Forecasting the Impact of Technology on the Global Economy
Ray Kurzweil in his recent book The Singularity is Near predicts exponential growth for information technology generally, and says we're on the cusp of true artificial intelligence that will increase more and more rapidly in capability. This would have positive implications for global economic growth. Kurzweil sees exponential growth possibilities there as well, and says the economists are wrong. Economists, he says, are mistaking the shallow slope of a hockey stick curve for linear growth. 25 to 50 years from now, we will discover how massive an impact technology will have, on the economy and of course in other areas as well.
Kurzweil's clearly an optimist, but he's a sound thinker, an innovator in the field of AI and an insightful person. It could be possible to create a living Wikibook (or other WikiMedia construct) to test his hypothesis, something that could be updated year after year to refine the viewpoint, the actual economic results and the forecast. To begin with, we could build a matrix taxonomy for the whole global economy and keep tabs on each industry vertical and region. Alacra has a business taxonomy of sorts on their own beta Wiki site, but it's really just a way to organize bundles of articles into particular categories, with no analysis of what they all mean together and no forecast of how things might develop over time. I haven't come across a Wiki with the sort of content we're proposing here.
We could do this sort of analysis, and it would be an intriguing project to 1) gather good public information, 2) solicit input from knowledgable people, and 3) develop a set of collaborative forecasting elements that could be displayed in the Wiki pages themselves. The last item (living forecast spreadsheets and charts) is something I haven't seen on a Wiki yet. Would it be possible with the help of scripting languages and AJAX to put live spreadsheet and chart windows on a Wiki page that can be edited and display the changes instantly without reloading the page?
I don't see any business category for Wikis on this site. Is there a prohibition on business information here? If we were to begin a WikiMedia construct on this topic, how would we approach it? Would it be a Wikibook, or another medium? How can we build it so it will include the right tools?
There is no spreadsheet-functionality in MediaWiki, but there's the meta:Wikidata project that aims to do something simmilar. There are lots of other projects expermienting with wiki-spreadsheets, see google (I saw one recently that looked promising, but can't find it right now). -- Duesentrieb(?!)12:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know flag designs are not uniformly public domain, but it seems to me if a flag is not copyrighted, it must be more or less PD. I would have thought you could only use the above licenses for designs that you created. Image:Flag of Mérida.svg is marked CC-BY-SA-2.5. I mean they didn't make that design up, I imagine. And they're hardly the first person to create an image of it. If they can license it as they like, what stops someone creating their own image of it and licensing it as NC-ND? Are we not then infringing on their copyright? To me if you own the copyright, it implies some creative input. But when you're designing a flag you're trying to replicate the "real" thing as closely as possbile (one assumes). So... I don't get it. Can anyone explain? pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - either the flag design is PD, then any image of the flag is PD (no creativity), or the flag design is not PD; In that case, the terms of use are hopefully rather liberal, but commercial use may be a problem. -- Duesentrieb(?!)12:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the actual SVG code itself might be considered a creative work, just like any other computer source code. Even for a simple design like Image:Flag of Mérida.svg. The way I see it, perhaps that SVG file is public domain, and perhaps it isn't, but it's under a free license regardless. User:dbenbenn12:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding here is the same as yours: If the flag design has no copyright to begin with, then any new and close enough representation of the same design will automatically be PD as well. Publishing it under a copyleft license assumes a nonexistent copyright and is not legally correct. I also don't think that SVG code can be copyrighted in its own right. We're talking about data formatting here, not program code. --Latebird12:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decision Tree on Uploading Images
Decision Tree on Uploading Images
Requiring serious feedback on "A little Help for Beginners who are interested to contribute to commons' Images Collection", I put this here "as-is". As my English as well as my insider's know-how on WP&... both are less than perfect, I apologize in advance for any inconvenience. I try to do my best, and therefore tried to start this discussion here; in case, this is not the right place, please just give a link here, WHERE to go. TX, Wolfgang (AUT)11:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a good start to me... the only real problem I see that this diagram does not (and can not) address all the special cases, like logos, government work, freedom of panorama, trivial work, etc - not to mention confusion about pictures of copyrighted objects, permission by people shown... ther's no end to this :/
Basically, I think such a diagram may be helpful, but it's also always over-simplifying. We should be careful to make this clear, and to point to more detailed info. -- Duesentrieb(?!)12:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I love this decision tree! Duesentrieb is right, it doesn't capture the whole story, but that can be fixed. For example, there could be a question "Was the photograph taken in Germany?" and if the answer is Yes, it tells you to go to some other place to find out about Panoramafreiheit.
With a bit of work, it should be possible to write out an honest-to-goodness algorithm that addresses all known issues in detail. User:dbenbenn12:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WolfgangW.: Regarding algorithms, amongst others, I'm a nut ;[[[
THIS is to try to balance what in German is called "Versionskonflikt": As soon as I saw the result of my first edit, I tried to repair, then "saved" (which did not work, as I meanwhile know) and went to lunch. So, what I wanted to say:
Questions 1 - 5:
Does anyone outside there think this could be useful to others (in other languages than German)?
If so, can anyone evaluate this from a juristical point of view, concerning special countries? Regarding German situation, I'm able to say my "schedule" is "NOT WRONG", although lacking approvement (I'm no lawyer at all). I have little or no idea about other countries laws.
My English being less than perfect, I'm in doubt about eg. syllabification, therefore the pink part of "agree-ment". To me, it would be helpful to be able to keep other languages texts within NOW given "boxes". If not possible, I would have to re-draw parts of the grafics.
Special Cases, IMHO, are included in "Can you, for sure, deny Third Party rights"? THAT requires explanation on a relative, eg. Country level (European Level, some day??? [third question mark added recently] ;)
In case, same or similar tree can be used in SOME more countries/languages, I would like to adapt it, eg. to fr, es, it, in case the correct translations (Babel4+ level) AS.WELL.AS juridical approvements would come to me (for a trial shoot, I'd edit a french "Working Copy" without lawyer's approvement). My question on this is: would it be possible/allowed to upload a RTF-tabella where translators could write-in the correct translations (same applies to English, of course, but in this case I'm quite sure I am not "TOO terribly wrong" for a beginning. Tx, +Best, Wolfgang (AUT)13:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the picture itself is concerned, the diagram seems to cover all cases except works of trivial creative height. I'm not sure if commons already adopted the "100 years rule of thumb", but it would be a good idea to do so. There should probably be a second diagram explaining the aspects concerning any depicted objects (third party rights), where concepts like "Panoramafreiheit" come into play. --Latebird13:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Image discussion: "Can you deny for sure third party rights" , does it mean "Are there any legal restrictions independant of copyrights?" / Fred Chess13:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More-or-less, yes. Let us, please, as I proposed in the image description, discuss this at the Village Pump for as long as no "possibly better" place is suggested. I will copy this mini-discussion there, which hopefully will be within the policy? TX+EOD. Wolfgang (AUT) 15:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, my English is less than perfect. Moreover, i'm no lawyer, nor even especially familiar with GERMAN or AUSTRIAN copyright, and by far less with other countries' copyright regulations. I wanted to say that even if you created by yourself some picture (photograph or carricature, eg), OR the picture seems to be old enough that it normally would be regarded as "PD", there might be special issues as eg UK's Crown Copyright (which in similar ways might apply to eg Australian Libraries) that would make some 200-years-old picture UNusable for wiki in all countries where fair use would not apply, AND could „harm“ the uploader from such other country with the risk of legal pursues. (Concerning self-drawn carricatures, there will be some right on the own (regognizable) picture even as a drawing; therefore, same procedure, which I tried to call: Third Party Issues ;) Did I manage to be sufficiently clear? If not, please tell me and give me another try. TX, Wolfgang (AUT)15:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Third party rights most importantly mean rights that someone who created somthing shown on a picture might have. I.e. if you take a foto of a sculpure, the creator of the scuplture may have rights to the foto, too - this is called third pary rights. -- Duesentrieb(?!)19:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that might be due to my less-than-perfect English AND the lack of juristical knowlegde. If someone could put, what I tried to explain, in a perfect English phrase which is not very much longer tha "Can you deny...") AND wich is formulated the same negative way, please do so. (Unless formulated negatively, the answer YES would have to lead to "Don't upload", which would disturb the green/red color coding I gave the picture). But, may be, there is not even that much need of being too precise within the picture, as you now can easily add footnotes to - in this case (3) - and explain there as broadly as required.
Bitte weiter auf Deutsch: Wenn's da auch falsch ist (ich bin nunmal kein Jurist), gilt das gleiche. Die fehlenden Fußnoten-Verweise im de-bild überschlaf' ich noch - wenn Du mir einen Tipp geben kannst, ob/wo ich das auf Deutsch diskutieren kann, ohne mir von Figuren wie H. mit dem Arsch ins Gesicht fahren lassen zu müssen, dann lass' mir bitte einen Link zukommen. User talk in Fremdsprachen möchte ich soweit minimieren wie möglich, ohne dabei unfreundlich zu wirken. TX, —Wolfgang (AUT)00:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beginner's Mind: Categories ;)
Sorry to disturb you with a may-be commonplace question: I categorized some of my creations, beeing pictures for tutorials, as category:tutorial. Can this be allowed/accepted? Those links are definitely red. How to go on? Up to now, it would be little trouble to erase erroneous categorizations. Please give me a hint. tx, Wolfgang (AUT)16:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The category links are red, because no header text for Category:Tutorial. Simply click the red link to create the header text - it should at least contain category-links that put it into one or more parent-categories, and maybe a sentence describing what should be in the category. Please note that by convention, category names should be plural, i.e. it should be Category:Tutorials - also, images should also be categorized by topic (i.e., tutorial about what?). In case of the decission tree, I would suggest Category:Copyright-Copyleft and Category:Wikimedia. -- Duesentrieb(?!)19:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite: "Tutorial" is not a sub-topic of "Copyright-Copyleft" or "Wikimedia" - so technically, you got it right how to create a category. But i'm not sure wher i would put tutorial... in any case, do you think it would be likely that someone would look for these images by search for "tutorial"?
Is there any way of changing the presentation of categories? They now say "Articles in Category X / There are X articles in this category. Often the number is 0, because the category is is for images, not pages.
Can this somehow be changed to simply add: "Files in Category X / There are X articles in this category"? DoviJ15:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was browsing through images for cleanup, specifically images with unnecessary borders, and started wondering why are borders or padding removed? I understand it is for clarity and freedom of placement within Wikimedia projects, but are all the images in Wikimedia Commons for informational use? Could an artistic project be imagined, as some images can already be considered art? Then, what if the images contain borders as part of the artwork? Doesn't the artist have a right to say whether the borders should be there or not? Should each image where the author prefers to have borders, have to have two versions, the original for a possible art gallery (does this fall in any project yet?) and a cropped one for Wikipedia and other current projects?
Finally, for an example, see Samoano's photo gallery, where the images are saved on Commons. In my opinion, some of the borders would be distracting if used on Wikipedia, but fit well if thought as a piece of art. The question is, should anyone touch them to crop the borders, or should they be left alone as long as they're not used anywhere? --Para21:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that all images on Commons are under a Free license (except for the Wikimedia logos, which are here for technical reasons), you're entitled to crop the borders from the images and reupload them under a different name (eg. Image:Foo-cropped-noborders.jpg). Cross-link them so that people are aware of the other version - this will probably be required as part of attribution anyway, but it would probably help to make it explicit in these cases. Alphax (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a lot of work for an image already in use, possibly in many articles and many wikimedia projects. I can't find a current Commons policy on improving images, but the French Wikipedia for example instructs to replace improved images with new ones. It makes sense, as Commons shouldn't serve as a photographer's personal showcase, creating unneeded redundancy when the material is taken to use and cropped. After all, the images are there for their content, to be useful in wikimedia projects, and any metadata should be visible on the placeholder page only, even if the contributor may have been nice enough to provide the files themselves.
Also when going for perfect naming of files, I don't agree that a name like Foo-cropped-noborders.jpg would be ideal for a picture of Foo. The file with the actual content should get the basic name, like could be done with MILAN_Jean-Jacques_Pardosa_lugubris.jpg, saving the cropped version to Pardosa_lugubris.jpg. If the photographer has already reserved the name, like with Place_de_la_concorde.jpg, we would have to rename it to have the actual cropped photo use that name, which in this case is already linked to from many wikipedias. Wouldn't it be easier to just replace it? --Para00:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Alphax, disagree with Para. A license like CC-BY-SA doesn't mean "you can do whatever you want with this and call it the same". It means you can upload a related work under a different name, no problem. But not the same name. There are occasions where an image should not be further altered, no matter how helpful you think you're being.
As for a "lot of work", what is the urgency to relink all the instances using the bordered image? Just put a note on the image description page of the original with a link to the cropped one. Redundancy is not a big concern because we are in no danger of running out of space. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about (a) replacing the original Foo.jpg after (b) saving it as or Foo(version date-saved).jpg? I also feel that an artist who wants to show his personal gallery "untouched" is not at the exactly right place here, under the policy "as-is". Wolfgang (AUT)01:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But we have thousands of (true) duplicates, orphans and untagged images - dealing with them gets worse if we have lots of redundant nearly-the-same files.
I belive what we really need is more transparency, so local projects can see what'S going on ot the commons, and participate. I'm currently thinking about a way to automatically alert wikis when images they use may be deleted. -- Duesentrieb(?!)01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Disagree (with Para) until bugzilla:709 is solved. Leaving the original image where it is keeps the record of the author as uploader. I feel that issues like this are really creating work where none is necessary. If you want to crop an image, go ahead - all licenses here allow for that. But calling it the same image is incorrect, essentially forcing everyone to use it by relinking the other one is outside our jurisdiction (let local projects do what they want, including using "ugly" images - if they want!) and "moving" the original image to another place in order to upload a different one with the same name will give not necessarily wanted surprises to local project users. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can people know if an image has been placed on Commons to represent its object and thus being open for improving, or as an artwork that shouldn't be touched? Why allow editing for others than the author and admins at all, if it's not encouraged? What makes media other than text so different, that an edit to it is considered another separate work, and not as collaboration to the same? I could never imagine anyone seriously demanding others not to edit their Wikipedia articles at all, and asking to link to separate derivative work instead. In both media, text and external file types, all the revisions are still saved and anyone can go back through the history to see the original work as is. With the revision history feature, replacing a file does not mean that it would replace the original work. Most edits are for improving the image, and I can't see much difference between changing levels to get a more balanced image, or cropping out excess borders. Commons:Welcome states that Commons is a repository for media that is useful for any Wikimedia project. Perhaps there's an issue of definition here; is Commons a support repository for Wikimedia projects where the files represent what it says in the file name, or a repository for unique works that are not to be played with. If a personal "protected" gallery is acceptable in public wiki format, then Commons is a confusing mix of both two purposes, and every edit should lead to a new file unless otherwise noted. This policy should be clearly visible. --Para02:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why allow editing for others than the author and admins at all, if it's not encouraged? There is no policy on this, as you would have noticed. What I have said is my opinion, not policy. I guess all I am saying is that people who license under CC-BY-SA (maybe everything, except PD) have the right to revert your improvements if they don't agree with them, in which case you should upload such an image separately. But I also am not sure that an uploader would be aware of this. (And at the moment uploads don't appear in watchlist entries, so the original uploader might not even know until you tell them.) I don't want to say no image can ever be edited. But I don't want to unnecessarily upset people who are making useful, original contributions either. If you're going to make revisions to one person's images en masse, I don't think it would hurt to leave them a message asking if they mind, first. If they mind, then do them separately. But as I said, I feel there are more important issues for the Commons. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meanwhile learned that in many cases it might be quite annoying to have media replaced by „improved“ ones. ACK.
RE Alert: How about automatically enumerating improvements, e.g.Foo+327jpg, and automatically send alerts to all pages where Foo.jpg (or Foo+1...Foo+326) are used? After a certain time, Foo.jpg and a few more might be more-or-less orphaned; if so, they might be removed with less waste.
