Commons:Village pump

English · 🌐 [[da:Wikipedia:Landsbybr%F8nden]] minnan:Wikipedia:Chhiū-á-kha

NOTE: Old conversations are now archived in Commons:Village_pump_archive-13.

We would like to hold a workshop on sounds in Wikimedia projects at the Wikimania conference this year (see also above). GerardM has volunteered for it, but since he has already been booked for a talk about Wiktionary, I'd like to give someone else the chance to hold this workshop. So, anyone involved with sounds is welcome to contact me on my talk page, or to send a proposal directly to cfp(at)wikimedia(dot)org (see Wikimania:Call for papers for details).--Eloquence 14:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) (member of the Wikimania programme committee)

Well Done, really. Ever tried to read this?!? This really hurts you know..."Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat the picture can't be used to produce false money." would have been it. Please restore them! ((o)), Ja, bitte?!? 16:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I assume this has been discussed before but I can't find any such discussion. In English, the EU says photographs of Euro coins are authorised. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This was put up as a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests on March 23. The arguments for and against deletion can be read at Commons:Deletion requests/Archives02#Euro commons face coins photos. It would have been helpful if all concerned would have submitted their opinions before deletion. All Euro-related images were deleted April 4. Thuresson 06:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I knew there had to have been discussion somewhere. From what I can gather, the problem here is the non-derivative clause in the copyright terms. i.e., you can't take a part of the face of the coin for another use. They are therefore not allowed under WM Commons policy. Not that the policy is necessarily right. Surely using a tag like ND would cover the copyright terms requiring people not to use it for derivative works. DoubleBlue (Talk) 12:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They were deleted because they were released under gfdl while the copyright is hold by the ECB and that the restrictions on reproductions/derivative works are not compatible with GFDL or free CC licenses. CC-ND-* tags are classified in "Non-Free Creative Commons Licenses" in Commons:Copyright tags. FoeNyx 08:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I mean I know how "my" money looks like. I even have a Poster of all the Notes and Coins. But I think its pretty dumb to delete this just because the pictures may not be used as templates for falsification.... then you could write "void" or "ungültig" across them. But thats just my opinion... ((o)), Ja, bitte?!? 20:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...because they are copyrighted in germany and probably many other countries. Many of them have usage restrictions, too. This is against commons criteria for inclusion: uploaded must be free of use in any jurisdiction. Thank you. -- 80.145.27.221 06:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this User:King who "forgot" to login? IP belongs to Deutsche Telekom AG. Thuresson 06:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is according to german law, in which copyright is pending to persons instead of institutions. Sorry for this. -- 80.145.27.221 06:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wrong! Every german software company only says "code copyright XYZ-company". Institutions can have all relevant using rights. Even if you are the author you give all using rights to the instituion you are working at, you even sell the right beeing namend as author (yes of course in german law you can want other people not beeing namend as author). Although in priniciple you are still the author according to law this is of no relevance as you have no right beeing namend as author. So please stop this silly theoretical debate. Arnomane 07:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow, are you fighting a war? We are on images not computer programms. Please believe: The originator and it´s work is protected by german copyright law. btw.:AP, for example is always naming the originator -- 80.145.27.221 08:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not fighting. I'm fed up that this silly discussion is swapping over from de-Wikipedia. And yes I'm aware that AP and other press agencies are naming the fotographer (in most cases those jormnalists only have a loosly bound to the press agency and of course the name of the fotographer can also be a sign of quality and proof of correctness of the content provided) but this has nothing to do with the fact that your employer can want you not beeing namend as author even in Germany. Arnomane 09:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you bend copy-right to Arnomane-right. This is very dangerous. -- 80.145.27.221 11:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Thuresson, very friendly. When I am being sarcastic, ironic, talking nonsense or whatever, I take responsibility for what I'm saying! Always! There is no need to sniff because I do not log out to say anything dangerous. When I forget to log in, I correct it. Man...Commons is drivin' me crazy...  :-) —King 10:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry anonymous you are completely ignorant. You simply know nothing! Even if some people think so (Historiograf in german wikipedia) the images of NASA and other US-gov agencies are PD worldwide as their legal disclaimers speak generally to the world and not to the US. Look for example at http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/policy/ There you can read for example. "JPL does not issue image permissions on an image by image basis." That says: Please don't go on our nerves with such questions. This whole PD-US thing is a polemical and stupid argumentation of people who want to have all kinds of exeptions or even fair use or something like that in german wikipedia and are now upset as that what they want is not going to be done. Arnomane 07:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would you please STOP misinformation. Each reader is able to read http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2004/09/copyright_in_go.html where is a lengthy discussion of the topic. I am against deletion requests of PD GOV pictures but NOBODY should falsely say that they are PD worldwide. Historiograf --217.226.45.158 00:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. There is a widespread misconception that because U.S. law denies copyright protection to its government's works, that those works automatically fall into the public domain outside U.S. borders too. Unfortunately, the Bern copyright convention says exactly the opposite, that foreign works enjoy full copyright protection even if the country of origin does not offer that protection. In practical terms, the U.S. government doesn't bother to exercise those rights, but it has them whether it likes it or not. --IMeowbot 07:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Arnomane, I don't understand why you are so upset. It is not a question of NASA or whatever policy, it is a question of german copyright law (and many other juisdications). To the jpl-issue: that Caltech makes no representations or warranties with respect to ownership of copyrights in the images and, even more interesting: contractors and vendors who wish to use JPL images in advertising or public relation materials should direct requests... means non-commercial, it is simply non-free-material. You must not print it on a T-shirt! -- 80.145.27.221 08:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You forgot to quote the whole paragraph: JPL/Caltech contractors and vendors who wish to use JPL images in advertising or public relation materials should direct requests to the Television/Imaging Team Leader, Media Relations Office, Mail Stop 186-120, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA 91109, telephone (818) 354-5011, fax (818) 354-4537..

The license speaks of "JPL images" but do not define what JPL images are. Images of JPL buildings and staff? I find the NASA license more relevant. Thuresson 08:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you nuts? You may use NASA imagery, video and audio material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits and Internet Web pages. Anything else is restricted!! You may not sell fireworks with a space shuttle on it! -- 80.145.27.221 11:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No this is no issue of german copyright. See my second comment above. An instituion can also be in Germany the only "person" that has to be namend. Everything else is a strange interpretation. If it would be otherwise you would have to change all credit lines of ESA on their website for example. Feel free to ask the NASA via email if you don't believe me but please stop spreading FUD here until you show me the email answer of NASA. Regarding the requests at JPL. This is a service of JPL. They want you to use the best available material so that they are represented in the best way. You can also ask JPL if you don't believe that. Arnomane 08:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Show me your general policy e-mail from NASA/JPL first. Both parties (and you, too, sorry) will not understand this issue. -- 80.145.27.221 11:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't need to be teached by a anonymous random IP. If you would know me you would have known that I take copyright issues very serious. I can't ask the whole world. You can also do your homework! I have asked several big institutions e.g. ESA (I'm in contact with them and if you can read German you can read the proof that I don't make jokes here). So you are in no position demanding from me asking NASA. If you have done this homework yourself as I did it several times we can discuss again here. Until that: End of discussion here. Arnomane 13:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neither of you is making that much sense. {{PD-US}} is not for US Government stuff (which is PD worldwide, though government-funded but privately created stuff like Amtrak is not PD); that's what {{PD-USGov}} is. {{PD-US}} is for stuff that has passed into the PD in the US but possibly not elsewhere. It is a matter to be discussed, but should not be confused with the US Government. --SPUI 23:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right, and that stuff gets really messy because the U.S. was so late to sign onto Bern. It really needs to be looked at on a country-by-country basis :( --IMeowbot 07:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not that I really want to bring this up again but.... For pictures like this. What copyright tag should they get if they were moved to the Commons. Is there a country that would enforce copyrights frin 105 years ago? Would they get {{PD-old}}, {{PD-US}}, {{PD}} or what? I think it'd be good to know because those images should be on the commons and not just EN. Grenavitar 01:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am developing RCBot, a bot whose main purpose at the moment is to crawl all Wikipedias in all languages and automatically replace filenames that have changed or will change on the Commons. There are several situations where the bot would be useful:

• Suppose there were two identical files on the commons. This happens quite frequently as most images were created for one specific language Wikipedia and then uploaded to other languages where different people think it might be a good idea to have this image on the Commons and thus upload independent copies of the same image. Someone now discovers identical images and decides that one of them should be deleted. RCBot helps here by changing all links to the to-be-deleted file to the one that will "survive".

