleting the "new" version. Now when I try to upload into a different page, it tells me that it's a duplicate of that (deleted) image, and erases all of my careful input.

Can someone fix this problem?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the problematic image pages? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, if you are sure that the file is deleted and that you not will create a duplicate version, you can click on ignor and upload the file anyway. --Martin H. (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Bilder von RaBoe

This hidden category Category:Bilder von RaBoe needs to be renamed to Category:Images by RaBoe - Would someone mind running a bot to rename all of the posted categories to the English name? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You can request renaming of the category at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The cat is inserted via the user license template User:Raboe001/Lizenzbaustein. You need to change the link and tell the bot to open the images and save them afterwards and the cat should be changed. --Denniss (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to edit Raboe001's subpage /Lizenzbaustein to change the category name (since the subpage is categorizing images in a manner that is contrary to "Commons:Language policy"), or should a message be left on Raboe001's talk page requesting that he or she make the change? Not sure of the applicable protocol. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to inform the user. --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, WhisperToMe, perhaps you'd like to take the necessary steps? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I already informed RaBoe about the idea on his talk page and he approved of the idea, so I am going to go ahead and alter the Lizensbaustein page :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Then request for "Category:Bilder von RaBoe" to be renamed at the CommonsDelinker page mentioned above, if you haven't already done so. That will automatically move the images already in that category to the new category. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I just added the command to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands WhisperToMe (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

consent for sexual content on commons?

We're almost ready for a further poll on implementing Commons:Sexual_content - one issue keeps bouncing back and forth however which is whether or not commons should require an assertion of the consent of all participants in media featuring sexual content (as defined quite tightly here) - do pipe up either right here, or here on the proposal talk page, if you'd like to make your view known. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I  Support this requirement of a statement that consent has been obtained, with exceptions possible for notable historical images of the long-deceased --99of9 (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

 Comment For "as defined quite tightly here", read "as amended by myself (Privatemusings) a short time ago". Until this document is stable no poll should be held. Substantial edits such as this while support for a new poll is being canvassed, whatever their merits, do nothing to support that call or improve the prospects that it will take place in the near future. Anatiomaros (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

um... the intention is to get as many eyes on the proposal in order to stabilise a consensus - if you think about it, wouldn't it be rather self defeating to suggest that we lock a proposal about which there is clear disagreement in order to... um... see if there's any disagreement? I don't think you're asserting that I've edited the definition at all, which makes we wonder quite where you would like to take issue with my linking of it - it's a common response for folk to say 'yeah, but what do you mean by sexual content?' - so I was trying to help with that a little. I'd be interested to hear, along with meta-commentary, what your thoughts are on the consent issue? :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Privatemusings, your posting gave the impression that you were presenting the result of a discussion and not only your point of view and that is not OK. --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologise unreservedly for any such impression, which was not my intention. I invite all readers to take a look themselves, and form a view if they wish. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think that as the debate has been progressing so far, that both sides have gradually become more accepting of the idea that images published somewhere else and copied to Commons do not require us to determine consent (e.g. Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse), but on the other hand that where sexual content is concerned, the number of people who are "identifiable" as in Commons:Photographs of identifiable persons keeps getting larger and larger. So a distinction seems to be growing between going out and doing sexual photography as opposed to simply collecting images from other sources.

But where the assertions of consent come in, we have some distance of opinion. I think everyone agrees that for an uploader to attach a template that says he has read the policy and has consent is nice. Nonetheless, it was already against the identifiable-persons policy to upload most sexual content without consent. At the visceral level, my feeling is that someone uploading a potentially embarrassing photograph of someone without consent is already doing something underhanded, and any assertion of consent he makes won't really matter much, and that if the person pictured ever calls up the WMF and complains, that the uploader is going to find himself blocked for a very long time, whether assertion is required or not. So I see any attempt to require a consent template as just a bureaucratic process that is going to discard content from well-behaved uploaders who just don't check their Commons account every month, while not really affecting the troublemakers.

I am not yet certain whether somehow people will arrive at a single draft by degrees or whether we'll eventually have to invite people to vote on two drafts at once. I do think that the conversation has tended to stall when the prospect of a vote is not fairly imminent, and that the discussion continues to be productive. Wnt (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Rendering Issue

I keep trying to fix this rendering issue where I get a black box when uploaded. File:Pelvic_Organ_Prolapse_Quantification_System.svgI fixed most of the black boxes, but one remains no matter what. Huckfinne (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It was another textflow (removed in text editing mode) and reuploaded, all okay now. It's still quite a large SVG, of course, but that's another far less pressing matter. And the dc:title seems wrong. Jarry1250 (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jarry1250. What does dc:title mean?Huckfinne (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's an element of the SVG (try downloading it and editing it with Notepad) which confers the title of the SVG. It was added by whoever created the original SVG and hasn't been touched since. A minor issue, I can optimise and fix that at the same time if you could suggest what the proper title ought to be? Jarry1250 (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Football kit graphics

I have a problem with User:Bruno-ban, who insists on creating football (soccer) kit graphics with miniature versions of copyrighted logos. These logos are only a few pixels in size (maybe 10px width/height at the very most), meaning that they are very low resolution, but they are easily identifiable as the logo they intend to represent. Someone suggested that these logos are de minimis, but that they should still be avoided in order to ensure the free status of the overall kit image. Can someone please venture an opinion on this, and if possible, communicate with User:Bruno-ban, who seems intent on only communicating in Portuguese. PeeJay2K3 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

See COM:AN#Logos on football kits and COM:AN#Football kits. Can we please keep the conversation in one place? –Tryphon^☂ 20:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

August 26

Ugg, finally got this to work after a WEEK.

I am still attempting to upload an image of the Toronto Zoo Domain Ride. Martin H. suggested trying the upload and checking off the "Ignore Warnings" button. So I tried the upload just to see if it would work this time, and it failed again. The form then erased all my input, and removed the check box! I finally got the image to upload by starting all over again and turning on the checkbox to start, on my 5th or 6th attempt. Really, why is this software so hard to use? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it's developed by volunteers who largely do this work in their spare time. As you may know, the upload process is in the process of being overhauled into a much more user-friendly workflow, although some bugs and quirks may persist even after it is "finished". I'm sorry you had some trouble, and I'm glad you got the image to upload. Powers (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That file was actually already on Commons since 2009. That's probably why it wouldn't upload until you checked Ignore warnings. –Tryphon^☂ 13:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Abuse Filter detail logs

I'm was on the cvn-commons channel while I saw some message from a bot showing messages when Abuse Filter filters are triggered, it brings up links to log entries like this example. However, the details of the filter do not appear for me. I did some looking around and found out that only admins have the "abusefilter-log-detail" right. As far as I known, this doesn't contain personal information like what "abusefilter-private" provides, and the English Wikipedia enables detail logs of abuse filters for all users. Could we grant the right to everyone on Commons, or if the community is concerned, only grant it to Users or Autoconfirmed Users? It's becoming annoying for me when I click a detail link. Techman224^Talk 22:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

{{support}: My thoughts exactly. --The Evil IP address (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Images about Argentina CC-BY

Link to a website with photos, mainly about Argentina, about 10% licensed CC-BY. Arte y Fotografia. --JotaCartas (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You can file a request at "Commons:Batch uploading". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

August 27

Refining the general messaging of the upload wizard

Hi there,

A few weeks ago, we officially opened the upload wizard prototype and its associated Questions & answers page. We asked for the community's feedback and you were very responsive, which I'd like to thank you all for. I've tried to respond when appropriate and I've used this feedback to add or consolidate items in our list of open bugs and remaining features.