RE '...edits by no-one but author and admins': Not that good, I suppose. Either just the author, and everybody else would have to submit their versions as "improved from...", or anybody. There's not much probability that user:X should be less competent than any admin on improving something on which he/she feels quite sure, IMHO. —WolfgangW.05:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem here is that for most images there isn't enough information to tell what modifications are desirable. For instance, I'll often crop a plant pic to include a variety of features that are used to identify the species - while the flower in the center is pretty, that hairy stem in the background is key to identification. Ideally the image description would say all that, but they might get pretty long then! So if someone wants just the flower (or just the stem), the cropped picture should be uploaded under a new name. On the other hand, people also upload raw dumps from the camera that need a workover to be useful at all. So if one were to write a guideline, I would say that the altered image should be uploaded under a different name unless the creator of the image has been contacted, or has described the image sufficiently well to make it clear what kinds of alterations are desirable. (Note the opportunity for useful distinction between category and gallery - category includes original and all modified versions, gallery shows off only one.) Stan Shebs13:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Wolfgang and Stan Shebs: "improved" versions are not always better. Make five "improvements" of an jpg and much of the original is lost.
Unlike Duesentrieb I see no problem with redundant images. As long as anyone wants to keep a version of an image, keep it.
I quote Stan:„...unless the creator of the image has been contacted, or has described the image sufficiently well to make it clear what kinds of alterations were desirable...“
No father/mother of his baby can ever imagine, and by.far.less.tell_for.sure_ which alterations to his „produce“ might be desirable, I.am.100+%.sure.about.that (having been a photographer for some decade).
I'd propose: (a) No need, but encouragement, to contact the creator, but (b) do.not.overwrite. In case, the creator gives his OK, one might possibly kill the „freak(s)“ ;) [I mention here that some artists ruined their own work for some mood, which needs not to be accepted here: Uploaded = given_away to the policy (whichever-policy)] In case the artist does not agree, or things are not 200% obvious, let's have „improvements“ evaluated rather by time, and keep „pseudo-redundant“ stuff for as long as webspace is not a problem (which, as I hear, is not to be expected soon). —WolfgangW. 17:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)WolfgangW.02:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't want to make it an absolute prohibition, otherwise we would never be able to fix obvious upload mistakes. For instance, fixing a 90-rotated image should always be acceptable (are there images that are always useful both upright and sideways?). Stan Shebs03:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stan, I'm not able to tell how it should be manageable to prevent real edits whilst allowing anybody's corrections of obvious bullshit (as far as edits only-by-admins are concerned, a policy by itself would do). Of course, such should be done. When minding admins, above, I just remembered some revert of a minor article correction done by some admin who obviously had no idea about facts, nor probably would even have read my edit (which was: erasing one mis-leading phrase and the same user's link to a, very probably his own, commercial page), but saw any-IP having erased some text and at-once reverted. For pictures, things seem by far more delicate to me. I had a trial run with elise on this ;) [no revert at all, my edits were accepted, but by my fault had caused some rumor, see Image:Foo_1.jpg, its parents and their history, in case you have the time. I, BTW, had added some (invisible) border in my very first edit of an over-cropped picture].
The Line "Because of a change in the settings the "E-mail this user" function won't work until you confirm your email address." would not disappear from my screen on Commons after I positively authentified my mail adress - in de:WP it does. Are developers already aware of this? (a Y or N would do) WolfgangW.14:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of you know that I have recently completely redesigned some important pages of Wikimedia Commons like the Main Page and updated/created several others, like Commons:Welcome and Commons:Community Portal (and translated them into German). These pages and all Commons-namespace pages need urgently (re-)translated and even updated in English in the most cases. Thus I have compeletely redesigned Commons:Translation coordination as well. Please also note the "Basic rules" there (how to proceed with translations) and the "current major tasks":
Most of the help and policy pages in Commons-namespace were last updated in May 2005 even in English and are in most cases completly outdated and anything but helpful and of course there are also several duplicates. So please help cleaning up all these pages. For a start where to cleanup look for example into Category:Commons.
The same applies to most of the translations. They were done at one time and then forgotten. Please always maintain your translations if your native language is really important for you (and we hope so that it is the case).
So all pages that are outdated and where an up-to-date english version exists will be linked italic as described in [[Commons:Translation coordination] within the next days.
Those two images should look the same (was the same file) though, i see a small difference, in the second file the dots on de dimensionline z.on en z.bo are missing... Bug in the mediawiki software?
OneTwo greetings, GeeKaa08:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
THis looks like a bug in SVG rendering - the renderer was recently updated, not all rendered versions have been updated. Apperently, the update fixed some long standing bugs, but introduced several new ones. Please report this on bugzilla - maybe there's already a bugreport there. -- Duesentrieb(?!)09:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some people ask me about fights occuring on the RfD page, involving the understanding of the trademark protection compared to the copyright protection. I want to make it clear that the Commons are exclusively concerned by the copyright issue.
Copyright protects original works of expression, such as fine and graphic arts, music and audio recordings, photography, video, by preventing people from copying or commercially exploiting them without the copyright owner's permission. This permission can be given through the use of a license. And here on Commons - to make it short - we try to archive only free material, i.e public domain, GFDL and some Creative Commons licenses, more genrally all type of free licenses (more at Commons:Licensing and Copyright tags).
Now, here in the Commons wa have nothing to do with the trademark protection in itself. Trademark protects distinctive words, logos, symbols, etc, used to identify and distinguish products or services in the marketplace. Commons is not in the marketplace. We are not to use those logos or symbol to run a competitive business.
Most of the time in the discussion, people are confused about the two notions. They claim the copyright has been violated. And they claim that we have no right to reproduce a trademark. You always have to ask yourself the question : is this a free material on the coyright side ? Let's take an example. The French car brand Renault has a very distinctive logo, consisting of a lozenge (see for instance at en:Image:Renault logo.png). The company was founded in 1898. Suppose they designed and distributed this *lozenge* at the time: the copyright protection would in that case be over. On the other hand, the logo, as a trademark, would still be protected ... from people wanting to run a business with the same trademark, especially in the car industry ... Now, on the Commons, we all agree not to use the project in a business fashion to sell cars. So, trademark protection is not our business. We are perfectly entitled to use trademarked graphical objects as long as we do not run a business out of them.
Copyright and trademarks are not synonyms. Please keep it in mind. What put our project at risk are copyright violations. We can ignore trademarks, as long as we are specific and bold about copyrights.
You are right that copyright and trademarks are not the same. You are wrong however that commons is concerned solely with copyright: after a somewhat heated debate on the mailing list and some input by Jimbo, it has become de-facto policy not to allow trademarked logos on the commons (some wikis however, like the german wikipedia, allow PD logos). Also note that most trademarked logos are also copyrighted - except for very old or very trivial ones; Even logos of free software are often not free (e.g. logos of Mozilla and Debian, not to speak of WikiMedia's logos).
We do not have to care about trademarked words in text (like product or company names), and it is also considered OK to have logos appear as a minor feature in a picture, i.e. you can upload a picture of a car, even if the (trademarked) logo is clearly visible - a picture of the logo alone would be problematic, however. -- Duesentrieb(?!)10:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duesentrieb please don't add confusion. The logos can be forbidden on Commons not because they are trademarked signs but, of course, because they are copyrighted. As a member of the Foundation legal dept., trust me on this. I just wanted to stop people from mixing up everything. villy ♦✎13:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some free images clearly depict trademarks, and yet they are released under a free license. The two are not exclusive. Thanks to villy for clarifying this, finally. Alphax (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about logos that are obviously intended to resemble copyrighted+trademarked logos? I was thinking about trademark dilution, and I guess we don't care about that, but does the original copyright extend to obvious imitations? pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well beeing able using something for any purpose is an illusion. For example let us take a GFDL image of George W. Bush. Well we can use that image can modify it in a great range but we are not allowed to seriously harm his personality rights with that image (e.g. a fake gay porn movie together with Bin Laden with GWBs head mounted in there without his consent would be definitely not ok even if he did explicitely encourage the GFDL-alike usage of his original photo). Let's take a further example which seems to be completly harmless: Take a free image of a flower and modify it in that way that it looks like a restricted symbol (for example a swastika). You are not allowed to use that modification for any purpose (at least in many nations). So you see the claim that you have to be able using something for any purpose leads to the wrong track. But what is the right definition then?
The copyright holder of a free image said that he has no objections in previous whatever you do and that he will not harm you on the basis of the copyright whatever you do if you act according to the license. But it is your duty to check if there are other laws beyond copyright that need to be respected. That's what the license says (the CC-licenses have this very explicit in their license texts). You are free to do what you want but you are responsible for your own usage and modifications.
Let us take a further example. I took a picture of a car in a landscape. Now someone takes a cutout of the car with the car logo. This car logo might be copyrighted and thus this cutout might be unfree. But the origininal image is still a free image. Why? If I take such a cutout I did not modify the image but did create a new image as the new image has another content (the one has a car in a landscape the other a car logo). So you are still free to modify the image but it is up to the modifier checking if the modification harms other third party rights. So I could also create for example a collage image out of many small free images that looks like a copyrighted image. But nobody would think that the original free images are unfree because of that.
So you see you would open a can of worms if you don't restrict yourself to copyright and to the principle that it is important that you are not prohibited by the copyright of the original reusing and modifying it. However there are other rights that need to be considered. For example personality rights of non famous persons displayed as these rights prohibit the release of the image itself.
So a resonable policy would be respecting beyond copyright all laws that affect publishing and presentation of the work itself. I think with this "policy" in mind we have a basis we can build upon and decide all the cases after we did read the specific laws affecting publishing of these contents too. For sure there is a grey area and logos are within that grey area. But it is never possible drawing an absolute clear line as many think. Arnomane17:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. But if for once, we could limit ourselves to avoid discussing about trademarks and patents, which are largely ignored notions here (and useless ones besides), and to focus on copyright problems only, it would yet be a sensible progress. villy ♦✎13:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. At least not in a way you would like it as The Simpsons are copyrighted. So if I make a picture which content is The Simpsons it would be a copyvio. However if you manage to create a free image that shows a bookstore selling various comics and among them in one minor part of the image a comic with a front cover that shows The Simpsons then we could probably keep it as the image content would be in that case not the comics but the bookstore and its setting (it is a little bit like the car in the landscape example above). Arnomane15:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a contradiction. Some project pages say that the images on Commons should be free and therefore all-purpose, including any kind of commercial use (this includes use in advertisments, on merchandising goods : T-shirts, mugs...). Other project pages say Commons images should be for an information purpose only (like use in an encyclopedia, or in a newspaper article). Trademarks and industrial property rights are a problem if you follow the first, broad view. They are not a problem if you follow the second narrower one. Teofilo15:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this thread from the mailing list before continuing this discussion. There's no definite decision there, but some useful info and a lot of input from Jimbo. IIRC, this comment by Jimbo was one of the reasons not to accept trademarked logos on the commons - but afaik, there was no formal vote, and there's no official policy. Maybe it would be a good idea to have a poll now for an official policy.
All this being said, I would like to point out that trademarked logos that are PD or under a free license are few and far between. Please also consider this mail from the FSF, stating that trademarking a logo makes it effectively non-free (skip the header, I quoted their mail in my ML post). -- Duesentrieb(?!)20:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Villy and fully disagree with Duesentrieb who has not the knowledge not to confuse the topics. We should trust Villy, a member of our legal dept. and accept logos which are not copyrighted (as we do in the German wikipedia without problems!). It is a myth that all commons or Wikipedia photos can be used commercially for any purpose. Photos of persons are subject of rights and insignia too. Deletion practice here is contradictory to our "non-trademark-policy". I have shown that the VW Beetle is a trademarked shape and suggested the category for deletion - the pictures were kept. --Historiograf20:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about (exact copies of) trademarked logos - trademarked shapes, design patents, etc are a separate issue. I have also only stated that it is de facto policy, not that is should stay that way. I'm talking about policy here... please tell me where I confused the legal issues.
I do belive that a statement about free use, as given in a free license, meight weaken trademark protection, if this is not explicitely excluded. But that's a separate issue, as it mainly concerns the policy for wikimedia logos.
So, seeing the debate comming up here again, maybe we should have a formal vote about allowing trademaked logos on the commons, if they are PD or under a free license. -- Duesentrieb(?!)21:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my standard example: If we ban images, that are free from the copyright point of view, but show trademarks, we must expand this ban to words too: So no use of sun in astronomy, no apple in fruits and no windows in architecture. Let's keep them. --h-stt10:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We must? Really? I belive it's perfectly legit to have a policy just banning trademarked logos. Btw: protection of generic terms as trademarks is very limited. Everyone can use the Term "Windows", even for software features (window manager, etc) -- Duesentrieb(?!)20:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect.Beginner's suggestions on Template:Information
Perfect.Beginner's suggestions on the use of Template:Welcome
Just having had a look at ONE french page, I found someone going away. I.am.convinced that the way wikis treat beginners is.to.be.improved, unless the wise old men here would have decided long ago that loss of manpower would not matter at all. As one possible hint, you might please have a look at "TEMPLATE:WELCOME". TX. WolfgangW.11:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ich wurde, s.l.o.w.m.o.x, nicht "begrüßt", sondern mit einem Rundschreiben bedacht, dessen Reply „selbstverständlich“ bis heute unbeantwortet blieb. Dass Teutonen für Feinheiten nicht immer sensibel sind, weiß ich. eod. WolfgangW.07:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A.Perfect.Beginner's thaughts on Wikimedia's so-called foreign languages versions
Alemannisch: Stub, less than 8 lines. Lëtzebuergesch: same.
Both started during "Fasching", Fool's season. No activity. Why, please, not reduce such IMVHO not especially brilliant jokes to the region where they belong, German WP, where any German speaking user should be able to see what's it about, instead of leaving such bullshit on internationally visited pages? German type humour does for sure not apply to the rest of the universe, not even in any case to german speaking regions south of that country. WolfgangW.07:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both have own wikipedias (als:, lb:) and at least Lëtzebuergesch is an own standardized language. The als and lb pages on Commons are not jokes but actively maintained and developed (see Category:Commons-als and Category:Commons-lb for all pages). The Village Pumps in this languages are less used, but the same is true in some degree for all non-english Village Pumps. What's the problem about it? You can use it, if you have als or lb related questions, or you don't use it. You shouldn't be so moanish. --::Slomox::><12:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer why we have these languages: This is not our problem. :-)
I do think it is, maybe not yet, but: It is about Common's "corporate ID", about beeing taken seriously, about being up-to-date, about beeing clear-or-unclear, about being redundant.
As a Newbie I'm overwhelmed with links which quite often bring redundant information, but are not identical. So, after a short while, I might feel fed up with "stuff" and rather be reluctant or even refuse to contribute at all to something which seemingly develops towards yahoo+chat.