• RCBot can help to rename an image on the Commons. Of course, the actual renaming of the image -- by uploading it again using a different file name -- needs to be done manually. But RCBot can change all links from the old file to the new file.

Up to now, RCBot is still in development and testing, but I'd like to receive some feedback about it. Do you think it is or will be useful? What functions do you miss?

Up to now, RCBot operates in 200 different Wikipedias. But I don't know whether files on the Commons are used by any other projects I need to be aware of? — Richie 10:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow this feature is really needed. I'm very interested in seeing this bot in operation. The Commons are used by all Wikimedia-projects. Especially also Wikinews (see: http://www.wikinews.org). Arnomane 10:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like even more work. I noticed something strange about wikinews. If you look at the current weather you'll see several maps uploaded here on the Commons that are used there. One of them was wikinews:en:Image:World_C_8Apr2005at0800UTC.jpg at the moment I wrote this, but the image page says that There are no pages that link to this image. Is it because of weird template construction they use? Most other images work. Apparently, if you want to upload a file to wikinews, you are redirected to the Commons. So they need to be included. — Richie 17:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

great idea! could help in standardizing image names. I do not know whether one can set up project pages at commons, but if so maybe do this and let me know so I will put the page on my watch-list. regards. Tobias Conradi 12:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Halló Richie! Great idea! I want to let you know about

1. en:User talk:Patrick#Did you know that ...
2. en:User talk:Patrick#inline links at commons: to nonexisting images

• It seems that the "image" namespace behaves quite different then others. As an implication many links to images will change "red" if the images are deleted. Maybe you should address this at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ .
• I will list the templates NowCommons" at User:Gangleri/sandbox/Template:NowCommons. Best regards Gangleri | Th | T 22:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Gangleri, I haven't thought about changing inline links to images yet, but the bot should be able to handle these as well since it just replaces Image:OLD by Image:NEW.

What is wrong about changing the link colour to red after an image is deleted? It just indicates that the image doesn't exists. No problem in my opinion, but I might miss something.

I see it as a problem that you can not follow any more / could never follow talks (and other inline references) about images that have been / will be deleted.

Example: Image:Satellite image of Romania in December 2001.jpg is now referenced at (commons:)Commons:Village pump. If you look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Image:Satellite image of Romania in December 2001.jpg you will not see Commons:Village pump in the list. Please compare Category:PD NASA and Special:Whatlinkshere/Category:PD NASA and you will see a different behaviour.

The "Image talk" namespace behaves as most others

1. link colors: Image talk:Satellite image of Romania in December 2001.jpg - Image talk:Vina vom Schloss Neubronn 2004-07-E-08-300.jpg
2. Whatlinkshere: Special:Whatlinkshere/Image talk:Satellite image of Romania in December 2001.jpg - Special:Whatlinkshere/Image talk:Vina vom Schloss Neubronn 2004-07-E-08-300.jpg

Another inconsistency in MediaWiki is that the link Image:foo bar blabla.png is allways blue. This is confusing especially for "newbies" and but also iritating for everybody.

Special:Whatlinkshere/Image:Vina vom Schloss Neubronn 2004-07-E-08-300.jpg does not list (commons:)Commons:Village pump either - the image is shown at the right.

Conclusions: For normal pages you can "fix" references either by having a redirect or changing the link. For categories you have to change the link because redirect of categories is not functional. For images you have no chance to detect (with standard MediaWiki functions) the pages where they are refered. You can compare the references with full http:-links / links using {{SERVER}} etc. Best regards Gangleri | Th | T 19:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your NowCommons page includes all templates I've found so far: JP, ES, NL, IT, DE, SV. I bookmarked the page and will append the list if I find new ones. — Richie 09:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gangleris list moved to Template_talk:NowCommons Tobias Conradi 14:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is something I'm not sure how to think about. Renaming a file from OLD to NEW is relatively easy using the bot. But suppose there already is a file with the name NEW in some wikipedia. After changing pages linking to OLD to link to NEW, the effect is not a simple renaming, but the local image with name NEW will be used instead. This might be quite a different image than intended. — Richie 09:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you everyone should take a look at w:en:Wikipedia:Sound/list - it's a list of full songs avaiable on en, most of which were uploaded by Raulbot. (Virtually all of them are here on commons; I just happen keep the list on en). I don't think anyone on the non-english wikipedias has really paid attention, but there a pretty big potential there. Raul654 13:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia:You can't grant your work into the public domain Discuss. --SPUI 00:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have not looked at the page but as far as I know, realeasing your work as PD is impossible by EU law. All you can do is grant unlimmited usage rights to everyone - which is similar, but not the same. -- Duesentrieb 00:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is splitting a very fine legal hair. I fail to see any major difference between public domain and I-own-the-copyright-but-you-can-do-anything-you-want-with-this. Raul654 02:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tag new images however you like, but re-tagging old images which are labelled PD would be an enormous waste of time and effort for such a pedantic distinction. — Dan | Talk 03:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We discussed this topic almost half a year ago in de-Wikipedia and we had the same silly debate. In de-Wikipedia we finally settled down to tag the images despite that with a PD tag as there is no effective difference (you even can deny beeing namend as aouthor in accordance with continental european copryright laws). I fear that one of those FUD persons from de-Wikipedia brought it into en-Wikipedia... So this PD (or as it is called im German "Gemeinfrei") versus copyright is a highly academical debate and I'm very much against tagging the images with the copyrighted tag (this red C) but tagging it still only with the PD tag as there is no difference to public domain as it is in priniciple "name the source and do whatever you want". Arnomane 09:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please have a look at the above page - it lists about 3700 images that have no license info - please Help to go through this mess, tell the uploaders to supply license info, and link this page where you see fit. Thanks! -- Duesentrieb 00:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

can a bot tag the ~730 images of User:Frederic as gfdl (as stated on his page) ? —FoeNyx 12:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Only if all the images where created by him. The GFDL required the author to be named. The bot can't know that. -- Duesentrieb 12:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All his pictures state they are coming from his own site, and there he has a GNU-FDL statement on each page. To me that seems to be proof enough. - Andre Engels 08:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How can I link to a picture in commons if there is a picture with the same name in e.g. the Dutch wikipedia? If I link Image:Tereshkova.jpg from commons in the Dutch wikipedia I get the Dutch picture nl:Afbeelding:Tereshkova.jpg which is not the same. I know that uploading the picture under an other name is possible but it happens so often that I would like to know if there is an easier way to get it right. -Svdmolen 08:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other than deleting the local copy (the copy on that language wikipedia), I don't think you can. Raul654 08:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That or reuploading the Commons picture under a better, and different, name. --Oldak Quill 12:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This stresses the importance of giving images unique file names before uploading them. Thuresson 13:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this issue can only be mitigated over time as image files are uploaded less and less locally, in favour of the Commons. This could be stimulated by lovcal Wikipedias. (I've added some lines to this effect in the Help pages on the Dutch one.) Downside: the fact that copyright issues are (far) more strict on the Commons, which undoubtedbly deters some contributors. But I think that over time people will get used to this "fact of life": if you upload your own pix, it's either PD, GFDL or CC-by-whatsit, if you upload anything else, make sure you have done your homework first. MartinD 09:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The file upload process only asks for a general description. This is not valuable for later discovery by someone else. When Commons is really used we will have the problem of finding suitable files. Without appropriate metadata this will be difficult. We really need to some default category fields for photo's and videos:

