Commons:Village pump/Archive/2008/03

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Village Pump archives
+ J F M A M J J A S O N D
2004 Not available 09 10 11 12
2005 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2006 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2016 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2017 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2020 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2021 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2022 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2023 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2024 01 02 03 04 Not available yet

Message on image talk pages[edit]

This question is only indirectly linked to Commons. Basically I'm wondering if it's possible to create a message thats displayed on every page inte the Image talk namespace (even if it's not yet created). The reason for this is that we on sv.wiki still get people posting comments on the local talk pages of images which are now on Commons. A message saying leave any comments on the commons talk page (with link to it) would facilitate a lot. /Lokal_Profil 11:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's possible through a MediaWiki system message, but I wouldn't know how to implement that. - Rocket000 18:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems as though someone has developed a .js script which redirects the tabs to Commons (if there is no local page). That might work for now. Thanks anyway. /Lokal_Profil 00:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They really should have those image links redirect to the Commons page (unless there's a local copy of course). - Rocket000 04:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution tag missing?[edit]

Today I stumbled over 6 images by Kay Chernush dealing with human trafficking (Image:9.000919 Pattaya streetscene5.jpg, Image:10.3010 Torino-nightlife.v2.jpg, Image:11.02450 Brothel-girls-11.jpg.gif, Image:8.0995 Pattaya.jpg, Image:3.2519 Nepalese-mother1.jpg, Image:HongKongStreetSignTrafficking.jpg). The source website[1] from where they are taken states: You do not have to contact the State Department in order to use the photos in this Web site (tipphotos.state.gov), but they must be used with the credit: "Kay Chernush for the U.S. State Department."

Wouldn't that mean that these images should carry an “attribution tag” ? Currently they are only categorized as “PD US DOS”. -- Túrelio 13:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain means there is no rights reserved whatsoever. Including attribution. What they're doing is requesting attribution, which makes no difference legally, so the PD tag is enough. - Rocket000 23:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Legally may be, in case these images really are PD. But that is quite questionable. They were tagged PD by the uploader, the photographer[2] isn't an employee of the US government and all the images on the original website (go to [3] and click on sexual exploitation) carry a copyright caption ((C) Kay Chernush) on their right side. But even if they stay PD there remains the question whether we shouldn't honor this request as a sort of saying thanks for providing these images. -- Túrelio 07:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Europe, where moral rights are acknowleded, those rights never end, and they are inalienable. That means that if we know the author, we are bound to credit him, even if he had been dead since antiquity. So, PD does not negate the moral rights. --MPorciusCato 07:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what moral rights mean. Some authors don't even want to be attributed or can transfer the rights (which means it's not inalienable). Plagiarism may violate moral rights but not simply leaving out attribution. If that was the case, what would be the point of CC-BY? There would be no reason to state that attribution is required if it always was by "moral rights". - Rocket000 18:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued on Commons talk:Licensing#Are these images really PD US?. -- Túrelio 08:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"published" template[edit]

A new template has been created, {{Published}}, meant to be placed on images that have been used in a media publication. See Image talk:Absinthe-glass.jpg for an example. Just letting everyone know in case there are objections/comments. jwillbur 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How very neat. Time is using the content here. Thanks for the template. Patstuart (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about placement on the image description page itself vs. on the talk page for more visibility? Or either way? I noticed though that the template tends to "stick" to the bottom of the Information template, so a <br> tag helps provide separation. BrokenSphere 23:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea! Why haven't we had that yet...
I think it is definitely better on the talk page. Image pages are crowded enough. Suits the talk page better. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it's kind of neat anytime an image is used outside of Wiki -- not just for media. Perhaps a more generic template with an additional parameter where one could enter "media", "journal", "blog", "website", etc... --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 15:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uploaders[edit]

Certain Wikimedia projects, like the english wikipeda, allow their users to upload images locally, outside of Commons. Sometimes such images are uploaded that way because they would not be compatible here (such as fair use), but in other cases they can be here, and so should be bringed to Commons.

I understand the reason why the original uploader has to be credited when it is an image done by him. More than the uploader, he is the creator, and it must be noted that he release the image under a free licence at such place.

But what about images uploaded locally that are in the public domain anyway, despite who has happen to be the uploader? For example, images with copyright expired, or released under a free license by someone who is outside wikimedia projects. Does it make any sense to fill the "Source", "Date" and "Author" sections with details of the previous upload at the other project rather than the real creation? Is it needed to credit such original uploader at all? Thialfi 16:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For copyright purposes, it's only necessary to state the original source information. For our project purposes, however, providing details of previous locations and uploaders can be useful, for example if the source information is ever called into question. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Thialfi that text created by CommonsHelper when moving images from wikipedias is very appropriate for self-made files but does not fit PD files well. Even worse, filling all the "Source", "Author", "Date" fields with details about uploader makes it harder to notice that files that need sources and/or author to claim PD status do not have any of the required information. I usually combine info from 3 fields into something like "Uploaded on (date) to (which) Wikipedia by (user)" and add it as a bullet to the sources, or leave it only in the "Original upload log" section. I think that it would be nice to have a version of CommonsHelper for PD files that would produce text where uploader is not mentioned 4 times. I also agree with LX that at least one place about previous location should be kept, but "Original upload log" section should be enough. --Jarekt 20:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2[edit]

Licensing of a Screen Shot[edit]

What is the licensing of a screen shot? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.242.233 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't crosspost the same question in multiple locations. It leads to duplication of work for others. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long or short scales[edit]

Have I to use the long or the short scale here in Commons?--Uwe W. 15:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the most part I have seen people use the American (short) scale. For very large numbers, to avoid confusion, you could use scientific notation. I don't think we have a rule on it. I suppose if you were creating an image for a particular wiki you should use whatever numbering makes sense on that wiki. The English wiki generally uses short scale. -Nard 15:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mass CheckUsage[edit]

How can I do "CheckUsage" for lot of pictures in one moment? I know, that checking spend lot of time, but I don't have to click on each picture and wait, i click once and than wait for long time. ;) --Jagro 16:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno if it's what you were hoping for, but using tabbed browsing works wonders for stuff like that (for me, at least). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same question for me: if you have uploaded hundreds of images, you don't want to spend hours to have an idea which images are really used. A use counter for each image would already be nice. --Foroa 17:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go to CheckUsage, and then click on the "bulk mode..." link towards the bottom. Only problem is that it sorts by wiki, rather than by image (but if you use the "raw output" option you could write a script to re-sort the results.) --dave pape 18:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUsage seems only be available when on an image. How to check all my pictures ? --Foroa 20:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok this made me think. Here is how I did it:
  1. Go to the gallery from Your User page
  2. Choose "Format: TSV (Tabs)" and click load
  3. Now that gives you 25 entries only, so remove the "&max=25" from the URL and hit enter
  4. Now save the result as a txt file (e.g. my-commons.txt)
  5. on Linux open a terminal and run "cut -f3 my-commons.txt > my-commons-cut.txt" (on windows you have to find a way of extracting the 3rd column of that output)
  6. go to Check Usage Bulk Mode
  7. open my-commons-cut.txt, copy all the contents and paste them into the "Images to check:" Box
  8. hit "Check Usage" (If you want more than a 100 hits per wiki you'll have to choose raw mode)
Now how requested is this feature? should I write a bash script or some lines of php for it?
BTW Remember that such queries can be quite heavy on the tool server especially if you have 100s of images or very popular images so be respectful (thanks ToolServer Guys!)
If you have heavier queries you might want to check out The query Service

--Inkwina 22:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I tried with 750 images. Imported the TSV file in excel. Copy/paste the right column back in Check usage bulk mode. After 4 minutes, I got all the results I wanted (179 articles). A bit clumsy, but very nice indeed. Might be a bit heavy on the server, so maybe the toolservers could maintain per image a total count displayed in gallery. Updating such counters once or twice a month should be sufficient. Thanks again. --Foroa 18:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How peculiar. I just tried the exact same thing - and then I read this. Did it the exact same way, but it works as you say, although clumsy. Just takes a few minutes. The output was very interesting (for me). -- Slaunger 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad someone brought this up. Did what Foroa said by using Excel to extract the image names from the output. I did notice a few caveats:
  • The results include all your uploads. This will likely go without saying, but I've migrated a lot into Commons from en, however I personally don't keep track of them like I do with photos I've taken or images I found myself and uploaded directly here.
  • The Check Usage Bulk Mode can only handle up to 1,000 images at a time max. I had to run 2 separate searches to check all my uploads.
BrokenSphere 19:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all, “bulk mode” is that I look for... Output isn't very good, but, it's better than nothing... ;) On the Internet I found one tool, which can do CheckUsage for lot of pictures, but it's very, very slow... However output of this tool is better than output of Wiki CheckUsage...--Jagro 20:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That handled all my uploads in one go, but does take a very long time to run; my query of nearly 1,200 images looks like it will take a few hours. The Bulk Mode results, while not pretty as it's a text format, are a little more useful as they only show positive results. Although this directly links to the instances of use, it still lists the zero hits. BrokenSphere 21:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am very happy with the results of Check usage bulk mode and the way it presents its results (an option to save the results would be handy and could save on toolserver system time). I am mainly interested where my images are used and how the used ones are deeper categorised. From that I learned how I should shoot more detailed photo's on some aspects and how I can better categorise some of the images. Although the system to retrieve that type of information could be made less clumsy, so far my basic needs are fulfilled. --Foroa 07:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries in templates[edit]

Sorry, I can't figure out how to make the image gallery work in {{VISC}}. Can anyone have a look to see if they can spot what I'm doing wrong? Adam Cuerden 23:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that if you replace the pipe character (|) with the pipe template {{!}} in the embedded gallery it will work. It does probably not work now because the {{#if:}} special function interpretes the pipe characters as a parameter seperator. -- Slaunger 08:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried working with it, and I agree it is not that simple. The hint I gave is not the right one. I am stuck with these issues too. -- Slaunger 20:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 29[edit]

Important policy discussion[edit]

There is an important policy discussion involving a discrepancy in our policies occurring at Commons_talk:Licensing#Source_country_and_U.S.. All who are willing please join and comment. Patstuart (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 3[edit]

Main categories[edit]

Is there a page which gives an overview about what the main categories are on Commons? NL-Romaine 13:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's Commons:Categories. I don't know if that's what you're looking for but you can also check out Category:CommonsRoot to see how things are at the top. - Rocket000 13:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commonsroot is helping me much, thanks!! NL-Romaine 16:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spotting duplicate ogg files[edit]

Does Wikimedia automatically spot duplicate ogg files? Seems like the following are duplicates, and I was wondering why they weren't automatically spotted:

This seems to be a duplicate of this.

This seems to be a duplicate of this.

This seems to be a duplicate of this.

This seems to be a duplicate of this.

This seems to be a duplicate of this.

This seems to be a duplicate of this.

I've been told that file matching is extremely easy (you calculate a hash, store it into a list, and look for collisions). Has this been done for oggs? Is this the right place to ask?Ferrylodge 04:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see whether I can run a hash comparison on Commons. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.Ferrylodge 21:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your list of duplicates, Bryan. I didn't notice your list until just now, even though you posted it a few days ago. So, what's the next step? Is someone going to delete the duplicates? I'd be glad to help if someone tells me what to do.Ferrylodge 15:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm gradually placing duplicate tags.Ferrylodge 18:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checiloc[edit]

File:Checiloc.png

Does anyone knows this woman?! --88.64.94.110 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No clue, and the image isn't used on any projects except Commons. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 4[edit]

Scans and scanning[edit]

I recently mentioned that we seem to have no page for scans here at Commons:Deletion requests/Images from Darwin Online, though that's hardly the best place to discuss it. I'm a novice at scanning and can offer little advice of my own, but I think we should have an official how-to/help page for people looking at uploading scans - copyright issues with scans, techniques for getting good scans and manipulating the images afterwards etc. I suggest creating something at Commons:Scanning or help:scans etc (with appropriate redirects). Richard001 05:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very knowledgeable about scanning engravings. A good percentage of the Engraving FPCs are mine. Adam Cuerden 06:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to start such a page then? Is there anything remotely similar to what I'm proposing, even something broader that only briefly touches on scans? Richard001 20:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a great idea, please do start such a page. Probably worth mentioning it over at Wikisource too. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Also mention very basic things (such as using a black matte paper to avoid having the text from the other side shining through when scanning from a book), and include pointers to post-scanning clean-up guides such as Commons:Pearson Scott Foresman. Oh, I see you're coming to this from here, so you knew that already :-) Lupo 09:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure =) I'll start on it when I'm back from my walk. Adam Cuerden 09:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Scanning First draft, may have missed what people really need to know. Well, see what you think. Adam Cuerden 14:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work :) - Rocket000 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard for / Advertising of cats?[edit]

Is there a place where new categories or cats related to current events can be "announced", in order to ease categorizing?
In case that would be the Village pump, may I introduce you to
Category:Emma 2008 (storm) for media related to storm Emma, and to
Category:Commons as a media source for images on Commons that have been used or published outside of Wikimedia projects.
-- Túrelio 13:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, such a billboard would be agood idea. Preferrably advertised on our main page and other prominent pages. There are other things that could profit from more advertising, e.g. Commons:Pearson Scott Foresman... Lupo 09:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could just have some "In the news" categories linked on the main page. Change them as stuff happens. hmm, a good idea indeed... let me tinker a bit :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made Template:News in media. I planned to put some Wikinews links after each category but I didn'd any obvious recent ones straight away. I think this could be a nice small way to collaborate with Wikinews and benefit both projects. Please play around with it and see what you can do. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@pfctdayelise, your new template is an additional good idea. My intent (of a "billboard" for new cats) was primarily directed at our contributors: for example in the Emma case, the unexperienced ones who come with some photos of the damage done by that storm, but don't know or understand our categorization; in the "Commons as a media source" case for all, to raise awareness to record/notify any outside use of Commons images and then to feed it back into that category. -- Túrelio 07:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of the category "billboard", but I fear it will suffer from lack of updates and soon die. That is what I notice so far with other similar ideas. They are difficult to keep maintained. So always, you can try, but it is a hard thing... pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of images from Wikipedia because "pull images already in Commons"[edit]

I notice User:BrokenSphere has been removing images from Wiki articles for the above reason. I am unsure why and was under the impression that the Commons was the preferred place to upload images etc. Is this correct? L-Bit 05:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like BrokenSphere is removing images from pages that have too many (such as a gallery) and placing a link to the galleries on Commons. I know many feel that galleries don't belong on Wikipedias. This is a good thing for Commons as it brings users here where all the projects can work together to build the best galleries. - Rocket000 06:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is policy on the English Wikipedia that we are not a dump of images or galleries, so we either have a template to direct users here or transwiki everything. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of restating what Rocket000 and Zscout370 said, image galleries serve very little encyclopedic purpose, though there are exceptions. In 99% of the cases, presenting only a few images and directing the reader to Commons is the preferred method of presentation. Is there a specific article you're talking about? EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Evula, yes, the page which brought to me this policy is [4]. Of course I have a vested interest in this action. There are a number of images I have uploaded, one in particular is widely referred to (to my gratification)and I felt that adding images to articles was akin to "pictures paint a thousand words". But, I am also keen to play by the rules of Wikipedia in the assumption that those who define the rules know best. But as a bridge between: keeping encyclopaedic articles accurate and succinct, and having media which exhibit the article; an obvious link to such media would be better. My issue is that now I have added my image (aka media) to Commons, it is essentially now an orphan to "Wikipedians". In colloquial terms; Have I got the wrong end of the stick? L-Bit 06:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who uses Konqueror?[edit]