Those dialects, I think, are not spoken by anyone whose native language is not called GERMAN. If after a few lines, I get switched to either English or German, because those few people who wanted to set up their own thing for doubtful-or-not reason cannot ever possibly manage to maintain such content by sheer lack of manpower, I can not take such thing seriously. This is not meant to discourage people who believe in their vision, but, if after a certain time, say half a year, one can see that things do not go on, that just a few people defend some claims as a kind of joke, thereby creating noise, or, even if primarily started for serious, a project turned out to be a zombie, there should be a way to deal with it, imo. I'm just talking about the international "frame" given by commons, which should not fall beyond some minimum standard. In de:WP, things may be handled differently. WolfgangW.13:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well for sure there is currently a problem with lots of outdated and half finished translations hanging around. That's why I have created Commons:Help page maintenance. See also the rules in the "translation maintenance" section there. This will lead to a massive reduction of translations in the Lang-templates that are not maintained by someone within the next weeks (but not deletion of the pages itself! They will exist in background and are still listed at Commons:Help page maintenance so that someone can pick them up). It is irrelevant if this is a real language or a dialect of another language (I am also not interested in these senseless debates language vs. dialect with flame guarantee), see also my totally personal comment at Commons talk:Help page maintenance. Importance in a wiki-like definition is measured in participation. If someone complains, well I can say to him: "Simply update the translation and don't complain. If your language is important for you (and I hope so) simply maintain your beloved language, otherwise I have to assume you simply want to rant and do not really love your language, so it will be removed then." Rather cool argumentation, isn't it? :p If for example some french people don't update the french pages the outdated pages will be removed out of the Lang-templates (hello native french speakers and speakers of other widely used languages please wake up, don't you love your language? ;-). So I personally regard Alemanisch translation as a nice fun I personally would not spend my time with (the same applies for me personally for Chinese simply as I am unable speaking it), others that stick to that dialect will see this as a great improvement of their user experience and this will lead to a greater acceptance of Commons for example at people from Switzerland that use Alemanisch a lot. And there is at least one active contributor translating these pages and who is actively involved in Help page maintenance. Why should I stop him? Other people should take an example at his translations. Arnomane15:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Save the Whales (but Newbies, too: and don't be too loud)
I, T.P.B., think you did a great.great job on that. There is no question about killing seemingly useless sites (I've some experience about being killed for being misunderstood) but it's about reducing noise for the world to a possible minimum. I totally agree with your above statement. _w., T.P.B03:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this magazine is a good idea, at least as long as some drastic changes are not made. It is not GFDL. It is not a wiki. The way news are selected is not transparent. It pretends independence while it is not independent. I prefer Wikinews, who's license is clear and who's editing rules are transparent. Teofilo06:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well Wikinews should not be a proclamation platform of Wikimedia projects as this would inherently cause trouble with NPOV. So I am strictly against Wikimedia articles in Wikinews. :p But well have you ever looked into Meta-wiki? It is perfectly suited for that what you want and was being created for such meta-stuff around Wikimedia projects. There are also some news bulletins from the Foundation in there. Why not bringing more life into them and perhapes writing also some other stuff more out of the perspective of "the community"? So go ahead if you don't like Wikizine. Arnomane08:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is GFDL! Geez. It's like en.wp's Signpost, but for all projects. It's interesting to find out what new developments are happening and what shitfights are going on. :) Having a POV is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as you don't pretend otherwise. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
@Teoflio;
There was no license information in Wikizine but it is GNU/FDL because it is constructed on Meta. Since this week the license information is included.
It is not wiki because that is not the concept of Wikizine. It is a email newsletter. For who likes to read online I now provide that service with the url http://cur.wikizine.org Its points to the most current version of Wikizine
The selection of the news works as follows; I and Shizhao try to find news and include the news we can find in Wikizine. Not all news can be found. Other people can join if the wish to do so. Readers can do suggestions but do not happen a lot. I make the final decision about what comes in Wikizine and what not. Wikizine is my POV and I do not hide that.
With independent I mean that Wikizine is not a publication of the Wikimedia Foundation. I will not allow Wikizine to be used for propaganda of the Wikimedia Foundation. The WMF can ask to run or not run a story but I make the decision. Wikizine is using a Wikimedia mailing list and Meta but I own the domain wikizine.org. If needed Wikizine can move.
« With independent I mean that Wikizine is not a publication of the Wikimedia Foundation. » You have a home page on the Wikimedia Foundation's website : http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Walter and on the login link on that page, everyone can read " Edit (requires login) " and "log in (requires approval)". You cannot at the same time both claim independence and seek approval from the Foundation. Teofilo12:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Morte de rire. So that means that my personal blog, under the pretext that I also have an account on the Foundation website, falls under Foundation's approval? Please Teofilo, stop comparing things that cannot be compared. notafish}<';>15:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After checking out Wikizine :) I found this proposal to allow any wiki running MediaWiki to have the same ability to use Commons images as the Wikimedia wikis have. Thouht it would be interesting to the folk here. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it some time ago and regard it as a rather cool vision as mid term goal. I have have some thoughts about it (and what we need to achieve first in order make it manageable). We need to organise our current problem keeping up touch with the Wikimedia Wikis. This is not a problem of Wikimedia Commons (as people occasionally claim in rants ;-) but a software issue. Duesentrieb and me (need finally to start my final part) are currently in the work creating an automated deletion/deletion request information framework for all Wikimedia wikis (Most of the code exist already). A much more sophisticated deletion-info-framework via RSS would be needed for Instant Commons. But this is up to the Mediawiki dev department :p (Don't want to have working but terrible working Instant Commons which would increase our current problems by a magnitude). Arnomane12:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would any admin help to update the link in Template:Lang-mp from [[玄關|廣東話]] to [[頭版|廣東話]] ? "玄關" is very uncommon to be used in Cantonese. Instead, to translate "main page" in English or "首頁" in Traditional Chinese, a more suitable word should be "頭版" in Cantonese, where "頭" means "首" (head, which can further mean main) and "版" means "頁" (page). Thanks very much. -- Kevinhksouth17:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is not the right way, but I get no answer at #wikimedia-tech
I have a serious problem with the images. I'm sysop at es: and commons: but I can't see the images: None of the images from upload.wikimedia.org.
I think it's a problem with the fixed IP of my ADSL connection. If I connect via analog modem I see the images
It seems the servers won't give me the images. I can see and edit the pages, the problem it's only with the images. I tried with different browsers and O.S.
I have no problem. Probably a problem with your ISP, your connection or your computer. Not something we at Wiki-Commons can help you with. Fred Chess12:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was a person that had this problem some time ago. In his case it was some interference with his ad-block filter or something like that (Look in the archives about that). So my first guess is that. The second guess is that your ISPs routing (or some place in between) makes wrong routing. There is a known problem in the internet with ADSL-lines and the MTU. Standard Ethernet connections have an MTU of 15000 Bytes, while ADSL with PPoE has an MTU of 14996 Bytes (if I remember the number correctly). Wrongly configured routers now reject all packets above 14996 Bytes silently, resulting in problems like yours that you see the web site text in many cases (which is often smaller than 14996 Bytes) but not the images of the web site. If this problem does not occour in general it is likley that not directly your ISP but some other provider in between you and Wikimedia servers makes the failure. Arnomane12:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with ad-block or something like that, you can see above that the problem dissapears if I connect via modem. The MTU issue is an interesting thing, but it not explain why I can't see images like Image:Question.gif. I think it could something like that. The problem is only with upload.wikimedia.org , I can see http://es.wikipedia.org/images/wikimedia-button.png i.e. Sanbec✉14:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why its allowed to upload Open Office 1.0 documents but not Open Office 2.0 documents?
I know, I can just save as 1.0, but maybe 2.0 has some advantages over 1.0.
Niels Herkild
No IMHO there is no real reason other than that that up to now nobody did whitelist that file format and perhapes nobody did ask up to now the devs doing so. ;-) Just ask at #wikimedia-tech at irc.freenode.net if they can enable it and if not why not. Would be interesting to know. Arnomane19:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Arnomane is right: noone bothered really - someone asked at Commons talk:File types a while ago, I think. But anyway, I'm not sure if we should allow any OOo formats - we should not encurrage uploading text as mediafiles - text should be wikitext, always. Maybe we should allow ooo-draw files, but no other ooo format? Or not even those - perhaps it would be better to have a generic way/place for uploading "source code" of images, never mind the format. But i'm ranting ;)
Note BTW that OOo files are tricky for mime type validation, because they are baqsically zip files containing xml files. The format is also powerful enough to carry malware, at least in theory. -- Duesentrieb(?!)20:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I typed this up and forgot it, and it gave me a version conflict warning when I was done :)
As I was about to say pretty much what he said, I will avoid needless duplication. I would like to add, however, that Commons should consist of visual and auditory media, but not text, which, depending on its content, should either belong to WP, Wikisource, etc. Also, OOo Draw can export to SVG, and I see no benefit in allowing another vector graphics format. Furthermore, as Duesentrieb stated, OpenDocument allows for the easy disguise of file type, as the extension is really a convenience, nothing more. A seemingly .odg file might actually be a Calc spreadsheet, or something worse. —UED7721:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well there exist two software patches for ages that enable music markup in MediaWiki, see m:Music markup. I hope that we will have this feature integrated soon in main-line MediaWiki. Arnomane23:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Im relative new in the commons and currently starting the Commons:CommonsProject_Architecture. When I was working on the page I recognised that there are no standards for naming the uploads!?! At least I didn't find any. Wouldn't it make sense to develop sth? Especially for Photos of Buildings! Was that in discussion before? I think a standard should be set and explained in the first steps and in Special:Upload. You see a first suggestion here. Looking forward to comments! TomAlt13:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is some basic policy that you should use proper english names or scientific names for uploads were available (At minimum you have to use latin script, although chinese file names and such are technically possible but no fun for most users). So eg. animals and plants are using latin names. Currently there is no good page explaining all this as our help pages need to be improved heavily. So see Commons:Help page maintenance were help from all Commoners is badly needed. (That's also why I was adding your project to a category as nobody will recognize a project that is linked nowhere). Arnomane13:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Puh, thats awful lot! Unfortunately im a newbie in the commons so the wrong person to write help articels... But I can translate Commons:First steps in german as soon as you have finished the english version. Let me know. Furthermore I follow the naming issue up (with the focus on buildings and architecture) TomAlt14:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think naming standards should only be a guideline, not a policy i.e. no "moving" images just because they don't meet the standard. As long as a name is meaningful and accurate it's fine. The individual uploader may often have their own reasons for giving an image a name in a particular way. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
disagree with ...elise: An image-or-Annie's-thing archive might soon become a mess unless some "quite strict" policy exists. Moving newbies' BadNames --> GoodNames, according to "still.may.be.created" policy, might produce by far less troubles than waiting too long!
Re: ...and explained in the first steps and in Special:Upload. No bloody newbie, I guess, would read such in by-now already overwhelming "special upload". I'm new here, not quite new in life, and I see two main types of human beings, as far as www is concerned: the easygoing youngsters (I more than once had to mind my son to re-read some advice he just had scrolled over, whilst I saw it, and more than once was right) and those difficult&delicate oldies, who'd like to know how-to, before doing, being ashamed for possible misbehave (_M.E!_, of course). So, first group would hardly read advices on the uplod-form itself, I guess, second group would rather retire, maybe take some more instruction, or maybe just run away. IMO. —Annie IP03:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
@ uitzlipochtli: Very confusing everything here! I found nothing about naming, only "Use a descriptive and concise filename, e.g. Paris Eiffel Tower 2004-03-11.jpeg instead of IMG_000192376.jpeg." in Commons:Upload_file. Thats not very much! Should I try to develop sth that can be integrated in ?
@ elise: I disagree, I think it is easier for everybody to have a guideline and standard! At the moment newbies like me don't really have a possibility to use the commons because its all to complicated! There must be an easy to follow, standardised step-by-step guideline, the earlier the better! TomAlt16:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you all may have noticed our Commons help and should-be-policies (not have-to-be-policies) are in large parts not written so it is no wonder that you couldn't find these pages. That's what Commons:Help page maintenance is for so that we write our informal knowlegde and agreements down so that newbies will know them quickly... Arnomane17:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom: a) to address me: my name is Wolfgang, "w." does best. That God of war is not the nice guy I am, you know? ;) b) I later.updated the pages you're referring to, so that should be somewhat more clear. Have a look at Commons:Upload file on this by tonight please. I'm too new here to decide whether you should invest energy in an explication and a system that will not be used unless the wise old men+women would first, agree, and second, later urge to use it.
@elise: What is easier for Annie IP, at first glimpse, may on the other side cause lots of long-term "noise". I, as Tom, believe that a rather strict rule on names, on long terms, has more merit than expense (for establishing) - but, that's up to those wise oldies.
@Arnomane: Thanks for the link - maybe we should move there, including this talk into the "move"? (I would not know how to do it - DE: Übersiedeln und diesen Talk mittragen, meine ich)
@Arnomane2: How about a simple mind's sitemap on Commons? where to look if I want to find my way, to get a quick however approximate overwiew? —Annie IP05:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beginner's question on Language templates
Are they of Annie's use? When filling Template:Information, they are not, I learned, but cause troubles. Is there a policy on using Language templates? Where? Why do they still exist? I hardly can sleep for as long as I can't explain... ;(( sad —Annie IP12:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem? They work with Template:Information: [1]. They are useful for marking text as being in a specific language. So it is possible to hide all the languages you can't read, for example. --::Slomox::><19:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'd rather not call "work" what they do, when ruining the template:Information's layout. I had a talk on this with Arnomane who would explicitely advise me not do do such. How, btw, can I use language templates to avoid seeing certain languages? Where can I read about that? —Annie IP22:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can 'hide' languages by editing your monobook.css, something like this:
(and, I guess, insert-your-languages-here). I sometimes use two languages descriptions, without "breaking" the template, as you can see here. So assuming this is what you're talking about, in the "Description" field, you just need to put a <br> before the asterisks. There are two different types of language templates. {{german}} or {{deutsch}} just give a heading: Template:German. (then write your description after it, just as normal text.) Using the language code, you supply the text as the first and only argument. {{de|Foo Bar}} -->
They will appear to do the same thing. If you 'hide' languages by using monobook.css, I am pretty sure it will only hide the {{De}} type - Because with {{German}}, there's no way to (automatically) know where the German stops. It could be the end of the line, paragraph, table, or the whole page, etc. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the {{German}} type seem to be depreciated, if you visit that page you will notice a big red warning. Maybe it is for the reason I described. But I don't know, because there's no explanation of why it shouldn't be used. I use that style on my images *shrug*. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
update a ogg
(Excuse me for my English)
I've uploaded a .ogg yesterday () and noticed afterwards it's the wrong one. How can I replace it with an updated one, its ready on my computer, but I can't find a link or buuton on the page . And my upload-programma Commonist, doesn't do the trick either. Is ther a way to get rid of the old one and upload the new, or in one time replace it. Quichot13:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current Commonist version doesn't support replacing files, so you will have to do it through the normal wiki Upload file interface listed in the toolbox. If a file with the same name exists, you will be asked if you really want to replace the file. The old file will still be available in the revision history, but Image:440 Achtkarspelen.ogg will always link to the latest revision. Newly registered users have to wait 4 days before being able to replace files. --Para13:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted {{Template:Sxc-warning}}. This template is contrary to the legal analysis that was approved by the Commons community - another policy implies another analysis and another community approval. Nothing has changed since Commons:Stock.xchng images/vote and the policy is still Commons:Stock.xchng images. There is no room for personal move in this community. Thank you, villy ♦✎14:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I quite patiently explained that this was not a matter you could decide through policy. I'm sad that you decided to take this path. --Gmaxwell14:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well we are quite confident with our path. You are not the first one that tries to impose something from outside with a massive bot edit. And this is something really hostile. So now you hopefully understand why we are so shorthanded with you. Arnomane15:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, commons user may not vote to override outside legal and ethical obligations, hopefully you understand why I have been so shorthanded with you. --Gmaxwell18:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We care about copyright nothing else and villy is no random person he knows the matter quite good as he works in the subject. And your private sub page is not relevant. We have Village pump here and you did not even write on Commons talk:Licensing which is exactly existing for such purposes discussing these copyright issues. Our FAQ on top is not existing for fun and if you're starting again with your massive unilateral bot edits I will block you personally unilaterally and will not care about your rants further. So write your concerns at Commons talk:Licensing and we might consider it. Ok? Arnomane19:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reviewing SXC.hu terms of use. They've changed it as of last 29 Dec, 2005 ; maybe because of my analysis (I'm serious, since SXC.hu almost filled all the legal gaps I described) . As soon as I'm finished I'm prepared to post a message in here on the Village Pump in order to inform the community and maybe suggest a change of policy. At any rate, Gmaxwell, it would have been one thing to inform us about SXC.hu redrafting its policy, it is quite another thing to behave like you are the master of this domain, using a bot, barking orders and threats to Commoners. villy ♦✎20:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Soufron and I worked together in the Foundation legal dpt. So I'm just dropping the topic since Soufron chose to deal with it. Please direct to him your comments and opinions, I'm out of the issue. Thanks, villy ♦✎07:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as the change in SXC's policy took place on 29 Dec 2005, any new policy of ours should only apply to images uploaded after that date, assuming your initial assessment was correct. ed g2s • talk14:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I was not aware of all this debate when I wrote my small statement. My analysis was just a small piece that was asked as something urgent, and I had no idea you guys were already working on it. It is quite obvious that you already did much more work on this that I could possibly even try to do. To put it simply, I thought I was solving a problem by answering a few users questions, but I just now realized that I went too fast on this and I want to present my excuses to you and villy (who is much better at legal stuff than me by the way). Now, the way I understand it, sx is going to make evolve their policy in order to fit our needs. That sounds plain perfect to me and things should get back to the usual course of events. --Soufron00:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to keep on analyzing new SXC terms of use. I'll submit my opinion to the Foundation legal department and then to the Commons community. So far, I'm less optimistic than Soufron and can't exclude we have to get rid of the pictures. Though I agree with ed_g2s that, unless otherwise attested, uploads on SXC done before Dec. 29, 2005 should not be subject to SXC new policy. More in a few days, thanks villy ♦✎07:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without knowing the policies and current discussion concerning SXC, I had made a deletion request for one of their images because of their restrictive license. See Template:Deletion_requests#Image:Artful nude.jpg for how a conservative interpretation of the situation that could conclude SXC pictures not to be acceptable except in some cases where the uploader there grants additional rights in explicit reference to the existing boilerplace license, although I agree that a pragmatic interpretation could in some cases suggest the pictures to be acceptable for commons, such as in the picture for which I made the deletion request. --88.134.118.24314:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Root Categories
I would like to propose a change to the category structure at the very top of the hierarchy. Those categories are rarely used directly, so the change should not be verry troublesome.