• What? e.g. Einstein
• Where? e.g. New York
• When? e.g. 17th June 1944

Obviously these field should be optional; but it will make the image/video more likely to be used.:ChrisG 14:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hm some paragraphs up I suggested a already working solution. ;-) Look at Template:Information. I have added it to several images and would be happy if it can be used by others too. Arnomane 18:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did see your template; but it seems to be concerned with information narrowly concerned with the upload process. I'm concerned with real world information that would make the media useful for others. In addition it should be built into the upload process, not attached via a template. The upload process is a webform; so it should be fairly easy to add further fields.  :81.155.255.8 19:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay you are interested in machine readable Metadata what kind of information a file provides. You could embedd it for the time beeing manually within the image description text (which should always be done). There already exist categories and gallery articles for a systematic categorization but the system is in work in progress and in discussion at the moment. And regarding changing the upload form, well this topic is beeing discussed for a long time in various places with no real sucess. :-( If you are interested in the other ideas and in helping finding a good solution look at the Meta-Wiki http://meta.wikimedia.org and search for "upload form" or something similar. Here within the Commons I fear you wouldn't find the right persons that do the software coding. In the meantime we should focus on good and correct image descriptions and enter the information you want within the descriptions as there is much work to do... Arnomane 20:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also think this needs to be resolved quickly. While I can understand the idea of not forcing a specific categorisation upon commons, I think we can should separate 'concrete' and 'abstract' categories. For example the content of a picture/video can be described in many different ways, so the idea of allowing multiple categories makes sense. But their are concrete facts about the picture/video: date taken/made, author, camera used, aperture, shutter speed, etc. These could also be used to make a better search interface. I suggested a new upload form a while ago, see User:Wombat/Upload. I don't think it would be much work to add the code to mediawiki (says he without looking), is their any objections ?. -- wombat 08:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well Metainformation could and can be added with categories provided the following two golden rules:

1. At maximum 5 categories per article/image whatever.
2. No double categorization (e.g. don't add two different categories out of the same thematic field to it)

I would suggest the following (in parts already existing) Meta structure:

• License category (gets automatically added via the license template), see Commons:Copyright tags
• Data type category: as image, video, audio, and source
• Content category that fits best to the content of the file (and take care of golden rule 2). One very good example categorization structure is: Commons:Category scheme astronomy. So there are at maximum 3 categories left for content description.

Any ideas that go beyond that are quite pointless as we would have enough work until we reach this proposed stage. Of course at the moment we have still a problem with categories and gallery pages. There is a nice idea merging article and category namespace but this needs work in MediaWiki software and up to now nobody knows if and when this feature will be done. Arnomane 14:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm preparing a press release for our 100,000th media file at Commons:Press releases/100K. Everyone is welcome to contribute.

In the meantime, I have a question: Who is responsible for the media counts on the Main Page? I can run counts myself, but I'd like to be sure I use the same methodology as has been used before.--Eloquence 03:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have create the above tag to makr images that have no license info but are claimed by the uploader to be his/her own work. I fell that this is mire specific than the normal {{unknown}} tag and helps users to understand what the problem is and how to resovle it. Furthermore I hope this will help to deal with the images listed on Commons:Untagged images more quickly and in a better way - please comment, or just use the tag if you like it. -- Duesentrieb 16:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there any reason why Categories should not have InterWiki links to their relevant articles on Wikipedias of different languages? There is a user who has been deleting them, because those articles may link to articles on Commons, but not to categories on Commons, and he argues those links must be two-way. I disagree, and feel that Interwiki links need not be reciprocal, because they help users find articles. Comments? Kevyn 16:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree. The links help users, so we should keep them. --Mormegil 16:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. Ideally categories here link to corresponding categories, but a category->article is a perfectly acceptable alternative. Stan Shebs 17:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say interwikilanguage-links are stupid. I said sth. like stan shebs: categories here (have to) link to corresponding categories of course we need those InterWiki links! their're as important as categories and absolutley necessary! Schaengel89 @me 13:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Category InterWiki links to articles are OK. Kevyn 02:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

and why are they OK? Schaengel89 @me 14:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

commons is a bit different from other wikis in that we have no real articles/content pages we just exist to index and manage images. Also in wikipedia it is normal practice to have a category and an article for the same thing, here its something we generally try to avoid and indeed . Wikipedia articles should imo definately link to categories on commons if there is no relavent normal page though there are some issues with doing so due to the design of the current template on en. Simerally all pages here whether category or normal should imo take the user to the best place on wikipedia to find out more about what is being discussed. That generally means a page on wikipedia not a category (categories on wikipedia seem to be very much treated as as an extra not as the core structure like they are here). Plugwash 14:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion the interwiki links should go from article to article and from category to category. In the absence of a prefered link alternative links of articles to categories (or vice versa) are perfectly acceptable. I have started a few main category links like Category:Fundamental and Category:Science and links back too. HenkvD 19:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I even thought of an wikiprogram update that interwiki links from wikipedia to commons (and other wikimedia) should be exactly the same as interwiki links in wikipedia. Example:

(en:)Categroy:Fundamental would have interwiki links like:

[[de:Kategorie:!Hauptkategorie]]

[[fr:Catégorie:Principale]] and also

[[commons:Category:Fundamental]]

In that way the interwikilinks to commons are more easily maintained thoughout wikipedia (and other wikimedia). Currently the links back are by using templates like {commons} or {commonscat}. Placing these in the right position, with different layouts and parameters makes this a tedious job. HenkvD 19:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have started to rework the licensing policy page to reflect what I understand to be the current policy of the commons. Please have a look and help to fill in the gaps. I hope we can make this into a official policy page soon, we need one badly. -- Duesentrieb 19:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fantastic. See my comment on the talk page notafish }<';> 11:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there a page somewhere to get bot status for a user (e.g. User:File Upload Bot (Dori)) so I don't clutter up RC anymore? Dori | Talk 02:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See meta:Requests for permissions#Requests for Bot status --Mormegil 11:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, thought that there might be a local one here in commons. Dori | Talk 05:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've finished uploading close to 300 pics from a Chicago trip. The thing is I had my camera on burst for some of these, I took some panorama shots, and some are probably worthless anyway. I didn't want to decide in case someone felt differently, so I uploaded everything. Help me weed out what don't fit in with commons. Also, I wasn't sure if there was a way to do lossless JPEG 90° x n rotation so I haven't rotated some of them. The images are here: User:Dori/gallery#Chicago, discuss on the talk page here: User talk:Dori/gallery. Dori | Talk 03:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jpegtran can do lossless 90° rotations (and some versions do also lossless cropping). David.Monniaux 15:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"I wasn't sure if there was a way to do lossless JPEG 90° x n rotation so I haven't rotated some of them." Awesome! I wish everyone were as conscientious about lossy encoding. Dbenbenn 19:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

if your on windows there is a nice gui tool called jpegcrop that can do this provided the image is of the right proportions (otherwise you will have to crop the image slightly whilst doing it) there is a command line unix tool called jpegtran that can do much the same things. finally if you wan't to do any adjustments that involve loss just upload the original first then the modified version over the top. That way the original is in the images history. 20:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the Foundation-l mailing list, I have learned about the beatiful w:Wikipedia:Sound/list page containing links to full-length songs that are on Commons. This really is perfect (just now listening to Le quattro stagione ;-) ), but I have concerns about copyright issues with some of the songs. AFAIAA (and IANAL), with a song recording, you have to take care of the rights of: composer, lyrics writer, performer and recording company. E.g. for Image:01 - Vivaldi Spring mvt 1 Allegro - John Harrison violin.ogg, Vivaldi's work is in the public domain and the performer has licensed his work under cc-sa. OK, no problem here. But in case of, e.g. Image:Bernstein- Symphonic Dances from West Side Story - 4 Fugue.ogg, I understand the performing U.S. Air Force Bands Program released its work to public domain, but what about the copyright of Leonard Bernstein, who died 1990?

I do not want to spread any FUD, as, I repeat IANAL, so, could someone please comment on the issue?

--Mormegil 16:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe that you are right. --Baikonur 20:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I have often found it annoying trying to find if an image is linked by a certain wikipedia version and therefore in all of my uploaded images I have done [[en:Image:{{PAGENAME}}]] although hard linked in order for me to check where my images have been used and also on other great images to see if they have been used or if the wikipedia articles are using an inferior version. This led me to create the above template in order that all images have quick links to their wikipedias so people can see if they have been used in the articles by whichever wikipedia. I think this is very helpful however I figure I should now mention and hear what the community things... I am not sure what people will think and maybe VfD will be the concensus, but.... what do you think? am I a moron? you tell me..... Grenavitar 07:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) oh, or has it been done... that's possible too.