I need someone who uses Konqueror on some Linux variant, knows Javascript at least a little, knows how to track problems in Javascript on Konqueror, and who is ready to invest a couple of hours trying to track down a (minor) problem with the new upload form design. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a Linux installation with Konqueror, and the experimental Windows-version of Konqueror has so many bugs that any testing is impossible. So I really need someone who can help me with this. Lupo 10:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could use Knoppix, to try Konqueror on Linux, without installing Linux. --rimshottalk 10:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... interesting. I don't quite see off-hand how they can boot Linux off a CD and run applications without interfering with the Windows file system on my harddisk. And how would I tell that Knoppix thingy to connect to my WiFi access point, so that I could get into the Internet and actually reach the Commons? Also, the latest image available for download is from January 2007, so I guess it won't have the latest Konqueror (which apparently would be 3.5.8). Lupo 16:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the great thing with Knoppix, it just works. No interference with the Windows file system necessary. This means, obviously, that no settings are saved. However, you have full access to the Windows partitions. As for the Internet settings: there is some configuration program which works quite nicely, but I don't recall its name. Connecting with wires is easier, so if you can, I'd recommend that. --rimshottalk 16:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. A new Knoppix version is set to come out soon, and it will have KDE 3.5.8 --rimshottalk 17:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To answer my own question from above: it appears they avoid interfering with my existing file system by just using good ol' ramdisks instead. Should've thought of that! Knopper's paper from 2001 is quite interesting. Lupo 22:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, tried Knoppix, and all I got was a computer that talked to me in English (something about "sequence started"), but that showed me a black screen and was utterly unresponsive. Hardware detection went well, but then the XWindows session apparently failed to come up. So much for that... so, I'm still looking for someone who uses Konqueror and who could help track down that Javascript problem. Lupo 23:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image?[edit]

Wikimedia commons is a "medialibrary", where we collect media to be used to the different wikipedias. On wikimedia commons different file formats are acceptable, for example png, jpg and gif. But also .ogg is an acceptable file format, and it is, also, used quite often. You often see films and pictures on commons, that are named "Image:XXX.ogg", where the word image don't fit very well. My question is simply: Why not use "Media:XXX.ogg" and "Media:XXX.jpg" instead of Image:? //moralist 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a legacy technical issue. It could be fixed the way you suggest, but a lot of work would be required. [[Media:Example.jpg]] is actually different from [[Image:Example.jpg]]. The first goes to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Example.jpg (note: this url can change), and the second to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Example.jpg. Many templates and such rely on the first kind of link. If Image: pages became Media: pages, Media: would need to become something new, like MediaURI: and that would require cross-Wikimedia template fixes. Superm401 - Talk 20:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okey, thanks for your answer. If it is so much work changing, I guess it is not worth it. //moralist 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But really the Image: name is a bit daft as more and more media isn't Images. Even DjVu isn't quite an Image file! Has it ever been considered to have separate namespaces for each 'kind' of media? Stream: for ogg, Music: for Lillypond scores, Chart: for gnuplot output, Tome: for DjVu etc... is it even remotely feasible? Just curious --Inkwina (talk • contribs) 22:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is an open bug request to rename the Image namespace to File. 'Image' is just a historical oddity really. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

I would like to ask for help. There is a user of the commons: Luism1519, who is uploading repetitively images without the proper licence information and claiming these are his own work. As you can check in his history, I and another commons user submitted speedy deletion for the pictures but he insist and uploads again. I dont want to be a police, but for me is so complicated to upload pictures with the proper licence according to wikipedia rules, that I get upset of seeing how a user doesn't want to learn about the correct way of doing it. I would like to ask for helpabout this problem, and I suggest to cancel his commons account ad delete the files he claims are his own work (which i reported and found in a different web site). C arango 20:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try reporting this at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. They will be able to see the deleted pages, and decide whether a block (for repeatedly violating policy) is warranted. Superm401 - Talk 20:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 5[edit]

Redundant maintenance cats[edit]

We do have the largely redundant cats
Category:Images lacking a description, that currently has only 5 files, and
Category:Media lacking a description, that has several thousands of files, mostly images, very few PDFs.
For those who are interested in this, would you prefer to merge the nearly empty Category:Images lacking a description into Category:Media lacking a description or to make Category:Images lacking a description a subcat of Category:Media lacking a description? The latter would require a recategorization of all images from Category:Media lacking a description to Category:Images lacking a description. -- Túrelio 07:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use original spellings for proper names[edit]

I just came accross Category:Dmitry Medvedev and Dmitry Medvedev and I am wondering why these are having english titles? I have been believing the commons repository has switched from predominantly English to a true mulitlingual site, but that does not seem to me to be so?

I suggest to rename the abovementioned to Дмитрий Анатольевич Медведев, or Дмитрий Медведев if you want it short, and have each other spelling or transliteration redirect to them.

Said a bit more formally: I suggest to name, or rename, page titles reflecting real world proper names of all kinds to their spelling, and script, of origin. In rather rare cases of doubt, uncertainty, or when there is a choice (e.g. in Serbian, Khasak, Kurdi, and some other languages), select (1) the most often used variant, (2) the one that is most widely understood, (3) the one posing least technical problems to the largest possible readership, (4) let the creator of a page or category decide – whichever gives the first clear decision. I also suggest to exempt historic names of largely unused and unsupported scripts from this rule, so as not to force everyone into e.g. installing hieroglyphs on their computers; rather stick to either english, or todays names in the respective cultures, for these. --Purodha Blissenbach 09:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK Pages shall reside under the correct, original name with redirects. Categories are fine under a english transcription. Regards, Code·is·poetry 10:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teatre-Museu Dalí (Figueres)[edit]

Isn't there any copyright problems for some pictures in that cat? Exterior photographs of the building are OK because of FOP in Spain. But not indoor pictures. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the interior shots such as Image:Museu dali interior.jpg are not ok. Lupo 11:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's what I meant. I launched a DR for those cases. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:John Bosco" to "Category:Don Bosco"[edit]

The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Happy New Chinese Year Wikipedians (February 9, the Rat Year).

I am trying to give order to the material related to Don Bosco and the Salesian Family. It has a Category entitled "John Bosco". That is the official name in English of "Giovanni Bosco" that is an Italian. The importance of the character made that his name is translated in all the languages (the Salesians are in 128 nations around the world). In this case, his name is internationally known as "Don Bosco". In this case, what is correct is to give such name to the Category. I requested it on 3 February. As there was not answer I proceed to create the Category "Don Bosco", but it was relocated. I think it is better to make a votation about, due to the importance of the character. --AlbeiroR24 03:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I oppose the move. The changes made by AlbeiroR24 were made unilaterally. The categories are fine as they are and are compliant with the language policies on the commons.
also, if you look at bs:Ivan Bosco, bg:Боско, Иоанн, ca:Sant Joan Bosco, cs:Jan Bosco, da:Giovanni Bosco, de:Johannes Bosco, en:John Bosco, es:Juan Bosco, fr:Jean Bosco, ko:요한 보스코, hr:Sveti Ivan Bosco, id:Yohannes Bosco, it:San Giovanni Bosco, la:Iohannes Bosco, lt:Šv. Jonas Boskas, hu:Bosco Szent János, nl:Giovanni Bosco, ja:ヨハネ・ボスコ, no:Johannes Bosco, pam:Giovanni Melchiorre Bosco, pms:Giovanni Bosco, pl:Jan Bosko, pt:João Bosco (santo), ro:Ioan Bosco, ru:Боско, Иоанн, sq:Giovanni Melchior Bosco, sk:Giovanni Melchior Bosco, sl:Sveti Janez Bosco, fi:Giovanni Bosco, sv:Giovanni Bosco, th:นักบุญยอห์น บอสโก, uk:Боско, Иоанн, vi:Gioan Bosco, zh:若望•鮑思高 - no one uses Don Bosco. Evrik 15:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidences by AlbeiroR24:
  1. "The changes made by AlbeiroR24 were made unilaterally": Category talk:John Bosco --> "Please an administrator to rename this category as "Don Bosco" that is the real international name. "John Bosco" is the English translation and it is not understood for Non-English speakers (the real name was Italian "Giovanni Bosco"), but Don Bosco is well known in the five continents. Thanks. --El Viajero Paisa 14:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)".[reply]
  2. Your answer: "Oppose The name is fine as it is as it complies with current language policy. Evrik 14:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)".
  3. "no one uses Don Bosco"; let us see:
it:San Giovanni Bosco: "Giovanni Bosco (Castelnuovo Don Bosco, 16 agosto 1815 – Torino, 31 gennaio 1888) è stato un presbitero e pedagogo italiano. Commemorato come santo dalla Chiesa cattolica è meglio conosciuto come don Bosco." (tr.en: "John Bosco (...) best known as Don Bosco".
pt:João Bosco (santo): "São João Melchior Bosco SDB, em italiano Giovanni Melchior Bosco, popularmente conhecido como Dom Bosco, (Castelnuovo d'Asti, 16 de Agosto de 1815 — Turim, 31 de Janeiro de 1888) foi um sacerdote católico italiano, canonizado em 1934".
es:Juan Bosco: "Juan Melchor Bosco o Don Bosco (en italiano Giovanni Melchior Bosco) (I Becchi, 16 de agosto de 1815 - Turín, 31 de enero de 1888) fue un sacerdote católico, educador y escritor italiano del siglo XIX."
sq:Giovanni Melchior Bosco: "Giovanni Melchior Bosco (Gjovani Melkior Bosko, 16 gusht, 1815, Kastelnuovo Don Bosko - 31 janar, 1888, Torino) njihet më mirë me emrin Don Bosko (...)"
en:John Bosco: "Saint John Bosco, born Giovanni Melchiorre Bosco, and known in English as Don Bosco"
  1. Evrik said "no one uses Don Bosco" --> mistaken conclusion, linking articles without reading them, unknowing the subject or manipulation intention.
  2. English version said: "Saint John Bosco, born Giovanni Melchiorre Bosco, and known in English as Don Bosco" --> The English version assumes that "John Bosco" is known in English as Don Bosco.

--AlbeiroR24 01:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category name is in accordance with policy (no matter how bonkers the policy may seem to many). For comparison Richard Lionheart is best known as Richard the Lionheart or Richard Coeur-de-Lion but category is Category:Richard I of England. William the Conqueror/Guillaume le Conquérant is in Category:William I of England. Category:John Bosco doesn't seem much of a hardship by comparison. Man vyi 06:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've read "John Bosco" for Don Bosco the first time in my life (50+) and if I would search for images related to Don Bosco I would never use John Bosco. -- Túrelio 10:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"William I of England doesn't seem much of a hardship by comparison": Poor comparison --> William I of England did not found a Congregation that were today in 127 nations with more than 80 million persons related to him. In 127 nations with more than 80 million persons - from China to USA the name is Don Bosco:

--AlbeiroR24 11:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The often quoted "the policy" probably means Commons:Language policy. It only says to use native spelling of peoples names:

type of subject policy example
people native Jeanne d'Arc, not "Joan of Arc"; exemptions: *Popes* and *Roman emperors* in Latin for names written in non-Latin scripts, use the Transliteration ¹

so Category:Giovanni Bosco might be "the policy" choice. --Jarekt 14:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That passage was about "articles", I guess that means galeries, and not categories. The whole policy on categories is that "Categories are in English", which does not help with choice between: John, Don and Giovanni, since all of them are commonly used in English. So I would like to withdrew my previous suggestions. --Jarekt 15:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment let me rephrase what I saidf earlier. No one uses Don Bosco as an article title. The current category is in corcodance with the commons policy on categories. Evrik 20:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one uses Don Bosco as an article title. Sorry to correct you Evrik, but ..
pam:Don Bosco
pms:Don Bòsch
sq:Don Bosko
-- Túrelio 20:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--> Other evidence: the official site of the Salesians of Don Bosco in its English version here (even the banner uses "Don Bosco") entitled the article about "Don Bosco" as Don Bosco. When it starts to tell the biography uses the expression "little John Bosco, just as Spanish uses Juanito Bosco, Italian Giovanino and French Petit Jean and because when John Bosco was a child he was not Don for the only reason that he was not a priest yet, but after 1841 it is only Don Bosco Forever:

" Our history began, we may say, when little John Bosco dreamed a very strange dream at the age of 9. Or we may date the origins of our society to a surprise encounter that brought him face to face with a frightened street urchin in a church sacristy on 8 December 1841. Or perhaps to the little band of 17 young men to whom Don Bosco first gave the title ‘Salesians’ on 26 January, 1854." --AlbeiroR24 02:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using Don Bosco as the category name would it make easier for people with different languages to find this cat resp. the images, because the name "Don Bosco" is known and used everywhere, whereas his firstname Giovanni (John, Johannes, etc.) differs from language to language. -- Túrelio 08:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should follow a votation on this matter. Anybody knows how we can create a votation for this subject? --AlbeiroR24 04:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the correct name is "Giovanni Bosco", the best international compromise for all languages "Don Bosco". --Foroa 10:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has a clear rule on categories: They are in English. If you don't like the rule, change it. Do not make exceptions to it based on your personal preference. Samulili 13:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bosco looks from above evidence and general usage English enough. Consensus also points that way. so probably time to change to Don Bosco? BTW, also in Flemish it is the most (if not only) used name. Lycaon 13:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samulili said "Commons has a clear rule on categories: They are in English", the English Wikipedia says "Saint John Bosco, born Giovanni Melchiorre Bosco, and known in English as Don Bosco", conclusion: The Commons rule on categories says that in this case the name is "Don Bosco", because that is the English name and, further, the international one too. AlbeiroR24

I am not saying that we have to make exceptions, just being a little bit more consequent and a bit more international oriented. Commons and the english wiki are just not consequent. When looking in en:Giovanni, there are 25 or so Giovanni's and only a small part of them are translated in the English John: not very consequent - what is the rule there ? Only a few first names are translated in English, most of the time because it has been done a century ago. In addition, some people managed to become pope, and then their name change to Pope John + nr. So Don Bosco, the name that is the most universal, would follow the same pope rule and solve the translation problem. --Foroa 13:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if we follow the rule applied to popes, we would have to use the Latin name (Popes being one of the exceptions to the Categories in English policy, e.g. Category:Ioannes Paulus II). By the way, the policy isn't that categories are consistent with en:, the policy is that categories should be in English (even if the title is in a form few English-speakers would use). Man vyi 17:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Don from dominus at en:Don (honorific)#see also and names starting with don. --Foroa 18:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I insist we should do a votation. There are many evidence that Don Bosco is the English name, so the rule is saved. --AlbeiroR24 11:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Evrik stated that User:Albeiror24 made changes "unilaterally. Even if Evrik considers it a votation-voting or not, it is the only user openly insisting in the position that "John Bosco" is the correct name according to Commons' policy. User:Túrelio tried to settle something similar, but his participation was answered and he did not replay to it. Evrik said: "Anyway, this process isn't abouting voting" --> this sentence is unclear. 202.71.46.1

Asking to move Category "John Bosco" to "Don Bosco"[edit]

Actually we do not see a resolution on the discussion of moving the Category John Bosco to Don Bosco. There were enough evidence to prove that "Don Bosco" is not only the English name but the international one. I asked also a votation to come to a conclusion in this matter.