One of the things I'd like to improve is the general text messaging of the interface. This is really something I'd love to crowdsource with the community of Commons, based on some design principles. I'm thinking of a series of pre-arranged IRC discussions to allow for real-time collaboration, but I'm open to suggestions regarding how to do that best. I'd prefer synchronous collaboration as much as possible to allow for rapid iteration, which is more difficult with asynchronous communication channels.

Thoughts? guillom 16:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Great idea! Let's have pre-arranged IRC discussions! Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 22:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we pre-arrange the outcome. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone actually interested in this? guillom 05:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is obviously just another plot to sabotage Wikimedia Commons. This 'usability' project started around the same time that the Ford foundation started giving money to the WMF. COINCIDENCE? NeilK (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Uploaded files are held in a special area first and are not immediately visible on the Wiki. If the user never provides basic information, the file will then be deleted some time later." (Upload Wizard Questions & answers page). Am I the only one who finds that rather sinister? So a file you've uploaded can be deleted by someone (who?) without you or the Commons community knowing anything about it or having any say in the process? Where will this "special area" be and who will have access to it? I sincerely hope that is not the case. Perhaps guillom could enlighten us? Anatiomaros (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The file will automatically be deleted if it's just sitting there and you don't provide any information regarding its copyright status. The "automated" part was somehow lost in the collaborative editing of the Q&A page. Thanks for pointing that out, I've fixed it. guillom 02:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, guillom (I don't personally upload files without choosing a license, of course, but used the general "you"). I'm still concerned by the first sentence though. As I asked above, where exactly will this "special area" be? Will an uploaded file be "held" elsewhere before being tranferred to Commons, as the wording of the sentence implies? Who will have access to it? Another important point is this: how long will a newly uploaded file remain there, assuming there are no copyright or other problems? Under the present system if I upload a file (you may safely assume that it meets Commons guidelines and is properly licensed) it is immediately visible. I then know it is here on Commons and can add it to an article, which I may have just written on Welsh Wikipedia or elsewhere with that file in mind, or even safely delete it locally (from our Wikipedia edition) knowing that it has been replaced by the same file here. Maybe the Q&A is just badly worded, but it certainly sounds rather "Orwellian" to me. Why this proposed change from the present system? Anatiomaros (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if the Q&A page is not clear. Basically, we need to upload the file first in order to extract some information from it. But we don't want to make it visible until the basic copyright & author information has been provided. If you provide such information in the wizard, then the file will be immediately visible as soon as you complete the steps. The files will only be "stuck" in the holding area if you don't provide that information. And after some time (to be determined, maybe a few hours, or a day), it will be automatically deleted. Only the uploader will have access to it during that time, in order to fix their upload. I hope it's clearer. guillom 20:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much clearer. Can I suggest amending "Uploaded files are held in a special area first and are not immediately visible on the Wiki. If the user never provides basic information, the file will then be deleted some time later." to something like "Uploaded files without basic copyright and author information are held in a special area first and are not immediately visible on the Wiki. If the user does not provide this basic information when requested, the file will then be automatically deleted some time later."? That would give paranoid Commons users like me more sleep at night... :~) Anatiomaros (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be better just to say "the file is automatically discarded if the minimum required information is not provided" (or "if the upload process is not completed" assuming the info is a requirement for finishing the upload wizard). Rocket000 (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for helping refining the answer. guillom 00:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

remove a bad file version from file history

I uploaded a bad file version on image:Localhost-indicator_-_on_French_Ubuntu.png. Should somebody remove this wrong file from the file version history ? --Al Maghi (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Rocket000 (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

August 28

Searching for Category

Which category shoud be used for pictures showing (non notable) wikipedia/commons/etc users? I would like to store this pictures people use on their user page ("thats me") somewhere to get rid of them in the uncategorized pictures categories. --Catrin (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Try an appropriate subcategory of "Category:Users" or "Category:Users by location". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You could use {{Userpageimage}}. –Tryphon^☂ 14:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

August 29

Lisence plate numbbers.

My question is simple: Does Wikimedia Commons have an official stand on the topic of removing license plate numbers or is it left up to the uploader?

Regards. = SuperTank17 (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is an official guide to blanking out a registration plate but its definitely an issue that's been brought up before now. There was discussion of it here. I understood from that it can depend on notability of the vehicle carrying the registration. For example a bus company like Southern Vectis with an article on Wikipedia would be fine to include the registration plate unblanked as the registration plates for the buses are widely known. Although as I said, I'm unaware of any official guide. Editor5807^speak 11:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You should use common sense in the case of license plate numbers. If the number is potentially a privacy issue, blur it out. An example would be a photograph of a car that has been in a wreck. We wouldn't want injury lawyers looking them up based on the photo. Kaldari (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Avoid modifying the license plate as it is a part of the image. Cars usually look like this. ;-) But blank it out or even do not upload a photo (a car is recognizable also without a license plate!) without consent if it hurts the personality rights due to some special setting. Best is to simply ask the car owner - if not possible try to imagine the owner's situation and guess his answer. I see no need to blank out license plates by default. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Best is to simply ask the car owner - if not possible try to imagine the owner's situation and guess his answer." Seems a good rule of thumb.;) And when in any doubt, err on the side of caution and blank out the licence plate, as it's generally not relevant to the purpose of the picture. I agree that for buses and so on, seen in regular traffic, it's hardly an issue. MartinD (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"The purpose of pictures" is to be realistic, generally. A cityscape with blank licence plates, blank signs of house numbers, blurred faces and out-retouched advertisement boards isn't realistic. A common sense says that it is an absurdity to blank out licence plates from photos. Licence plate isn't a password or PIN code. But our times are absurd. --ŠJů (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. Being "realistic" is not among the purposes of a picture; it is among the methods a picture may use to serve its purposes. The most usual purpose of Wikipictures is to illustrate an article. To the extent that realism serves the purpose, use it. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see File:Uithoorn Vogellaan.jpg, of which I have uploaded a blanked-out version a few minutes ago. The licence plate of the vehicle on the left is not relevant in this picture, it's about an architectural style. Although I can hardly imagine that it would be a problem -and I didn't receive complaints about the older version- this would perhaps be an example or erring on the side of caution.;) MartinD (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's that much of an issue either way. Besides the car wreck issue mentioned above, the only other issue I see is that it can reveal a person was parked outside a place he rather not be seen at. Although, you can argue that the car itself is enough to identify the owner (like by a friend or relative). Most people couldn't readily connect a license plate number with the owner (I don't even know my own), so is blurring the plate by itself really achieving much? A car with a distinctive dent or bumper sticker or something is more recognizable. And per COM:IDENT, public places are defined as places where the subject has no expectation of privacy, which includes roads and public parking areas. If it's okay to photograph people without their consent, their license plate should not be a problem. Rocket000 (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