Hmmm... I don't think it is really a good thing to do. You know, it might be useful now, but the proper solution would IMHO be some kind of software support to directly list all references from all projects, this is too much of a workaround for me. Just my $0.02, though. --Mormegil 11:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are several issues with your approach:

• The image tagged with your template is not necessarily used in every language you include as interlanguage link.
• There may well be languages that use your image, but you don't list. There are about 200 languages of Wikipedia around.
• Images on the Commons can also be used in other Wikimedia projects like Wikinews. You don't list those links.

Therefore: don't use this template, place interlanguage (or inter-wiki) links manually to languages (or wikis) known to use the image only. — Richie 11:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The ideal would be that MediaWiki makes it such that if it's usesd on any wikipedia a link is displayed. So, yes, this is a work around. I did select the languages that were used for the wikimedia translation found on Commons:Translation_coordination_core. I do think that there is some value in this although I believe it should not be done in such a work around form. I do think I will use this on images I upload but nowhere else. I hope this at least gets the idea out that maybe there should be some better form of this idea implemented in the future. Grenavitar 19:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When I tried to upload a picture of Doc martens I got the 'filename must be at least three letters bug' because the filename began with 'Dr. Martens' -- it was considering the filename to be just 'Dr'. Please could this test be fixed to count the number of characters before the last period, not the first. -- Tarquin 22:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is a known bug #1758, let's hope it will be fixed soon. --Mormegil 08:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does Google search image pages? Fg2 22:13, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. It searches articles, categories, user pages, etc., but (for some reason unknown to me) it seems to ignore the image pages themselves. See for yourself: google:Telephone,site:commons.wikimedia.org --Mormegil 08:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd been writing keywords into captions, figuring that Google would always be able to find them, but when I searched, the image pages didn't come up. I got articles and even an upload log, but no hits for the image page. That's unfortunate. Do you know of a way to keyword image files? For reference, a supplement bundled with PDN magazine this month covered stock photography, and keyword searches figured very prominently in both the methods stock photo agencies provide for users to find images in their libraries, and methods that users cited as useful for finding them. Commons is a lot like stock photography... without the money... Fg2 10:29, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be a general issue to solve - just as we want WP articles to appear at the top of appropriate Google searches, I think we'd like to have commons images appear at the top of Google image searches. What's needed to make that happen? Stan Shebs 02:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stan, I agree. That's a good goal. Achieving it with Google outside of the Wikimedia Commons context should go a long way toward achieving it inside (which was my goal). Wikipedia made it happen. Can an administrator comment on what's needed to make it happen in Commons? Fg2 06:50, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new to the commons, and I was wondering, is it possible to download images directly off the wikipedia database, or do I have to download them onto my hard disk and thae on to commons, which is a bit of a pain?. G-Man 19:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK you have to go the longer way. Or, you might ask someone to do that (semi-)automatically, using a bot, but I don't know about anyone who offers such service (there is Commons:File upload service, but it offers other help). I just want to remind that you should copy all information, especially license, source, date, and original author in the transwiki process. (As a completely unimportant sidenote, the images are not stored in database, but as separate files in filesystem.) --Mormegil 19:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are there any plans to transfer (for example) all images having the PD tag from the Wikipedias to Commons? Fg2 22:27, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

The above image shows a new program called Wikimedia Commonplace, written by User:IlyaHaykinson. It's an application for Microsoft Windows to upload images to the Commons. I think it's quite neat and could make uploading much more convenient.--Eloquence 00:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed. This programm is very nice. I also suggested to him adding the Template:Information, as this would nicely fit into the structure of the program and would increase the quality of image descriptions at the Commons quite a lot. Arnomane 15:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I will start uploading my photos to Commons and I found that templates for cc licenses are for 2.0 version. Some months ago Spanish cc's were updated according to Spanish law to 2.1 version as for example Reconocimiento-CompartirIgual 2.1 España ( Attribution-ShareAlike 2.1 Spain).

Can I make a template for this license myself? How?

As I will use images (also) for Spanish Wikipedia articles, It is possible to show license text (the one in template) in Spanish or multilanguage?

Thanks! --Colegota 12:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You definitely can create a template. Take a look at e.g. Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0-de, copy&paste its source into Template:Cc-by-sa-2.1-es with the required changes and save. Then, add the license to Commons:Copyright tags#Free Creative Commons Licenses.

I don't know if there was a discussion about multilingual templates on Commons, but I am afraid that at this moment, all copyright tags are English-only. It would probably require some nontrivial new features in the MediaWiki software to properly support more languages in that way.

--Mormegil 18:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I did it. I've created Template:Cc-by-sa-2.1-es and also Category:CC-BY-SA-2.1. I've tryed to create an entry at Category:Creative_Commons_licenses but I don't know how to do it.

I've also added an entry at Commons:Copyright tags#Free Creative Commons Licenses.

This are my first steps at Wikipedia, so please take a look to check if it's correct.

Thanks! --Colegota 19:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, your work seems fine. --Mormegil 12:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here follows my view on how the transportation-related articles should be classified. Please, let me know what do you think about my proposal! Kneiphof 15:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Using the same category structure as en: wikipedia is also an option. The Eglish wikipedia has most likely evolved to a structure that has been agreed upon by many users. I don't know if there is a rule for (or against) it. Exception is for Category:Tree of life to use the Latin names. As for transportation I don't see an objection to use the English structure. HenkvD 11:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My proposed system is in fact more or less the same as used in English wikipedia. As you see, root categories are just the same as categories of transport listed in Wikipedia w:en:Transport article. The greatest difference is that my system is more hierarchical. I strongly believe, that hierarchy makes search easier, because there are not too much subcategories and articles in each cetegory. Just take a look at w:en:Category:Transportation! There are 113 articles in this category, and 27 subcategories, while according to my system, there should be only +/- 15 root categories. Where would you find your way easily? Do really need to put, for example, article Helicopter directly into category:Transportation, while, quite logical, it belongs to subcategory:Aviation? Kneiphof 11:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your explanation is indeed quite logical. It is fine by me. My point is more in general: look at something existing and don't invent your own scheme. HenkvD 18:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just about to start releasing some pictures I've taken (first lot). Problem is they're 3000x2000 or so. Is there a policy on max file size? I'd quite like to release them at max so people can use it for any photoshopping under GFDL, but at the same time I know that pics up to 5 megs might be a waste of disk space.

For general information I'm primarily planning on using them in wikipedia (which I'm quite active in). Again, they are all my photos. -- Tomhab 20:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I asked this same question a while back, and I was told that the maximum resolution (minimum loss) should be used. Dori | Talk 20:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can upload images up to 20 MB to the Commons, as long as you convert them to png (graphics) or jpeg (photos) and in case of animations you can also use gif. Please use the maximum available resolution that makes sense (e.g. if you image scanner or digital camera has a physical resolution of 600 DPI don't use the 1200 DPI "digital resolution/ zoom" whatever ;-) ) as e.g. the Wikipedia also gets used for printed work. Arnomane 15:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, storage space is not currently an issue. David.Monniaux 07:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate, if the function "my contributions" could have another specification for "Image new"? -- Simplicius 11:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have you tried confining contributions to the image namespace? It will also show other image pages, but it's a bit better. Dori | Talk 11:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have a question regarding a book I have: “Schriftzeichen und Alphabete aller Zeiten und Völker“ from Carl Faulman (died in 1894). This is a new edition from 2004, but it’s just a reprint (originally printed in 1880). Can I use the book for the Wikipedia or do I have to look for the original to scan? Thanks Ecelan 18:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to use all parts of this reprint. They are public domain as copyright is clearly expired for this work. A reproduction of a old work has no own copyright. You might also want to look at w:de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte and the talk page where this question has been answered for eternity ;-). Arnomane 15:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I've uploaded an image to Commons (Image:Pingyao-calles-c02-f.jpg). Then when I insert the image in Spanish Wikipedia article (es:Pingyao) such as [[Imagen:Pingyao-calles-c02-f.jpg|thumbnail|300px|Calle del casco antiguo]] it really points to an empty image page at Spanish Wikipedia (no to the Image at Commons).

It this correct and must I fill the Spanish wikipedia image page, or there is some way for link the image directly to the one in Commons?

Thanks! --Colegota 08:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is the way it works in the current version of MediaWiki, AFAIK. The image description pages are taken from the local wiki (+there is displayed a message about the image coming from Commons, and linking to the Commons' image description page), while the image itself is taken from Commons.