Español: He estado solicitando que se renombre la categoría "John Bosco" como "Don Bosco", cuyo nombre es más internacional que el de "John Bosco". Algunos usuarios de habla inglesa aseguran que el nombre de la categoría como "John Bosco" obedece a la norma de Commons que dice que las categorías deben estar nominadas sólo en inglés como lengua franca. Sin embargo, se han presentado numerosas evidencias que demuestran que no sólo Don Bosco es utilizado ampliamente en el mundo inglés como el nombre inglés (confrontar la wikipedia inglesa que lo dice), sino que Don Bosco es también el nombre internacional. He solicitado una votación al respecto, pero no encuentro ninguna respuesta.

Italiano: Ho proposto che il nome della categoria "John Bosco" sia cambiato a "Don Bosco" cui nome è piu internazionale che quello di "John Bosco". Alcuni utenti anglofoni dicono che il nome della categoria "John Bosco" e devuto alla norma di Commons che dice che il nome delle categorie debbe essere soltanto inglese perche la lingua franca. Però si sono presentati evidenze abbastanza per demostrare che il nome "Don Bosco" è considerato come nome inglese (confrontare la wikipedia inglese) ed anche il nome "Don Bosco" è il piu utilizzato nel mondo. Ho chiesto una votazione al riguardo, ma ancora non c'è una risposta. --AlbeiroR24 07:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not take this to Commons:Categories for discussion, then? Man vyi 14:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment -- It is demostrated that Don Bosco is the correct name to the category naming policy, since it is the English name according to evidences. 202.71.46.1
  • Comment: Evric said that "there are not languages where the page is titeled Don Bosco" --> Let us see how true is that. Follow the next experiment of redirect pages to Don Bosco in English, Spanish, French and Italian Wikipedias:

Evrik said that Albeiror24 did the move unilaterally. Now there are seven supports to the move after clear reasons and he says that "just because there are more votes doesn't mean this is right", but he does not say why is not right in front to the reasons given to justify the move. Mathematics: 1+0=1. 1 is the evidences provided to make the move, 0 is the evidences provided not to make the move. --AlbeiroR24 15:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that:

AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. This should be taken to Commons:Categories for discussion. Evrik 15:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Category is already in Current request. --AlbeiroR24 09:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 10[edit]

__HIDDENCAT__[edit]

We have a new feature, that allows certain categories to be tagged not to show up in the category list at the bottom of an article/image.

Tim Starling wrote on the wikitech list: 

Put __HIDDENCAT__ on the category page to hide that category from the list 
at the bottom of the article pages. This feature is intended to reduce the 
clutter from maintenance categories like [[Category:Articles with 
unsourced statements since December 2007]].

This would be great for the license categories on commons. Who browses them anyways? Plus we can make explicit links from the license templates, or their description pages.

Hiding license categories would make the categorylist look a lot cleaner. --Dschwen 14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. --EugeneZelenko 15:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I went ahead and added it to a few categories. The edit to Category:Self-published work‎ took over 30 seconds. The problem is to find a level where to stop. I realized there are some fine grained license categories (below PD, and different language versions of CC), and we probably don't want to hide them all. Also with GFDL hidden, it becomes difficult to navigate the category tree upwards, since GFDL is now not only hidden on image pages, but also on the sub-category pages. --Dschwen 17:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. It would be useful to disable the feature on category pages. Superm401 - Talk 19:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've adressed that on the tech mailing list. The solution would be to apply the category hiding only for content namespaces. Let's hope that it gets changed accordingly. --Dschwen 22:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's what I was thinking. Superm401 - Talk 22:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Software update) Hidden categories are automatically categorized in Category:Hidden categories, while editing, hidden categories are shown together with the templates used, hidden categories are shown in a div element with the CSS class mw-hidden-cats-hidden which is hidden by default (display: none), in the user preferences, every user may enable display of hidden categories. With these options available, every non-content category should be hidden afaik. Regards, Code·is·poetry 10:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Does this need broader discussion though? --Dschwen 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gfdl template[edit]

Hello,

I am looking recent pics and I have the impression than there is a problem with the GFDL template.

The license specified give automatically a category in the bottom of page

  • ex : here a PD tag, category is ok
  • ex : here CC licence give a correct category but not the GFDL tag
  • ex : here only GFDL, not categorised

Is it a recent problem? Oxam Hartog 00:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see this edit. Quite a bad idea imho. Code·is·poetry 00:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I didn't see the discussion about that above Oxam Hartog 01:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it a bad idea. How is displaying categories which are redundant to the license templates useful? Who would ever click on these cat links? --Dschwen 01:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the cat was dumb, and I reverted it. -Nard 02:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Im my opinion, this whole parameter is a bad idea since it reduces transparency and browsability. Maybe I'm to confined to appreciate this idea, but this first request only hours after the change supports my opinion. Regards, Code·is·poetry 10:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't change the cat, and I wouldn't call it dumb. It's just maybe we might not want it. Personally, I think the those cats are completely useless, but who knows? Maybe the user wasn't going to use them, he just noticed they were missing and thought it was a problem. - Rocket000 13:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually parsing the categories for license info is FAR, FAR easier than trying to find the responsible template (especially when it may be wrapped up in some custom template or who knows what!) I strongly recommend to keep the categories with the templates for machine readability, at least until license templates get a lot more standardised. Another thing is category intersection, which is much better supported than category+template/whatlinkshere intersection. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake for not reading upwards. Since I presume the hidden categories are still available via the API, my comment isn't relevant. 06:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing hidden categories[edit]

Just in case people didn't notice: to unhide hidden categories, go to your preferences, select the "Misc" tab, and tick the "Show hidden categories" option. Then save. Lupo 15:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

remove cat[edit]

I am a supporter of the hiding of those categories, as soon as they appear in other category pages. But until then, while we keep them visible, I think it's important to NOT show the js-enhanced "(-)" that bears no effect, since the cat is not explicitly used in the page, but implicitly. Maybe a sort of a blacklist could be set up for MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js, what do you think? Waldir talk 10:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on this at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-HotCat.js#ignore implicit categories, please post your thoughts there. Waldir talk 17:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block Liftarn[edit]

Please block User:Liftarn for reverting category removal in Image:WelcometoIsraHELL.gif. Is there no 3 revert rule here? Yonidebest Ω Talk 12:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image protected, feel free to make a request about basically categorizing for this kind of images at Village pump or Administrators' noticeboard. --GeorgHH • talk   13:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I propose adding it to a category about fictional flags of Israel. As the current names for these fictional flag categories don't conform to our standards I have opened a discussion. Once that's over, a category for Israel can be created. --rimshottalk 14:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should only make sub-categories if they are needed, not because of POVs. One flag is not enough to justify a whole new category. - Rocket000 17:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few images that should go in such a category. Image:P Israel Flag.png, Image:Flag Israel template.gif, Image:Israel-Palestine flags.png, Image:Israel-stub-trans.png, Image:Israel-stub.png, Image:Israelfilm.png, Image:Israeli and Palestinian Flags.png and Image:KnessetDegel.png. // Liftarn
Oh ok. I see what you mean. I wouldn't call those fictional, though. They're just modified versions (which all but one will be). - Rocket000 18:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unproven accusation[edit]

Is it permissible to upload an image if the name of the image, or the caption, is an unproven accusation of a crime? This relates to . --Gerry Ashton 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you specifically involved with this? If not, I would say don't worry about it. Of course, that's just my opinion. Patstuart (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't my car. It isn't my picture. I won't be part of a project that allows unproven accusations to be thrown around. The picture goes, or I do. --Gerry Ashton 22:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, may I point out that it's not possible to identify the driver from that picture - no licence plate is visible, nor is the driver, so any attempt to verify it would necessarily impinge on the currently completely anonymous driver's privacy? Adam Cuerden 02:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The buildings seem distinctive enough for someone who lives in the area to identify the incident. --Gerry Ashton 03:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed it to Image:Crashed Honda Accord.jpg. In the future, please do not request deletion unless there's an issue with the image itself, not the name. We all got to rename files the same way. Anyone can do it. - Rocket000 04:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case there was a problem with the image name that required the image to be deleted. That is not usually the case when renaming images. Few renames require deletion because the file names are unacceptable and can not be used for some reason. Most renames are from not very good (but acceptable) names to good file names. In such cases the original file name should still lead to the renamed file so that image links from old page revisons or external links from other sites are not broken. /Ö 00:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? All renamings require deletion. They create duplicates and duplicates are speedy deleted. The difference here is the user made someone who doesn't care about the name do all the work (i.e. downloading the image, choosing a new name, re-uploading it, replacing all uses). The deletion is the very last step and the only one that takes an admin. Creating a request on COM:DEL only wastes others' time and resources. Just imagine if every {{Badname}} and {{Duplicate}} file was listed there. On a wiki, when someone has a problem with something, they should fix it. Not tell others to. - Rocket000 22:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed files should not be deleted. That will break external links to the images and intoduce red image links in old page revisions at Wikimedia projects were the images has been used. It also cause a extra work for the admins who has to do the deletions. The renamed files should be redirected to acoid such problems. /Ö 10:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 1[edit]

Image:Green Light Live.jpg[edit]

This image is licenced under cc-by. Is it possible to publish it under free condition?
The picture on the wall at the end of the stage isn't made by the author of this picture. Can you licence this picture under cc-by; moreover is this picture allowed on commons?
by D-Kuru 16:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture on the wall is a video display. I once asked if there was a copyright problems with such video displays (is there a copyright even if the video hasn't been taped nor sold?) but I've never really had any answer!!! But as far as this picture is concerned FOP may apply... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parent cat template[edit]

We often have users or IP who add some parent cat to images and it's sometimes a real pain in the ass to correct that and to make them understand that sub-cats don't exist for nothing! Therefore I was thinking it might be a good idea to create a parent cat message template. Since I don't really know what to write in it (and since English is not my mother tongue) I'm then asking if someone could create it! I'll eventually do some French translation of it. Thanks for your help. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree. I created Template:Use sub-categories and would appreciate corrections & improvements of it. TwoWings, we can write another message for people uploading large number of images to categories marked with {{OverPopCat}}--Jarekt 15:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I added a picture and a language template. I translated it in French but we'll have to ask on other village pumps to have more translations. But first we may wait for other opinions a little while because there might be other ideas to improve the text.
Actually there's something that we might need to add or enforce but I don't know how to phrase it: we have to make people understand that they shouldn't add a parent cat in addition to one of its sub-cat. I mean, for instance I tried several times to warn Lamilli and s/he doesn't seem to understand since s/he continues to add both category:Body piercing and one or more of its subcat!
As for the OverPopCat template I agree it may be useful too. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a few more modifications to Template:Use sub-categories. --Jarekt 04:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure this template is a great idea. Even a broad category is better than no category. If you have trouble getting someone to listen to you, I don't think a template will help. You can ask other people to talk to them too. If they refuse to change or explain their behaviour then an admin can step in.
Sometimes the problem comes from people using CommonSense to suggest categories, it usually suggests awful ones.
The problem of using broad categories is a different to using parent & child categories. Which problem do you want to address first? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was mainly not to waste time writing a long sentence each time we have a user doing that. Of course it won't help if the user doesn't understand the message. But the template allows us not to waste time thinking how to phrase those things and it allows to have a multiple-language warning.
a broad category is better than no category > I agree but if we warn someone who's not aware of sub-cats s/he might try to find better cats for his/her next contributions. What's more my main goal with this cat was to make people understand that it's useless to add a parent cat when there's already a sub-cat (so in that case, your argument about "broad cat better than nothing" has no value!). Also such a warning template makes the advise a bit more official so users might follow them a lot more than if it was a personal warning by an anonymous user! Hope you understand more what I wanted to do. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also such a warning template makes the advise a bit more official so users might follow them a lot more than if it was a personal warning by an anonymous user Hm... I strongly disagree on this point! Maybe they will also feel it is impersonal and pointless officialism. I reworded the template according to this function. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Pfctdayelise, this template is not really helpful. --GeorgHH • talk   11:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was imagining using this template in case of people doing mass uploads to generic categories, with or without including them also in the subcategories. If you are uncomfortable about this message can you modify it? Also maybe reserving this message to only categories labeled with {{OverPopCat}} would prevent potential overuse of this message.--Jarekt 13:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show/Hide Template[edit]

Hi! Do you guys know any template at Commons with the feature of show/hide content? I made a mistake trying to vinculate one from Wikipedia with lot of dependencies. - Enc Company Agent 15:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, and please stop importing templates from the English Wikipedia. We don't want them. We're a completely different project with different template needs. - Rocket000 16:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote all were dependencies from the same template. I'll "stop importing templates" because that template don't work if I can't modify the Commons .css file. But still I need a show/hide style template to improve other template, any ideas? - Enc Company Agent 16:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to edit MediaWiki:Common.js not CSS. - Rocket000 17:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I guess it would be both. - Rocket000 17:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, you could always use divs instead

like this. - Rocket000 17:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rocket000, thanks, that's perfect! Better than the one I was trying to use. Sorry about that before. You're really helpful. Thanks again! ^_^ - Enc Company Agent 04:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how make it by default not shown the content? - Enc Company Agent 04:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you can use style="display:none"
But can you have the arrows stay in the "NavHead", so they don't hand out of a normally close box? --Inkwina (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I couldn't get anything to work. Maybe someone with more css knowledge can fix that. Preferably via the MediaWiki page. - Rocket000 23:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 7[edit]

Valued Image Logo Draft Proposals and Valued Image Sets[edit]

Work is still progressing with launching the Valued Images project here on Commons. Recently, User:LadyofHats has submitted some nice preliminary proposed logos for Valued Images asking for directions for future work. Feel free to comment on the various suggestions here. Another new and novel aspect of the Valued Images project is the ongoing test reviews of what is called Valued Image Sets. Check them out or nominate another image (set) for test review or join the discussions about the project. -- Slaunger 22:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 8[edit]

Uploading art[edit]

I want to add some photos to Category:Fallingwater. I took them all, so it is my work - interior and exterior of the building. But this guide tells me not to upload any photographs of art. What is that? Ain't Wiki full of such photos? Can somebody please explain that to me?

It means copyrighted art. If the artwork you take a picture of is in the public domain then you can upload it. There's also freedom of panorama which, in some countries, basically means that if a building or statue is in a public place you can reproduce an image of it even if it's still protected by copyright. Hope this helps. Man vyi 13:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. thanks. Next time I will read properly.--Lykantrop 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sourcing[edit]

I'm asking this on commons, because folks here deal with this much more often than en.wikipedia.

A lot of images and media are being uploaded that are being sourced to terrorist organizations. Mostly my concern here is ALF/ELF. These are organizations willing to burlgarize and commit arson on real property. With that attitude towards real property they are unlikely to care about intellectual property. They release a lot of media to publicize their exploits. Some of this media they obviously have no right to, ie, media pictures, news video footage, etc. They claim they license all media as public domain but they obviously have no right to re-publish and re-license much of this stuff.