I think your proposal for the commons subtree makes sense, as "Commons maintenance" would cause larger problems otherwise (I noticed it and was also thinking how to avoid placing the commons maintenance categories into many localised "commons maintenance" categories). On the other side "Commons help" category makes sense beeing splitted up into languages as it is in your proposal as well. Arnomane17:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope someone can give me information about the painter --G. M. Spielman. I have an oil painting with this signature of what appears to be a wine cellar. One man dressed in a Monk's habit seated at a small table sharing a glass of wine with another man dressed in sort of Tyrolean clothing. The robust server or "tavern Keeper" ? stands with a wine bottle. After the signature are the letters A ssem and the numbers 59 or 39. Any info would be helpful.
Sharon Jackson --ecj@sccoast.net
Sound files with the pronunciation of Dutch municipalities
Hiya everyone. I've got a question for the more experienced users here. A fellow contributor on the Dutch Wikipedia, User:Quichot has undertaken the project of creating pronunciation files for every current (as of 1st january 2006) municipality and province in the Netherlands. We are currently busy incorporating them in articles on the Dutch Wikipedia. He's quite new here (as am I) so these files are currently only listed on his user page here User:Quichot/gallery. I was wondering whether someone (with a bot) could help categorise these files so as to make them more easily accessible and findable for users from other projects. The files are named as followed: xxx_Municipality name.ogg, where the xxx is a number ranging from 000 to 470. The files are named in a sequence starting at Groningen. The following list shows the sequence, in ascending order and listed per province (NOTE: the first filename in each province sequence is the pronunciation of the province (so 122 would be Limburg), after that the municipalities are sorted alfabetically):
Is it usefull to put the Provincenames in between files in my gallery so that it is a bit more clear to find? I ca do that fast ( I know the names of provinces and municapilities almost by heart, as being the one who made the files - Quichot07:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my proposal was to create something like your gallery in place of any specialised category. So your page is a good idea and should be moved into the main namespace (like any other article, no special prefix). But the "gallery" feature is bad to use for media files. Better to use {{Audio}}, {{Audio2}} or just link to them like File:029 Borger-Odoorn.oga (you don't even need a colon for media files). Because the name is more informative than the speaker picture that the gallery displays. Also, just for future reference, usually for audio files I think they put the language code as a prefix in the name, eg. nl-029 Borger-Odoorn.ogg. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the syntax according to your suggestion, pfctdayelise.
It was marked fair use in it:, but that might just have been because it's easier than figuring out the real copyright status. Or it might be because it's fully copyrighted -- I don't know. Any ideas? pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
on it: we are working on copyright status of all COAs, but they are copyrighted. Probably they could be allowed for wikipedia, but they are nto ok for Commons. --RED DEVIL66620:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why copyrighted? It's a historical COA and I cannot see any originality (we should'nt accept the sweat of brow doctrine here) --Historiograf
Probably I know italian law better than you, if you don't want know that this image is copyviol, is't my problem, I'll delete it without discussion. But if you want make a discussion without flame, we could make it. --RED DEVIL66620:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion on en:wp or somewhere (at least it was in English IIRC) that the creator of these maps hasn't given the permission to release the maps under GFDL. Maybe I can find it again. --Baikonur03:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As you may have noticed I rearanged some elements in the left MediaWiki menus in order to enhance usability and added as well with "welcome" a new link (You can translate it via MediaWiki:Welcome/LANG_CODE and MediaWiki:Welcome-url/LANG_CODE).
I also moved the "Upload file" link out of the toolbox on top of the selection box as this is our key function which is misplaced in case of Commons between the other less important tools (and does logical fit to "Recent Changes", "New files" and such). If you're seeing it still in the old place or see it doubled you need to refresh your browser.
In order to make the left menue more polished I am thinking on removing/replacing the "Random file", "random article" and "random category" links (which I personally never use and that are thus not important to me, but maybe for others). However I don't want to remove/replace them without feedback.
So I was think of three options:
Removing all three "Random"-links.
Only leaving "Random File" (as we are a file server and thus random file is the most important one).
Replacing all three with a link to a "Surprise page" which links alongside with some words to all three special pages providing that feature (sadly you can't enter something like [[Image:Special:Randomimage]] in a text, that way we could directly embedd a "surpise image" in the page).
I like random files. They're not important, it's true, but sometimes it's nice to take a random leap into the abyss and see what everyone else here is working on. I found some FPC that way (as well as many copyvios :)).
I think we should leave the "Random Files" as it is the equivalent to "Random Article" of Wikipedia. "Random category" and "Random Article" can be linked at Commons:Searching (which should also be more prominently linked by other articles). You can add new entries in your personal interface via Javascript (monobook.js) User:Essjay has such a customized interface. Arnomane08:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It's necessary to put a value at MediaWiki:Upload/«LANG_CODE», the software don't get the default translated value. It did work when uplad was in tools, but not now in goodies. I don't known why. Sanbec✉10:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the pages MediaWiki:Upload/«LANG_CODE» needed to exist previous as well in order to translate the interface string. However the link target, which is hardcoded to the software in the case of the Toolbox to Special:Upload and which is now defined at MediaWiki:Upload-url (to Special:Upload) should work in this case as previous as Special:Upload will itself display the page in the language of your preferences (at least I did change my interface language several times in order to verify that and it worked always; probably I never tried spanish ;-). Quite funny side effect that the target internationalisation display depends from the interface string internationalisation. Arnomane11:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now restructured the boxes as described above. The name of the new box can be translated via MediaWiki:Participate/Language-code pages. The removed random functions were prominently added in the completly redewritten Commons:Searching and the missing Help desk and Village Pump links in Help:Contents (which needs further improvement after further help and maintenance pages are worth being added there after rewrite/reorganisation ;-). Arnomane18:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great job! (<- sarcasm) You didn't even bother unlinking them at Commons, and (off course not) at the local Wikipedia's. You didn't even gave a message to the person who created the template and (probably) uploaded the images. Great job, dude. --Tuvic19:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are not obliged unlinking copyvios in Wikipedias however we do it on a voluntarily basis (ever done such a job? It is no fun cleaning up after others if you need to delete hundreds of copyvios per day). I personal do it in order to give via my unlink changes a comment as well so that people don't reupload the images (but I am seldom working at the copyvio cleanup front). We are only obliged to relink in case of redundant images. This is not offensive towards others. Just a lack of manpower. We have created the tools helpful for unlinking and such but we can't use them alone. Arnomane19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's really fun: "we're not obliged to do that". Yeah, alright then. But some of those images were (and still are now) used here, on Commons, and even those links weren't removed. Also, the Template:MonnaieCGB was created in January, and now deleted in under 4 hours. I really don't understand the rush now. Also, lets cite from Commons:Deletion guidelines: Speedy deletion should not be used for files that have existed on commons for an extended period of time, or for any file which may potentially affect other Wikipedia projects.--Tuvic19:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out that mistake in Commons:Deletion guidelines. I've removed the sentence you quoted, which was added on January 27. Note that Jimbo has instructed that non-commercial images "should be deleted on sight" [2]. He was talking specifically about the English Wikipedia, but the same rule applies here, too. User:dbenbenn21:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite funny. And you Commons-people don't understand why users of Wikipedia are getting fed up with this stuff, pfff. Just delete on sight, and leave the garbage for someone else. Nice attitude. --Tuvic22:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not easy coordinating 10 languages and 100 Wikipedias. We really should reqruit more people who work on local Wikipedias into the administration on Commons. Perhaps Tuvic volounteers? Fred Chess22:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer, but you'll have to convince me first: I really don't understand why some images get deleted instantly, and other can remain for ages, while both a copyvio. It all looks so random to me, and I don't understand why one should delete the images, and then not bother were they're used, and who is going to clean that. --Tuvic12:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
that's simply because we lack manpower. There are about 10000 images on commons that are currently tagged as problematic in some way. -- Duesentrieb(?!)13:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, people who upload copyvios on here link them to the wikipedia where they belong to. Those people are usually traced by users or admins in the local wikipedias, then empty links are removed or the illegal images unlinked, at least that's the procedure in the Spanish wikipedia where I am also an administrator. And anyway, I think it's less harmful to leave an empty link from an image in an article than show a copyvio, so I'd suggest Tuvic to get involved in his/her local wikipedia and help unlinking copyvios, That'd be a great help for commoners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna (talk • contribs)
I already try to do those things, but the problem is I really can't track deletions from my local Wikipedia (NL). I mean: I can't look at Commons all the time to check if some deleted image affects my Wiki: there's enough work to be done already. The only way I find out some image was deleted, is if I stumble upon one. There are tools like CheckUsage available, so I'd suggest using them, and not delegating the work to the local Wiki's, because that's what's annoying people. --Tuvic14:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a problem. Perhaps we just need some Commons admins to have OTRS access. After verifying it, they could just sign the image page. But if there's a whole bunch, that would be a pain too...pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Village Pump link and the navigation box
The Village Pump link has disappeared from the navigation box in the left margin. Could someone please restore it? Teofilo08:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think three introductory pages "Main page", "Welcome" and "Community portal" is too much. Two is enough. I suggest merging "welcome" either with "main page" or "community portal". Teofilo09:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Main page nor community portal are mergable with Welcome. They have not so much in common and are for three completly different purposes. The Main page is our front page which needs to be attractive and too much text on details isn't attractive but our content is. That's why the main page is centered around content reprentation (I explained it previous why also Wikipedia Main pages are centered around content). The welcome page is for new people interested in Commons whilst the "Community Portal" is for every Commoner and the hub for daily Commons work and thus will be regularly visited by all of us in contrast to "Welcome".
Well removing the "Village Pump" link this is something I was also thinking a lot about and where I also do not have a clear opinion yet. On the one side "Village Pump" is so much linked at many other entry pages that it is hard to miss it. On the other side people are jumping often quickly into Commons and want to adress a certain point at Village Pump (while you can argue there as well that it is better that people do not load commons main page and directly go on village pump and post some rant without understanding what Commons is).
If I restore that point, I will not restore the old link to Village Pump but something like the english language Wikipedia Village Pump (but will not change the names of the several pages), so that people jump directly into the right page. This would make more sense for people stopping by and alerting an issue. Arnomane10:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think the best way to make new people acquainted with a community is to introduce them directly to the community life, without a sas? I am not sure there is a need to make such a difference between "old" and "new" people. Many "new" people on Commons are actually already "old" on a Wikipedia project.
I see that the German wikipedia does not provide the same set of "important links" as the English or the French Wikipedias in the left margin and at the bottom of every page. I think the German page de:Wikipedia:Impressum is very good (probably better than what we have on the French or English Wikipedias) and enough with its de:Wikipedia:Impressum#über_Wikipedia (about Wikipedia) section. So I do not see the point in having another "über Wikipedia" link at the bottom of the page, directing the reader to de:Wikipedia:Wilkommen. I think that only 3 pages are needed :
I have reverted Commons:Help page maintenance to its former version (the february 2006 version) (diff). Because I think that a new rule should be discussed and approved by the community before starting implementation.
The page history now appears at the moved page's new name: Commons:Help page maintenance (see the history). What "new rule" are you referring to that needs to be discussed? Arnomane has been posting regular updates of his changes here on the Village pump. I think probably people are grateful that he is paying attention to these pages, since many had barely been touched for nearly a year. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that most Wikipedians will agree that the 15 day rule is too harsh, and that noone can consider voluntary translators like employees to whom a boss gives a deadline. I agree with Arnomane's basic idea that the translation process has to be streamlined, but we could find a smoother process than this, like posting translation requests in the Village pumps in the different languages, rather than just deleting (I say "deleting" because "hiding" through the removal of links has the same effect on readers) foreign language pages. Teofilo09:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think also that when major changes are made, the English page should not be changed until translations are ready in the 10 major languages used in Wikimedia projects. So the editing process should be.
write a proposal in one language
tell people on various Village pumps that you need translations
check if tranlations are ready in the 10 major languages
change the 10 pages in the 10 languages simultaneously.
@Teofilo: I have reverted you again. At first we don't need a vote on everything. We are a wiki not a democracy simulation. Let us simply look how it works and if it fails we still can make a vote between different alternative suggestions. And the rules that maybe need decission (the hiding part) were not even applied up to now (had to do more important things first) and I am flexible there as well with the procedure but inadequate translations have to be made invisible or labeled somehow for an average user (explanation at Commons:Help page maintenance) at some point.
I also don't need to vote on the name "Commons:Help page maintenance". "Commons:Translation coordination" was too narrow. I wanted a page that included updating and maintaining the english versions as also the other language versions as well as both are connected very closely and in order to give everybody the clear hint that this is not only a project for non english speakers (which a native english speaker would think with Commons:Translation coordination).
Teofilo by the way: Would you mind translating all these pages that are now ready into your native language french instead starting of debates on principles? Just go ahead there is plenty of work to do regardless if you disagree with the current procedures. Up to now there was nobody that did care about french here.
Regarding you last suggestion with "10 most important languages" this does not work. And if you like more translations shortly after the english original well you know what to do... French is a beautiful language isn't it? It deserves better representation here in Wikimedia Commons. Just start translating. Arnomane10:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I do not want to translate pages in French until we have agreed to smoothen the translating rules. I will not consider you as a boss who can give me orders, or you should pay me a wage. And we should stop thinking of English as the "origin" (the en:Mother goddess?) of everything. Good ideas can come up in any language. If a Chinese Commoner has a good idea, he could write his idea in Chinese, and then we would translate it into English and French. Teofilo10:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arnomane, why don't you translate into German this little note I added on the French language main page, explaining the etymology and meaning of the English word "commons"? Do I have to threaten you to blank the corresponding German page to have you perform this? Or can we simply discuss this in a gentle manner? Can't we reach a case by case agreement on what needs to be translated and what needs not?
May I also remind you that a few days ago someone suggested translating the Commons:Help desk English page into French, but after a discussion here on the Village pump, it was almost unanimously agreed that there was no need for such a page in French. See Commons:Village_pump_archive-23#Service_SVP.
If you think 10 major languages is too much, we could set a rule of having a minimum of 5 translations in 5 languages ready before implementing a major change. But a request for translation should be made at least in 10 language specific village pumps. That would mean that if 5 languages are a bit late to provide a translation, we could go ahead with the change anyway. Teofilo11:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it into my mind what a difference would it make for a translation of Main Page into french if there was some other text at Commons:Help page maintenance. So who wants to impose more on others? You that says "If you don't change it completely according to my liking I will do nothing." or me that wants others to join in that wrote some own hopefully helpful experience down at Commons:Help page maintenance (if not hey it's a wiki but remember beeing bold and nice at the same time) and that has done a huge part on his own and simply wants people to care about these pages and not so much on some arbitrary policies (as you suggest)? This 5 or 10 translations first thing is not wiki like and will not work. Definitely.