There are various policies regarding images from Commons on various wikies. You might want to copy/translate the description of the image to the local description page, or you might just leave the page empty and depend on the link to the Commons' description page.

(Note that you could make a link to the image page of Commons, e.g. [[commons:Image:Foobar.jpg]], but you probably would not want that.)

--Mormegil 09:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

El problema está en que estás escribiendo mal la referencia, debe ser: [[Image:lo que sea]] ,no [[Imagen:lo que sea]] --Arturo Reina 16:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Los dos posibilidades (Imagen o Image) deben funcionar. Lo que es importante es el nombre del imagen. --Baikonur 18:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The idea is to provide a local description page in every wiki, so the desacription is available in the local language. It's IMHO always best to translate the description from the commons and put it in the local wiki. -- Duesentrieb 16:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok! I did it this way. Thanks everybody. --Colegota 13:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi! This is a question that affects to all wikipedia pages but as I found as a major problem for CC licensed images I talk here about it. I first opened a question at Commons_talk:Copyright_tags#Templates_updated, but after study a little the code I think I understand the problem.

Well, as I can see, when a page is generated on wikis to be shown in a browser, html comments are removed. Maybe in a effort to decrease traffic, maybe another reason. But the problem is that in Creative Commons licensed images there is some lines of code for RDF tags that tells search engines what kind of image/document and licenses/permisions correspond to that image/document (please take a look to the link above).

I think that it's important that this code can be on page source as a way for search engines can find free images at Wikipedias. So, if it is no posible to change generating code to dump comments to the pages, maybe there is some way to "force" that in some cases comments can be generated with the rest of html code. For example, something like "nowiki" tag.

The comments code I'm talking about is already embedded at Commons:Copyright_tags#Free_Creative_Commons_Licenses so it's easy to change for all media pages.

Regards! --Colegota 07:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A while ago, I uploaded an image to the commons with the name University_of_Wisconsin_Milwaukee_Mitchel_Hall_lp.JPG. It appears to be removed, but I cannot find any note in the deletion request pages or in the page about the image itself. Can anyone provide information as to what happened? How does one find out information about deletions in the future?

Many Thanks!

--Shadowe 11:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your image has been deleted because it was marked as limited to noncommercial use only, which is not allowed on Commons (see Commons:Licensing).

If you want to learn why an image has been deleted, go to Deletion log, write its title (Image:University of Wisconsin Milwaukee Mitchel Hall lp.JPG) to the Title: box and click Go, you'll find its entry.

--Mormegil 13:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

is there anyone, who can say me, whcih license is the best for this, this, this, this and this? all are coat of arms of popes from http://www.araldicavaticana.com/Pontefici.htm, in it they are gfdl, but i'm not sure if this the right license. Schaengel89 @me 18:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Generally speaking, only works you create yourself or that have been been licensed by its creator as GFDL should be marked GFDL. Papal emblems from the 19th century and earlier are likely to be PD because of age. Thuresson 19:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

but Johannes Paulus II died one week ago and he used his coa until his death. what shut happend with his zeal? and by the way, {{pd-old}} is used for images, whose author died 60 years ago, isn't it? Schaengel89 @me 19:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can email the Vatican and ask them if they - or whoever owns the design - are willing to release the COA under a free license. Thuresson 20:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

this means, {{pd-old}}. okay, thanks. Schaengel89 @me 19:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not want to flood the Village Pump with this, as my "essay" is quite long, hence my putting it here. I know this has been discussed extensively about text on en, but comments about this "real life" experience with images would be greatly appreciated. And remember, I am not a lawyer. notafish }<';> 09:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A short summary: publishing an image licensed under the GFDL in a newspaper or such would require the paper to print the full text of the GFDL also, which is impractical. Thus, we should encourage people to put their images under a license that allows not only free but also easy use of the images by other, such as CC-by-sa. I support that and would like to suggest to put up a notice on the relevant pages that CC-licenses are preferred to GFDL for images and other multimedia files. For text, the GFDL may still be the better option. Thanks to Notafish for pointing this out! -- Duesentrieb 11:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GFDL wasn't really intended for short texts or images but for software manuals. The fact that cc-by-sa is more useful than GFDL is worth repeating. Thuresson 11:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have added a short notice to Commons:Licensing#Well-known licenses about CC being preferred over GFDL. Please have a look, I hope you agree with what I wrote there. -- Duesentrieb 16:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thx Duesentrieb for the summary, should have done that myself. ;-) This said, I don't think we should give the preference of one over the other, but rather encourage dual licensing. The problem with any CC license or GFDL is that they exclude each other. Which means that a book with Wikipedia text and Commons images would be a mess if the licenses are not the same. Dual licensing allows for "easier use yet". Until as said in my little piece, all those guys agree... notafish }<';> 16:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS. I changed your sentence to dual licensing preferred.

I also prefer dual licensing out of another reason: The GFDL has two very nice features:

• You only have to name the 5 main authors, which is perfect if you want to make a dervative work of content produced in a wiki by lots of authors. The CC licenses of now all want you to name all authors... Of course Creative Commons is aware of that and is in perparation of a "Wiki-CC-BY-SA".
• You can use the actual GFDL "or any later version". CC licenses need to be relicensed to the current version by the authors themselves which is also near impossible within a Wiki.

Of course I'm aware of the problems of the GFDL (there was an PR agency asking de-Wikipedia for usage of an image released under GFDL for a big promotion poster, as the uploader was inactive and didn't leave an emailadress we had a problem...) Arnomane 17:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This said, the "and any later version" is one thing that, after a talk with soufron, is completely "illegal" as such. Very nice, but illegal. Apparently you cannot agree to a contract you have never seen, which makes a lot of sense, for the next version of the GFDL could be a piece of rubbish for all you know, confiscate all your rights etc. So that may even be something that we should get rid of at some point. villy, I'd like your input on this? notafish }<';> 14:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is correct - the GFDL does not say that you agree to any later version - you just allow authors of derivative work to license their work under any later version. If that later version would be evil, it's not your problem, because you did not agree to it, the author of the derivative work did, after having a chance to review that later version. Or am I missing something? -- Duesentrieb 14:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that when a contributor uploads a photograph he took himself, any of the cc-by licences would be preferable over the GFDL licence? If so, it might be useful to add some text to that effect to the Copyright tags-page, since at this moment there is only a list of possible tags (and of illegal ones), without an indication which one should be used when, if I may say so... Another question: I have uploaded a handful of photos, under the GFDL licence. Can/should I add the cc-by-sa-2.0 licences to this? Regards, MartinD 14:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As pointed out above, it would be preferrable to dual-license all images under GFDL and some free CC-license (note that CC-nd and CC-nc are not allowed on the commons). I agree that this should be pointed out on Commons:Copyright tags and a few more places, but let's wait for the outcome of this discussion until doing that.

As to your own work: yes, it would be great if you would add cc-by-sa-2.0 to them and encourage others to do the same. I have already added that license to all my images after the discussion here. -- Duesentrieb 15:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Duesentrieb, I'll do that. Regards, MartinD 09:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With respect to the CC-licenses we have another problem I want to get solved: The 1.0 versions of CC licenses have the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA tag but the 2.0 versions have the CC-BY-SA-2.0 and so forth. So many people aren't aware of the version number distinctions and tag simply CC-BY or CC-BY-SA and thus use an outdated license. I notice this in about the half of all cases of CC-tagged images (I'm currently working on unifying and improving the image descriptions of all images within the commons with the Template:Information and would be very glad if even more people add it to their images and could change the license for their images to the latest version as only the authors can do that). Arnomane 16:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please have a look at this discussion and comment if you like: Commons talk:Licensing#Fair Use. Thanks -- Duesentrieb 09:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I created Template:User en-0 for users that do not speak English (or understand English very very badly). The reason is that, by default, many assume that they can leave messages in English on talk pages, and this may lead to bad misunderstandings; we had an elderly French-speaking user that was blocked because he could not understand the English messages that were left on his talk page.