First q: Should Wikipedia trust this type of sourcing and licensing?
Second q: Many of the uploaders put up multiple conflicting licenses on these materials, including claims it is their own authorship. They just want any license that will "stick" on our servers without being deleted. Can these uploaders be trusted?
Third q: is there any concern that Wikipedia is being used as a free media host of propaganda for terrorist organizations?
SchmuckyTheCat
Can you indicate some examples of the uploaded material that concerns you? Man vyi 19:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, we're not going to make a special licensing policy for "terrorist" works. If you believe the stated authorship and/or licensing information of a work is invalid, please nominate it for deletion. Second, we should indeed be skeptical of uploaders that violate licensing policy. If they do so repeatedly after being warned, they should be blocked. Finally, we accept all free media that fits within project scope. Superm401 - Talk 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your last statement gets to the heart of my first question: how do you identify free media from untrustworthy sources? If an organization regularly claims non-free works as their own and re-releases it as free then how do we identify which of their material is free, and which is not, when it gets to us?
Here is an example. The Earth Liberation Front burns down some buildings. A TV crew shows up and shows live footage of the burning houses. A print cameraman takes pictures of the graffiti left behind. ELF releases statements on various websites with the recorded video of the burning house, and the pictures of the graffiti from the newspaper along with pictures and video they took themselves. They then upload ALL OF IT to Wikipedia and say "everything released by ELF is public domain". They slap on PD, CC-SA, GFDL-SELF licenses on all of it. We have no way to identify which parts of this group of uploaded material came from a free source.
My inclination is that if we cannot trust the source in its entirety, we cannot trust the source at all and it should all be deleted. SchmuckyTheCat
But where has such material been uploaded? Man vyi 06:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:ALFattackpork.JPG looks like it still has moire patterns from being scanned from print. Image:ELFLogo.gif is currently listed for speedy delete as copyvio, yet the licensing states both PD and cc-by-sa. SchmuckyTheCat
I don't see how we can make a workable blanket rule based on the subject being uploaded. For instance, while most album covers are shoot-on-sight, there are a handful that are validly donated. The easiest way to reach the relevant reviewers is to add a note to the main category of ELF images, cautioning them to be especially watchful for bogus sourcing claims. Stan Shebs 12:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not based on the subject, based on the source. ALF/ELF distribute their material through several websites. Those websites ignore copyright. When they get uploaded, should there be a higher standard of proof that the license is valid? SchmuckyTheCat

ATTN: Art lovers[edit]

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone could assist me:

  • Image no. 1: I need the plain inscription (letters and language).
  • Image no. 2: I would like to have a description of the motif (left and right).

Thanks! --Mattes 00:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No.2 : it's an Eros mounted on what is probably a dolphin (or a sea-monster, hard to say without the front part). No.1, it's a an inscription in Gothic letters, I read something like “Voyr den doyt en ys geyn schylt, dar u left als yr sterve wilt”. It looks like old Dutch. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would in modern Dutch be something like "Voor de dood is er (?) geen schuld, dat u leeft als hij sterven wilt". I have no idea whether that is correct though, schuld could also be schild. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to figure out what that means, try using [5]. First you are going to have to figure out what language it is first. If it truly is old Dutch, then you probably won't be able to translate it though.

Category:Hay bales vs Category:Straw bales[edit]

Is there any difference? Actually it's the same question for the parent cats: Category:Hay and Category:Straw. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hay and straw are two different products. The bales (whether of straw or hay) should have categories in common though. Man vyi 19:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but how could we correctly determine which are hay bales and which are straw bales?! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Hay bales" wins the Google test. Could they both be combined to just be called Category:Bales? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bales would enable us to categorise wool, cotton, silage and any other bales as well. Man vyi 07:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of Photos of Public Figures[edit]

Sorry if this has been covered before - I did have a look but couldn't find an answer. Is it OK to upload photos of photographs of former public figures (even if they are still alive) on permanent display in an Indonesian government-owned museum which has no photography restrictions?. Regards Davidelit 14:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean you are taking photos of existing photos on a wall, then the copyright that matter is that of the original photo. Do you have reason to think that the original photos have their copyright expired? If not, you should assume they are still copyrighted. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 9[edit]

Picture used without attribution and undue copyright[edit]

see here and here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.212.39.51 (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 10[edit]

Wikiwix for Commons[edit]

Hello,

We are a French company which has realized the English language Wikipedia CD in agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation (http://www.wikipediaondvd.com ). Along with this activity, we are building a search engine dedicated to Wikipedia. This search engine is only based on the community’s articles and proposes some features: 

- display of the portal, or of the category to which the article belongs 
- Images search 
- Geolocalized search (http://en.wikiwix.com/?lang=en&action=paris click on the compass)

We are working in our "Images search" is possible to do request on the language of the user http://www.wikiwix.com/index.php?img=true&action=&boolop=and&commons=true like this http://www.wikiwix.com/index.php?img=true&action=ours+polaire&boolop=and&lang=fr&commons=true

I want to know if our result is good and if it s posible to put it on this page like MayFlower http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=&fulltext=Search

Yours sincerely Martin Pascal

It may be possible, if the community thinks it is useful, but I am not sure it is that useful. It seems less useful than Maflower, at least, which shows the license and categories. Also, I think it makes some mistakes and thinks that all en.wp images are on Commons, because in this search the first five results are images that have never existed on Commons. So that is not very useful. cheers --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I make a bad link : http://www.wikiwix.com/index.php?img=true&action=ours+polaire&boolop=and&lang=en&commons=true, it s better :)

I tried the engine and results were quite counterintuitive, searching for "konopnicka" did not returned any images that were related to polish poet or mention her name in the description. Mayflower did much better. Other searches I tried also did not returned expected images either. I can not figure out how to control the language option. Also the GUI does not seem to add any functionality to the current set of search engines. But I think that we should list it in our list of tools available at Commons:Tools#Search, since it might improve in the future, but at the moment it looks like pre-alpha release.
we solve the problem http://www.wikiwix.com/index.php?commons=true&action=konopnicka&boolop=and&lang=pl
Seems like most of the images those days use information template, so it would make sense to be able to query each field (description, source, author & date) separately, and may be add user, license, template and category to the mix. This would allow searches like: Images by author X from years Y released under license Z. Also it would be great to have an engine that could display results in a table with separate column for some chosen sub-set of those fields. --Jarekt 18:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
in a feature version

Republique du Congo[edit]

Can someone rename Republique du Congo in République du Congo please? This is the correct spelling if we want to respect the original name. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Rocket000 16:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picable Images[edit]

Can Picable images be kept on commons like Flickr photos are? 99.244.187.112 15:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Flickr photos can be used on commons, only those with a suitable license. The same should be the case with Picable: if the license is good, then you can upload it here. If I understand the site's terms of service correctly, then all images are licensed "all rights reserved" by default. You may only use the image if the user states a different, freer, license. --rimshottalk 15:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SVG --> PNG[edit]

Wasn't there a sort of "/index.php?title=Image:Blabla&action=xxxx&xxxx=[resolution in px]"--213.168.119.17 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There still is. For Image:QA icon.svg, check out e.g. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/QA_icon.svg/100px-QA_icon.svg.png or http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/QA_icon.svg/637px-QA_icon.svg.png or whatever size you like. Lupo 16:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filename Raimon.jpg[edit]

In short: I want to upload a requested picture as Raimon.jpg, but that filename is already taken by a most likely disposable thumbnail of something currently unused. I have already asked two administrators for opinion, Rastrojo greenlighting me, Larry being more cautious; so, I'm looking for a third party (or more) to either approve my reasoning or tell me otherwise. --Llapissera -> talk 01:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) P.S: be sure to read all the links for a deeper explanation, prior to answering.[reply]

I would second Lar's opinion: "Raimon" is a bad name since it caries little or no information about the content of the image. Why would you want to use it in the first place? This competition for the shortest name is similar to the one we can observe in the overload war of Image:Enigma.jpg image. I definitely do not like the argument of Llapissera that it is OK to overwrite older images with "better" new images of the same subject, even if both are by the same person. That is because other people might not agree with you about which version is "better". One thing I agree with is that current Raimon.jpg image is quite worthless due to small size and lack of description. --Jarekt 02:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is I only need one suitable picture of every individual I'm shooting (all of them too localized, I must say) to use it in Wikipedia or elsewhere; and, I might be not accurate at shooting or not feel quite comfortable with what I've uploaded, but don't get me wrong: I don't expect to be updating every picture forever (I'm just happy with what I've got right now). And, by no means it's a competition for the shortest name; it's only that there might not be any freeimage, so I'm making it easier for users back at Wikipedia to sort out for themselves what a file might be called. In this case, the man goes by the stage name Raimon, so my choice is pretty obvious. Or, let me put it like this: if the current Raimon.jpg was to be erased, what could prevent me from uploading anything with that name? Anyway, if no one else agrees with me, I shall call this discussion over and start thinking any other name (as definite as possible, I swear!) for what I want to load. --Llapissera -> talk 04:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC) P.S: dziekuje for the criticism, Jarekt![reply]
I think I would just call it Raimon yyyy-dd-mm.jpg or Raimon location.jpg or Raimon Jarekt.jpg or something like that. I think it is dangerous to put too much logic into the name of a file. By the end of the day it is just an identifier which needs to be unique. People searching for Raimon will also get your image out when you just append something to the name. The key for editors from other Wikimedia projects who come here to use Commons as a repository is that the image is properly categorized, such that it can be found. -- Slaunger 08:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is just Raimon (Ramon Pelegero Sanchez).jpg This will enable user searching for both the stage name and the real name to find the image just from its name. -- Slaunger 08:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On categorizing, are you talking about descriptive filenames or about proper categories? Because if it's about these, I'm tagging every file I upload under Commons guidelines, so there should be no problem for editors to find 'em. By the way, Raimon's entry on Viquipèdia has just been updated with this copyrighted image, so I'd call it even as long as there are no changes regarding the status of both pictures, this and that. --Llapissera -> talk 19:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC) P.S: mange tak, Slaunger![reply]
Det var så lidt/De nada!? I am talking about proper categorization. I guess I really have a problem in understanding why you are so keen on using the Raimon file name? If the existing image of Raimon used on the Wikipedia article you mention is copyrighted it should really be nominated for deletion. However, I see this issue as completely decoupled from the issue you are raising. -- Slaunger 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ja, Raimon11.jpg reeks of copyright; may we tag it (and Raimon.jpg) for deletion and see what happens? To keep it simple: there is no free picture of the best-known singer-songwriter in catalan, and he ain't performing this much nowadays, either; thus, I'd rather just use its stage name, for I'm certain no one will be uploading any picture of his for a long time. You see, I'm mainly uploading portraits of notable people recognizable mostly to catalan speakers, and I'm only using names in their shortest working form; I could have gone and usurp without telling anyone, but I chose instead to ask for permission. Sorry if I'm bothering you too much on such a subject... --Llapissera -> talk 01:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Reset indent). If you have evidence that Raimon11.jpg is a copyright violation you should nominate it for deletion at COM:DEL. With respect to Raimon.jpg I'm not so sure. OK, it is low resolution photo, which is currently not used anywhere, but I am not certain it could not be used somewhere. As I understand it you would really like to have you photo of Raimon uploaded under that name because you usually upload you artists under the shortest possible name. But just because you usually do it that way, there is no reason you should keep doing it that way. It is really just an id. Why not change your file naming scheme to a longer and more descriptive one, where the risk of having name clashes is zero? For instance I normally use the following naming scheme subject_location_yyyy-mm-dd_n.jpg. Then you do not have to go through all that struggle if the name is occupied. -- Slaunger 07:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I asked admin O about Raimon.jpg and he has identified its content as Japanese rather than Chinese: it actually is the paper lantern in the main gate of the Sensō-ji temple, so we may get rid of this sample since there's lots more (and better) pictures of it in the Kaminarimon category (hence the inaccurate Raimon naming)? --Llapissera -> talk 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand copyright law[edit]

Unfortunately, Commons:Licensing doesn't list New Zealand and the UNESCO link returns a 404 error for New Zealand, so here goes: an editor has asked me about Image:Scott Statue.jpg. The artist Kathleen Scott made it in 1919 and died in 1947. So, does some wise person know...

  • Does New Zealand has freedom of Panorama?
  • If not, has the copyright expired?

Durova 22:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is good for 50 years after death. So, its PD. :D Geo.plrd 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that only applies to the statue, not the photo of it, which was uploaded as CC-BY-SA+GFDL. In which case a publisher using this image would still need to respect that license. Is this correct? Or is it that Photos of PD artwork are also PD (some countries?), In which case the license info on the page is incorrect1 --Inkwina (talk • contribs) 06:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even if the statue is now PD there is still copyright in the photo, so anyone using it would have to comply with the licence. --MichaelMaggs 07:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Commons:Freedom of panorama NZ law is assumed to follow UK law which has freedom of panorama. --Tony Wills 18:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 11[edit]

"In short" texts on licence tags contradict major licencing requirements[edit]

Hello,

I ask for a revert of changes like this : http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACc-by-2.5&diff=4216103&oldid=3759901

The reason is that these "in short" texts incite people not to fully comply the Licences' terms.

In the case of a Creative Commons Licence, as is the case of most copyleft licences, a major requirement is to inform the reader that the content is licenced under that peculiar copyleft licence. That means that the reader has to be told that the content is free. Merely naming the author's name is not enough.

You must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/

I can't revert the template myself, as it is protected and I am not a sysop.

Teofilo 14:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Which camera used you to make good Macro ? at which price ?[edit]

Did you already took macro like or better than that ? with which camera ? at which price ?

Hello, please can you tell me with which camera you took your macro pictures. I plan to buy a camera, and I'm interested to produce macro photographs for commons. You can answer on This page/Camera. 220.135.4.212 17:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Tutorial to take great encyclopedic pictures[edit]

Attention : All [confirmed] photographers help requested ! There is a tutorial to set up ! 220.135.4.212 18:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a map of the entire Mediterranean See?[edit]

I've just written an article on the Dutch Wikipedia on nl:Achtervolging van SMS Goeben en SMS Breslau, see en:Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau in case your Dutch isn't up to scratch.;) I would like to add a map of the route the ships involved have taken, using a blank map on which I can draw the required lines. I've found a number of maps of part of the Mediterranean in the Category:Mediterranean Sea maps, but so far haven't found a suitable one, of the entire Med. Have I looked in the wrong place? Help would be appreciated! Regards, MartinD 13:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with Image:Blank map of South Europe and North Africa.svg? Lupo 20:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must have been looking with my nose (as the Dutch expression goes).;) Just what I was looking for, thanks a lot! Regards, MartinD 13:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Used this map to make Image:Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau.png. Thanks, Lupo! MartinD 13:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright vio[edit]

I have mistakenly uploaded copyright vios. I have placed the copy vio template on each image. It is not the image shown it is the image in the prior upload. Could someone get these of the website asapAdam.J.W.C. 07:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't someone deleted the images that I have marked copyright violation. They were taken from a website and the owners are not happy, I have been informed could something be doneAdam.J.W.C. 19:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Copyright violation[edit]

I just noticed the following image. File:Logisfortifié.jpg, this clearly is the château de Guédelon project. It also seems to be a simple reduction of the plan they provide on their own website and for which they claim copyright. Their link is [6]. I also notice the image also seems to be a representation of Guédelon, but I haven't seen that exact image on their website.