Teofilio, if we followed your "editing process" no page would ever be updated! People just translate as they feel like it, there is no co-ordinated effort and I don't think there would be. People are busy with their own projects. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Professional Use of cc images. ImageMagick - resolution or size on Search page required
I would like to use the wikimedia search function, but there is no preview, no Size given and no pixels either, how should I decide which of the hundreds of images is of any use for e.g. my print jobs. Someone good at gimp and imagemagick could really enhance this image-bank.
I mean, it would be fun to have really good imagery available for free, for projects that are commons-oriented etc.
As is, I can`t use this search-feature for my daily work, cause it would take too much time, browsing every file one after one...
Of course, we`d also have to get the Webspace for the full-scale resolution pics. But lets get the search page grooving first. Thanks for contemplating my request.
Sincerely yours, Heinz Forester, Zürich
Wow, I hadn't seen that, cool. Although yotophoto lets you search by image size, it also includes some images we don't allow (CC-NC). And also, its search seems to be very poor. (I just tried to search for images that I have uploaded, so I know they exist, but it returned 0 results.) pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well although we have some technical limitations (Wikimedia Commons is work in progress ;-) we can provide you some tools. At first I have rewritten Commons:Searching which is an entry point for different search methods on Wikimedia Commons. It will provide you a quick overview how to find media files on certain topics. For sure all thumbnail previews be it a gallery page or a category can't give you the pixel size in the description. One possibility searching with that feature would be searching via google images limited to Wikimedia Commons. Another possibility after you stumbled at a good image is identifying the user (see upload information on image description pages) as an experienced photographer will upload more than one good image and browsing Wikimedia content by that user with the external automated user gallery feature (it does show image size in preview). For example this would be the gallery of User:Aka: [3]. I hope that these possibilities will serve for your purpose for the time beeing. Arnomane22:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... just another new page in the Commons namespace ;-) and a try to create a central page for all the "broken" stuff someone finds. Opinions, suggestions? Input is very welcomed. Off course, I'll keep care for that page and its entries. --Überraschungsbilder14:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea to collect broken stuff, so that developers can learn about problems. However, the problems found should fixed within a period of time that is not too long. Otherwise, I tink, it is better to fix, what can be fixed immediately - see also User talk:Franz Xaver#Re-uploads (in German). (No problem to collect stuff, that otherwise only could be deleted.) Maybe, also deletion guidelines should be adapted. An image can be speedy deleted under the following circumstances: ... 2. Corrupted; infected by a virus, etc. (if in doubt, list it below as an unknown format). To collect something, that can be speedy deleted, is a bit conflicting. --Franz Xaver15:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I predict this page won't end up being useful. We already have Category:Images for cleanup for images that can be fixed, and I suspect that "poking the developers to fix these files or their entries" will have no effect.
Note that PNG images here can only be 12.5 million pixels or smaller. The first image listed at the page, Wp-ausstellung-1.png, doesn't display because it's too big. Anyone can easily fix it: download it, thumbnail it to something within the limit, and re-upload.
For the other two images, I simply reverted them to the earlier, non-broken version. I suspect that's all anybody can do; the missing revisions are probably unrecoverable. User:dbenbenn15:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I tend to agree that it should be worked into Commons:Images for cleanup somehow. As for the speedy deletion, that's just there because most people will toss out their broken images. If you want to keep yours, of course, just put them on your watchlist and remove any speedy deletion tag that gets added. pfctdayelise (translate?) 22:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can only agree to dbenbenn. I removed several old bug report pages already during my cleanups at Commons:Help page maintenance (they were created one time for one problem and then forgotten). No developer will look at these pages so they are sadly a waste of time basically. If you stumble across a bug and want to verify it please directly post the details here here at Village Pump for verification (and many people will read it). After that please fill in a bug report at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org. See also the hints at Help:Contents about that topic. Thus I have redirected your page to Help:Contents and moved the content directly here. Note: We must fight the number of Commons-namespace pages. ;-) By the way I need some translators into German for Commons help pages see Commons:Help page maintenance (not that I can't write German, but I have too much to do cleaning up the English originals so any help is welcome there). Arnomane22:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The icons in Category:Crystal icons are all tagged as LGPL images, while there is a link to http://www.everaldo.com/ as well. The "legal info" of the website states "All material on this website is protected by copyright with the owner being Everaldo.com. One hard copy can be made and used strictly for personal reference only." tho. Now I looked at the uploaders talk page where he mentions another website, stating that the images are indeed LGPL. If this is true, someone should set a bot to change the source of the icons to the correct website, so people (like me) won't be confused again when they look at the image pages. If the images are copyrighted, they have to be deleted of course. --Conti|✉00:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well this Everaldo-confusion-problem pops up from time to time and there were some confusions at http://dot.kde.org as well some time ago. Basically it is the following way:
Everaldo had been employed by Connectiva creating the Crystal icons. So Connectiva released the PNG-versions under LGPL along side their Linux distribution and as these icons were rather cool compared to the previous KDE icons these freely licensed PNG-Crystal icons became part of KDE. Sadly Everaldo refused to release the SVG originals (you can find his "SVG-compatibility" yada-yada defending his position at old dot.kde.org comments, he should have simply said that he wants to make more money with keeping the SVG's for himself that would have been honest and perfectly understandable). Later Suse contracted Everaldo as well for creating more Crstal icons for KDE but Suse was more clever and bought the SVG's well and released for those icons the SVG's as well under the LGPL. So in KDE for many but not all Crystal icons the SVG is freely licensed available (the others are not in KDE of course). Later many more people created new Crystal icons and released them under LGPL as well and included them into KDE (so Crystal is not Everaldo only).
Everaldo later took all these Crystal icons created by him and several more, modified them somewhat and released them at his web page under a non-commercial license not even mentioning that most of them exist freely licensed. All Crystal icons from KDE are LGPL. So as long as these icons are taken from KDE we can keep them.
KDE-Crystal was invented by Everaldo but nowadays Crystal is driven by completely different people as far as I know (for example Aaron Seigo had promoted the Appeal-project with a completely new Crystal-style set).
Thanks, that clarified things alot for me. Now we just need to get this information to the image pages somehow, having a link to a website that says "Everything is copyrighted" only produces lots of confusion. An additional template for the icons, explaining why the images are indeed LGPL would be good IMHO. --Conti|✉01:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Netscape file?
What I don't understand is why images like this --> were included. Also the Opera logo (deleted) Firefox logo (soon to be deleted - for the third time!), Adobe logo (deleted), Real logo (deleted), Netscape logo (?) etc etc. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well this a different thing that has nothing to do with the Everaldo thing. These are icons derived from logos of these companies/products and are probably problematic because of that. I'd suggest asking at the KDE-channel #kde at irc.freenode net about the icons in icon sets like Nuvola that look similar to third party logos. Arnomane10:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So Connectiva released the PNG-versions under LGPL along side their Linux distribution. So we should mention Connectiva, not Everaldo as the source and copyright owner of the files. Do you know the URL of the Connectiva website providing these icons ? Can you find the licence page provided by Connectiva along with the icons? Teofilo09:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PD in the United States
Probably asked a dozen times, but I couldn't find the proper answer:
Say, a picture of a living artist was first published in 1920 anywhere in Europe and a year later in the US. Is it still copyrighted in the european country and "PD-US" in the United states (because pre-1923)? Or is it copyrighted everywhere and not PD-US, because it was not published for the first time in the US?. Thanks! --Svencb17:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, this also means that anything published before 1 January 1923 in the US (and not published anywhere else before that) is in the public domain everywhere (because it's not protected in the country of origin, i.e. the US). Can anyone confirm this? -- Duesentrieb(?!)19:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as to your question: if the work was created and/or first published in Europe, it's likely that the EUs 70 years pma rule applies - i'm not sure the US does not recognized that... AFAIK, they are bound to enforce EU law for european works by treaties. -- Duesentrieb(?!)19:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the artist (or his heirs) is/was citizen of a European country he can claim the copyright protection of his country. A German artist can claim the protection 70 years pma for a work published in the U.S. before 1923. There is no need to cite treaties, Duesentrieb! Serbian copyright law protects Serbian artists, Danish copyright law protects Danish artist. It's simple, isn't it, Duestentrieb? German copyright law also protects the work of artists of ALL countries in the EU. It is not allowed to discriminate citizens of other EU countries (Diskriminierungsverbot). If a photograph isn't protected in Switzerland it definitively is in Germany (§ 72 UrhG) because Switzerland is a EWR country. How about reading §§ 120, 121 de UrhG, Duesentrieb? Did you ever read these, Duesentrieb? --Historiograf16:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Madame Tussauds
I've noticed that there are some photos og wax figures at Madame Tussauds here already. I got a new scanner that takes slides today, and I have some photos of such figures, but I'm a bit uncertain about the licensing. Before I go through the scanning and uploading, could someone please advice me if it's OK or not to use photos of figures at MT in London here. Cnyborg23:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, photos of works of art are dirivative work, thus the original artist has rights to the image. Maybe ask MT for permission... -- Duesentrieb(?!)23:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
for reproductive photos (and scans, fotocopies, etc) of 2D art, it's even worse: in that case, only the original authors has rights to the image, because the act of photography is purly technical. -- Duesentrieb(?!)11:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
US movie trailers pre-1964 PD?
Does that sound right? This page is being cited on this image (a screenshot). I'm having a look at the en.wp articles on US copyright, but I haven't found anything so far... pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
w:Fair use says, United States law in effect since 1 March 1989 has made copyright the default for newly created works. For works produced between 1 January 1978 and 1 March 1989, copyright notice is required; however, registration was not required. This actually appears to be a better situation than the 1964 SabuCat quotes. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prepare in my sandbox a tag for this, but BradP and Soufron, now haven't ideas for this images. It is better leave the old tag PD and when the lawyers give us the answer we change it. --RED DEVIL66620:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Commons database itself
Hello,
I read on the Commons:Welcome page that The Wikimedia Commons database itself [...] [is] licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Has a formal announcement been made, presumably by Jimmy Wales, indicating this licensing condition, and towards which we could provide a link, like this : (nowiki) [http://www.URL_of_the_link database itself] ? Teofilo 11:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
No, i believe, that you won't copy the Wikimedia Commons database itself, so you need only to provide the Page-Url of the copied Page, but Images need seperate informations about the license status. --Stefan-Xp11:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote the footer of every page "Text is available under GNU Free Documentation License". See the page that creates this footer: MediaWiki:Copyright. The $1-variable is set server side from the beginnings to GFDL, so the database itself is indeed GFDL regardless what Jimbo might could have said. This license variable has been initialised during setup by the server admins of the wiki itself and can't be changed by Commons admins. If you setup an own MediaWiki you will know how this looks like. Arnomane11:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The whole sentence : "the Wikimedia Commons database itself and the texts in it are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License" seems to mean that another website could choose to release all text --> under GFDL and the data base itself --> under another license. So how do we know that on this site the data base itself too is released under GFDL?. The EU Database Directive allows the person who invested money to create a database, to protect it from copy for 15 years. How do we know that Jimmy Wales, who spent some money of his own or the money of the Wikimedia Foundation to create the database, allows the database to be copied? Teofilo 11:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The database, containing its structure, metadata and text is all available on the data dump site http://download.wikimedia.org/. The site also has copyright information, stating that "All original textual content except Wikinews original textual content is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)." This includes everything but the binary format images. Releasing the database (structure by Wikimedia) or its content (by contributors) under other licenses wouldn't be possible. --Para13:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
legal.html on http://download.wikimedia.org seems to fit American law. I am not sure whether this fits the needs of European users who might want to know the Databases's status under European law. The "D" in GFDL means "Document", not "Database". I am afraid GFDL can apply only to a single document, addressing the authors' authorship rights, and cannot apply to a whole database, and fails to address the investor's database rights granted by European law. Teofilo14:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, for European purposes, we need some kind of new "FDBL", meaning "Free Database License", yet to be written. Teofilo14:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The database format was released under GPL within MediaWiki. It is an essential part of the software. Is that where the 15 year rule might apply? All contributors agree to license their edits under the GFDL as per the edit page, dependless of the underlying storage. The WikiMedia Foundation can't just revoke contributors' copyright by providing the data in a different format than what we are all looking at now. --Para14:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we did not use computers, and the Wikimedia foundation helped by giving paper and pencils, the situation would be the same. The 15 year rule would allow the Wikimedia Foundation to say : "We don't want to release the data for free. We want to sell it for 15 years, and have the paper and pencil's money back". Teofilo08:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon. What are you talking about? Are you talking about poor Commons people getting exploited by the Foundation? Come on. This is a really boring debate. Arnomane09:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I am just trying to find simple words to explain this : A database is an organized collection of data. The term originated within the computer industry, but its meaning has been broadened by popular use, to the extent that the European Database Directive (which creates intellectual property rights for databases) includes non-electronic databases within its definition. quoted from en:Database. And this : To qualify for the sui generis database protection, the creator of the database must show that there has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents. It does not matter what the selection method was, or how much creative effort was involved. quoted from en:EU Database Directive. Teofilo16:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Teofilo it might be interesting to you: The "american" GPL was declared as valid and enforceable by court in Germany (which has the same "droit d'auteur" as France) so the very similar GFDL is enforceable in Germany too. Arnomane16:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meta-Tags for license status
When writing tools for the commons, I keep running into the same problem over and over again: there is no good way to tell from the database which license status an image has, and if it has a license tag at all. It is easily possible to get a list of all templates used on a given page, but it's very hard to tell which templates are license tags, and it's pretty much impossible to know which conditions the license specifies for use - especially if the tool is supposed to work for several wikis, not just the commons.
I would like to propose a relatively simple way to resolve this problem: by putting invisible "meta-tags" into the license tags, it would become easy to query the database for images that don't have a license tag, or for images that have a license that does not require the full license text to be copied with the image, etc. I propose the following meta tags (i'm open for suggestions, of corse):
{{License tag}}: should be contained in all license tags, to makr them as such. Should be used directly only for license tags that do not have any other meta tag, especially for PD-tags.
I propose to try this out on commons, and perhaps implement the same scheme on more wikis later on. This would greately benefit my tools, and other people's too, probably. It's also rather simple to implement. So, what do you think?
Note btw that I'm aware that adding these meta-tags to the license templates will not update the database for all images using those tags immediately - however, there is now a system in place that will automatically update the DB for all pages using the template over the corse of a few days. That would be good enough for me. -- Duesentrieb(?!)13:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This looks interesting and useful. But I am not sure I understood exactly what the contents of the new templates will be. Could you provide an example of source code for one of these proposed templates? Are you going to use categories inside "< noinclude >" "</ noinclude >" tags? Teofilo14:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Duesentrieb's idea is that the new templates would be empty.
Another idea is to have the templates non-empty, and put them inside <noinclude> in image tags. That would let us easily categorize image tags, and would still allow programs to deduce meta-information about image tags. User:dbenbenn18:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The templates should not be in noinclude tags - it's much easier and faster if the database associates the images directly with the meta-templates. Selecting templates that have the meta tags, and then using those templates to look for images would also be possible, but it's much better to resolve the indirection once, so the database can be asked for images that are under a specific type of license directly.
As to the contents of the template: for all I care, they could be empty. It would probably be a good idea to have a <noinclude> section inside the meta tags, to explain what the meta-tag is intended for. The meta-tag could also contain an HTML comment with RDF-data describing the license (see the source code of Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5 for an example). Another possibility would be to show a small icon indicating the license type, kind of like the Creative Commons logotypes for by, sa, etc.
Heh, I don't want to enforce it - people will have to do it if they want my tools to work with their wiki ;) As to the accuracy of the tags: new license templates have to be looked at closely, no matter what. So I don't see a new problem there.
No objection, but I'm still trying to think of a way that doesn't use meta-templates. There are people on EN who hate all meta-templates, which will make it harder to get your idea adopted there. User:dbenbenn08:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can not think of any way that would be equally fast and simple database-wise. Btw: I also don't like meta-templates much, especially complicated stuff like en:Template:qif, or templates with incomplete syntax, like en:Template:Mtnbox start. Deep, complicated nested structures of templates should be avoided. Redirects and parameter-defaults make it easier to avoid meta-templates. On the other hand, using templates in templates can be very useful. As with most things, it can be used and abused...