Agreed? David.Monniaux 06:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is a good idea, IMHO, but I would suggest to remove the category. Categories like Category:User cs are suitable for finding someone who would be able to speak with me in my mother language, but I see no point in looking for people who are not able to speak with me. --Mormegil 10:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ACK: I like the template, but I do not see how the category would be useful. -- Duesentrieb 12:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. David.Monniaux 14:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another idea: it may be more useful to place this tag on the users talk page, or on both the user page and talk page. Otherwise it may be overlooked. -- Duesentrieb 15:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The text in the box is a bit long (6 lines with me), it shouldn't be longer than 3 to 4 lines in my opinion to conform with the style of other Babel templates. — Richie 10:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is the policy for photos of copyrighted content? These logos of car manufacturers are copyrighted and probably also these COA:s of German cities. Is this allowed? Is it OK to GFDL the design of one of the world's biggest car manufacturers? Thuresson 08:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Rover Label.jpg
• Image:Mazda Logo 2005.jpg
• Image:Volkswagen sign.jpg
• Image:KIA Logo.jpg
• Image:Daihatsu Label.jpg
• Image:Hyundai Enblem.jpg
• Image:Bochum Kemnader See Karte.jpg
• Image:Haltern Wappen.jpg
• Image:Selm Wappen.jpg

Those images are borderline cases - reproductive photos or slavish imitations of such logos would be a copyright violation, showing the logo "in context" on a product would be OK. As the pictures show only the logo I would consider them to be critical - they may or may not be legal, it would be better to show them with more context. (IMHO/AFAIK/IANAL/HTH/BBQ/HAND) -- Duesentrieb 12:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I need this category watched for vandalism: category:Indian states and union territories, maps of all states and territories in India. User:Kerpal has uploaded maps over mine. S/He has uploaded POV, and incomplete maps of the Indian states. I had taken extreme care to see that my maps are not biased, but unfortunately this user does not bother to check with me. Since I'll be away for a fortnight, I am requesting any admin to please see that further acts of vandalism are not carried out. Thanks Nichalp 14:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Commons have been nominated for the Ars Electronica digital community prize ! Anthere is trying to set up a proper document to submit at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Anthere/wikicommons_overview. Based on my French original article for the next Wikimedia Quarto issue, it can be improved, pictures can be added, figures and stats developped, ideas expanded. We have 24 hours to do it :) villy ♦ ✎ 16:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS: it would be particularly great that an English-speaker commoner drop a few more lines regarding the question of the multilingualism and communication between people. For instance I did not talk about our little colored boxes advertising in which language we're able to speak nor did I talk about our current polls, etc etc. villy ♦ ✎ 16:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:silsor filed a deletion request for Template:Copyrighted arguing that the working and name of that template is misleading: all images not PD are copyrighted, copyright is not the problem - the problem is lack of a free license. I agree with him and would like to suggest Template:Copyvio as a replacement - please have a look at the templates and the deletion request and comment. Thanks! -- Duesentrieb 14:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As there have been no objection, I have marked Template:Copyrighted as deprecated - please use Template:Copyvio from now on. Likewise, Category:Copyrighted is replaced by Category:Copyvio. Chears! -- Duesentrieb

I have added some photos to Commons under GFDL. I'd like to change the license to CC-BY-2.0 but before I do that I'd want to make sure that it is allowed. --CSamulili 17:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes and no. Since you are the author, you can put your work under any license you want. However, you can not revoke a license: if you put it under the GFDL, it remains under the GFDL (but you can remove the tag, ther's no rule about that as long as the file is tagged with some tag of a free license).

Anyway, for the reasons stated in the lengthy discussion above, it is best to license your work under both, the GFDL and CC-by-sa-2.0 (or CC-by or whatever) - this is possible and even quite whide-spread, and it avoids most complications effectively.

Thanks for your concern - maybe we should but the answer to this question into the FAQ. Oh, and IANAL -- Duesentrieb 18:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I can't seem to find anything in Commons:FAQ that says exactly how one is supposed to move an image from an existing wiki project to Commons. VP archives suggest that (A) people are just downloading to their computers and then doing a Commons upload, hopefully including all the necessary license and original contributor info; and (B) some people talk about doing transwikis, but without any links to Commons use of transwiki. I just checked and found that Commons does not have the required Transwiki redirect to its transwiki log, and Wikipedia does not have any outgoing transwikis to commons listed in its current log. Am I right in thinking that Commons is just not using the transwiki process? Should it be? — Jeff Q 11:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of thinking about organization of categories lately.

It is Commons policy that place names should be in the native language of the place (See: Commons:Language policy). So we use Deutschland not Germany, Brasil not Brazil, México not Mexico.

I have argued that we should also not use English adjectives for things related to places, because this makes things more confusing for non-English speakers. Category names like French Cuisine, Dutch Architecture, Fijian Culture should not be used, because English placename adjectives follow illogical and inconsistent formation rules, making things harder for non-English speakers.

And, with the policy of using native place names, you cannot use English adjective constructions anyway. There were a couple of attempts at a mishmash of English adjective construction and native place name - like the horrid Category:Brasilian instruments, but this isn't going to work.

Initially, I advocated for a Noun-Preposition-Noun formation to get around the adjective problem: For example, Cuisine of France, Architecture of Nederland, Culture of Fiji.

The strength of this approach is one avoids confusing English adjectives, and uses the official policy of native place names.

However, the weakness of this approach is that You have to use an English preposition ... and which one should you use - in or of? Churches of France or Churches in France?

Now, I think I have a solution: Do away with the preposition altogether, and attach the place name with the subject name by a colon.

What if we named the categories by placename:subject?

For example: France:Cuisine, Nederlands:Architecture, Fiji:Culture.

This would fit within the existing category scheme, and sidestep the issue of English adjectives and English prepositions.

I argue that the place name should be placed first for sorting purposes, so that when you are looking at a list of a subject by country, it will easily sort by country name.

I'd like to hear reaction is to this idea.

Kevyn 17:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For non-English speakers, ":" seems no more or less meaningful than "of" or "in". The real solution is category redir + multi-language titles, which I think are in the works in Wikimedia. I don't see much value in spending a lot of time on recategorizing right now - it would be better to find and organize the thousands of orphans, and build interwikis so that the 'pedias know that all these images are available. Stan Shebs 20:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was so bold as to change the wording of MediaWiki:Affirmation and MediaWiki:Affirmation/de as well as Commons:Copyrights. I feel this was necessary to avoid confusion. Please have a look and change if neccessary. The affirmation notice is the text that appears at the checkbox on the upload form and may be 'legally binding in some juristictions, so this is important! This message should also be changed in the various languages, as I already did for German. Thanks! -- Duesentrieb 19:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

www.orchidphotos.org has authorized the use of any photos for specifically Wikipedia and Wikispecies but does not want them to be used for commercial use. Can such photos be uploaded to the commons? I don´t normally visit this page so please reply to me at My Spanish Wikipedia discussion. Thanks--Orgullomoore 03:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. Please have a look at Commons:Licensing -- Duesentrieb 11:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is the policy about people in photos? Do we need some sort of consent, or can I upload pictures of anyone I like regardless of consent? Peregrine981 04:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As long as they're in public spaces I don't see what the problem would be, but I could see how some countried might have laws covering specific situations. In the US I don't think there would be a problem. Dori | Talk 04:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The law in all states and territories of the United States is that if a photograph was taken in a public place, the photographer does not have to have permission to take the photo (and the laws governing ownership of the photo are the same as always.) A photo taken of someone in a private location would require that person's consent, but it would be implied that you had it anyway unless you're going around taking covert photos of people against their will. Use common sense; if you have a photo and you think someone would object to your distributing it, then don't! :) Pacian 05:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In Germany (and other european countries?) the law is more strict: if a picture shows a person recognizably, that person has rights to the image and can object to its use and publication ("Recht am eigenen Bild"). The only exception to this are people of "public interrest" (like politicians), but (as by a recent ruling of the European Court) only if the picture shows them in their official capacity.

For this reason, the german Wikipedia does not allow private images of people, unless they consented to the publication. I belive we should have a similar policy on the commons, but this needs some discussion I guess. -- Duesentrieb 11:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As of now I suppose there is no specific wikimedia policy, so one must act according to the laws of the country the photo was taken in. In a brief search I note that in Canada the law can be summarized like this, "First, one does not need consent from those photographed in crowd scenes, or from those who because of their position, professional duties or due to some unique circumstance are brought into the public arena. Second, one may well require consent to publish the photo of anyone else." [1] Is there somewhere that we could compile wikimedia's policy on this issue for future reference? Peregrine981 12:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I belive the best place to compile the policy would be Commons:Licensing, even though this is not really a licensing issue. As some point, we may have to ceate a separate policy page for this, but for now a central page seems most useful. I would suggest to put the general policy into a new section next to the (now empty) "Insignia" section. Country-specific things should go into the section about country-specific laws. -- Duesentrieb 13:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We could always add a new template for it, saying that consent was given for publishing this photograph, in addition to licensing templates. Ausir 18:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About all this, please see also #Copyright vs. other laws: problems with commercial use, etc below. -- Duesentrieb 19:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think similar question about show/concert photos (for example Rammstein).