MartinD, if you want to be that much precautious, please do the blanking the right way and do not add bright yellow to a dark yellow license plate. That looks disturbing like the lic plate is glowing. Please revert it or do it better. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My humble apologies, but I couldn't find a better colour in MS Paint.;) MartinD (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, use (e.g.) GIMP instead of paint and the clone tool. :-) I uploaded a new version. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all your feedback. I have talked about it with some other people about this and personally I think this isn't as big of an issue as some people think. The argument behind blanking out license plates is that leaving the them can reveal some personal information (like place of residence). But to be realistic if someone knows a car some much that they know its license plate number than they will probably recognize the car with the license plate blanked. I am thinking about finding out whether the law has anything to say on the matter although as far as I know there isn't a law that specifically says the license plate numbers must be blanked. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the laws will vary by country. I'm pretty confident that in the U.S., this is a non-issue from a legal point of view. - Jmabel ! talk 22:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Same for Germany – matches my previous (layman) comments above: See court decision by Landgericht Kassel Beschluss v. 10.05.2007 - Az.: 1 T 75/07 - Veröffentlichung von KfZ-Kennzeichen im Internet and a comment on this by a lawyer. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"work of Afghanistan"

I uploaded this image today: File:Aafia and Ahmed Siddiqui in custody in Ghazni Afghanistan, July 2008.jpg

w:Aafia Siddiqui and a teenage boy who turned out to be her 13 year old son w:Ahmed Siddiqui suddenly resurfaced in Ghazni, Afghanistan, and were promptly taken into custody by Afghan police. In the next day or so a team of Americans arrived to take custody of Aafia, who has been in US custody ever since.

This photo must have been taken in the Ghazni police office on the day of their apprehension.

No journalists were allowed to see them, and the US didn't see them together, so I believe this photo was taken by employees of the Ghazni police. On the strength of that I applied a {{PD-Afghanistan}}.

I welcome opinions on whether this seems reasonable.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You sourced the image from the Justice for Aafia website. Have you tried contacting them to ask where they obtained the image from? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Photo: AP, likely first published outside of Afghanistan. Also note this description to the photograph: "...Aafia Siddiqui, right, and her son, cover their faces as they were shown to the media..." Trycatch (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so {{PD-Afghanistan}} is inapplicable and the image should be nominated for deletion. Thanks for that. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned here that the sulekha.com's caption is taken at face value. I have a google news alert on Aafia Siddiqui. In July 2008, August 1-4 2008, I followed up on the events preceding Aafia's 2nd capture, and afterwards. The press conference good faith contributors decided happened, where they decided AP took this photo never happened. I'll include a timeline below.

Correspondents above also included a link to a Sydney Morning Herald article, illustrated by this image. It is dated August 7th, 2008. The photo was taken on July 18, 2008, almost three weeks earlier. I have a the Exif Data add-on installed on my firefox. The Exif data on the Sydney Morning Herald image is date August 6th, 2008 -- not the date the image was actually taken. The Sulekha photo is not explicitly dated. But the Exif data was drafted after Aafia was transferred to NYC. She was transferred on August 4, 2008.

Exif data from the Sydney Morning Herald version

Image Date: 2008:08:06 21:28:37 Photographer: AP Title: ###IMAGE-CQC

Exif data from the Sulekha version

Image Date: 2008-07-18 16:42:03 +0000 City: GHAZNI Country: AFG Caption: ** FILE ** In this July 18, 2008 file photo, Aafia Siddiqui, right, and her son, cover their faces as they were shown to the media in Ghazni, Afghanistan. Siddiqui, an MIT-educated Pakistani woman once identified as a possible al-Qaida associate has been brought to New York to face charges she tried to kill U.S. agents and military officers during an interrogation in Afghanistan, federal prosecutors said. (AP Photo/File) Instructions: JULY 18, 2008 FILE PHOTO. SON'S NAME IS UNAVAILABLE

The timeline, I believe, was as follows:

date/time	event	references
early July 2008	various news sources report that Yvonne Ridley reports that Aafia Siddiqui is the "Gray Lady of Bagram", a sole female captive, who can be heard crying all the time, and who may have been driven mad	Pakistan: 'Al-Qaeda' woman in Afghan prison, claims activist, Adnkronos, Syed Saleem Shahzad, 2008-07-29, accessdate=2008-07-29, mirror Alleged detention of Pakistani woman at US base challenged in Court, 2008-07-29, accessdate=2008-07-29, mirror Woman suspect ‘held at US base’, Gulf Times, 2008-07-30, accessdate=2008-07-30, mirror
July 17/18 2008	Aafia and Ahmed Siddiqui unexpectedly resurface in Ghazni -- Aafia and Ahmed photographed together by Afghan police Aafia and Ahmed separated	not publicly reported at the time
July 18 2008	American interrogators arrive to interrogate Aafia Aafia is seriously wounded by gunfire Aafia ends up in US custody	not publicly reported at the time
July 29 2008 ...approximately	Reports begin to emerge that Aafia was apprehended by Afghan police and was currently in US custody	Pakistani scientist alive, in custody, Boston Globe, Farah Stockman, 2008-08-03 The case of Pakistani neuroscientist Aafia Siddiqui, Reuters, Sanjeev Miglani, 2008-08-14, accessdate=2008-08-15, mirror 'Al-Qaeda' woman appears in court, BBC News, 2008-08-05, accessdate=2008-08-06, mirror Mystery of Siddiqui disappearance, BBC News, Syed Shoaib Hasan, 2008-08-06, accessdate=2008-08-06, mirror Pakistan demands access to al Qaeda suspect in U.S., Reuters, Aftab Borka, 2008-08-05, accessdate=2008-08-1, mirror
August 4, 2008	Aafia arrives in NYC	Aafia Siddiqui Arrested for Attempting to Kill United States Officers in Afghanistan, United States Department of Justice, 2008-08-04, accessdate=2008-08-08, mirror
August 6 2008 ...approximately	This is when I believe Afghan police published their photo I believe this photo -- which is not a professional mugshot -- is actually a trophy photo I believe this photo could also be a violation of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit exposing captives to humiliation	Suspect scientist in court, Sydney Morning Herald, 2008-08-07 ** FILE ** In this July 18, 2008 file photo, Aafia Siddiqui, right, and her son, cover their faces as they were shown to the m Pictures & Photos, Sulekha, August 4th or later

Sulekha is a media organization based in India. Some South Asian news agencies that publish in English publish in perfect English. Lots of others have awkward phrasing, and other lapses. Granted, the caption looks like it says Aafia and Ahmed were shown to the press, on July 18th. But, as I believe the timeline above shows, this didn't happen.

Further, in what nation on Earth are terror suspects brought before a press conference? Is anyone really suggesting the Afghans would have shown Aafia to the press before the Americans interrogated her?

The Americans met her alone, the account they finally settled on was that her interrogators entered the room she was in, not realizing she was hiding behind a curtain, and that she suddenly burst from hiding and grabbed an M4 carbine, and tried to blaze away, only to be brought down in a blaze of gunfire first. The Americans provided emergency medical care and took her away.

Regarding being described as an AP "file photo". Has anyone ever seen AP credit a PD image as PD? I believe that AP routinely adds PD images to their catalog, and describe them as "file photos", just as if they had paid a freelancer for them.

Above I was asked whether I had contacted the site where I downloaded the image. No, I did not do that in this particular case. I have in the past however. What I have found is that even very professional newspapers have very lacksadaisical and naive approaches to understanding and taking seriously intellectual property rights.

The photo editor at one otherwise very professional newspaper told me they didn't keep any records of the source of images, beyond whatever credit they printed, when they used the image. She told me that if they used an image, without printing a credit, I should assume that it was PD.