Basically, I would like to try it out on commons, because here it is most useful: it makes sense to be able to search a media repository by license requirements. Other projects can follow if they like. -- Duesentrieb(?!)12:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking into the French Special:Allmessages and can't find the [[Mediawiki:]] page(s) where I can put the link and French title of the French Version of the Welcome page, which I want to display in the "navigation" box, below the "Wikimedia Commons" logo, in the left margin. Help ! Teofilo11:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2) Special:Allmessages doesn't display them. Is another larger list available, that would include these ?
3) On French websites, we quite never have a "main page" (page principale). Therefore MediaWiki:Mainpage/fr is currently "Accueil" meaning (welcome/entrance desk/German : Empfang). The meaning of "Accueil" and "Bienvenue" are quite similar. Verb "Accueillir" means "to welcome" (German : empfangen). My proposal is to change the titles that way :
The images in the category Niki de Saint Phalle are tagged with the GFDL licence. It does not seems valid to me, as the author died in 2002, and there is no statment saying that the right owner authorized a publication under such a licence.... What do you think of it, and what must I do in such a case ? Mathieu.clabaut13:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As France does not have a "freedom of panorama" rule, there images seem to be copyvios. In such a case, tag the images with {{Deletion request}}, notifiy the uploader and list the images on Commons:Deletion requests. You could also request the deletion of the gallery page and explain that that includes all images contained - that way, you don't have to touch all images individually. -- Duesentrieb(?!)14:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oops, my bad - i just read "french scultor" ;) Yes, if the installations in germany are permanent and publically accessible, the images are OK. I don't know about the others. -- Duesentrieb(?!)17:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at least in theory. There are lots of international treaties dealing with that. Generally, when it's copyrighted in the country of origin, it's also copyrighted in most other jurisdictions. However, it's unclear if the reverse also applies - if it's not copyrighted in the country of origin (in this case Germany), does this mean it's free in (most) other jurisdictions too? We generally consider the answer to be yes, but there have been court decisions to the contrary, afaik. The situation is quite unclear. In this case, the concept of "Panoramafreiehit" makes it even more complicated, since this concept does not even exist in some countries. -- Duesentrieb(?!)14:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Panoramafreiheit does not cancel copyright. Pictures are allowed, but making a copy of the sculpture is forbidden unless the sculptor gives his permission. Teofilo15:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should keep all. Publishing photos of art works in public places is a general human right. See also my comment to the deletion discussion --Historiograf16:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LibriVox
I found this site the other day. It aims to, on a voluntary basis, record public domain texts producing audiobooks. These audiobooks are available for free and released into the public domain. The voluntary/free-content basis of this project allies it to Wikimedia.
I have, in the past, suggested that we create such a project within Wikimedia - either based here or at WikiSource. Naturally, there is no point in repeating work already done. Why don't we upload Ogg Vorbis and Flac versions of these text books, allowing LibriVox to link to us and their users to download from us. Their content is currently hosted by archive.org - a non-transparent and non-volunteer-based website. Not only would we be enriched by this extra content but hopefully such a scheme would allow the transfer of users between both projects - Commons users deciding to help record and LibriVox users helping us to upload content. Any thoughts? --OldakQuill23:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the LibriVox contributors would also be interested of the Spoken Wikipedia project? Anyhow, I spent quite a long time just now browsing everything LibriVox related. On Wikipedia there has been a debate of "link spamming" of LibriVox files so it's a bit hard to dig the interesting things from there. The discussion is spread on various talk pages, namely Mackinaw, Mel Etitis, WAS_4.250 and Jimbo. On one of them there was a comment on whether to host the files on Project Gutenberg Audio eBooks servers or where they are now. The hosting issue has been discussed on LibriVox forums as well, and they really seem to be in negotiation with Project Gutenberg to host the files there [4][5][6]. Finally, there's Jimbo's positive comment on linking to them from Wikipedia, but nobody (before now) seems to even have thought of Wikimedia hosting the files. --Para02:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until now... It seems like a really good sensible idea to me. I would say Wikimedia is closer to their ideals than Gutenberg. Here, the author will be able to update their file whenever they want to. --Oldak [[User_talk:OldakQuill|Quill]] 03:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a template for all LibriVox audiobooks: Template:LibriVox. It contains the license and details of the work. When I have a little time later on I'll make some of the parameters optional as well as adding a few more. I think we should attempt to get CD-quality Ogg Vorbis for the sake of being able to reëdit later at high spec. I still think it is a shame our limit is too small for Flac. Am I right in thinking there's an Ogg format designed for voice? --Oldak [[User_talk:OldakQuill|Quill]] 10:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's w:Speex. It appears that LibriVox only makes their books available as MP3 and OGG anyway, so Flac would be kind of pointless. (Or are there lossless versions available that I'm missing?) User:dbenbenn11:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi folks, dbenbenn alerted me to this thread. The history of the LV/wikipedia problem is the following: we were adding links from relevant wikipedia articles as a systematic step in our catalog process. According to wp policy, that's not allowed (even if the links should be there). There was some misunderstanding about that policy, which caused a long debate. all understood now.
re: wikicommons: LibriVox would be very happy to have files here, and in fact we talked about it once a while back, but at the time we were happy enough with archive.org. but if we could work with you guys to get them here, that would be great. what sort of upload limits do you have? A typical book (in just ogg) is probably 250MB. the whole LV collection is many (30?) gigs, and if all goes according to plan, it will be many more soon enough. However, we are looking at adding a conversion to speex into our process: that will provide a much lighter file, that perhaps would be best here. our original files are 128 mp3, so FLAC I think would be unnecessarily heavy (but I'm no expert).
in any case, I just wanted to confirm interest from LibriVox. If you have any questions, I can do my best to answer either here, or here: Mackinaw. thanks. Mackinaw13:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The upload limit here is 20 MB per file. From what I've seen of LibriVox, that's no problem, since longer books are broken into chapters anyway. Also, we don't accept MP3 files here (non-free format), but OGG is fine. User:dbenbenn14:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hmm. 20 mb could be a problem, as we have some files that are bigger. this is where speex should come in handy. but in any case we can put some stuff up. what's the process? could you refer me to a page. ideally from our end would be if some wikicommons folks did the uploading - not just because it makes it easier for us, but also because of the slightly difficult time we recently had re: linkspam @ wikipedia. we don't want to be seen to be forcing our stuff on the wikipedia world. much better if its addition comes from within your community, rather than from ours - though of course there is overlap. Mackinaw15:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You press "Upload file" in the left hand column. I've made a template {{LibriVox}} - you just need to fill in the parameters {{LibriVox|author=... The full parameters are displayed at Template:LibriVox. I'll try and talk to some devs about increasing the upload limit - it is due time. --OldakQuill17:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our current collection probably contains over 1,000 individual audio files (in ogg format only) - perhaps more. More on the way. You can check our catalog here. So uploading one at a time will be, um, cumbersome. does wikicommons have any procedures for big projects that would like to donate a large collection of relatively heavy files? Also: if we intend to leave our files on other public domain servers, would that be a problem for wikicommons? is do you prefer to be an only-host; or is being an also-host ok? Mackinaw19:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have a piece of software called Wikimedia Commonplace for mass-uploading. Is there any way to mass download the entire collection onto my computer to do this? Commons has no desire to be a sole-host. The content enhances us just as much as any hosting enhances your project. --Oldak [[User_talk:OldakQuill|Quill]] 20:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well we can find a way! You can ftp a zip from archive.org ... though only of 64kps mp3, which would require conversion to ogg; and further archive.org deriver has been causing problems with our zips so a bunch are corrupted. You could also ftp just the ogg files from each book too, ut I don't think we have zips of ogg. Anyway, this might be the kick we need to sort out the speex conversion project - that way we could, for instance, send you a zip book-by-book (or several books at a time) as we convert to speex. Let me see if I can spark some action on this back in LibriVox land & get some other people involved. Mackinaw22:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The pun is easy, but the copyright situation is not really... crystal clear. We have 2 contradictory statements from the author :
http://www.everaldo.com/legal.html : "You may not reproduce, distribute, transmit or sell these elements (...) without prior consent of the author via email." and the January 2006 E-mail displayed on Template talk:Crystal clear : "Wikipédia está autorizada a usar" (Wikipedia is allowed to use) the icons
The E-mail says Wikipedia is only authorized to use, not to redistribute the icons. Wouldn't it be better to send the author another E-mail, asking him whether he confirms that his work is licensed under LGPL, and that redistribution is allowed ? By the way, other projects like Wiktionary, Wikibooks and so on are not Wikipedia. Teofilo14:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The bit you copied was fine, but apperently you picked the wrong thing in the license selector (Sulfur did not release the file under cc-by-sa-2.5, did he?). I removed that bit. Thanks for contributing! -- Duesentrieb(?!)00:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is currently fully protected. I need to correct a small spelling mistake. Could an admin change it into semi-protected status please ? Teofilo10:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why I never noticed that, but is there a reason that the uploader of an image is not mentioned in the image page on other wikis? en:Image:Minsk opposition meeting after presidental election 2.JPG for example, you can't find out who actually uploaded the image without visiting the commons page. I know people are supposed to write something like "Author: Name" on the image page, but people don't always do that, especially when they upload their own images. The "file history" should also appear on other wikis, IMO. --Conti|✉23:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll soon be starting to upload speech-synthesized ogg files for en.wiktionary to link from in its pronunciation sections -- a couple of thousand to start, eventually tens of thousands, most between 6 and 9 kilobytes. Anyone interested can look at more information about the project.
A few technical questions for people here:
Does Commons care about using bot flags to keep its Recent Changes from getting flooded, or is it okay to just let Commonist run as fast as it wants to from my normal user account?
I'm currently naming the files like "en-ca-synth-refrigerator.ogg", which follows what seems to be the usual naming practice in existing pronunciation files of having "Language Code - (Country Code) - (Other miscellaneous descriptors that don't relate directly to the word) - Word.ogg". Would another pattern be more appropriate?
Please use {{PD-self}} when uploading these, instead of {{PD}}. Yep, having a separate category for synthesized pronunciations is a good idea. Yes, you should get a bot flag—leave a request at meta:Requests for bot status.
A few more suggestions: for each file you upload, it would be a good idea to include a link to the page on Wiktionary where you intend to use it (e.g. wiktionary:entitle). Also, I see you have some metadata in the files (artist, album, and genre); it would be kind of nice to set the title field to the word itself. Finally, if you can do it, it might be good to include a little silence at the beginning and end of each track. Many players have trouble with extremely short tracks; xmms 1.2.10, for example, plays Image:En-ca-synth-entitle.ogg as "entite". User:dbenbenn10:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information and suggestions. They're very helpful. The PD tag's done. Metadata title done (I think -- I don't seem to have a single piece of software that can read the tags that oggdropXP tells me it's putting in). It'll be no problem for me to add about a quarter-second more silence to the files that get synthesized in the future. I'd love to put in the links to the Wiktionary page, and even a better file description, if I could figure out how to trick Commonist into doing it from the default description. -- Keffy05:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might have more luck with the file upload service script. I used a very simple stripped-down version of that to upload 3000 maps recently. By going with something extremely simple, I was able to have complete control over what it did. User:dbenbenn01:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the Commons guideline was that if an image doesn't display properly on your browser, you have to get a better browser...? That'
So if it doesn't work on your mediaplayer, you just have to get a better media player..! ;-)
The guideline at meta says that you should have requested on the local project first. Although we don't have an official "request for bot status" page, people have taken to making such requests at COM:RFA. It seems to work. I think the idea is to let your bot do about 50 or so, then request, so people can look at the bot's work and get an idea of what it will do.
Also I will just ask the bleeding obvious and say, I assume wiktionary knows about this project (announcement on their VP?) and supports it? Uploading thousands of files here will be quite useless if wiktionary think that synthesised files are not appropriate. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. In the almost a month since it was first discussed in our Beer Parlour, there's been strong support from a few people, indifference from most, and no opposition. Everyone (including me) sees the synthesized files as a stopgap during the loooooong, slooooow process of creating pronunciation files spoken by real people. -- Keffy05:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Multilingual coordination and the English-first policy
I have been striving to write a simple first steps page that anyone can understand in order to help French-speaking people go through the for-non-English-speaking-people-oppressive signup page
This morning, I discover on the French Wikipedia a message by a French user who says she hasn't been able to perform sign up on Wikimedia Commons.
Maybe the explanations I wrote are bad and unhelpful, but most likely, the problem is the new Captcha that appeared suddenly, without any warning.
So I once again request a multilingual coordination to be made PRIOR any major change. If a small message explaining that this new feature was going to appear had been posted on the French-language Bistro/Village Pump, I could have updated the French first steps in time, and not learn that a change has occurred only when a problem arises.
In order to improve the Captcha help page and make it multilingual, please, any admin :
Ceci est un captcha. Les sites web qui acceptent de publier Les contributions Des utilisateurs, comme ce wiki, sont souvent libqt d'utilisations abusives par Des outils automatiques qui posent Des liens de pourriel sur de nombreux sites. Certes il est toujours possible de supprimer des messages, mais cela constitue une nuisance considérable. Parfois, et en particulier lorsque vous ajouter de nouveaux liens internet, le wiki vous présente une image de texte coloré ou discord et vous demande d'écrire Les mots affichés. Comme cest une tâche difficile à automatiser, elle permettra à la plupart des êtres humains d'être autorisés à contribuer, tandis que la plupart des actes de pourriel et des attaques robotiques seront arrêtées. Malheureusement ceci peut occasionner une gêne pour les personnes ayant une vision limitée, ou qui utilisent des navigateurs vocaux. Pour le moment nous n'avons pas d'alternative vocale. Contactez les administrateurs du site pour requérir de l'aide si ce dispositif vous empêche d'effectuer des contributions légitimes. Cliquez sur le bouton « retour » ou « page précédente » de votre navigateur pour retourner à la page d'édition ou à la page d'inscription.
Teofilio, the villiany? Please assume good faith. As far as I am aware, we did not even request this 'feature', it was just put upon us. I haven't seen ANY discussion ANYWHERE about having this on Commons. There is no secret channel where we decide to do things like this -- it all happens right here (not secret at all). All I have found out is that Brion has said they were sometimes implemented temporarily on en.wp when investigating a bot-vandal.
Yes, of course it should be translated. But we're not mind-readers, so take it easy before you assume an Anglocentric conspiracy.