On my experience cameras/VCRs were banned for general admissions on concerts in USA (San Francisco/Bay Area). Indeed it’s not the case for press VIP admissions.

If such kind of images were made without permission what is Commons policy in this case?

EugeneZelenko 15:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it could be argued that they are not public spaces (unless it happened in a public park). When I went to a circus, they specifically mentioned that it shouldn't be taped. Dori | Talk 15:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Generally, when you take a picture of a pice of art, the creator of that art has rights to the image (in some jurisdictions however this is not true if the pice of art is publically accessible). This is true for paintings and sculpures, movies and theatre performances. I belive it is also true for shows and concerts, especially if taking pictures is forbidden explicitely. In any case it would be best to ask the performers before publishing the image. -- Duesentrieb 18:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there any automatic procedure that would tell which pages (which Wikipedia's) link to a specific photo on Common? AndrejJ

No, regrettably there is not. This is not as easy to do sotware-whise as it would seem... Everyone agrees that we need it, but it will take a while untill we get it... -- Duesentrieb 11:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Create an account on bugzilla if you do not already have one then vote for this bug or patch it ;) --FoeNyx 12:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to propose to use the green copyright symbol instead of the red one for all copyright tags in section "copyrighted and usable" of the copyright tags. What do you think? -- Duesentrieb 11:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems a good idea to me. --FoeNyx 12:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, good idea! --Baikonur 12:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AOL, me too. --Avatar 17:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done for all tags except the ones applying to crown copyright, which I belive to be non-free - see #Crown Copyright is non-free below. -- Duesentrieb 17:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We have a lot of images on the commons and other projects that are under a free license or in the public domain, but are restricted in use by other laws. This has led to confusion in the past, and I feel we need a clear policy for those cases. I will try to explain some common cases below, please give this some thought and comment -- Duesentrieb 13:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We have a lot of insignia on the commons. From the viewpoint of copyright, they design is usually in the public domain and the picture is either PD or under a free license (if not the image would have to be deleted anyway). However, the use of official insignia is, in most jurisdictions, restricted by laws unrelated to copyright. To signify this, we have Template:Insignia, etc. It remains unclear however if an images that has no copyright restrictions but is restricted in use otherwise can be considered free. The most important restrictions are:

• Insignia can often not be used in a way that suggests endorsement of a group or product by the entity that the insignia referrs to.
• Especially, commercial use of insignia usually requires written permission from the agency etc who uses the insignia
• The use of some symbols is completely illegal in some juristictions (like the flag of Taiwan in the PR China), or is restricted to informational and scientific use (like nazi symbols in germany - see Template:Nazi symbol).

We should have a clear policy for this.

Most logos and trademarks are copyrighted and non-free, so they don't belong on the commons anyway. Some logos however are so old that they are in the public domain (I think the Volkswagen-Logo is such a case), but are still protected as a trademark. Are those logos free and usable on the commons?

In many jurisdiction, people shown on a photograph have a right to restrict the use of the picture. That is, if I take a photograph of someone, I have to ask that person before publishing the image. There are several cases to consider:

• The person shown on the image allows the use of the picture in mediawiki projects only, or only for informational/educational/non-commercial use. Note that this is not' a restriction imposed by the copyright holder or the license. Are those images "free" for use?
• The person agrees to publication for any purpose. In most juristictions, this person would still have a right to sue you if you use the image in a derogative context. I belive there is not even a way to disclaim this right.
• If I publish a picture I took of myself and release it under a free license, do I still have the right to veto the use of this image in a derogative context? Or use of the image that implies I for instance support a political party I do in fact not like at all?

This seems quite complicated...

Another question is - if I take a picture of a person in a public place, do I need permission to publish this photo? (this question is already discussed in a section above). Laws seem to doffer quite a bit here...

I am of the opinion that freedom in terms of copyright should be all that we are highly concerned about on Commons. If we are to concern ourselves with every other type of law that might restrict what we can show, we will have precious little here.

Also, copyright is the "invisible" restriction. You cannot know, from looking at a picture, what its copyright is and the restrictions on its use through copyright law are. It strikes me that the vast majority of other restrictions are restrictions on content - one can look at the picture, and evaluate its content against the laws that apply to one's personal situation.

For example, I have placed many pictures of cars into the Commons. Cars display trademarks; the logos of their manufacturers and the trademarked names their manufacturers give them. For this reason, there are limits on the commercial use of my photographs; they could not be used in another company's advertising, for example, without digitally editing them to get rid of trademarked logos. This is not a restriction imposed by the photographer or copyright holder (me) nor the owner of the car itself, but is rather one that is open to the trademark holder. Morven 22:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. But adding an additional template for pictures where we definitely have the consent of the photographed person won't hurt. I object strongly to deletion of Coats of Arms only because of non-copyright laws. Ausir 16:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that Template:CrownCopyright, Template:LearningandSkillsCouncilCopyright, Template:NationalAuditOfficeCopyright, and Template:NHSCopyright require accurate reproduction, which makre the crown copyright non-free for the purpose of the commons, as derivative work is not allowed. According to en:Crown Copyright, this also applies in canada, thus to all images tagged with Template:CanadaCopyright (see also the deletion request).

If this is true, all images using those tags will have to be deleted, unless they are PD by age. Any comments? -- Duesentrieb 14:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Gjøa.jpg is linked to from the Gjøa article on en: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gjøa but the pic doesn't show up in the article. Is it because of the "ø" char in the filename? 83.227.105.210 15:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, probably - the problem is that the en:wp uses ISO-8859-1 as ancoding, all other projects use UTF-8. Also, there was a bug with non-ASCII filenames in the past. For now, please use ASCII-chars only for filenames (gallery pages and categories can use the full UTF-8 range). -- Duesentrieb 15:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

that char is in the range that is present in iso-8859-1 but is encoded differently in utf-8. It seems to be showing ok in the article but not on the image description page. I would strongly reccomend sticking to 7 bit ascii for filenames at least until such time as ALL wikis are converted to utf-8. Plugwash 15:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I had created some images using OpenOffice.org and converting they to "png" extension. Some drawings have text in the images, so, in my particular case, they are in spanish, but I wish to share the source files ("sxd", etc) so any people can easily modify the file to his proper language or use it in any other sense. Another advantage is that drawing files from OpenOffice.org are parametric and easier to modify than png. Thanks. --Gengiskanhg 22:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

i thought, it could be useful to have some formilities for candidates and becoming a featured picture. I created a page to discuss it: user:norro/Featured pics and candidates. I would like to here your opinion. Feel free to comment/edit. Kind regards, norro 15:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you already noticed the article 10,000 paintings from Directmedia. There is some work to do with categorization. Please take a look here: User:Avatar/Categories. This is my first proposal for new categories regarding the paintings. If nobody disapproves or has further proposals, I'll create this categories in the next few days. --Avatar 22:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, now that I calmed down a bit (sry FoeNyx and the others ;), I want to dare a new try. My plan is to upload again:

• my own pictures of the top of Euro-Coins
• my own pictures of the edges of Euro-Coins
• collage about the Euro-Banknote's security features, created by myself from pictures of Euro-Banknotes made by myself
• collages created by myself using pictures from www.ecb.int, looking similar to the pictures on the top of the Euro-Article in the English Wikipedia (looking similar to these)

In the past, there were several arguments on this matter, so before talking about the same stuff again, please keep these facts in mind:

• There has been a deletion request on alle these pictures mentioned above on March 23th '05 HERE is it
• I created a deletion request on another image of the edge of a Euro-Coin, which is as "illegal" as the others, but which has been forgotten. The image in on commons by now - (why?) HERE is it
• User:Dickbauch asked here, in village pump, why the Euro-Coins and -Banknotes had to be deleted HERE is it
• (feel free to add sources and old discussions on COMMONS here!)