I haven't been on commons for a while and don't recall which tags to place on images with possible copyright violation. Note, other images by the author of the above two images might be affected. So it would be great if someone could take a look.--Caranorn85.93.204.64 23:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I contacted the people at Guédelon and they confirm. Both images are by their 'chef de chantier' Florian Renucci. That would make these images on commons a copy violation and certainly a false claim by Stéphane Legrand that he is the author. Can anyone please take care of this issue.--Caranorn85.93.209.210 10:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged the first one with {{copyvio}}. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 12:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--Caranorn85.93.204.63 13:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 12[edit]

Broken language menu templates[edit]

Template:Dont_remove_speedy/lang, Template:Dont remove warnings/lang and possibly others seem to have a lot of extra spaces and I am not sure how to fix it. --Jarekt 13:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I wasn't aware there were any of these left. The spaces are due to the new parser not ignoring lines anymore that have more than one comment in them. --rimshottalk 13:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, there were still quite a number of them. Hope I've caught them all. --rimshottalk 15:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I still come across some once in awhile. If you take a look in Category:Internationalization templates, I'm sure you'll find more. - Rocket000 16:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki in News[edit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7291382.stm --Jarekt 13:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with Wikimedia Commons specifically? AnonMoos 14:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None. Better deserving on the en Village Pump. --BrokenSphere 14:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this was off-topic. I just thought it might be of interest to follow what people hear about wiki projects. --Jarekt 01:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me an idea to call this new cat![edit]

I want to create a category for people with flowers in the hair (like that, that, that or that) but I'm not sure how to call it. Simply category:Flowers in hair? Any idea? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hair fashion with flowers in Category:Hair fashion? Man vyi 19:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about category:Flowered hair fashion? And yes it will be in Category:Hair fashion and also in Category:Flower decorations. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, do you think it may be better as a quirky gallery? It seems overly specialised to me. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally hate galeries because it's a waste of time (adding a picture in several galleries...). Plus I think we can find many pictures like those and it's a quite common hair fashion. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is there any java-code available[edit]

is there any java-code available where I can mark to picture {{subst:nsd}} and info to loaders discussion page, it will help a lot of to put request to picture and loaders discussion page.--Motopark 19:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to "My preferences" > Gadgets > tick "Quick Delete" under "Maintenance". Purge/refresh your cache and you will find links under the toolbox for image pages, thanks to JavaScript (not Java). I actually thought this gadget was enabled by default for all registered users... pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 13[edit]

Alfred Nobel images[edit]

Kind of funny. This image appears derivative of this photo of Alfred Nobel. It was at one time an illegal derivative work, but now both are in the PD and can be hosted on Commons. :) -Nard 02:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cochin[edit]

Category:Cochin is under exactly one other category, Category:Chicken breeds, but most of its contents seem to be something else entirely. I'm guessing that the rest of this has to do with the place by that name in India. Could someone else sort this out? I'm afraid I don't have time to work on it right now. - Jmabel | talk 05:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to have addressed this, and I'm not really sure how it should be sorted out. - Jmabel | talk 05:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochin_%28disambiguation%29. In Commons there is also the Category:Kochi Wouter 11:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Morocco / Western Sahara[edit]

Could there be some kind of official ruling or non-aggression pact, as opposed to constant edit-warring (as seen in such images as Image:Morocco Flag Map.PNG)? AnonMoos 14:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know about official rulings, but this seems like an image that should be reverted to the first uploader version and locked from editing. If a second uploader wants his version in he can use a different name. --Jarekt 01:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've gone through another cycle of reverts on Image:Morocco Flag Map.PNG since I made my original post... AnonMoos 01:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs in search results[edit]

Hey all -- I've made some changes to the software which you may or may not like. :) MediaWiki's search page now includes thumbnails and basic image metadata instead of boring text extracts for search results that turn up image pages -- this makes search results, like, almost useful on Commons. ;)

I've switched the search plugin on Commons and Test Wikipedia from our old custom one to one that uses MediaWiki's standard search front-end with the custom Lucene backend that we use.

This allows the new thumbnail feature to work, and will make future maintenance on the search UI a lot easier -- but it's also changed some elements of the UI. Among other things, it looks like some custom JavaScript on Commons is breaking as the form is different.

Feedback for further streamlining the UI (both for the thumbnail results and regular pages) will be very much welcome as we roll out the updated code on the rest of our sites and go forward on making other improvements.

Our Bugzilla bug tracker is ultimately the best place for specific requests or problems, to make sure we can track and address everything. --brion 20:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helps make it easier to distinguish images vs. galleries and category results. BrokenSphere 21:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woot :D pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently search results can include links to deleted images, which is kind of confusing... AnonMoos 14:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted ones should now be silently dropped from the results, which should reduce the confusion. Every once in a while someone might still be confused that you don't see all the results, though. ;) --brion 17:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some styling. Clear your cache and take a look :) I think we should have a search box on the main page. Opinions ? -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InterProject links[edit]

Would something like this template be a good idea? Check the sidebar, I'm using it right now.

- Rocket000 04:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and of course the links don't work since I'm using {{FULLPAGENAME}} and this is a Commons: page. - Rocket000 04:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Now, they should work. - Rocket000 08:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems nice. -- Túrelio 07:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permission missing tags[edit]

Hi there. I've been uploading many images over the last couple of months and have never encountered what happened earlier before. User:Siebrand tagged the following four images I recently uploaded: Image:Hozan Alan Senauke.JPG, Image:Su_Bong, Seung_Sahn,_Dae_Gak.JPG, Image:Seung_Sahn_with_Genther_kids.JPG, Image:Dss_and_gethsemani.JPG with a "permissions missing" template. This puzzled me, because the permission from my email with Zen Master Dae Gak are clearly included in the permission parameter. Am I doing something wrong here, or was this some sort of error? Please tell me I don't have to email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for every gd image I've uploaded over the last few weeks, as that is asinine. If that is the case, several previous photos I have uploaded I have already emptied my trash bin of the emails! This would totally suck-not to mention forwarding an email every time you get permission is a complete pain in the ass. I'll quit contributing if all the work I've done here is deleted because of this. All of my photos with permissions have been explicitly released by the copyright holders under GNU 1.2 licenses. If you want uploaders to email permission to OTRS or whatever, you need to make that REALLY stand out on the uploads page. I'm going to CRY if my images are deleted. Had I know about permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from the start, I wouldn't be in this mess. I never bothered looking above the upload area because the permission parameter was in the template itself! I mean, it stood to reason that this was where one was to place the email text. Again, there are absolutely NO issues regarding the copyright of any of the GNU 1.2 licenses I have uploaded. To delete them would be pointless and destructive. I would have to take the time to recontact each person for a new release, just to forward it Wikipedia permissions. Another thing....do I have to WAIT for a response from permissions before uploading my images? I mean my goodness. I'm about done with this place. I'll just take them to Wikipedia and circumvent this bureaucracy. On second thought, now I see that Wikipedia has a place to forward permission to, as well. I have no problem doing this from now on, but damn man. Someone help! Help! Help! (Mind meal 06:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, for every photo that comes from an external source, we need to have proof that the copyright holders have agreed to the licensing. Otherwise, for all we know, you could just be making it up. howcheng {chat} 18:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to be pretty damned stupid to be making it up. (Mind meal 19:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
You don't want to know how low people will go in order to get content put on here. howcheng {chat} 21:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery Error[edit]

I am getting the following error while trying to use gallery tool: Database Error: "User 'daniel_www' has exceeded the 'max_user_connections' resource (current value: 30) (sql)". Does that mean that only 30 people can be using it at the same time?--Jarekt 12:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It presumably means that the toolserver is throttling back so that it doesn't use excessive resources. It's probably not as simple as "30 people", though... AnonMoos 01:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari disallows derivative works of its cars[edit]

Please see http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2008/03/ferrari-threatens-to-take-legal-actions.html. Should we worry about the status of Ferrari pics? -Nard 20:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a trademark issue, not a copyright issue. People who take photos of Ferraris are still the copyright holders of those photos, and utilitarian objects' designs are still not covered by copyright. howcheng {chat} 21:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 15[edit]

UK mapping..[edit]

Hi, does anyone else on Commons have pre 1950 OS maps that they would be willing to scan at high quality in order to patch gaps in any coverage listed here?

User:Geni/OS maps User:ShakespeareFan00/OS maps

Please note, DO NOT refer to so called 'reproduction' or 'facsmile' maps, these may have additonal copyrights, and may be at revised scales.

ShakespeareFan00 00:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predrag Danilović[edit]

May I upload this image from flickr? The picture was shot during Summer Olympics 1996. --BokicaK 06:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Non commercial licenses are not acceptable on Commons. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Life images[edit]

I have found that Encyclopedia of Life is full of images that Wikipedia and Commons don't have. To our benefit, most images are cc-licensed (you have to click on the bottom left green icon to find out license info). Can you start uploading these images to commons as long as we follow the license conditions? OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at EOL, most of their images were CC-BY-NC licensed. If you find any CC-BY or CC-BY-SA images there, you may of course transfer them here if you comply with the license. But you must not transfer CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-NC-SA licensed images. Lupo 20:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the heads up. These images will greatly help WikiSpecies. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out almost all have cc-nc license. The ones that don't have are either from US government (which are already uploaded to commons) or those originate from Wikipedia. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PWNED by our own insistence on total freedom. At least we know the works are being re-used the way they were intended to. -Nard 12:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urgently required[edit]

Here's an opportunity to get your photo on the front page of a Wikipedia - albeit a fairly small one. I'd like a free-use photograph of the Welsh Rugby team playing in this year's 6-nations championship. This is to illustrate the Welsh Wicipedia article Tîm rygbi'r undeb cenedlaethol Cymru (English: Wales national rugby union team), which should be on the front page next week. Please categorise to Category:Six Nations so I can find it. Many thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two appropriately-licensed images found and uploaded from Flickr: Image:Italy vs Wales Six Nations rugby.jpg, Image:Wales rugby team.jpg. Man vyi 06:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 16[edit]

Artist biographies[edit]

I recently bought a second hand copy of Suid-Afrikaanse Geskiedenis in Beeld, which is a treasure trove of images relating to the history of South-Africa. The catch is, images which list both an author and a date are few and far in between, thus I am stuck searching the net to find out when some obscure painter died (to see if the image is pd or not). Is there some website anyone knows of, or perhaps a book I can get - I know they're always looking up this kind of information in some kind of artists' registry on art/antique shows, but I haven't been able to find anything like that with Google. Anrie 08:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know much about resources available for artists (besides Wikipedia), but there are death databases for authors. Is OCLC 86017338 the book you have purchased? John Vandenberg (chat) 09:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll have a look at the link. Yes, that is indeed the book. Anrie 10:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you guess? Generally the style of the image will show the era in which it was photographed. Feel free to email me the images and I would be more than happy to help. Geoff Plourde :D 00:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guessing photographs are obviously easy: they were taken during the subject's lifetime. Paintings are a bit more tricky, since they could be a non-contemporary derivative work of a photograph, etc. I'm not sure that "PD since the style of the painting places it between date x and date y" is all that valid as a license tag? Also, for some it is necessary to get the death date in order to figure out when the "life of the author + 70 years" will expire. (One artist I fdid find had died in 1939, so his work falls just outside the range of allowed images). Anrie 07:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 17[edit]

Mass deletions and redlinks across all projects by User:ABF[edit]

Many categories have a dedicated homonymous page. For instance, Octave Uzanne‎ and Category:Octave Uzanne‎.

When a category does not have its dedicated homonymous page, I routinely create redirects from the missing page(s) to the category, . For instance, I had redirected Duchcov Castle to Category:Duchcov Castle. This allows at least working links from here, from the Wikipedias (via {{Commons}}), from the Wikiquotes, etc.

However, User:ABF has decided to "mass-delete" them [7] [8] because "we do not accept cross-namespaces-redirects".

Well, that's nice. Instant creation of thousands of redlinks here, on the Wikipedias, the Wikiquotes, etc. Users sent to suddendly vanished pages with no recourse. Very nice. Either this is a stupid rule, or User:ABF is a stupid admin. At any rate: adios, sayonara, adieu. 62.147.38.44 07:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, nearly all projects do not accept redirects between namespaces. Before i nuked your pages I first asked another admin on IRC who thought the same as me. But you can also use the commons-templates with a second parameters on most projects like {{Commons|Category:Name|Name}}. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 08:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also, ABF could have replaced the redirect at Duchcov Castle with a mere {{Cat see also|{{{PAGENAME}}}}} instead of creating a redlink and deadends. He actually mass-deleted erverything I created, including several useful non-cross-namespace redirects. And there's no way for the hundreds of links on Wikipedias and Wikiquotes to know they're now pointed at deleted pages, or to retrieve or fix them. That's incompetence and mass-sabotage. 62.147.38.44 08:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not sabotage. Those two who are not cross-namespaces-redirects are restored now. That was an human error. abf /talk to me/ 08:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please ease up on the personal attacks. ABF is not a stupid admin, and he has acknowledge his mistakes and fixed them. If you take issue with some of his other deletions, please explain them in a civil manner. giggy (:O) 08:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If cross-namespace redirects are really to be suppressed on Commons, they have to be replaced with {{Cat see also|{{{PAGENAME}}}}} to prevent redlinks and, worse, thousands of cross-project dead links - not lazily mass-deleted. 62.147.38.44 08:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that template is only for existing gallerys. If you want to create something what is correct, just create gallerys with Images on it. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 08:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The {{Cat see also|{{{PAGENAME}}}}} would still be a valid and useful placeholder for readers sent there, even when one doesn't have time to create an actual gallery yet. For instance, your tag-teamer has deleted again the {{Cat see also}} on Giacomo Casanova ; most Wikipedias have a page such as Giacomo Casanova and use a basic {{Commons}} tag to link to Commons. The gallery or placeholder with {{Cat see also}} allows readers sent there to find at least a page and a link to the category, even if there has been no time to make a full gallery there. That's just basic decency for cross-project links, especially common errors. There was no vital reason to delete the {{Cat see also}} at Giacomo Casanova, and all reasons to keep it.
I didn't have time to create special galleries for all those redlinks and cross-projects deadends but at least I fixed them. You just wrecked them again, it's selfish and insular to destroy cross-project links from the Wikipedias and the Wikiquotes. Since you have that time on your hands, you could have replaced the redirects or the {{Cat see also}} with stub galleries and preserve the internal and cross-project links, that would have been constructive instead of destructive of the work of others. You didn't even check the what-links-here before mass-deleting all of them. 62.147.38.44 08:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you simply use the proper templates {{Commons|}} and {{Commonscat|}} when needed? Your story is a non-problem. Rama 09:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the Commons links on other projects. Cross-namespace redirects are not a very good solution at all. Namespaces were created for a reason. If I click on a gallery link I don't want to go to a category. I completely support ABF's actions (except the few mistakes, of course :)- Rocket000 09:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
_:Thanks, Rocket :) abf /talk to me/ 09:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly this is correct (appending your edit-summary) abf /talk to me/ 09:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I didn't have the time to create such galleries for all the redirects that you mass-deleted. As a rule of thumb, when someone creates a redirect, it means it's a need, a solution to a problem. Mass-deleting the solutions won't delete the needs and will just recreate the problems. If you're technically unhappy with the way a redirect is, you could ackowledge that they represent a need and create a stub gallery instead, or at least just let them be with a quick {{Cat see also|{{{PAGENAME}}}}} [[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]] that fullfills the need, and let someone else make the gallery another time. There'd be nothing wrong in doing so, it's identical to a one-line stub on the Pedia. Whatever happened to "don't delete, improve" seems to be a sad story.
Reality check:
  • In the real world, people put a {{Commons}} all the time, then someone click it, find a dead end at Commons, and delete the tag from Wiki-pedia/quote/source. And then no reader knows about the Commons material, until months or years later when someone think about the link again. Making Commons content harder to find than necessary doesn't look like a very good idea, when a few catch-all redirects or stub galleries can do the trick at no cost.
  • About this similarly nice deletion : most people will never think about going down and clicking on the homonymous cat in the bottom box in order to find more images than what a gallery show them. That's why most galleries, including Van Gogh or Rembrandt, prominently feature a link back to the cat. That's basic man-machine interface for normal users. Deleting the {{Cat see also|{{{PAGENAME}}}}} link from Giacomo Casanova was another unproductive move, and no service to real users. 62.147.38.44 09:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our fault people can't link to the right namespace. That's a problem that should be solved "in the real world" (aka en.wp, I guess) because that's where the problem lies. Not here. Also, I think you're underestimating users - most semi-intelligent people can figure out those links on the bottom that say "Categories:" take them to categories if that's what they're looking for. Please become familiar with Commons before making more changes like these and backing them up with personal attacks. - Rocket000 10:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I don't think it productive or proactive to make content harder to access, especially when there's no cost involved in having stub galleries to do so.
  2. People don't "look for categories", they want an illo of Van Gogh or an illo of Flowers for whatever need they have. If they find a gallery there, they'll browse the gallery, assuming that's all there is. A link back to the category to inform or remind them that there's more behind the gallery is a simple interface, a basic courtesy, and doesn't cost a red cent.
  3. Actually, aren't you implying that all those people who put those same useful links at Van Gogh, Rembrandt, Pompeii, Flowers, and on almost every other gallery page, are less than semi-intelligent, since they all felt the need to add them?
  4. And aren't all those people proving a need, defining a de facto standard, and showing a consensus for explicit links to the homonymous cat, which is more important than the elitism of only allowing those deemed "semi-intelligent" to have access to the full list of pictures?
Curiouser and curiouser. 62.147.36.48 10:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are long established cross-project norms that you are arguing against. It's seems you are set on making a point here. I don't really feel like arguing over something like this. Do what you think improves this project, but if you are continually being reverted maybe you should rethink your actions. Just because you think something should be a certain why doesn't mean the rest of us do. And, of course, COM:MELLOW. - Rocket000 11:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions of back-to-cat links in galleries[edit]

Regular users have no idea about having to go down and click a homonymous category in the bottom box in order to get (often much) more pics than what a gallery shows them. That's counter-intuitive. That's why it's pretty standard for a gallery to have a link back to the main cat, just see Van Gogh or Rembrandt (at the top) or Pompeii (in the ==See also== at the bottom), etc.