If this had been taken at a press conference on July 18:

1. the press would have reported her second capture on July 18, not over a week later.
2. every single article would have lead with a physical description of Aafia. When she finally did appear in a new york courtroom, where the press could comment on her appearance all the accounts commented on how frail she looked. She was emaciated. Her nose had been broken. She had lost a kidney. She had lost all her teeth. No press report mentioned this until he first public appearance, in a NYC courtroom.

Why shouldn't we consider the Afghan police's distribution of this photo to the Associated Press and other media outlets, to be its first publication? Geo Swan (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, maybe there was no press conference, but it hardly changes anything. AP could have bought these photographs (also this one) from some Afghan police employee and then first publish they out of Afghanistan. "other media outlets" -- do these "other media outlets" exist? I.e. was this photo published with some other credit, not "AP" one? Trycatch (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think I have definitively established that there was no "photo-op", as the press weren't even informed she had been captured until over a week after her capture -- probably not until it was clear she was going to recover from her very serious gun shot wounds.
• IANAL, but it seems to me that if the Afghan police sold the photo to the AP, that this unequivocally constituted publication.
• Similarly, if I am not mistaken, simply giving an image to someone you know will distribute it to the public constitutes publication.
• So, I believe, even by the strictest definitions of the Berne Convention, that an image has to be (1) taken in Afghanistan by someone who not a citizen of a Berne Convention country; and (2) first published in Afghanistan, to be considerd a "work of Afghanistan", this image has to be considered a "work of Afghanistan". Geo Swan (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• No, you can sell the copyright to unpublished works without publishing them. And even if you give a manuscript to a publisher, if they send it back unpublished, it's still unpublished.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Particularly when copying an AP image, we need specific, concrete information about where it came from. There are possible ways it could be PD, and possible ways it is copyrighted. To me I only see speculation, and no actual information, nor proof of one or the other possibility. Perhaps ask AP where they got it? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

August 25

Can this be made a gadget?

Have a look at User:Havang(nl)/List 1. The page is made using NOGALLERY on the mentioned category, followed by a standard editing of each image line, see the edit mode. It was easily done by hand, but I should like to have it as a temporary edit as gadget button on category pages. What do you think about it? --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Help:Projectcode

Hi, I need to fill out a "projectcode" in the file description from a pic moved from enwiki, but there's no help page with this name. Does anybody know the projectcode for enwiki? cheers, --Sargoth (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Which image? Which tool did you use for the transfer? I'd assume that 'projectcode' for enwiki is either 'en' or 'wp', but without context that's just a guess. --Slomox (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not use a tool. The file is File:IAF-IFA_map_January_2010.png. Request is {{PD-user-w|projectcode|project|User}} filled out {{PD-user-w|projectcode|Wikipedia|Libleft}}. I need the "projectcode".--Sargoth (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You were right. The projectcode is en. Thanks --Sargoth (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki dump with uploaded files?

Hello! Greetings. I'm a Peace Corps volunteer in Cameroon, W. Africa. I'm a member of the steering committee for the agroforestry program, and we've been working tirelessly to develop a wiki to collect and preserve agroforestry information, both general information and information specific to Cameroon. You can view the wiki here:

http://www.pccameroon.org/wiki/index.php?title=Agroforestry_Technical_Wiki

While the wiki is great for anyone that has access to the internet, some volunteers are upwards of twenty hours away from an internet access point, and even then there's little hope of downloading an 11mb file over a dialup connection in West Africa. For this reason, we want to make an offline version of the wiki to distribute to volunteers upon arrival here in Cameroon. I've looked into various offline wiki viewers, but I don't think that any of them are satisfactory for the following reason: they don't download the files that are uploaded to the wiki, nor will they download files that are linked off-site. Most all of the information that we have is in PDF format, either that we've uploaded, or that is on someone like the World Agroforestry Center's website. The wiki is just our way of organizing the links to the files.

My big question: Is there any sort of software that will allow me to dump an entire wiki onto an offline format, including all the files that are linked-to? If it will work if the files are uploaded to the wiki site, but not for external links, then this is no problem; I can work to get all the files uploaded locally.

Thanks so much for your help!

Richard Marinos Peace Corps Volunteer, Agroforestry Cameroon, West Africa (Sep 09 - Dec 11)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.147.130.10 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 20 August 201 (UTC)

Hi Richard. You'd probably be best off asking this at the en.Wikipedia computing reference desk. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Howdy Richard; disclaimer: I have no personal experience of this specific software, I just heard about it elsewhere, and it sounds like it might be worth a look, for your q: kiwix. Also it has a howto thingy. Best of luck with it,  Chzz  ►  12:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There are no database dumps containing files supplied by Wikimedia, however if you just want all the files in use on a certain wiki you can try using a website downloader (like HTTrack). I think this is what kiwix does. Rocket000 (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Kiwix does not really work like that http://www.kiwix.org/index.php/Tools/en Kelson (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like it does. Where else do they get the files if it's not from the website itself? It says the tool helps with "replication of content from the online site in a local mirror" and is for "generating an HTML dump", that is exactly what an offline reader does. Rocket000 (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not simply use a WebSpider, which creates an offline image of the wiki (as of any website), and adjust the settings to follow links to files on other servers. For your task I would use the following settings:

• Starting Page: Indexpage of the Wiki
• Depth of following links to other servers: 1

You could use the free HTTrack software. The settings are:

Settings HTTrack including documents from other servers

Setting	Where?	Item	Value
Starting Page	Main Dialogue	Web Adresses: (URL)	http://www.pccameroon.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
Depth to follow external Links	Options Dialogue Tab "Limits"	Maximum external depth	1 or 2
Ignore robots.txt	Option Dialogue Tab "Spider"	Spider:	no robots.txt rules
Ignore wiki edit pages	Option Dialogue Tab "Scan Rules"	Add this line to the textbox: -*/*action=edit*

It's important you tell the program to ignore robots.txt, else it will copy nothing. In the include/exclude expression you can tell the program to ignore all wiki edit pages, as they are useless in an offline archive. You can add other expressions to the include/exclude box to include or ignore other file types or other types of subpages, e.g. ignore discussion pages (-*/*title=Talk*) or history pages (-*/*action=history*).

I also use the German freeware Webspider2, which has lesser options to configure but has a more simple interface in return. For your job you would need the following non default settings (The Project Settings Dialogue opens when you click the "Neu"-Button to create a new project):

Settings Webspider2 including documents from other servers

Setting	Project Settings Dialog Page	Item	Value
Starting Page	1. Allgemeine Einstellungen	Erste Seite/URL:	http://www.pccameroon.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:AllPages
Depth to follow Links	5. Beschränkungen (Hyper-Text)	Anzahl der Ebenen beschränken auf:	2
Location for hypertext documents	5. Beschränkungen (Hyper-Text)	HyperText-Dokumente:	<OHNE BESCHRÄNKUNG>
Location for inline images	6. Beschränkungen (Sonstige)	Inline-Images:	<OHNE BESCHRÄNKUNG>
Location for other embedded objects	6. Beschränkungen (Sonstige)	eingebundene Objekte:	<OHNE BESCHRÄNKUNG>
Location for other objects	6. Beschränkungen (Sonstige)	Verweise auf Sonstige:	<OHNE BESCHRÄNKUNG>

All other settings could stay with the default values. Unfortunately the program is only in German.