So, after considering all these I think I should be able to uload legally the images again, labelling them with this Template: Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat, adding the information that the pictures must not be used to produce false money. What do you think? To keep the overview, I splitted the following into "Yes", "No", "Longer comments". —King 09:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(sign here, evtl. +short comment)

• ((o)), Ja, bitte?!? 12:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(sign here, evtl. +short comment)

• --FoeNyx 01:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) (see longer text down)
• ECB do not allow use by anybody for any reason. Thuresson 19:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The use of your own pictures of Euro Coins and Banknotes is no problem according to the german Bundesbank (link in my comment above), which is a branch of the European Central Bank. My suggestion would be to wirte a big "specimen" across the pictures, so there is no argue about the danger of false money. ((o)), Ja, bitte?!? 12:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The banknote images are already uploaded, see Euro, with a correct template, Euro banknote. Per Johansson 12:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't realize this! So, this template is fitting, no discussion? Hm, I think I should dare uploading at least the banknote-related pictures. What about the Coins, any problems with these? —King 13:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have to check what images you can use. For instance, those I uploaded are provided by ECB for this purpose, having low resolution and the word "specimen" across. The coins need another template since ECB reproduction rules are different for coins. Also, copyright for the design of the national side of the coins belongs to the country in question, so we need to find out each country's rules before using the images of the national side. Per Johansson 14:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• <start of the answer of annoying FoeNyx>

First of all I want to say I have nothing against you King, I found your picture really nice and I'm sorry if you are being upset because of my remarks =\

→ My previous RfD was (1) as there are copyright holders for banknotes design (ECB), coins common face design (European Commission) and coin national face (the artist who made it?) photos couldnt be realised under gfdl. (2) The lot of restrictions on reproductions right prevent the « allows anyone to use it for any purpose provided that ..», and prevent a full derivative works.

→ The point (1) is cleared, but the point (2) is still there.

Here the reasons why I'm opposed about uploaded of thoses materials, which are I think non free:

• About euro banknotes, as stated here, :

You ask to other people to respect a moral guideline about the standing of euro banknotes : I do not call that free total use. Moreover READ THE 20 LINES (3.5Ko) OF « Article 2 : Reproduction rules for euro banknotes » in the previous url ...

→ If accepted, the template for image have to remember that full text and the copyright holder anyway.

• About the euro commons face coins - copyright holded by european commission or member states -, as stated here, there is a lot of rules in the « Reproduction regime » section (read them all too).

→ Same moral guideline about usage : so it does not fit with wording of the template « allows anyone to use it for any purpose »

• About the nationnal faces ( here ):

Does that means it's under the copyright of each designers according to each nationnal laws (probably)

but IANAL ... I would like the comment of other ppl and especially judges/lawyers as villy (who is on vacation until 7th of may) or soufron about that.

—FoeNyx 01:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) (I probably made some mistakes it's 3am here -.- & please answer after, not inside)

</end of the answer of annoying FoeNyx>

A couple of users have been effectively changing the adminship criteria on Commons:Administrators by voting against candidates who are qualified but who don't say the right things; please weigh in at Commons talk:Administrators if you're interested. Stan Shebs 19:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there a policy on pictures (raster graphics) of fonts? I'd like to upload self-created pictures that include text written in a "freeware" font tengwar parmaite which has the following licence:

"Tengwar Parmaite is created by Måns Björkman © 1998-2005. It is licensed as freeware, meaning you are free and even encouraged to make copies of this font and share it with others. The accompanying files, including this documentation, should for practical reasons always be distributed together with the font. You may not alter the contents the font or any of its accompanying files without written consent of the author. Distributors of shareware collections are asked to contact the author before including this font and its accompanying files in any of their distributions."

I think that the constraints expressed in this licence will not concerne any images I create using this font, since they apply only to a redistribution of the font itself, not to its use. Can I release it as {{PD-self}}? Should there be an attribution to the creator of the font? J. 'mach' wust 08:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I already said it to you at this page de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Bildrechte#Verwendung von Schriftarten you don't need to worry about that topic. By the way Image:Konqueror-Screenshot.png (screenshot taken by me) uses for displaying the website the font "Verdana" (owned by Microsoft) but you never can extract a Verdana-font out of that screenshot. Most modern fonts are vector fonts with complex internal algorithms and instructions that can really be seen as small programms but this is a bitmap you cannot reconstruct the same or even similar Bezier curves out of a bitmap. The second point is that even if you could reproduce a single letter you don't get the font with its specific information as Kerning, Hinting and so on as it can't be extracted. And of course you use only one (or some sizes). So even with Bitmap fonts you don't need to worry. Arnomane 17:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree - just think about paper publications: If I write a paper in MS Word using the MS owned font "Times New Roman", I do not need permission from microsoft to publish, neither because I used their Program, nor because I used their fonts. It's the same with screenshots, I belive. Anything else would not make sense - propriatery fonts would not be usable at all if this was ahdeled differently. Distributing the font files themselves is a different thing - fonts are essentially programs (machine-readable definitions of algorithems). You need permission to distribute the program, but you do not need permission to distribute work you created using the program (unless this is explicitely required by a contract). -- Duesentrieb 13:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Halló! Please read a detailed description at User:Gangleri/sandbox/Common errors. There could be some hundred templates to be fixed. Regards Gangleri | Th | T 17:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to upload a revision of Image:Regiones de China.PNG, but uploaded it to Image:Regiones de China.png instead. Can someone help me delete all revisions of Image:Regiones de China.png? Thanks. -- ran English talk|中文對話 22:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

done. If you want an accidental upload deleted, just put {{Deletebecause|bad name or something}} on the description page. -- Duesentrieb 23:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Qatar_Airways&curid=123392&diff=0&oldid=0

For images and categories that have become articles user User:Denniss is deleting their category tags. I am completely against this and User:Gunter.krebs and User:Bricktop have also complained about this practice. Since he still is doing this I suppose arbitration (which I can only presume will yield an answer of keeping category tags) and then a message from an admin (or 20) telling whichever side is wrong to stop. This should be a simple issue which does not lead to many of reverts. Also, if an admin responds could you please also do so on my talk page. Thanks Grenavitar 23:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently working to create articles and link them to the international version, that's not possible with Categories as they mostly do not exist there. It's better to have images linked from articles and not categories filled with lots of them, especially in the aircraft manufacturers section (then you'll have 400+ in Boeing). The other users complained about action in the rockets/missiles section and I stopped there but look at their categories - try to find images not linked via articles inbetween these many linked images. --Denniss 23:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been pondering this too - Denniss' point is good, but categories with lots of images are useful for searching for an image visually, for instance if I'm looking for a good depiction of deployed multi-wheel landing gear. This would be quite time-consuming if I had to look through dozens of articles each with 1-2 pictures, and very fast if I have just a handful of big category galleries to scroll through. Another way to put it is that articles and categories have different strengths when looking for pictures, and commons is more useful as a picture resource if there are several pathways to finding a useful image. Stan Shebs 00:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not deny the use of articles. I deny the disuse of categories. What about images that aren't in articles or many cases when things change. Looking at an article is a good way to to get the images, but the category is meant to be for whether it is in an article or not. An article is not a category, a category is.... Grenavitar 00:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As you can see from Commons:Images on normal pages or categories:Vote, there's not much been much agreement on "what an article is for" or "what a category is for"; what we need is an interim agreement on how to use what we have right now. Stan Shebs 02:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is very ineffective to have images im both articles and categories, especially in the Airlines section with 2-3 images per Airline. It's easier and faster to have only articles and non-linked images there and it's better to maintain as you are able to see what images need to be included in articles. If there's need to have all images in this category why not creating a single subcategory for all Airline images? Should be called Airlines/Images (or Airlines/Img to use a short version). This would include both things: A category with fast and easy access to articles as well as easy maintaining and you have the option to view all images of this category. This may be used on other categories like Aircraft manufacturers as well. --Denniss 10:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't think this is effective. How do you want to search for new images of a particular airline added to such a big category? And you must assume that someday in the near future there will be more than 2-3 images in an airline category. Best way imo is to categorize an image by aircraft type and by airline as well (if needed, don't know how its done yet). Your point of view isn't really wrong, but I think it is still better to have a single image in both an article and a category --Bricktop 13:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)