So:

  1. Why is the link in my gallery deleted once by Rocket000 and (after I explained) still deleted a second time by ABF?
  2. Why are you denying that those links, found on most galleries, are useful and needed?
  3. And are you going to delete those links-to-cat from everywhere else too, or is my Giacomo Casanova gallery somehow singled out?

62.147.36.48 10:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. : I notice that on many other galleries, such as Michelangelo and Rainbow flag, they use the even bigger and more prominent {{See also}} for the very same purpose of explicitely linking to the homonymous category.

  1. So why is my own small link to the cat deleted twice is what I wonder, since I can't figure out how the two deletionist have managed to never notice those links on all the other galleries.
  2. I'm unsure if {{Cat see also}} or {{See also}} should be used for that purpose. The former seems more natural, the later has more internationalization. 62.147.36.48 11:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move (rename) media[edit]

I would love a move/rename option like there is for Wikipedia articles! Has this been considered before? ~RayLast «Talk!» 17:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be this feature request. It's being worked on. Until it is finished you can use the MediaMoveBot. --Matt314 17:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific maintenance tags[edit]

Some users, notably Rama, Bibi Saint-Pol and myself frequently go to the Louvre to take pictures. A lot has already been done concerning Greek, Etruscan and Roman artefacts, so part of Bibi and self's work consists in shooting again pictures that were taken 2 or 3 years ago and that suffer from obvious defaults (lack of depth of field, weird colour balance, etc.).

I'd like to tag such pictures that need to be re-shot, using perhaps a category or a template. I'm aware that categories such as Category:Blurred images exist, but they are much too broad for what I want to do, viz. concentrate on the Louvre Museum. What do you thing would be the best course of action? Something like Category:Blurred images in the Louvre? Should the category be invisible? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something like "Category:Lower quality Louvre images" should do. Why call it "Blurred images ... " if you want to include images with e.g. color balance problems. Also why hide it? what if somebody else wants to help in the effort? --80.77.194.192 10:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We already hide some tags. I was wondering about visitors mainly, but you're right. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ashlynn brooke01.jpg[edit]

Shouldn't it have an OTRS template if there's really a permission to use that picture? There are actually many pictures like that recently uploaded thanks to the File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske). I'm quite skeptical about those pictures. And also about the use of this bot (because contrary to Flickr upload bot we don't know who's operating it) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much the bot as inexperienced/lazy users. The upload page for the bot has a field for the operator to fill in his/her name, but it rarely gets used. Few people also put in the effort to actually go over the image information once the image has been uploaded, to ensure it conforms to the Commons' standards. (If I see one more image with source: Originally uploaded to the English Wikipedia and author: original uploader was... my head might just explode.) I'd say it's safe to assume en:User:Sdrtirs operated the bot for this picture, as he added the nowcommons template to the en.wp barely a minute after the image was transferred here. And yes, it should have an OTRS template if there really is permission (which, according to the image's history was already sent in January. Should've been confirmed by now). Anrie 14:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 19[edit]

There's definitely a problem with this user![edit]

BestSummers (talk · contribs) > he already had all his contributions deleted twice after this DR and that one. It used to be copyrighted naked stuff so he seems to have given up with that kind of subject but recently uploaded a picture of Steve Fowler with no licence [9] and then uploaded a bird picture over it (here). He seems to be unable to understand the warning messages we previously posted on his discussion page (which he recently blanked as if he could delete the history of his vandalism...) Shouldn't we block him? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly an issue. I've fixed the talk page to show all the warnings so far. Going to look some more, thanks TwoWings --Herby talk thyme 11:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"fixed" ?, I was not aware that users were required to "wear" warning messages that have already been dealt with, those messages are a note to the user that there is a problem, not some sort of label to alert others of the users history (this is just a general comment, I have no sympathy for that users activities ;-) --Tony Wills 09:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I agree but to me they were rather current in the circumstances so anyone wanting to check on what I had done & why was saved from digging in the history. One of those "judgement" areas I guess - personally I prefer to see stuff left on a talk then archived but each to their own :) --Herby talk thyme 09:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history (deleted history too) a block seems wise here & I have done so. I hope after this they will work constructively --Herby talk thyme 11:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rewards for Justice[edit]

This is a collection of FBI wanted pictures. Surely most of these are copyvios, since the photos aren't actually originally from the FBI? -Nard 03:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this cat overlaps somewhat with Category:Wanted posters. -- Túrelio 10:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category for bulletin boards[edit]

Chinese Community Bulletin Board, Seattle, Washington

We have a page Bulletin board, which treats bulletin boards simply as office equipment; we don't seem to have a corresponding category. In quite a few parts of the world, bulletin boards are a lot more than office equipment. Seattle's Chinese Community Bulletin Board (pictured) was, for a time, the main news medium of Seattle's Chinese community (which now, once again, has a newspaper). In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the bulletin boards in the coffeehouses of Seattle's University District were a major means of communication in that neighborhood, though they have definitely receded in importance, especially with the rise of the Internet (and also the relative decline of independent coffeehouses).

Anyway, there ought to be a Category:Bulletin boards, but I'm not really sure where in the hierarchy it should go. Suggestions? - Jmabel | talk 05:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's the same problem on en:Bulletin board, categorized only as Office equipment and Academia. But according to Wiktionary[10] Bulletin boards seems to be the correct word. More examples for this kind of BB: Image:Danshan Nongguang Village Bulletin board.jpg, Image:Buchenwald Bulletin Board 73319.jpg, Image:Verein Jordsand Schaukasten.jpg, Image:WillerseyParishCouncil200503 CopyrightKaihsuTai.jpg and Image:USS Missouri bulletin board from 1991.jpg. This Image:Alma-Alter-noticeboard.jpg one is described as "notice board". A possible parent cat could be Category:Displays. -- Túrelio 07:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly also under Category:Mass media along side Category:Posters--Inkwina (talk • contribs) 08:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally done: Category:Bulletin boards. -- Túrelio 19:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 14[edit]

Bad Name Template Improve[edit]

This is what I was talking about: User:Enc_Company_Agent/tests. As you can see, this one template can pass the parameter to the other templates in different languages and are hidden if you don't need them. Isn't looking good as there's a problem with the css style that we must solve. So what you think? Any advice to make it better?

Regards,

Enc Company Agent 03:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm... Anyone?
Commons is used in close to 99 languages. So basically, I think that such templates are only manageable if they display in English and the author of the item language, which is not necessarily known. --Foroa 08:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MediaMoveBot[edit]

I would like to get permission to use MediaMoveBot. Primarily I want to work on cleaning up the names of a lot of NASA images that are of the KSC-number.jpg type. It seems no one is paying attention to Commons_talk:MediaMoveBot/CheckPage, so I figured I'd better ask here on the VP. TheDJ 09:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Bots/Requests for flags. --EugeneZelenko 14:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of the Commons:MediaMoveBot/CheckPage then? --rimshottalk 15:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't even know we had that... - Rocket000 15:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Can someone who knows how this all works for gods sake please clean up the instructions and say what does and does not work ? TheDJ 02:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the bot is currently a proposal, and whatever is there is infrastructure for if/when it is completed and approved. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting Approval Poll[edit]

There have been discussions about the requirements of becoming an administrator and participating in such discussions. As a result of these discussions, a poll has been created to see which choices the community favours. This poll will use approval polling, as there was no clear consensus for a single choice. This poll will start on 24 March at 0:00 UTC and end at 31 March at 0:00 UTC. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 20:02, 19 March 2008 (GMT)

Damages vs. Damage?[edit]

Being a non-native english speaker may I ask whether there is any substantial difference between Damages and Damage, so that we really need to have Category:Damages and
Category:Damage ?
-- Túrelio 22:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A native speaker would normally use 'damage' in that context. 'Damages' refers more usually to an amount of money awarded by a court in a legal action. --MichaelMaggs 22:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it would be "Damage". EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will gradually empty Category:Damages into Category:Damage. -- Túrelio 22:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 20[edit]

ROFLMAO[edit]

THIS IS JIMBO WALES!

An editor complaining we shouldn't have offensive pictures of Mohammed contributed this delightful image and caption. It's funny and I don't think we should delete it. I am rolling around the floor laughing right now. -Nard 02:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's used now, isn't? It can also be used to illustrate en:WP:POINT. ;) It is pretty funny. - Rocket000 04:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being used a bit more now. That. Is classic. giggy (:O) 08:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Durieu 7.jpg[edit]

Can I get the reason for deletion on this image? I created en:Jean Louis Marie Eugène Durieu and noticed it had been removed because it was dead--it should be public domain since the man died in 1874. Thanks. gren 06:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning was "This is children porno. Illegal in much countries". I can't say I agree with that - a nude child isn't automatically pornographic. --rimshottalk 08:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woah. Child nudes are not necessarily child porn, as you said,--and even more likely are not when in the context of famous photographers from the 18th century. Can it be undeleted unless anyone knows of some very official reason why it shouldn't be? gren 14:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Other speedy deletions[edit]

Several images having the incorrect tag {{FPC}} are turning up in this category for speedy deletion. There seems to be something wrong with the logic that is dumping them there. --MichaelMaggs 07:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at this yesterday & couldn't figure out the problem quickly. Some that User:Mifter has done appears to be the issue & to a template but I didn't track it down in the time I had - other folk with sharper eyes needed (& ffs don't delete the stuff in the cat without looking closely :)) --Herby talk thyme 09:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Template:FPC doesn't exist. Consider me confused... giggy (:O) 09:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know it doesn't. But several images have had {{FPC}} applied to them anyway (I don't know why), and such images then turn up in Category:Other speedy deletions. --MichaelMaggs 09:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special:FileDuplicateSearch[edit]

I have coded a new special page: Special:FileDuplicateSearch (example). It searchs for identical duplicates of files on base of their SHA hash value. That means, files which are identical byte-by-byte will be identified. Furthermore I added on every image description page a link "Search for duplicate files". Hopefully you like that new feature :-) Raymond Disc. 09:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, but I can't see the "Search for duplicate files" link? giggy (:O) 10:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's at bottom of the file history. --GeorgHH • talk   11:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even nicer :) giggy (:O) 10:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, indeed. Now if it can only warn uploaders when uploading a duplicate. - Rocket000 10:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

problemes with uploading a picture into a text[edit]

Image:ChrisClement.JPG from the wikimedia in the Englsih wikipedia en:Christophe clement, horse trainer Thanks —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Marie Dubois (talk • contribs) 02:22, 21. Mär. 2008

O.k., I've done it; though you still have to add the captions for both images. But before writing an article in Wikipedia you should really study a little bit more how it is done and learn from other articles about comparable persons. And please always sign your comments. -- Túrelio 07:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

questionable images?[edit]

Is there a process for discussing questionable images? I came across Image:Yves Leterme campagne foto.jpg about to be used on the enWiki front page; it's uploaded by an single purpose account (to upload this image) and seems doubtful that the copyright holder themselves uploaded a campaign photo onto Commons. I can't find any parallel process to enWiki's possibly unfree images, is there one? If not, should I just nominate for deletion in lieu? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Yves Leterme campagne foto.jpg. Apparently they thought it was self-made, since the uploader's account name matches a real person. In this case I'm willing to AGF as well. -Nard 02:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can we assume good faith with this image and not the countless others which are uploaded by anons or one-upload contributors? Anyone could have created an account with a real person's name. I'm not the most familiar with this process, but aren't situations such as this exactly what OTRS is for? For what it's worth, the image appears all over the official website. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 08:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; w/o any substantiation (i.e. OTRS, etc), don't we have to assume that it's copyrighted and that the uploader usurped the real name to validify their contribution? I looked over the official website, and while it's certainly prolific there, I couldn't find any copyrighting information.

As for assuming good faith, I was under the impression that Commons took the presumption of copyright and the possible infringement thereof more seriously than the enWiki. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may assume good faith only if we can't find a picture elsewhere on the Internet. It's not the case here since Leterme's official website hosts the same picture. So we definitely need a proof because good faith doesn't suffice. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my essay on the subject. Feel free to improve it. - Rocket000 12:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 21[edit]

Exercise[edit]

Quick exercise, how do you find say all featured pictures that are in the public domain? Not very easy to do, which makes the project less useful in my opinion. COM:TOOLS#CatScan seems to do it but not very friendly. Anyway, anyone have any better methods on how to do this sort of searching? --Dori - Talk 03:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the other day that some kind of technical item could be added to the titles of featured images, so that the name appears with a feature star next to it. Then one could simply search the category for Public Domain images. Kinda crazy idea, but "kinda crazy" pretty well sums me up. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think category intersection should definitely be in bugzilla:. You could also add request on http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Summer_of_Code_2008. --EugeneZelenko 16:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Letter of permission[edit]

I have obtained a written permission to use an image, via e-mail. Should this e-mail be attached to the image? If yes, how? --Sigmundg 09:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please forward the mail to the OTRS, see COM:OTRS for more information. --Matt314 10:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Maranan[edit]

Please could someone give an answer to the question if the pictures which were took by R.J. Maranan are PD and are they used on Commons with the CC-by-sa(?)-3.0 licence or some other (like some USGov or UKGov licence). Could someone please answer my question. Thanks in advance --Clockwork Orange 09:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being accused of being a sockpuppet...[edit]

I hate sockpuppetry.

Recently a correspondent has accused User:Sherurcij and I of being sockpuppets of one another. They did so on several forums. They said they were going to request a checkuser, so they could prove we were sockpuppets.