Certainly this is a huge task and could easly create an 1GB archive, as it follows all links outside the wiki. If you decide to store all files inside the wiki, you can stay within the server. Then the settings would be:

Settings Webspider2 just for the wiki and uploaded files to it:

Setting	Project Settings Dialog Page	Item	Value
Starting Page	1. Allgemeine Einstellungen	Erste Seite/URL:	http://www.pccameroon.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:AllPages
Depth to follow Links	5. Beschränkungen (Hyper-Text)	Anzahl der Ebenen beschränken auf:	unchecked (default value)
Location for hypertext documents	5. Beschränkungen (Hyper-Text)	HyperText-Dokumente:	von diesem Server

You could also finetune the settings to only include pdf-documents but not webpages from other serves, or you could create a whitelist to only include documents from some servers where your important files are stored. --JohannesPonader (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

August 21

HTML that could be interpreted incorrectly, blah, blah

Why am I unable to upload this photograph? It seems to be of great quality, it is free and this article could really use it. Yet I can't upload it because I get a message about HTML that could be interpreted incorrectly or something like that. Can someone help me, either by uploading the image or by teaching me how to do it? Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am now experiencing the same problem with this image. Surtsicna (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You have probably downloaded the HTML document, which is a file format that's not allowed here for security reasons. Make sure it's the image that you download. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"File:H.H. Sheikh Hamdan Bin Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum in Summit on the Global Agenda.jpg" is already on the Commons. Our website detects whether an image being uploaded is identical to any images already in the database, and generates a warning if it finds one. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried using http://toolserver.org/~bryan/flickr/upload ? Teofilo (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am quite sure I downloaded the picture; it was on my computer. I was not warned that the Commons already had that photo; I was warned that there is something wrong with HTML code or something like that. I'll check it out. Surtsicna (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There is probably HTML in the EXIF tag of the image. If you use an EXIF editor to remove that from the image, the problem is probably solved. TheDJ (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] I tried uploading the image of Lubna Al Qasimi from Flickr using Flinfo and encountered the same problem you did. Looks like the image may be defective in some way, even though it displays properly on Flickr. You could do a screen capture (though the resolution will be pretty low), or perhaps post a question at the photography workshop of the Graphic Lab to see if someone there can diagnose the problem. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There's indeed html in the exif ( <a href="http://www.weforum.org">World Economic Forum</a> (<a href="http://www.weforum.org">www.weforum.org</a>))--DieBuche (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone suggest a good EXIF editor? (Also, I have been using a software program called Paint Shop Pro 7 to edit image, but I notice that it removes the EXIF data from photographs. Does anyone know of a way to prevent the program from doing that?) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it is "good", but the only one I've used a couple of times was "Exifer". Commons:EXIF no longer mentions "Exifer", with someone in the history tab saying that "Geosetter replaces Exifer (with more editing options)" diff. Teofilo (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, this is getting really annoying. I've found several great photographs, taken two days ago, that I can't upload. This is one of them. I am still not sure how to solve that problem. Surtsicna (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on Teofilo's advice, you need to search for and download an EXIF editing program like Exifer or GeoSetter and edit the EXIF information of the photographs to remove the HTML tags. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

GeoSetter can be obtained here. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try that. Thank you! Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Impossible to upload files ?

Hello,

As from this morning, I cannot upload SVG files anymore. The file I want to upload is a vectorization of [:File:57th_Wing.jpg]. When I try to upload it on Commons using DerivativeFX, the upload is stopped at the last step with a red error message in the upload form "the file contains errors".

My SVG was realized with Inkscape and is totally standard, it passes the W3C validator without any error. I put a copy of it on my google site, you can access it on https://sites.google.com/site/rameyarnaud/misc/temp_wiki/model.svg?attredirects=0&d=1 .

Even funnier, when I tried to upload a previous work, that is a SVG I uploaded before on Commons, it was also refused with the same error message. Can somebody give a look please ? Thanks ! Arnaud Ramey (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

JPEG files can't be uploaded too. As it seems, upload is not working (Special:Log/upload). --Domen (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I get the same trouble with jpg images. For one of them I could achieve uploading after trying a second time, but for three others uploading does not work. Croquant (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to upload an OGG and I got the same. Jcb (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Problems with all files. The last two were uploaded at 09:36 and 08:59. --Dezidor (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Just tried another JPEG file. Didn't work. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else getting this error? Spellcast (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And according to Special:NewFiles, other people are too - only 4 uploads in the last 2+ hours. Wknight94 ^talk 11:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Same here. It claims the files are corrupt (which they aren't, as far as I know!) - MPF (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the message you get. There were some people working on tiffs earlier so I guess that triggered something. Multichill (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reported bug 24954. Hopefully it's fixed soon. Spellcast (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting it too, on an image from the same set I was uploading with no problems last night. At first it was telling me that my JPEG file is a "Tiff" file, although it isn't. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to upload a jpg file, but I get the message "Het geüploade bestand bevat fouten" (The uploaded file contains errors). There is nothing wrong with the file. I display it normally on my PC. (A scanned foto and then some rework) I wil try to upload another picture. Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone able to put on a side note so that other people do not waste an hour or se by repeatedly trying to upload, convert, restore a file locally with all types of software you can imagine until they come to the result that it's not them but commons who failed? --Matthiasb (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• The same from me. It reasking for license although it has one. What is happening today?

--Vchorozopoulos (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess we just have to be patient. Please keep in mind that this might require the attention of the technical people in San Francisco, and it's 05.17 over there.;) MartinD (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Local upload on wikisource:sv: still works. -- Lavallen (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is caused by the activation of the new Tiff rendering. A bug was found in the extension, where it checks every single upload for being a tiff file (which most uploads won't be of course). The extension is now disabled, while a fix is being prepared. Uploads should work again. TheDJ (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have had the same problem 10 minutes ago with this image. It finally went after I tried it four times. I do not know what the reason could be. --High Contrast (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Things are now back to normal. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Christian flyer

is religious propaganda within our project's scope? -- Cherubino (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. First, I'd avoid using a rather POV phrase like "religious propaganda" to describe the images. Secondly, there doesn't seem to be anything in "Commons:Project scope" specifically declaring such images to be outside the project's scope. The policy states that "Preexisting designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence", but the reference to preexisting designs and symbols suggests that the sentence relates to images of swastikas and the like rather than the images in the "Christian flyer" gallery. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

However it's phrased as, I don't think the files linked to are within the educational scope of commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I cannot think of any use for the images as they are but the backgrounds (if they are own work of the uploader) could be useful. And if the backgrounds are useful we need to keep the originals as our source.