The tragedy of [[Mediawiki /fr]] (or [[Mediawiki /de]] [[Mediawiki /it]] [[Mediawiki /ja]]) messages, is that they are useless until the user has signed up, logged in, and selected his language preference. All users have to use the English interface when they progress through sign up. My idea is to make it multilingual by keeping it English-centered, but providing translations through language menues here and there. MediaWiki:Captchahelp-text/fr is useless unless some link to it is provided somewhere, and the best place to put that link, is MediaWiki:Captcha-short. IMHO. Teofilo11:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Teofilo. I am sorry but I really have a problem with such french people that are unwilling (not unable!) to understand a sentence in a language other than French (of cour it is not only french people there are Germans with such an arrogance too). Those people do not assume good faith thus I really do not need them. For sure it is much more better having all in native language (and I am currently doing a great deal making it in a decent way) but hey people should improve things on their own and not assume the bad evil english people want to show their cultural dominance. Arnomane21:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I have in mind is not so much French people - I have them in mind too, especially the younger ones, who are still at school learning some English and who should not be expected to know English before they have had a opportunity to learnt it in the first place. Wikipedia should see itself as a knowledge diffusing tool, not as a private club for academic elites - but the people who have Malagasy language, More language, Wolof language as a first language, for whom the language of globalization is French, not English, and to whom Wikimedia can give access to free knowledge by making the French Wikipedia non-English-speaker-friendly. Teofilo11:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe you are surprised but something compareable holds for German. For example in many middle/eastern european nations German is the foreign language of choice. So I could say the same for those people. But it is plain stupid as these people have widespread broad band internet access and do support their native language during their participation here. In many african nations where french is the second language of choice there is no internet infrastructure, so you are talking of virtual contributors. If they one day are able contributing they will contribute their native language as well. These people do not benefit from online content at the moment, they benefit from offline content, like a Wikipedia DVD in French, which is sadly not existing. So it is pointless thinking of mostly virtual contributors. Do what is is important for yourself and hopefully others will benefit too. Arnomane09:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cybercafés are widespread and cheap all over Africa. In central Europe, people are educated in their native tongue, while in many African countries people are educated in the country's national language, which more often than not is not their native language. So the situation is somewhat different. Can you tell me how a person who knows only Hungarian and German, and no English at all, can sign up onto Wikimedia Commons ? Teofilo13:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another question. Do you know a single person contributing to Wikimedia Commons coming from Africa and which is unable communicating with us currently because of that? You are talking about virtual problems that do not exist at the moment. Nobody in a cybercafe (in fact these are often no cafes but computer rooms with a coffe automat or something like that, a real cybercafe is a normal cafe with WLAN access point, where you can use your own laptop) will contribute to Wikipedia in a significant way. Most people will browse, play, email and chat there (so mostly consuming not producing). For everything else there is too less time (and not the right atmosphere). Arnomane15:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read my first message again : I talk about someone who wants to upload pictures and is having troubles signing up because signing up has to be made in English. What is your answer to my last 13:42, 25 March 2006 question ? Teofilo20:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well most of them can speak both German and English but they speak often German more fluently as they study or work in Germany and/or visited a German language school (I could name you three neighbours of mine coming from poland). Well with the problem of that person: We all encouter problems in Wikimedia Commons but in contrast to you we try to solve the problem together in a friendly way and do not make wild accusations on Village Pump. That's the difference and this is what me makes upset. Arnomane20:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should answer Pfctdayelise about the "conspiracy theory". When an elephant smashes an ant, there is no conspiracy : the elephant is simply not conscious that an ant is under his foot. In the elephant's point of view it is a non-event. But in the ant's point of view, it is bad. So some kind of NPOV has to be sought. Or better : you build large streets for elephants, and small lanes for ants and try to avoid collisions. Teofilo11:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Teofilio, all my point is that we here are the Commons are probably the most aware of the English bias compared to people at any other mostly English project. We want what is best for the project and we know that means as much multilingualism as possible. In this case again, I repeat, we didn't ask for it and we only knew about it when you told us about it. So when you notice something is missing, please ask us nicely and work with us and we will jump to fix it. OK? pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is really nice. The « &uselang= » code at the end of the URL is a treasure. I will provide the required French translations soon. Could you add a language bar at the top of Special:Userlogin too ? Teofilo11:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to set automatically the « &uselang= » parameter used for sign-up as language preference by default, which would remove the burden of having to click on Special:Preferences and having to set the language preference manually ? Teofilo12:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow cool. That's the way it works. :-) I have written a supportive comment too in order to get your patches accepted. Arnomane21:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Chinese user wrote this mail a few days ago on the Foundation's mailing list : frankly, i believe that the difference between english and chinese languages are larger than that between any two western european languages. even though many chinese in modern mainland china and taiwan start to learn english before primary schools, the lack of live language environment makes it difficult for most of them to communicate in english with an acceptable efficiency. just imagine if asking a native english speaker write in chinese. (source) Teofilo09:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Half million items
I note that the Commons is fast approaching half a million items. Will there be a concerted effort to determine which file is the half-millionth item just like what happened with the half- and millionth articles on en:wp? enochlau (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. I'm not very good with maps/images, and I was looking for a map of the IL-6 Congressional District that I could use for a Wikinews article. If anyone can grab one and put it up, please drop me a line on my wikinews talk page. I'd be greatly appreciative. Thanks! Lyellin22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
file incorrectly named - licensing info not entered
While trying to enter information for this item http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Glowstick_.jpg I accidentally hit the enter key instead of the shift key. Now the file not only has an incomplete and non-descriptive name, but does not have any of it's licensing information entered. There is no option to edit these aspects, how do I fix this??
Hello, yes, I have seen you're answer.
thanks,
Xanthine Complex
make category RDRs appear as different coloured links?
Would it be possible to make link to categories that are in fact {{Category redirect}}s, not real categories, appear as different coloured links? e.g. green. This could help people who assume that a blue link means the category must exist. I know it's probably not something we can just "turn on" here. But maybe someone will know how likely it would be to work, before we request it on bugzilla:. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Due to personal problems, I'll be absent for a while. It'll be a good idea to elect a new bureaucrat, since I'm the only one really effective. FYI, I'm resigning both sysop and bureaucrat rights. Good luck and see you soon. villy ♦✎20:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tsss, I'm back already. I'm so pathetically addicted to hte Wikimedia Commons. Anyway, bureaucrats are still needed, I'm too alone here. So that I'm going to vote for you all folks. villy ♦✎17:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SVG rendering bug?
Please have a look at Category:Heraldry and scroll down till you see Vair and Vairy or and Gules. Notice the broken rendering of the second one. Now go it's image page - everything there is okay.
The thing is, these two files are utterly identical, except for an identifier and two colours. So except for the colours, they should render identical, under all circumstances - I don't even get how it is possible that the rendering differs. I mean, the files are the same, so if one displays broken, so should the other one, right? Shinobu00:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not much of an explanation though - the identifiers are (hopefully) only used to identify and the colours only used to colour, so where does the difference emerge? If you run the same (possibly buggy) program on essentially the same file, you'd expect the same (possibly buggy) output. Or is it used as a library and somehow its state didn't get reset properly? In that case just reuploading the file could solve the problem. Shinobu03:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you can. You see, a computer program is deterministic. Feed it the same data and it normally gives the same result, bugs or no bugs. Ergo, if there appears some difference, the input data must have been different in some way. In this case I think the difference cannot have been in the SVG files, so it must be something else. Shinobu09:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While you are right in theory, the "input" in prcatice includes such things as the garbage data in unused memory, available file descriptors, amount of swapping going on, etc - all that may influence bugs. But my guess is that the "broken" thumbnail was created when there was an older version of rsvg installed, and has not been updated since then. You can force it to be updated by re-uploading the image. -- Duesentrieb(?!)10:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well now, I have a similar problem: please look at Image:Wire_white_gray_stripe.svg and Image:Wire_gray_white_stripe.svg. The source code is the very same, except for the color values. I uploaded the images nearly simultaneously, so the software version is probably identical in both cases.
Good idea, as this template is really unecessary duplication. I had made the redirect as I thought it has been used only for PD-self. By the way the sentence "this files is copyrighted" (coming from the original) is quite misleading... In fact the file is not copyrighted if I have released all rights. ;-) Arnomane09:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arnomane, sorry if I revert your rollback, this morning, but isn't sure that is the same of PD-self. It could be PD-user or PD-author too, if the author isn't the uploader. If noone has doubts, I change it. --RED DEVIL66609:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC the template was developed on en.wp because of concerns that it was legally impossible to release all rights to something. So this was the alternative. I just don't like to direct people to mark someone PD unless they have a specific, good reason for it (or they are the copyright holder). For example I saw a lot of SXC images marked {{PD}} when they should be {{Copyrightedfreeuse}}. (What should be now is another matter...) So I would only have links to {{Copyrightedfreeuse}} or {{PD-self}}. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The second part of tag PD-self says:
I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
IMHO it is a redundat text of template No right reserved. If the author don't want release it in PD, he could put Copyrighted free use. --RED DEVIL66607:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they could, but if they didn't, it's too much work to go back and ask them to change now. I don't have a problem with depreciating the tag -- telling (new) people to use one of the others instead -- I just dislike rewriting the creator's intention, however minor an issue it may seem to us. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO the tag PD-Self (or PD-user) is the same, for second part of text, but I don't think that we must retag they. My idea is that we could depreciating it, for future uploaders. --RED DEVIL66619:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thiks there are many false PD-OpenClipart images. The uploaders don't provide the exact link to the image at OpenClipart, (Image:Batasuna.svg) or provide erroneus link (Image:Flag of Navarre.svg).
I agree with your change to the template. I just wanted to point out that OpenClipart images usually have useful metadata inside the file. For example, the metadata in Image:Batasuna.svg says the file was written by Lauris Kaplinski, and includes a link to [8]. User:dbenbenn16:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Backup server
This has been briefly talked about before, but nothing happened. I'll just mention it as a reminder.
It would be great to have a backup server which would copy the material of Commons Media files once / 24 hours. This would be an insurance for vandalism or accidents. Images could be restored from this server also once / 24 hours or so.
Well the best thing would be that the developers would provide a dump of our images and not only the database at http://download.wikimedia.org/commonswiki/. The dump of the images of de.wikipedia from September 2005 (which has been provided at the download servers) has a size of 25 GB with around 100 000 files. So as we have 5 times this file number, this would be a dump file of ~ 125 GB. If people claim that it is too large, well there is Bit-Torrent that is perfectly suited for such a case. We just need to convince the server admins ;-) Arnomane14:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please! In addition to insuring against disasters (meteor hits St. Petersburg), it would provide some insurance against accidental deletion. Currently, an admin can irrevocably delete an old version of an image with just one click.
Though instead of BitTorrent, it would probably be easier, faster, and cheaper to use the US Postal Service. Just fill up a hard disk and mail it somewhere. User:dbenbenn14:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the smell of sarcasm? :P BitTorrenting ~150 GB might sound feasible, but most ISPs block users who exceed a certain monthly transfer limit, which is usually around 5-10 GB, depending on just how permissive they are. While I love the idea of backups, distributed backups are not really a viable option; a ginormous server farm would be far more efficient, and far more expensive. Which leads me to conclude that mailing HDDs is really the only efficient way, clearly. :P But on a more serious note, tape drives, anyone? —UED7703:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well for example astronomical observatories produce lots of data and often these data get transfered via snail mail as it is often faster and cheaper transfering a tape via mail than transfering the data via internet. By the way we could also use the toolserver mirror in Amsterdam for mailing tapes inside Europe. But of course I don't have a tape drive flying around and I guess most others have the same problem... Arnomane09:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just mail hard drives? You'd want to pack it well in styrofoam, but I don't think it would be a problem. Also, once you had an offsite backup on hard disk, you could update it daily over the internet. User:dbenbenn16:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a 160 GB HDD is ~$80 (Newegg), and UPS would ship it in two days for ~$32 (St. Petersburg to Virginia Beach), while USPS ships for ~$20 (Priority mail with box, 3-4 days). I feel that's a little expensive. Although, please, clarify... would we be sending the same HDDs back and forth or buy new ones when it's time for the new backup? I am still a bit skeptical, but I'm convinceable :) —UED7720:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
$100 to ensure the Commons doesn't get wiped out is worth it. I'd be willing to donate $100 for that purpose. About your question: Once you have a complete offsite backup, you might be able to just keep it up to date over the internet (with rsync, for example). Then you'd only have to mail the disk once.
If each admin deleted 2 or 5 images each time they logged on, we could start making inroads into the huge backlogs we have.
Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has 135 items. At one stage it was down to just 20 items. Make sure to check these carefully and notify uploaders if appropriate (let people know {{Fair use}} etc is not allowed). Remember to CheckUsage (IMO this is in fact what makes speedy deletion so slow). Remember for "redundancy", if the two images are different, they probably shouldn't be speedy-deleted (especially if it was tagged by someone other than the uploader). Speedy does not mean simple.
Look at a page or two of Special:Newimages each time you log on. You can see straight away obvious copyright violations. Also look carefully at images uploaded by people with no user page (red link), if necessary tag them as {{subst:nsd}} and write a note to the uploader. As well as being able to delete problem files early (before they can be used in articles!), you might also see a brand new contender for COM:FPC. :)
Category:Unknown has a web of subcategories. Remember anything tagged as no source/no license for over 7 days can be speedy deleted (that means admins, jump in and do it!). Again, check that the uploader was notified - if not, consider notifying them and retagging it. At the same time use CheckUsage to remove it from use.
If a user provides a link to their user page in a local project, consider writing them a note with a link to their Commons page, so they check it. Also, you can often find a user by seeing which articles their images are used in, then check the article history to see which user added the picture (almost always the same person).
You can use my translations to help when removing an image from use in local projects.
If a user doesn't appear to speak English well, try asking another administrator to translate your message.
Image:Wfm pelagic.png is derived from two files, Image:Pelagiczone.svg and Image:Oceansky.png. I've uploaded the latter two in order that translations can be made. Because Image:Pelagiczone.svg includes Image:Oceansky.png, an operation that we supress, the SVG itself won't render when viewed through Mediawiki. I'm concerned that someone might mistake it for being a bad SVG and mark it for deletion. Do we have a tag which can be added to images (SVGs or others) which says "this may look like junk, but it's used in combination with XYZ to render finished image ABC"? -- Finlay McWalter21:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have such a tag. Simply write a statement to that effect on the description page. If you need it a lot, make a tag... but I don't think this will happen often. -- Duesentrieb(?!)23:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I know that the images shouldn't carry visible tags (for good reason), but is there a policy to keep the name, the initials, the date or anything like that out of filenames? -- Ramann Anandasivam04:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It is best if a filename conveys enough information about an image to serve as a navigational aid, but not too much. Names and initials are not favored, since the Commons should be centered on content, and not promoting the people responsible for that content. But the policy on date is less clear, Commons:First steps seems to suggest they might be okay (change needed?). My opinion, which, I believe most people share, is that filenames should be free of creator names and dates. The {{Information}} template is there specifically for metadata, so use that, and keep the filename straightforward, memorable, and uncluttered. —UED7704:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have the background of the namespace "Image" pages coloured at my Monobook.css because it makes easier to identify if the images have transparent background or not.
Well I'd like if we could use a checker background for the image on the image page only, so that you only see it if the image is transparent. I personally dislike most of the color backgrounds I have seen in Wikipedia. ;-) But of course if this checker background thing is not possible we will need some retiringly color for the image page as it is important to distinguish transparent and non-transparent images (and we had already delete errors because of that). Arnomane09:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about implementing it site-wide (I don't want all image pages to be grey and white checkered, if that's what will happen!), but it would be good to make this option more widely publicised. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I didn't mean that the whole page is checkered. ;-) Just the background of the image itself so that it is invisible in most cases... Arnomane18:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't like the coloured background, as it makes the image page a horrible patchwork when there are different license tags and galleries, etc. It might work for diagrams but it doens't work for phtographs imho. I'm not going to revert the change in case I'm in a minority, but I think there should have been more discussion prior to the change being made imho. Thryduulf14:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This new version is pretty nice. It's subtle enough that it doesn't intrude, but you can still easily see where an image is transparent. Thanks, Sanbec! User:dbenbenn02:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved all existing 16x16 pixel versions to Image:Checker-16x16.png (more generic name) and have applied that image to MediaWiki:Common.css. Currently a bright grey checker with white background is being used. I have tested it (browser cache reload needed) and i works quite well. So we can delete all the other redundant versions. IMHO. Arnomane09:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a painting from 1904 but i dont know if his author is danish. Can someone say that if he knows a little history of danish art ?
The paiting is unique, that is sure. The dimensions are:
L=98; l=63 cm diag.=116cm
This paiting is in oil and is originale.The same is the rame and is in very good condition. In the image of the paiting is a fox and a raven. The author is a namely HAMMERT or HAMMER T. I dont know how can i post a picture or much of this paintings.
For a picture created in the European Union to be in the public domain, the artist needs to have died more than 70 years ago. So we need to know the artist's date of death. Teofilo07:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to upload the picture in the German Wikipedia. We have the fine rule that we accept pictures from 1906 and earlyer. This rule was'nt accepted here yet because Teofilo and other *** were against it. Please note: Teofilo is'nt Commons --Historiograf18:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday night there was a film on de Gaulle on television. Churchill was saying to de Gaulle : "No, de Gaulle isn't France". And de Gaulle answered : "Why are you arguing with me, then?" Teofilo16:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I still see the same picture. In the one in the english version there are some letters (W, F, O, D, K) wich I still do not see in the commons one. Maybe you saved it in a different name? Thanks once again! ca:Usuari:Xtv
Well just be a little bit more patient... I wanted to assist but you did leave the channel previous. We aren't a big community so our channel is not that much crowded as #wikipedia. Arnomane22:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add a picture in commons
I wanted to upload a picture sr:Слика:Franco Alfano.jpg to commons but I don't understand russish and I don't know wich kind of licence has this photo. Can sombody help me? ca:Usuari:Xtv
It's Serbian language. Image description contain only words Италијански композитор Франко Алфано (Italian composer Franco Alfano) and doesn’t contain any copyrights info (not license tags/author/source).