I told them to go ahead, do the checkuser. But I asked, whether Sherurcij and I could expect a full and unequivocal apology for the public accusations in every forum where they made it.

So, is asking for an apology reasonable? Is asking for a separate apology everywhere they made the accusation reasonable?

Cheers! Geo Swan 12:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insignia[edit]

Are flags and logos in the public domain if they were "published" at a date that would make other media public domain in their country of origin? FunkMonk 14:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. Imagine how many times in the country the flag would be reproduced in print...on government documents, in newspapers, etc etc not to mention flags made. Note that most countries restrict the use of their flag for commercial purposes, but this is a non-copyright issue. -Nard 16:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, does that mean that I could download any image of some kind of insignia that I know has been created for example a 100 years ago, and use a PD-tag for that country? As an example, here are some Danish flags[11], could I upload them and claim PD-EU or something like that? FunkMonk 20:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A photograph of a Danish flag flapping in the breeze over a landscape would be copyrighted by the photographer, even though the design of the Danish flag itself is both PD-ineligible and PD-old... AnonMoos 01:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translations of template:Information[edit]

Hi, I noticed multiple translations of template:Information for example template:Information/pl however it is unclear to me under what conditions is this template used. I would assume that if I change my preferred language from English to Polish than template:Information/pl would be used instead of template:Information but that is not happening. Can someone explain how does it work or if it is broken, how it was supposed to work?--Jarekt 21:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no good way to make it work, I'm sorry. information/pl is probably an experiment. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, and too bad it does not work.--Jarekt 16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

galleries with no media/files[edit]

Hi, a galleries with no media/files can speedy delete? --Shizhao 15:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If yes, I can development an bot script--Shizhao 15:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't see a reason why it couldn't be speedily deleted, but do check the history to see if: 1) It was recently created and the user may be intending to expand it; or 2) A user inadvertently/maliciously deleted an otherwise valid gallery. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 19:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
or 3) it makes sense to create a redirect instead. --rimshottalk 20:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bot only tag {{Speedydelete}} in galleries with no media/files, not delete pages--Shizhao 07:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
see test code: User:Sz-iwbot/code, and test list: User:Sz-iwbot/sd--Shizhao 17:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only completely empty galleries qualify for speedy delete. Some are there in preparation for a download, some are redirects to other galleries or cats. --Foroa 18:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC
It would be extremely useful to have a bot that tags uncategorised images: there are thousands of them and I am stumbling daily on one or more of them. It would be even more useful if the bot could differentiate and tags images as uncategorised if there are only maintenance cats (license, pd, user xyz ... tags). --Foroa 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 22[edit]

Query: Would you be OK with uploading an ALTERNATIVE Image:Kosovo_relations.svg, namely pl:Image:Kosovo_relations2.svg?[edit]

As you may know, the Kosovo recognition is a moving target, and the map Kosovo_relations.svg/.png on Commons has proved to be a controversial graphic, essenitally a work in progress with a bifurcated state. Rather then risk a resumption of edit warring on this score, and without arbitrating the merit of either version, would you be amenable as community to have both versions co-exist on Commons (possibly, both featured in the Kosovo atlas with nonpartisan descriptions, and both featured in each other "other versions" summaries? Presumably the two would be converging over time to one depiction, as the international situation itself disambiguates. There clearly is no consensus on the merit of, for example, representing Uruguay, Brazi in red, or the former in khaki and the latter in orange (see map legend). The differences stem from stable divergent interpretations of what constitutes "official nonrecognition" and related assessments. Please advise. --Mareklug talk 15:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that, if people are willing to be sensible, it won't hurt. Perhaps the second map may be better, as it takes a more conservative view (labels ambiguous more readily, for instance) Adam Cuerden 16:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been now four days, and we netted one assent (supporting the addition on merit, at that) and otherwise a resounding lack of reaction. I'll be bold and upload the alternative map as Image:Kosovo_relations2.svg and Image:Kosovo_relations2.png, and make the other proposed annotations and crossreferences (including adding all of these to the Atlas of Kosovo under "International recognition"). Monitoring this space for any late dissent. --Mareklug talk 13:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to provide multiple formats for a single image? (.odg and .png)[edit]

I have some diagrams and wish to upload (and use in Wikiversity). I would like to upload both .odg and .png formats for each diagram, so that people can remix (.odg), but also use the image as is (.png). How would I go about uploading multiple formats for a single image? Jtneill 06:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't accept ODG, I'm sorry. We recommend SVG for most diagrams.
As for how to upload them, you can just upload them in sequence, and call one "DiagramXYZ.png" and the other "DiagramXYZ.svg", and link them to each other in the "other versions" field of {{Information}}.
But actually, if you have the format in SVG, it's not necessary to upload a PNG, because MediaWiki produces PNG thumbnails of SVGs anyway. So, I hope you can convert ODG to SVG. :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this advice/explanation, appreciate it. I'm sure you know best :). To date, I've simply been thinking 'open formats' (using open office), and therefore assumed that .odg was a good way to share remixable graphics. I can export as .svg with Open Office Draw. I just did a quick test, though, and I can't work out how to re-open a .svg file using Open Office Draw such that I can re-edit it. -- Jtneill - Talk 10:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I just found an explanation - w:OpenOffice.org Draw#SVG support status. Sounds like I may need to use something else to edit svgs. What would you recommend? w:Inkscape? -- Jtneill - Talk 11:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for COM:SVG which lead me to Help:SVG (better) which lead me to Commons:Graphic_Lab#Softwares (fantastic) :). Looks like, inkscape it is. -- Jtneill - Talk 11:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikon Coolpix S700[edit]

I had a Nikon Coolpix SQ and was very satisfied with. I checked the Nikon website and the last S is the S700 - http://www.nikon-coolpix.com/e/s700.html

Well... the optical zoom is 3x, not 4x and I'm not sure it's a very good choice. I want a polyvalent compact to keep in the pocket and take shots with when I want where I want. I don't especially have a budget limit but I don't want an ugly apparel (the SQ was so cute). Is it a good choice? --Dereckson 18:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People I know whom have Coolpix cameras and are very happy with them. I'm a fan of Canon's Powershots -- might want to try testing out some of those, too. They are a bit bulkier, but they still fit in my pocket. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 02:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also currently looking around to buy a new camera. Dereckson, you can take a look at user:Yug/Camera. I made a deeper analyze on ~US$350 macro camera, but I got a list of the "best price/quality camera of 2007" (according to this website review). You can look at it ;)
Feel also free to use the page as I did : to make deeper inquiries by setting up summary-tables. That's really welcome ! Yug 13:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for those advices. --Dereckson 14:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Loxodonta africana‎[edit]

I don't have the time right now, but if someone feels like it: 87.204.58.50 has turned Category:Loxodonta africana‎ into a gallery and removed the category from many images. This needs to be fixed. There will certainly be a lot of useful edits, so don't just undo all of them. I haven't posted this to COM:AN/U because no admin is needed to do it. --rimshottalk 22:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 25[edit]

technical user rights question[edit]

Hi there!

I am running a private installation of MediaWiki 1.11, and I recently had to restrict editing because of spam problems. Based on some advice I got here, I modified my LocalSettings.php file to include the following: 

# No anonymous editing allowed -
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['edit'] = false;

# Anonymous users can't create pages; non-me users as well.  Creators
# will need to be sysops or bureaucrats.
# $wgGroupPermissions['*']['createpage'] = false;
$wgGroupPermissions['user']['createpage'] = false;

# due to spam problems, only users in Sysop or Editor groups are
# allowed to edit
# thanks to Tuvok on the mediawiki helpdesk
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['edit'] = false;
$wgGroupPermissions['user']['edit'] = false;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['edit'] = true;

/* Group of users who are approved to edit */
$wgGroupPermissions['editor']['edit'] = true;

Now I find that I can't edit things any more. I have two accounts, both of which are in both the bureaucrat and sysop groups; when I have them look at any page in my wiki, it says "View Source" where it usually says "edit".

I think the problem is that neither of my accounts is in the 'editor' group, but I don't know how to put them in there, as I don't know anything about MySQL or php -- I can execute commands and such, but am somewhat afraid of cocking the whole thing up with the wrong command. I've found some resources online (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Setting_user_rights_in_MediaWiki) but I'm not sure how to modify the commands properly.

Help, anyone? Thanks!

Anamacha 07:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi, some years ago I have created a proposal of logo for Wikisource [12]. The logo has been deleted. It's possible to recover it? The link probably is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikisource_logo_ilario.png. --Ilario 13:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find it in your deleted contributions and the image isn't in the deletion log. Are you sure you uploaded it to commons under this username? --rimshottalk 13:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry. It has been uploaded directly on wikisource. I am cheking in the other project. --Ilario 13:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help and photography-relate knowledge[edit]

Please help to correct and expand the page : Commons:Photography terms. Your help will be helpful for all newbies interesting by photography. 220.135.4.212 13:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question...[edit]

I just uploaded Image:ARB trailer.jpg, and noticed something odd. The extended details list a different date, and different photographer than that credited in the article I downloaded it from

How often does that happen? Am I free to arbitrarily pick one of the two dates?

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Antelope Island State Park Map.jpg[edit]

I think we need a broader discussion of if an author can just ask to have his (useful) image deleted--is that a valid reason? I don't think so, but I figure that might be an IfD that interests many people. gren 17:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 26[edit]

A tool I wish we had[edit]

Hi, may I please ask you to take a look at this image of mine uploaded to Flickr? You could see that I added notes to the image, which explain the image. IMO it would have been very nice, if we had the same tool at Wikipedia. Thank you.--Mbz1 01:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus started working on that some time ago [13]. --Dschwen 01:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, such tool would be very useful. --Jarekt 03:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think also that it is very useful. Such an image map can also be used for example to show a part of a map of a country and on it the positions of castles with the names and if possible to be able to use it as a link to go to the page with the images of the castle. Wouter 09:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Edittools[edit]

Updating this template would be useful. A customised version of something they have on en would prove beneficial, I'd imagine. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the strike text button would come in handy. Updating it would be good, but best get consensus. Perhaps on its talk page? Majorly (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, it's a wiki! I've added &nsbp;, <s>, <sup>, <sub>, <nowiki>, <includeonly>, and <noinclude>. If people don't like it, revert my edit. Lupo 12:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, see also COM:AN#Edit toolbar... Lupo 12:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even more tools would be nice, I think I might raise this again. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for wikimedia promo video[edit]

I'm looking for this video: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate to embed in another page. Is it on commons somewhere? -- Jtneill - Talk 11:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been there if it was available on Commons but it can't find it. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's size was over 5Mb ;) --Jarekt 15:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jarekt, you're right, it's 7MB. So, where would WC recommend it be hosted? I wanted to embed it into a page at Wikiversity. Can it be done using the existing url? http://upload.wikimedia.org/fundraising/2007/psa/PSA-Web-400-15fps-en.ogg -- Jtneill - Talk 12:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commons allows files up to 10Mb but warnings start at 5Mb. I have no idea why the video is not on commons, and probably it should be moved here, if anybody can figure out who to credit and what license to use. The page http://wikimediafoundation.org/donate/2007/psa/subtitled-en.html allows you to pick 3 formats 3 resolutions and few dozen subtitles. So maybe it is not a single video but very large number of different versions. I think you would have to ask at http://wikimediafoundation.org/ about it.--Jarekt 13:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Jarekt. I followed suggested links and have left a question here, but I'm not particularly confident is that the best place: meta:Wikimedia site feedback#Embedding Wikimedia fundraising videos on sister projects. -- Jtneill - Talk 14:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commonscat template[edit]

At the nl wikipedia we had a discussion about how to find pictures at commons. At the nl wikipedia we've now added the commonscat template to a lot of categories. This way people can browse the nl category tree and hop over to commons whenever they want. For easy finding of all these commons categories i created a webpage which gives suggestions on which categories to add. Maybe people from other wikipedia's are also interested in this tool. Multichill 16:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice tool, but how to search specific categories? It's not funny to beginn with Category:0s BC if you want look for categories beginning "D". --GeorgHH • talk   17:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a filter option, see http://tools.wikimedia.org/~multichill/commonscat.php?language=de&filter=D . At the nl wikipedia i used a bot to add all the year categories. Multichill 17:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commonscat usage[edit]

To me, it is a bad idea to use commanscat. I feel that references towards the commons should be buffered and mainly be done via galleries/articles that might contain only a redirect to a commons categories. That way, commons categories can be renamed and reorganised without massively invalidating all sorts of commonscat references. Moreover, this approach allows to use gallery names in any language, so the translation between the name in the language of the requesting wikipedia and the commons internal organisation happens on the boundary/frontier of the commons, which should help all visitors of the commons in any language to find their way. If you are serious about a multi-language commons, this is a nice step forward. Moreover, gallery redirects are much more efficient and easier to handle than category redirects. --Foroa 07:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want to do the translation at commons, i want to do the translation at the local wiki's. You want to use galleries, i myself dont use galleries at commons, they tend to be outdated and incomplete, so i want to use categories. For me this is not about multi-language commons, but about getting the wikipedia's closer to commons. Now people can browse the category tree in their own language at their own wikipedia and hop over to commons whenever they want. This webtool is not the only tool i wrote. I also made a query to find links to category redirects and to categories which are deleted. So finding and correcting them is no problem. I also wrote a bot which uses the interwiki links on a wikipedia category to find links to commons.
My priority is to provide maximal comfort and accessibility for untrained non-English wiki users in the commons. Commons could use quite some improvements at that level. It occurs to me that commons is a server. --Foroa 12:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it is a crying shame that in the other wikipedia's, you have to patch in ugly and intrusive commonscat or commons templates to get a reference to commons. It would be much more elegant if in the IW (Interwiki) list on the left side, the first IW of the list could be reserved for commons references. I noticed that most attention goes to getting from the commons into other wiki's, while it is much more difficult to get inside the commons. Very often, for me, the quickest way to get inside the commons is typing straight in the browser adress bar, which is not my definition of a user friendly system. --Foroa 07:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can already have the commons link in your toolbar in several wikipedia's, see for example es:Categoría:Literatura. At the nl wikipedia it's active but not on by default, you have to enable it in your profile (in which you can also hide the template). Multichill 11:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The left toolbar is a nice evolution. On the nl wiki, I did not find a way to enable it (it should be the default I presume, we want to make promotion for the commons, dont we ?) --Foroa 12:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
commons in the toolbar at nl:Amsterdam
I now turned it on by default at the nl wikipedia, see the screenshot on the right. Multichill 21:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great and clean work. Maybe that the commons template could be positioned near the other interwiki's to make the bot lifes easier as this is typical bot work. --Foroa 06:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bot i wrote, commonscat.py, places the commonscat template at the bottom of the article, just above the categories and the interwiki's. Unfortunatly this is not possible with the web version, but the next interwiki bot edit will automaticly place the template at the right position. Multichill 10:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in thinking that the commonscat template is nothing more than a small box containing the text "more pictures can be found by clicking here", or words to that effect? I would think that -at any rate for the time being- this would be quite useful and intuitive for the average user. This doesn't mean that I do not appreciate Multichill's work, to be sure. But discarding all those templates in individual articles... I wouldn't go as far as that. Regards, MartinD 11:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can CC license be a joke ? (France, SACEM, autor chaging the License of his file)[edit]

A French free (CC license) music podcast talk about this issue.

See : The value of free licences - are they worth anything at all?

Have you further legual explanations ? Commons should be really interesting by this issue.