And to answer the original question: Yes, religious "propaganda" is in our project's scope. At least if it is not original research. Material that is original research (specifically created for upload on Commons) is not necessarily in scope. --Slomox (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Project scope talks about "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use." and "Advertising or self-promotion.". // Liftarn (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I copied this discussion to Commons:Deletion requests/Christian flyers --Jarekt (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring between East Sea and Sea of Japan

Could a skilled diplomat provide some guidance to the various parties in this map edit war. I have tried a few posts but I think it needs someone with skills in both other languages and Commons policies. The situation has been confused with past changes, and possibly invalid calls to English Wikipedia guidelines. -84user (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

An admin could just revert the maps to their initial version and protect the files from re-upload. No reason to import a problem from Wikipedia here.  Docu  at 01:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

August 30

Request for Oversight rights

Per common practice:

• Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Magister Mathematicae - Withdrawn.
• Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Avraham

Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Studentenverbindungen

German speakers may want to comment at "Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/08/Category:Studentenverbindungen". (English speakers welcome too!) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

August 31

Images from KIT categories

Is anyone planning to make real categories for all of these listed on Special:WantedCategories? They've been there for awhile. Rocket000 (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I work on it and some other people too. It just takes some time. Multichill (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've been working on these, and did over a thousand KIT image edits but the donation is of 35,000 images! I'm not sure why the request for help has been taken down from the main page, but with current speed it will take another year for sure. Also important to note that it is not all about translating the red categories to English, as the KIT category system is different than the Commons one. Often the key for the right Commons categorization is in the filename and/or description rather than the red categories. --Elekhh (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could help but I don't understand any of it. Even if I am able to add categories based on the image itself, I wouldn't know what to remove. I'm curious why some of these are created and some are not. On a side note, I also noticed quite a lot of these have incorrect licensing. CC-BY-SA on clearly public domain works. I don't know if this was intentional or an oversight, but it makes us look really bad when use PD-Art for other museums' images ignoring their copyright claims. The template even says "...or that are otherwise free of copyright", then contradicts itself with a license tag right below it. I know this double standard isn't anything new for Commons, but usually it's not done on such a large automated scale... Rocket000 (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Those KIT categories you point at shouldn't have been created at all, and will be deleted in the end. The red categories were intended only as temporary categories (See Commons:Tropenmuseum#Categorization) containing the Tropenmuseum metadata. Otherwise, these should not withold you from adding images into the right categories - the red KIT categories can be removed at any stage when identified as superfluous. --Elekhh (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the easy categories were already done by me en masse. See for example the history of User:Multichill/KIT/geografie (the location based categories). So it becomes harder to find temp KIT categories to match with real categories. The fact that the KIT categories are in Dutch also makes it a bit harder.

The license is intentional. We know for sure the images are {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, some images might be {{PD-art}}, if you're sure they are, you can just change the template to {{KIT-license|license=PD-art}}. Multichill (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a good idea if we (well, anyone that knows Dutch) convert some of these into broader English (or English/Dutch) categories first. That would make it easier for more people (like me) to help out. I don't mean the main ones as described on Commons:Tropenmuseum, but there's a lot of red categories with only 1 or 2 images, which in itself makes it hard to sort and takes a lot longer when we have to navigate through tons of non-existent categories and can't use tools like Cat-a-lot. About the license: Okay, I didn't know it had that option. I just think we should try to be as accurate about the license as possible instead "as long as we know it's free, it doesn't matter". Rocket000 (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

File extension does not match MIME type.

I get this error message when trying to upload an image. I cannot get past it. Highly annoying. (It's a regular .png file and yes, I named also the target file as .png) Palosirkka (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some HTML content in one of the EXIF tags? Sometimes that can do it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And I think EXIF tags are rather unusual for PNGs, so if there are any, try removing them altogether. –Tryphon^☂ 14:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This error means exactly what it says. Your original file may be named .png, but MediaWiki does not agree that is actually IS a png file. Many images from the internet actually have incorrect file extensions, it is rather common. It might be that you have jpeg images stored as a PNG. A quick way to check, is to try using an image application and then choose File->Save as. You are asked to specify how you want to save the image, and the current format will likely be pre-selected. TheDJ (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no exif and it sure seems like a .png. This is the file in question. Palosirkka (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That image is unfree anyway. Multichill (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You could consider that a restrictive trademark license but still a "free" copyright license. They do specifically say "trademark license" in their restrictive statements. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't notice that. However, the academic question remains why didn't it work. Palosirkka (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a valid PNG with no unusual data. Perhaps you should file a bug report? --Carnildo (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange, it worked for me Special:Undelete/File:Osaf-cp-logo.png. TheDJ (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I filed bug 24991 Thank you for your help. Palosirkka (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to change deletion request to speedy deletion?

I had nominated a file for deletion a few weeks ago but was still new to the process, so I used the standard deletion request. I can see now that I should have submitted the file for speedy deletion. The file in question is File:Richard lovett holly hight.jpg.

• Image is a copyright violation from the Psychology Today website
• Description (text) is a copyright violation from the Psychology Today website

See http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bloggers/richard-lovett-phd-and-holly-hight
Is there a process for changing a standard deletion request to a speedy deletion request? Thanks for the help. - Hydroxonium (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Just add a speedy deletion tag to the image description page, and add a note at the deletion discussion saying you've done that. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? I don't see why this should ever be done. If it's a copyvio, just so note it on the DR, and even make a request for speedy deletion at the DR, but it will get deleted in due time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Licensing for files in Category:Photochrom pictures from the Library of Congress

Singers' Hall in Neuschwanstein Castle, original photograph by Joseph Albert, Bavarian court photographer.

Photochrom (colorized lithograph) by Photoglob Zürich.

I posted this on the category talk page before, but didn't get a response, and due to recent events I think this needs to be resolved asap. Most of the photochrom prints from the LOC (and possibly others) that show motives outside North America originate in Switzerland and were only published in license in the US. So the {{PD-US}} license tag that's on almost all of them doesn't suffice. I don't think there are more than a few prints that are not in the PD, but the problem is that Photoglob Zürich (a subsidiary of Orell Füssli), the originating company, both employed their own photographers, in which case {{PD-Switzerland-old-unknown}} applies, and also bought photos from known photographers in bulk, in which case {{PD-Old}} can only be used if the photographer is known and dead for more than 70 years. The alternative would be to create a separate PD-PZ tag. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear trialsanderrors, depending on the item all of these photochromes could be license-tagged as PD-Art originating from other countries. I am aware of Multi-licensing but can not tell whether this applies for license-tags of different countries as well. Apparently this would result in items which feature a whole rat-tail of license-tags. Correct license attribution is the prior task for every upload, though i don't believe adding several license-tags would help anyone to understand the actual legal situation for an image. I have not seen an official guideline on how to handle this situation, whether only one tag should be added, all tags possible should be added or any other possible combination of tags does apply here. Creating a new tag seems a bit bustling. Doublecheck the copyright description at LoC and compare it to those images available at Commons atm would be my first draught. The link to an example image uploaded at Commons for this very situation would be nice to have. Any suggestions?

Regards. --Peter Weis (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

{{PD-Art}} doesn't apply because those images are direct scans of the original: "This template is only for use when the initial reproduction was by means of a photograph, rather than a scan or a photocopy." There is no exact need for multi-licensing, a Swiss license should suffice, the question is only which one for which print. The LOC descriptions tend to be confusing, because they are taken from the Detroit Publishing Co. catalogue (the U.S. licensee) even for the prints from Photoglob Zürich. A simple marker: most prints from Zürich have a golden P.Z. number in the lower left, the prints from Detroit have a copyright notice in the bottom right. There are a couple hundred examples in the category I linked above, I added a thumbnail for one example. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/pgz/digitizing.html verifies your statement of no proper usage of {{PD-Art}} in this case. Could apply to other items of the collection though, if using an overhead camera is considered as a faithful reproduction. Using a Switzerland related license-tag would be unbiased, for we don't know when or if the actual item was distributed in Switzerland. The only information we can confirm is publication before 1923. If you really want so assure this I recommend contacting the fellows at the LoC. They are friendly and will patiently answer your questions or redirect you to a special department at no cost. The golden PZ is a first hint. You should consider adding a cat here, until further information of an original release in Switzerland is available. The LoC states that "in 1985, the prints of Europe and the Middle East were purchased from the Galerie Muriset in Switzerland". Acting like a pettifogger I would assume that the photochromes uploaded yet don't have proper proof whether being published in Switzerland first or not. Working on a very sophisticated level of this topic would require legal help, I think. I am curious to know how you found out the statements written on the talk page. Please let me know about your source.