So status is {{Unknown}}. Please do not upload this image on Commons.
Hi. I started upload some videos to Commons. I saw that at this moment there is only a few dozens at all, but all are under Category:Video. There is no much problem now, but it can be when we grow. I think there is a need for a category tree under Video and after wonder a little I belive that best option can be to create a similar tree to the main tree for videos. Maybe just taking the "natural" category/ies of the subject/s and adding the word "video" at the end of new category.
Regarding the categories, I disagree. Please don't create a parallel structure for videos. There is no reason they can't go in with the images. Putting them in Category:Video as well is enough.
Well, this is easy for me. But I disagree with have (in a near future) hundreds or thoushand movies under one category. Then category is not useful at all.
I note (or believe) that we still think in Commons as an "image" repository. Not a "media" repository. But this is just my opinion. Regards, --Colegota06:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When categories become that large, subcategories should be used. A category that has over 200 items is basically unusable no matter if the contents are media files or images.
Yes. OK, certain categories are actually not useful for searching in this way, and Category:Video is one such category (like Category:Public domain). Who would look in that category for a specific video?? It's a very odd way to search. If you want any example of a video, then certainly you will find that. But not specifics. It makes much more sense to search by topic and see if any videos are available in the specific category. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know about the Cat Scan tool? I believe you might find it quite useful. e.g. this shows all the items in Category:Video that are also in Category:Bai people. It is a crude kind of "intersection", if we consider the categories as sets. I have heard talk that the "Category math feature" might be implemented on MediaWiki which would allow things like this to be done server-side (much quicker and should always be up to date). But I don't know what state that is in.
I'm used to some tools, this seems nice while it doesn't work at this moment. But I'm always thinking from the viewpoint of a user, not a commonist. So I think when users came to Commons looking for videos and they only find a page with ¿hundreds? --Colegota08:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that you can always make a gallery page (article), to link to any media files. This might be very useful when you have a bunch of related videos on the same topic -- as I think you have here. Then you can explain more about each video and how they're different to each other, which saves users having to download them all to figure that out. Putting them on a gallery page allows easier comparison than reading the description page of each one individually.
I do gallery pages for all images I upload (when it does not exist before). Usually on next days. In fact, I've created Bai people article and I'm working on it. But remember also that there are a Commons:Images on normal pages or categories:Vote where most of votes are for "using a mixed system until it is implemented". So we need a combined use of gallerys and categories. Really this is a feature for me. --Colegota08:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it ends up that there are a lot of videos on one or another topic, then maybe it would work to create (for example) Category:Bai people videos. But I would make this a subcategory of Category:Bai people and Category:Video, and only create it when required, not on principle or as a parallel structure. The category system is already quite hard to maintain. Creating parallel systems, especially for files that aren't even here yet, would be a small nightmare. I hope this explains why I think this is a bad idea. Cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well puting video categories under normal categories on tree was the first solution I think about. But one of next files I will upload is an Uyghur people video. If we forget for a moment that files are videos and think as they are just images we will solve it by puting some files under Category:Bai people, the new one under Category:Uyghur people and both categories are under Category:Chinese ethnic groups.
Well, there would be a connection. They would both be subcats of Category:Video. In this case if you really want something directly linking to this category, I would create an article in this category linking to (or transcluding) the two individual pages you made for these files. Dbenbenn is right, the existing categories can be mixed easily. See for example Category:Apollo mission. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I told before I think we are working as if we still were an image repository. But maybe we must think in a "multi"-media repository. And in that case IMHO we need a multi-media tree.
Yes, we do need a multi-media tree. Fortunately, we already have one. That's what the existing category structure is. There's nothing says the existing categories are for photos only. User:dbenbenn09:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the template, we could make that quite easily, but is that process (using tovid & ffmpeg2theora) what everyone does? If people do different things, there's not that much point. You can make the template in your own user space, just copy the desired text to User:Colegata/Template:Video by. Then you can use it on any file description page by putting {{User:Colegata/Template:Video by}}.
Probably it is useful to link to a help page, but I'm sure we have a media help page here, we don't need to link to Wikipedia's. :P (NB - ours is Commons:Media help.) If theirs is more useful, that's a good chance to bring ours up to speed. pfctdayelise (translate?) 21:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just my two ¢: we need a multimedia category tree, not multiple category trees for media. The system we have now is quite messy, duplicating it for every media type would make it much much worse.
Also, you may look forward to me latest tool going online - a Media Search page that allows you to search for media files inside a given category and filter by media type, file size, image resolution, license requirements, etc...
IMHO distinguishing between different types of media should be left to the software. This already happens internally, we just need a good way to access this info. Regards -- Duesentrieb(?!)10:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that the First steps page has just been recently overhauled, but I'm finding some of it's content to be more fit for other pages than the second introductory page (after Commons:Welcome) a new user is asked to read. My points are explained in more detail on its talk page, but I just wanted to raise awareness of the issue here.
In short, I believe the page is a bit bloated, and contains info a fresh user need not be familiar with. —UED7723:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Well as I pointed it out on the talk page I am aware of the amount of text and will split it later. But please leave it as it is now as it is much easier writing these topics into one article and then later making a tutorial with sub pages for each chapter, so that everyone can skip those he don't need. Arnomane00:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. I missed it before; it was in the translated part, was it not? Alright, the split can wait. I withdraw my proposal as of now. —UED7715:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorising pictures by years
User:Hailey C. Shannon has been categorising pictures into various years. For example Image:Bowral3JasmineStreet.jpg into Category:2006 and many other similar edits. While some pictures are appropriately classified into the year they were taken, that is they are of a significant event in that year, others like the house in Bowral are not. I posted to the user's talk page on 21 March and although she has edited since, she has ignored my request for enlightenment. I don't think that many of her edits are appropriateand she has made several hundred similar edits. Any views?--AYArktos23:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Year might be a category for a media. But having all media categorized into years, thats not a good idea. --Huebi10:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Huebi and AYArktos. There is a use for year tagging for special photos. The photos I have seen tagged this way were good expressions of this IMO- eg Truman announcing capitulation of Japan. Others more obscure Image:Ford - Brezhnev 1974.jpg- but it was a summit and a noted event for 1974 as continuity with the detente policy. However until Category search allows database ANDing of categories, broader use has very limitted utility. At that time, I can see some pretty interesting things- like show me photographic images of WWI from 1914 compared with those from 1917. The stark difference between the expressions on the men's faces speaks volumes.... For this sort of category search scenario, you have to have everything date tagged. -Mak02:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upload a photo from another wikipedia
Hi, I would appreciate if somebody could upload the picture de:Bild:Karte_marburg_in_deutschland.png to commons. It has GNU licence. I was going to use the File upload service but I find stupid to download a foto from wikipedia and then send it back to you. For the next time, wich is the better procedure to follow if I want a picture from another wikipedia to be uploaded in commons? (and wich has a open licence, of course). Thank you! ca:Usuari:Xtv
Because Special:Upload only works if you are uploading an image from your own computer, you have to do just that (download it and re-upload it). Sorry. Some points:
Make sure you upload the full-res version of the image, not the thumbnail that appears on the image description page (if it's a large image).
Make sure you specify which GNU license, as they have several: GFDL, GPL, LGPL.
Be sure to copy any relevant uploader information from the image description page on de:. Especially source. Don't just say "from de.wikipedia" -- link to the original image page.
Mark the original image page to note that the image is now available on Commons. There is probably a template to do this. On en.wp it is called {{NowCommons}} (i.e, the image is not availble at Commons).
Yes, keep all three. How do you want to find out which one is "genuine"? By guessing? Unless you can actually compare it with the original, there is no way to determine which one is the closest in colors. You'd need the original painting and a calibrated monitor. Those pictures all probably all scanned from catalogues, everyone with their own color errors, so none of them can be said to be "genuine". And the ones from The Yorck Project can't be said to be better than others, in fact. I've removed the redundancy tags, because I think this request is simply nonsensical. --Fb7810:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We need some tag that says "these images basically show the same subject, but they're not 'redundant' so don't delete any of them". Because if you run across one version of an image you would like to know that other versions exist, so you can choose what you consider the best one. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This idea has been raised a few times, and I thought recently that the best way to define slideshows for images would be to link them to the existing <gallery> feature/function/syntax/thing. If you have some ideas about implementing this, feel free to comment on the bug. Thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
in a way, that no commercialuse is posible. So these picture had to deletet normaly. But the source-page [9] doesn't say something about non-commerce. Which license would be the right one, or muss we delete these picture? --DaB.14:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the source page only says that you can "use these images to represent OpenBSD in a positive light". That doesn't say that arbitrary uses are allowed, and it doesn't say anything about modified versions. User:dbenbenn20:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they get an article, how do we do "Animals by country"? Eg Elephas, has some pics from Sri Lanka, some from Thailand, etc. Do I add the whole article to Category:Animals of Thailand, or just the individual pics?
No!!!! (*wails*) No more projects!! No more "things I said I'd help out with"! No more stuff on my mental ToDo list after I stopped adding to my WP list because it got too long! But, er, thanks for the link. :-) JackyR15:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous notice on top pushing page down
Hi everybody. It seems that, to anonymous users, there seems to be an empty linebreak or div tag that's pushing the entire page down by just a little. I suspect that there is an in MediaWiki:Anonnotice. It would be great if this could be fixed, since it's pretty annoying to read pages on this site when there's always a gap between the top of the page and the content. --85.147.58.21219:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See at Template talk:Deleted duplicate this comment: "I added class="description AB" around all the translations. Now with User:Dbenbenn/monobook.css, for example, I see only the English text. User:dbenbenn 17:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)"
If we put the code in User:Dbenbenn/monobook.css at the different MediaWiki:monobook.css/LC the template appears only at the language selected be the user.
The code at Template:Deleted duplicate can and must be improved, but I think it's a good point to start.
By the way, a couple of questions
#does MediaWiki:monobook.css/en work?#If you are not registered (you have no language preferences set, does MediaWiki:monobook.css/en affect you, or only the general MediaWiki:monobook.css (Doesn't exist language css)
Please don't put dbenbenn's code in the sitewide CSS unless there is a way to overrride it. A nightmare for translators! Note also that it's not foolproof. It will only hide {{en|this style of template}} not {{English}} this style. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the "manual" internationalization for now, like it is done for Template:PD-Art, for example. Selectively hiding stuff using CSS or JS trickery will lead to problem - note for instance that the HTML code generated for image description pages will be transcluded to other projects, and have to work there too!
Using "subpages" like Template:PD-Art/de has the advantage that we can some day (hopefully) move to a system of automatically internationalized template using the same mechanism we currently have for MediaWiki messages. -- Duesentrieb(?!)13:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use this template directly! This is just for translation.Template:PD-Art/de
Because it is useful to have "main" template that is used for inclusion. English is the lingua franca here, so it makes sense to show it per default. Also, if people include their localized templates, it becomes useless as a machin readable marker (think of "what links here" as a simple example - external tools also often use templates to run queries). Furthermore, changing categories associated with the template, or changing the wording, etc, should always happen in the "main" template first, taking effect immediately everywhere. Translations can be adjusted in time, just like we do it with policy pages.
Basically, having several templates for the same thing is a bad idea. Having translation pages for one template makes sense. Thus, the localized subpages should not be considered to be "real" templates. -- Duesentrieb(?!)12:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: when (if) we get automated template localization (like for MediaWiki messages), all direct uses of localized template versions would have to be changed by hand. In contrast, uses of the "main" template would simply work: they would show the language the user has selected in his/her prefferences. -- Duesentrieb(?!)12:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:( But is there any idea that that is even happening? In the meantime, if I know a user speaks German (he writes a summary in German), it seems really silly for me to write him a message via template in English. For the copyright tags, that's one thing. But for the user warnings I really don't think I can follow this advice. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oh, you are talking about things that are used with subst and intended to be a direct message to one user. In that case, yes, use the localized version that the user understands. I was talking about "tag" taype templates. -- Duesentrieb(?!)16:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Through the use of these tags, bits of English language are entering the non-English-language Wikipedias. Would it be that bad for the English-speaking people to find bits of Spanish or German or Japanese on their Wikipedia ?
when (if) we get automated template localization (like for MediaWiki messages) Everything that can be made to turn Commons into a lingua-franca-less space is a good idea. Teofilo10:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bits in other languages are not a problem. Huge blocks with messages in dozens of languages are a problem. CSS/JS-based hacks are a big problem, because they may interfere with similar hacks active on another project. If we do that, we have to make sure it works with all 650 wikimedia projects. -- Duesentrieb(?!)11:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When i first came here, i had lots of troubles navigatin through all the categories, finding my way tot the top level and back down again. The tree from daniel tools helps a lot ofcourse, but i think this: Breadcrumbthing will also help. I like your feedback on this, and i think it can be implemented in all categorys... GeeKaa<><10:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a lot of work to do this by hand for all categories - and if the structure changes some steps "up" the path, hundreds of category pages would have to be changed. Also, categories often have more than one parent category... the path to the root is aften a tree, too. Perhaps an extension could be written for showing the shortest path to the root in this way - but i'm not sure it's possible to do this in a way that is efficient enough to be usable on big projects like commons or major wikipedias. -- Duesentrieb(?!)12:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are hundreds of category pages this sort of category navigation is needed, in order to find a category you need. I spend lots of time finding the correct category and sometimes i just cant find it. That is why i suggested this. It would be nice if an extension could be written to do this... GeeKaa<><13:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An improvement to category navigation is needed, yes. I'm not sure a hand-maintained template system is a good solution. I'm also not sure that a list of parent categories is really useful... in my experience, broad categories can be found easily, while it is tricky to find the most specific one that fits your needs. Duesentrieb(?!)13:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ACK Duesentrieb. The problem is moving down, not up. Some tool to "see into" categories is definitely needed. They are still virtually impenetrable. I find that actually searching (in the search box) for likely candidates is often quicker than trying to navigate the category system. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:P it doesn't say useful things like how many entries a category has. It might be more useful if it showed a random image or two, so you can literally 'see' into it. But I think you have many pressing tools to work on. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on the nl:wiki we use this breadcrumbthing a lot, and it helps me finding categorys on the same level in another branch.. But ofcourse, without the help and support from others... I'll leave it for now... when someone has a good idea...? GeeKaa<><14:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This "breadcrumb" thing just shows the parent categories at the top of the category. I really don't see how it helps to have that information at the top as well as at the bottom of a category. User:dbenbenn16:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If yes, not only this message could be available in all the languages, but also all the wikipedias would be able to redirect the "Upload file" link in their left column to htpp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload/XX where the translated message would also contain an explanation that in some cases you need to upload in the native wikipedia and the link to http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload
This way, the inappropriate upload to a language-specific wikipedia will finaly die.
It is already in french. Just switch your interface language to french and you will see it... The problem is that it is currently not possible for anonymous users changing it (ok you can give the language via a ?-variable but it will switch back to English for the next page). Currently devs aren't really interested in changing the default according to browser settings of anonymous users. So we know that it is cool and want it too but tell this to the developers... Perhapes they will start listening at some point. Arnomane19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, when and if the browser can auto-detect the language, using a language dependant URL would not be needed, but perhaps we don't have to wait until then.
20:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
No your idea won't help you. fr.wikipedia simply needs to change their upload link to our upload link in order to have a central upload link. Arnomane21:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.png)
An independent internal news bulletin for the members of the Wikimedia community
Wp-ausstellung-1.png
Rhoen Lange Rhoen mg-k.jpg
Orchis ustulata wiki mg-k03.jpg
This is a video in Ogg Theora format taken by author, post-processed with tovid and converted to Theora format with ffmpeg2theora.
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AAnnie_IP%27s_Ready_for_dinner_Cat.jpg&diff=1509749&oldid=1507019){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](http://www.sodipodi.com/clipart/flags/batasuna.svg){kind=link}