220.135.4.212 17:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing really of interest in that thread. The original poster is concerned about what happens what a copyright holder sells the rights to music after distributing a song under a CC license. CC licenses are irrevocable, and as far as I understand you can continue to use works under the license in which you obtained the work. I believe the issue remains to be tested in the courts. ~MDD4696 06:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion process question[edit]

An anonymous IP with no other edits has placed a deletion template on my image Image:Seattle - Chinese Community Bulletin Board 02.jpg and has informed me on my user talk page. Their reason for deletion is "isysu". If this is an acronym, I don't know what it means. They do not appear to have created a corresponding deletion requests subpage.

Can I simply remove this apparently frivolous deletion template, or do I have to fill out the deletion requests subpage and respond? - Jmabel | talk 17:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the deletion tag, since it's an incomplete and incomprehensible deletion request and I can see no reason to delete the image. I think you did the right thing in asking for a second opinion of an uninvolved user, but I also don't think anyone would have faulted you for removing it yourself. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking the liberty of removing the deletion request, as there was no clear explanation nor any evident reason for deletion I could see, and no other edits by this ip. I have also left a note on the ip #'s talk page. I looks to be a dubious or frivilous deletion request-- I'm not sure if there is a specified procedure when it isn't obviously simple vandalism, but I'd reccomend in such cases where it involves one of your images ask for a second opinion from an admin or trusted user. (Edit conflict-- see it was already done; glad we all seem to agree.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. - Jmabel | talk 19:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prostitution[edit]

Someone may want to scour this one. I removed one image from the category where I would say its inclusion bordered on libel. It wouldn't surprise me if there are other equally inappropriate (or even more inappropriate) inclusions. - Jmabel | talk 20:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I suspect Image:Mons Venus.jpg is equally inappropriate, since this seems to be an openly operating business in a place where prostitution is illegal. - Jmabel | talk 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 28[edit]

New language and shortcut header[edit]

Ok, I wanted to get a feedback little before I got carried away. I created a new header for project pages with translated pages based on the current style. I also wanted to include the shortcut(s). The purpose is for visual and functional consistency. (Those that never need those links can easily ignore them, and those that do always know where to find them.) They were already pretty much consistent to begin with, however, they did not make use any template, which means translating and updating en masse is not possible. It's not that much of a change, but it does affect a lot of pages (like this one) so any comments/suggestions would be appreciated before I start applying it to every page. The main question is: what do you think about the shortcut box? Too Wikipedia-ish?

Also, we need a standard naming system for the pages that list the translations. Right now, most of them are called "Template:Lang-something", but the "something" doesn't follow any rules so it's impossible to guess with a template that calls it by default. Should we convert these to {{FULLPAGENAME}}/lang like how it is for templates? Rocket000 00:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Category:Flower wreaths a duplicate of Category:Flower crowns?[edit]

Or is it different? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks the same to me. I would go with Category:Flower crowns because wreaths don't necessary have to be on someone's head. Rocket000 12:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "flower wreaths" should only concern something like funeral wreaths and "flower crowns" should concern hair fashion crowns? It makes sense to me... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is right, see http://www.dried-flowers.net/ or http://www.everlastinglifedecor.com/ --Jarekt 15:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK but it's getting more complicated since there's also category:Funeral wreaths. What should we do? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would get rid of Category:Flower wreaths and divide images from that category between Category:Flower crowns and category:Funeral wreaths. --Jarekt 20:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons politics on Kosovo?[edit]

I see that user:Nikola Smolenski (from Serbia) and user:Kosov (from Kosovo) started an edit war over Kosovo. Nikola want all subcategories of Category:Kosovo to be categorised as subcategories of relevant Serbias-related categories. Kosov wants the opposite - he wants Kosovo to be treated as country - unrelated and equal to Serbia. Since I believe that we should not chose sides here, I propose both. I propose every Kosovo-related category to be categorised as part of Serbia and as independent country. That way, Nikola will find category:Maps of Kosovo under category:Maps of Serbia, and user:Kosov will find category:Maps of Kosovo under category:Maps of Europe.

--Ante Perkovic 15:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a wise compromise. I would say: let the fight go on on the (write-protected) en:kosovo page, and till there is a compromise there, we maintain the proposed solution. --Foroa 15:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think we shouldn't accept Nikola Smolenski's revert since we have to be neutral and coherent. Indeed, Western Sahara and Somaliland are categorized in category:Countries of Africa even if they are disputed territories because they're independent de facto. Kosovo is exactly the same case: even if its independence is not internationally recognized it is independent de facto - and actually I think there are more countries that recognize Kosovo than countries that recognize Somaliland. Commons should be like Wikipedia, i.e. it shouldn't deny reality. So even if one is against the independence of Kosovo we have to choose the most logical/realistic way to categorize Kosovo - and that is the way Kosov did it. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an international issue ? So we can manage it as an international issue :
  1. Wikimedia server are in Florida.
  2. Florida is in USA
  3. USA recognize Kosovo.
  4. So wikimedia server should recognize kosovo.
No vote, no majority, just legality. Yes: law is biaised. It's a legal solution to provide "low time-lost" solution. Yug 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yug, this is not a legal issue. The servers play no role in this. Categorizing is an issue for the Commons community. -- Túrelio 20:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The legal status of Kosovo in international law is disputed. It would be POV for Commons (as for Wikipedia) to take a position in the dispute. The fact that the server are in the USA is not relevant: does the US law oblige websites hosted on US servers to recognize Kosovo? I agree with the proposal by Ante Perkovic. --Jaqen 21:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know about all this (the disputed statut of Kosovo). I propose a choice based on Server location to avoid endless talks and huge lost of time. We have NO WAY to close this discussion by talks, we have NO WAY to put an end to this issue. So yes : I propose a "Server location" solution.
The other solution is to close the issue, takin a "WAIT policy" (no change). But please, don't go in endless + useless talks. Yug 06:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think server location should play important role in this. My solution could stop or significantly decrease edit wars and represent the true compromise. Implementing "Server location" rule in this issue means implementing US foreign policy here and I don't think that is a good idea. US is one of the most-biased (it is strongly pro-Albanian) countries in this dispute. Thus, taking position of US as a rule sounds like a very bad idea in terms of trying to raech of consensus.

Ante Perkovic's original solution (to categorise as both) seems best to me. Every other solution offered here will make one half feel offended/unhappy. This way no-one/every one wins - which is usually the best indicator of NPOV. Anrie 10:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ante Perkovic and Anrie, with this and similar conflicts lets try to make largest number of users mostly happy instead of half very happy and half very unhappy. --Jarekt 12:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I withdraw my former proposal and agree with the dual-categorization. (1/ I agree, USA foreign policy is really agressive and a BAD exameple for consensus ; 2/ the dual-categorization is a pretty good idea !~ why I misundertood this sentences yesterday O.o !).
Let's rool ! Yug 16:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC) (+ big apologizes to every ones)
Yeah I also agree with Ante's solution (which I hadn't read properly before). It's the only possible consensus. I also added the category:Disputed territories for Kosovo so that it's more clear. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dual categorization seems an excellent compromise. MartinD 11:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a compromise, though personally I would prefer if Category:Partially recognised countries would be made for Kosovo, Western Sahara, Somaliland etc. Nikola 22:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search Problems[edit]

I added Image:Klaus Heuser.JPG this morning. When I now do a search for Klaus Heuser, the picture doesn't show. What did I do wrong with the picture? Mdebets 13:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't it wrong, it's a cache problem. Sometimes it take a few days till new files can be found by search. --GeorgHH • talk   13:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. I tought it would work like the other Wikipedias, where i can search straight away Mdebets 14:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me borrow your Flickr Pro account[edit]

If anyone has a Flickr Pro account, can you please let me borrow it for our Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan project, which will require a large number of uploads? If you want to find out if I'm a trustworthy person, see my w:User:Pharos account on the English Wikipedia and my organization of the Wikimedia New York City chapter. Please respond promptly by e-mail, because the event is March 28. Thanks for your help.--Pharos 03:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this sort of thing what a Flickr group is for? http://www.flickr.com/groups_create.gne Regards, Ben Aveling 07:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Business: Clovis deletion[edit]

Hello,

RHaworth has deleted my entry from this morning on Clovis stating that it was spam. I wrote in a factual manner and feel that it is factual information that should be made available to anyone who would like to know the different entitities the term "Clovis" is related to.

My entry is not spam. Wikipedia regularly has entries about businesses. Because it is about a business does not make it spam automatically. The information is factual and well referenced.

If I've done something wrong, I'd like to know what it is. I feel that I made a valuable contribution to Wikipedia and am disappointed that it was dismantled so quickly.

Thank you.

You appear to be talking about a Wikipedia article. This is not Wikipedia--you need to go to w:Wikipedia:Deletion review. —JeremyA 21:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


March 30[edit]

March 31[edit]

Template: 18+[edit]

In my opinion we have to create a template to declare that in a specific category there are images that can hurt some people. In my opinion on wikicommons we have to left total freedom of upload but, in the same time, we have to take care about people that could have problems from the view of certain images. Fale 15:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that Fale. There is a good point about it (the only reason why this doesn't exist already) and some irony is the best way to show the point to many people stuck in their own culture. Nudist material is hardly offend-able material in many european countries for instance, whereas any form of nudeness can be highly offend-able material in north america and many muslim countries. However an image that purports to represent Allah can cause riots in 40% of the world, yet are definitely "uncensored" material in the rest of the world. So the problem is, where to draw the line? If the folks of my apartment building believe that trees are an offense to our parking-lot society and that all images of trees should be banned from the internet, are we gonna categorize that as "offensive material to apartment block G, Tsungua, Russia" ? TheDJ 19:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. this does not mean I fully disagree with the idea. I'm just saying that any such idea will be an issue of continuous debate and edit warring because people will have gigantic differing opinions. It annoys me already for instance, that the Wikipedia articles on Male/Female and Human reproduction system, are worse illustrated than my highschool biology book. It's the internet, there is nothing here that isn't readily available all over the net, and at least on wikipedia and on commons they will learn something while they are jacking off for the first time. TheDJ 20:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The idea is initially attractive but breaks down immediately you consider the practicalities. It is a question of who's judgement is used. Why are we choosing an arbitrary age of 18? All of us have had to choose the material that we wish to protect our children from. Use of tobacco and firearms, and gratuitous violence were high on my list. I would like to take that to its logical conclusion but it becomes too ridiculous, as it takes out more than one major religion, a major software company who facilitates 'gun totting' games on its operating system- and any article written about a major country that promotes the use of firearms in its constitution.
    • So who is going to be the censor?ClemRutter 22:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth: I'm sure a warning could be written without specifying an age. Perhaps just something that says "potentially offensive material" and maybe divide up into warning for sexual stuff, violent stuff, religious stuff, etc. As for censorship: I'd say a warning isn't censorship if the material is still available. As for providing an easy way to access potentially offensive material: that's a good point, but I'd say that anyone looking for it is smart enough to know what keywords to type in. As for determining what is "offensive" ... have fun! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 02:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@ Bossi: I meant exactly what do you mean, I used the 18+, to try to semplify the concept. Fale 05:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fale, not at all. As TheDJ points, which criteria will be used? Of course all nudity or violent images will be in. But would fire weapons be in this category (violence in a wider sense)? Or this (disgusting) image? In the practice we will be soon arguing with people about if a (sports)woman shows her thighs can be considered nudity (for some cultures it is). and we have the Commons:General disclaimer for that reason.-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 08:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course all nudity'..Like why? Is breastfeeding harmful to a baby? It never harmed my children. This seems to illustrate my point. Who is going to be the censor? Isn't this about editors exposing their cultural hangups. ClemRutter 10:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that kind of template could be added to pictures and not to categories, because a picture could be categorized in a "hot" cat and in a "normal" category (for instance that picture). And having such a template on pictures may help child-protect softwares (I don't know how it's called but I guess you understand what I mean) to block the access to them if we correctly choose the keywords used in the description of that template. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, if the image description is good enough, child control software (I think that's what it's called) will already recognize it. There is no need for additional measures, especially given that the software in question will probably not be rewritten to be able to recognize such templates on Commons. Also, as has been said above, who is to decide whether an image is "harmful for children"? Where do you draw the line? Breast feeding? Female beach volleyball players? Nude cyclists? Pictures of Mohammed? Human corpses? Animal corpses? Political cartoons? Religious cartoons? None of these are offensive in any way, to me, nor do I think that any of these need to be kept out of the sight of children who are old enough to browse the Internet unsupervised. All of these are offensive to other people, and, with the exception of the first two, I have seen deletion requests for all of these on the grounds of being "offensive".
Let's not censor ourselves, and let us not try to define what is and what is not offensive. Let everyone decide for themselves what they deem offensive, and give them a way to avoid these images by giving images good descriptions and categories, so that any control software can filter out those offending images. --rimshottalk 12:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is a really bad idea. "Offensive" is way too subjective. Having something on the image page itself doesn't make sense (think about it). Just like all of Wikimedia, we don't do page-specific disclaimers. We have Commons:General disclaimer at the bottom of every page. I guess we could add something to that and make it a little more obvious (like a link on the main page and something that says, "Wikimedia Commons may contain material that is not suitable for you or your children. Enter at your own risk." But... I really don't think we need to be playing mother and telling people what they find offensive anyway. Besides, most of the time our images are viewed on other projects. Rocket000 12:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, we DO do this till some degree. At least on en.wikipedia. It is the en:MediaWiki:Bad image list It's primary reason is to avoid "spamming" "offensive" materials over unrelated pages within wikipedia. TheDJ 13:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was talking about disclaimers, not limiting the use of certain images. I'm not denying we don't censor. But some things aren't as subjective, like vandalism and spam. Rocket000 04:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only a multi-cultural issue. My kids of 18 years may see pictures that the kids from my conservative brother would never support, even when becoming 40 years old. And the ten years old kids of my brother in law are rised up between porn magazines (an they do well). Where to draw the line here ? --Foroa 13:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest solution is to not draw a line by not making a censorship template. Censorship offends me...why didn't this discussion come with a warning template? Whhhyyy??? giggy (:O) 04:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation[edit]

I have posted a proposal for credentialing photographers at Commons:Accreditation. Comments? Geoff Plourde :D 05:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck with this! You might want to point Florence at the discussion to get board-level input. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite interesting --Jarekt 15:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PD-AB-Exempt[edit]

Please see to the discussion at Template talk:PD-AB-exempt. The question is on how we should handle a PD-government material by an internationally non-recognized state. --MPorciusCato 10:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 1[edit]

Template:Lang links[edit]

This template automatically checks for translations of a given page and displays them if they exist. There would be no more need for /lang pages or entering them in manually. You simply would have to create the translated page with the correct name and that's it. The only problem I see is this template makes (or will make) heavy use of the #ifexists function, so would this be bad for performance? Right now it's still pretty simple, but I didn't add all the languages yet or add any lang attributes. For an example see Template:BSD. I know I can't be the first person who thought of this, so maybe there's something I'm overlooking. Rocket000 03:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not. It has been suggested before.
I think manually adding them is not so bad. It offers the additional benefit that redlinks can be displayed. Redlinks are a powerful motivator to encourage people to create the missing page. (They attract their fair share of testing spam, naturally.) Without redlinks it is much less obvious how to create a new translation, I think. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. I never thought anyone actually wanted those red links, but it makes sense. And I know manually doing it isn't so bad, but this way no translations are missed (including the vandalism), page protection won't slow it down, and it makes the language order consistent on every page. I'll think about doing something with displaying a few red links, or maybe some new kind of {{Edit}}.. Rocket000 22:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2008/03&oldid=71024862"