So my conclusion is:

• Have these images been published in the US before 1923? Yes.
• Have these images been published outside the US? Unkown.
• Who obtained the images and therefore part of the copyright? Library of Congress in 1985.
• Who is/are the original author/s? Unkown.

After continuing this list we should reach a proper statement on the license we should apply here. Any remarks?

Regards. --Peter Weis (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Have these images been published outside the US? Unkown. Yes.
• Who obtained the images and therefore part of the copyright? Library of Congress in 1985. The LOC holds no copyright. Just because I have a Picasso print on my wall, it doesn't mean I have copyright over it.
• for we don't know when or if the actual item was distributed in Switzerland -- For a number of items I can give you the publication date down to the month, for most others approximately the year. Essentially, 95% of the items in the collection were published between 1889 and 1901. The LOC is not a very knowledgeable resource for photochroms, there are books that cover the history in more detail (1, 2). I had intermittent contact with the LOC photochroms and other issues, but they didn't respond to my inquiry about this issue. I contacted Photoglob (they still exist as a publisher of postcards), but haven't heard back from them yet. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how works-for-hire are handled in Swiss copyright law, but if the works were already in the PD, before 1956 or 1993, then we might be lucky. Works from 1923 and retroactively before 1923 have 30 years copyright after the (last surviving) author's death and anonymous/pseudonymous works have 30 years from first publication. This was extended in 1955 to 50 years and in 1992 again extended to 70 years, both not retroactively. If the cards don't have the photographer listed during publication and there is no works-for-hire concept in old Swiss copyright law, they might count as anonymous works, which means that anything published before 1926 is in the public domain. But we could really use someone more familiar with the finer swiss legal details. TheDJ (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, due to uncertainty on this topic, I'd say it is best to create a PD-PZ tag at the very least, to summarize this information. TheDJ (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

They're not always Swiss photographers, see e.g. Neuschwanstein#Historical_images for sepiatoned originals and colorized photochroms. But I agree, I think the chance that a photograph is still copyrighted is very small, and we have the LOC assessment to fall back on. A PD-PZ tag with disclaimers might be the best solution. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that actually matters. Isn't it so that copyright is primarily determined by country of first publication, and only after that by the country of the photographers nationality ? If these works were made for P.Z. and first published by P.Z. in Switzerland, then I don't really think the photographer(-heir) has a case, unless he is from a country that hasn't adopted the rule of shorter term. TheDJ (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

To quote the Universal Copyright Convention "No Contracting State shall be obliged to grant protection to a work for a period longer than that fixed for the class of works to which the work in question belongs, in the case of unpublished works by the law of the Contracting State of which the author is a national, and in the case of published works by the law of the Contracting State in which the work has been first published. — UCC, article IV(4)(a)." TheDJ (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the following: the photochroms are technically speaking derivative work (a chromolithograph based on a b&w photograph). The lithographers were employed by PZ in Switzerland, so Swiss law applies for their work and from all I can gather their work should be in the PD by now. The photographers were in part employed by PZ, but in other cases PZ bought up photos that had already been published and turned them into photochroms (the Neuschwanstein series being one example, I can look up more). If those photos were originally published elsewhere (e.g. Germany in the Neuschwanstein case), we have to apply local copyright rules for those. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if falling back on the LoC assessment no progress has been made after all. If you really accept this as a possibility we should stay at {{PD-US}}. I don't like the idea of creating a new PD-tag but support the note on unverified copyright status. A tag should be sufficient here. Once the images copyright status in confirmed we should go for the PD-PZ tag.

Regards. --Peter Weis (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that if we can only establish PD-US we have to delete them from Commons (and possibly move them to en.wiki?) because we need a valid license for the source country for Commons. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Then it's time to amend that rule. We know these photographs are legal to put on servers in the United States because they're public domain here. The whole thing about the source country is, so far as I know, explained only as a "courtesy" - a very costly one at that. But to extend that courtesy to photos that we know are public domain, only because it's not exactly clear from where they're public domain? It's time to impose some common sense and end this. Wnt (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The current MO is, if an image is not (known to be) in the PD in the source country but in the PD in the U.S., it is posted on en.wiki for use there. I'm not sure why this should be amended, or whether you will get consensus for any change. The problem here is a very specific one -- that we can be sure that almost all images are in the PD both in the source country and the U.S., but we can't positively identify the ones that aren't. A similar problem exists for the New York World-Telegram Collection, where the LOC has concluded that copyright protection is rare and renewal even rarer, but if we can't confirm for an individual image whether it is protected, we don't accept it on Commons. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion is rather theoretical. We don't need to be holier than the pope. The source says: Images in this collection are considered to be in the public domain, and since 50 years of copyright protection applies instead of 70 years for these Swiss images, we can safely rely on the statement LOC made and consider these images to be in the public domain. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Another thing is that anonymous images older than 100 years can usually safely be assumed to be free, even if it is not really 100% clear that they are anonymous. At least that's what dewiki does, and there weren't any problems with this rule I knew of. I'm sure the rule was set after some discussion by people familiar with european laws. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Jan, discussed above, the LOC disclaimer only covers the US. 1923 has no validity outside the US. Re McFly, as I said, if there is a consensus to create a PD-Photochrom license tag, we should do this, but it should at a minimum follow Swiss law (and preferably, the law of the country depicted in the photochrom, because that's where the photographer likely resided). ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What I don't understand here is what should be so different about these photochroms and "normal" photograps from that time? Otherwise, I agree, but it is a kind of special case in either way as there's still no written rule on commons how old an image with unknown author can be to assume it's old enough. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The photochrom component plays no role here other than people (including me until recently) have so far misattributed them to the Detroit Publishing Co and assumed PD-US holds based on a misreading of the LOC description. The issue is with the original photographs which were converted to photochroms by Photoglob Zürich. If you know a blanket license that says "all photos from before 1900 for which we can't determine the photographer are assumed to be in the PD" we should attach it here, but I'm not aware of such a license. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no official such license on commons so far, except for {{PD-anon-70}} (or {{PD-Switzerland-old-unknown}}, which is basically the same). These are the licenses according the letter of the law. But that law has the problem, that it's really difficult to know that thew works are published anonymously, therefore it is rather difficult to apply in practice. Therefore dewiki has decided to assume works where the author cannot be determined as being free, which adds another 30 years of safety. I'm suggesting to do the same here. Again, this does not follow the exact letter of the law, but we think it follows the spirit of that law, as there must be an age after which a work becomes PD in any case. The swiss law unfortunatelly does not contain an explicit article that says after what age a work is PD in either case. However, there's one sentence that allows this pragmatic 100year-solution (Art 29): "Muss angenommen werden, der Urheber oder die Urheberin sei seit mehr als [...] 70 Jahren tot, so besteht kein Schutz mehr." (If it can be assumed that the copyright holder is dead for more than 70 years, the copyright has expired.") --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I would absolutely apply such a license to, say, a work from the mid-19th Century. But for works from the turn of the Century, when the photo was taken in 1895, and the photographer was 25 at the time, he'd be 70 in 1940. That's no age where we have to conclude he'd be dead by then. For each individual photo, we can probably conclude that the likelihood of it still being copyrighted is small, but for the whole set of 6,000 photochroms, we're probably committing 600+ copyvios. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is not committing any copyvios; these are all old enough to be in the public domain in the jurisdiction that Wikimedia is responsible to. This is a matter of Commons policy, not law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

But according to Swiss law, after 50 years these images were already free of rights, so why make a fuss now, 110 years later? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sued for 10'000€ for using images of commons on private homepage

In Germany somebody got sued for using images of commons on a private homepage. See here. The sum is about 10'000 Euros. Nobody knows which images those are because the user does not want to reveal the images so that they won't get deleted. Knowing that we have ten thousands uncovered copyright violations on commons gives me quite a headache. Can people trust the license on commons? As we can see, NO. Should we put a warning sign to each image saying: we do our best to (…) but we can not guarantee anything so dont use the image anywhere without checking if the license is really valid? Amada44  ^{talk to me} 10:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ouch and thanks for raising this. It is important. While full of agf I have always been unhappy about "own work" - personally I think folk should have to go through something a little more stringent than that.

I know people will point to others sites who don't care but equally sites taht are for commercial use (& ours can be so used) require email validation etc. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, such stuff can generally happen. Whereas most stuff is usually fine to use on one's own homepage, some stuff usually isn't, for example a lot of our low resolution images. Some of the stuff that isn't allowed under the Commons licensing criteria may even be fine for usage on a private website. But rtc really hit it right in his post: Get yourself an advocate. Though I personally don't really like such "You used my image, now gimme 10,000" legal threats, it's allowed. I think one should first go and try it with a friendly "please remove the image" e-mail, but for some people who earn their money with their work, like professional photographers, this isn't really doable. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Rule one, don't pay anything. Rule two, remove the material from your website. Then write a letter in response. Say "Thank you for notifying me of this problem, I had acquired these images from this and this website, where user ... uploaded them and stated that it was his own work that I was free to use. You claim that this user was not in his rights to make this claim. For this reason I have since removed the material from my website. I advise you to contact Wikimedia Commons (OTRS email link), to inform them of this infringement, so that they can permanently remove the material from their website." etc. If he writes back with a 2nd demand for money, get a lawyer. This is really why we need to do serious work on our upload process. "I agree and testify to that I am legally allowed to release this material under the indicated license". TheDJ (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we do -- Commons:General disclaimer. Furthermore, we host images which are public domain (or licensed) in the country of origin and also the U.S., but that does not necessarily mean they are public domain in *all* countries -- it is the always the responsibility of users to check. Also, there could also be non-copyright restrictions which apply to an intended use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope that as a matter of outreach, to protect its own reputation, and to further investigate the nature of the copyright violation claims, that the WMF will involve itself here. Any user who is attacked with such a preposterous claim of "damages" for the casual use of an apparently widely publicly available image on a personal Web site is clearly being abused out of all conceivable proportion to whatever "theft" allegedly existed, even in the minds of those suffering a fundamentalist-fanatic belief in the copyright system. The person expresses a quite peculiar belief that if he complains to Commons that the image will be deleted and Wikimedia will simply let him twist in the wind, not admitting it ever was here. I don't think that's reasonable and it's an impression that the WMF can dispel with forceful action.

That said, there's something about the poster's reluctance to contact the WMF that also makes me suspicious of some elaborate maneuver - i.e. Alan posts an image from a copyrighted collection, Bob pretends to sell it for 100 euros, Carl pays a settlement for 100 euros, but all three work for the same company that holds the copyright, and just don't admit it in court because Wikimedia is their ultimate target. But that's all the more reason for the WMF to investigate, because as we all know, where copyright is concerned, just because something is stupid, crass, unreasonable, and criminal doesn't mean it won't be upheld in the highest court. Wnt (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The term "got sued" is incorrect. He got a en:Abmahnung, but no courts have been involved so far. The only good advice for him is to get a lawyer, not to seek help from some hobby-lawyer from the Internet. Also he is talking about 15 (estimation) images that caused the incident. --Isderion (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the actual legal situation, this is not good for our reputation and can discourage others from using this site. It's not really practical but I wish we had some type of uploader review process, not just a couple processes for a handful of images. Every new user's uploads should be monitored for awhile to ensure they understand this project, copyright, and aren't prone to make false claims. Falsely claiming "Own work" I believe has come to be our biggest problem. It has surpassed the past prevalent issues of people using the {{PD}} template without any valid reason or simply tagging everything with {{GFDL}} because they don't understand or care about licensing. Rocket000 (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This looks like FUD or were the images provided by now? Multichill (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I had asked him to forward the details to our OTRS team if he does not want to make it public. But so far he refuses to disclose the images. And some of the other points of his story do not really sum up. Because of this I still remain sceptical whether this is genuine. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

10.000 Euros for an Abmahnung (a special German cease-and-desist letter). That would be a amount in controversy of some million Euros. It is a piss-take by Mr. SuedGuy. sугсго 06:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It could well be FUD. the person argues, that if the images are provided, they will be deleted and he/she will have no proof anymore. What is strange is, that the company seems to know that the images are from commons and have a free license there but doesn't seem to make an effort to get them deleted. One could conclude that either they try to make money like that the whole story is fake. Anyhow, I am quite amazed how hostile the users on de:wp are to that IP. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 08:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That IP is making accusations that using Commons puts you in legal danger, and is refusing to provide any evidence towards that. I don't know why you think they wouldn't be hostile to someone slinging unverifiable accusations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

how do I transfer image to commons

Please, I want to use en:File:DividedLine.svg on pt wikipedia. How do I do that? thanks, Nevinho (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it's a free file it can be added to commons. Save the file on your computer and then upload it to Commons. There might be another way of doing it, search the help on Portuguese Wikipedia. Palosirkka (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You can use the CommonsHelper tool to transfer the file from the English Wikipedia to the Commons. (Note that you will need to apply for a TUSC account first.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

TUSC is great when transferring often but it is not necessary for transferring just one file. Just use the CommonsHelper tool without it if you want the easy way. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a TUSC account was needed if you want to have the tool automatically transfer the image from a Wikipedia project to the Commons. Without such an account, one has to manually copy the image to one's hard disk, then upload it to the Commons. Or am I wrong? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Extra-long file description

Anyone have a suggestion as to what to do about the file description of "File:Second life.jpg"? It seems to have been taken directly from Flickr. Shall I just replace it with something bland like "A female avatar from Second Life"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Not because it's long, but because it's irrelevant twaddle. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And because it's a copyvio. That's a common problem when using the Flickr upload bot... it copies everything. It also provides us with some awesome descriptions like File:Chicken_crates.jpg. The user should edit it before saving, but it doesn't look like this user cares much what the description says. Rocket000 (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the infringing part of the description. In principle, the earlier revisions of the page should be deleted as copyright violations. –Tryphon^☂ 14:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we still can't hide File:Second_life.jpg#filehistory without deleting the file or reuploading first. :) The file seems kinda useless anyway. Rocket000 (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't the log use to have a size limit? Maybe an OS can edit it.

Last time I cleaned up some of the long file description pages, I categorized some of the more reasonable ones into Category:Long file description pages. --  Docu  at 18:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, I didn't think about that. But it looks like DieBuche took care of it, so everything's fine now. –Tryphon^☂ 23:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

NASA on Flickr Commons

Hello everybody.

NASA has join Flickr Commons. There are more image to enhance Wikimedia Commons. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why ? Are they releasing NEW material ? This seems like it is just material from nasaimages.org, which in itself is an federated database of their other image databases. TheDJ (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)