Commons:Help desk

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcuts

Shortcut: COM:HD

This help desk is a forum for questions and help on:
How to use Commons

Anyone, from newbie to experienced, can ask a question here. Questions will be replied to here as well. Any answers you receive are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them.

Ask your question

or

In order to get quick answers consider the following points:

Resolved sections (marked by {{section resolved|1=~~~~}}) will be archived after two days. Sections with no discussion will be archived after ten days. The latest archive is Commons:Help desk/Archive/2024/02.

For quicker help, join our live chat room. webchat
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
 SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 10 days.


Is this image public domain?[edit]

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. Speravir 20:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gade-English Dictionary[edit]

how can I create a page or pages for Gade-English Dictionary same as www.hausadictionary.com Brobadiah (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Brobadiah: are you referring to Category:Lingua Libre pronunciation by HausaDictionary or something else? If that is what you are referring to, the category page would be basically identical except for the name. - Jmabel ! talk 17:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your rapid response.
I actually saw what I was searching for on the Developer Portal,which I downloaded PHP zip folder 📁 for the project.
Are there tutorials on database once the file is extracted? 102.91.5.127 15:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Brobadiah i guess https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki has what might be helpful. RZuo (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

localisation[edit]

Bonjour, Je viens de découvrir un peu par hasard Wikimap, et j'ai compris que ce site était alimenté par les photos postées sur Wikimédia, à condition que celles-ci incluent un lien vers la carte "open street map" (exemple : https://wikimap.toolforge.org/?wp=false&cluster=false&zoom=16&lat=048.669972&lon=-003.911217)

Comment faire pour ajouter ce lien sur mes photos déjà publiées, ou sur les prochaines ?

D'avance merci Scrapdemonik (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Scrapdemonik: Bonjour, Ma réponse sera incomplète puisque je n'utilise pas cette fonction. Mais les photos concernées comportent un lien d'information vers la page d'aide Commons:Géolocalisation, qui semble expliquer le fonctionnement. Il semble qu'il suffit de géolocaliser adéquatement les photos avec les coordonnées dans les paramètres du modèle «Location». Vous pouvez aussi poser votre question sur la page Commons:Bistro, où il se trouvera probablement des photographes francophones qui connaissent ce sujet. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vous avez raison, je crois : j’ai vu mes propres photos affichées par cet outil, ayant seulement ajouté les coordonnées à la page fichier avec {{Location}}.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
merci pour votre réponse si rapide ! je vais faire un essai... Scrapdemonik (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
bonjour,
Merci à tous les deux ...
bonjour,
je ne sais pas si ce message sera utile à quelqu'un : j'ai réussi à enregistrer une géolocalisation sur une nouvelle fiche
Ste Elisabeth à Trégunc, en ajoutant une ligne lors de la description. J'essaierai de me servir de cette notion à l'avenir..
Merci à ceux qui mon lu Scrapdemonik (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

famous pictures[edit]

can I use a photo of an artist/public figure that has been photographed by a professional, and posted on Instagram, for example? Sweetened (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sweetened: No. You are not allowed to publish pictures by others without their permission. Yann (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sweetened you can only if their permission is granted. follow com:vrt. RZuo (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wondering whether or not the license is okay[edit]

Hey there! I was just wondering if it would be alright if I were to upload this image of the current Bosnian foreign minister. I've seen some images from the European Council's page uploaded to Commons, but I'm not so confident that their licenses are okay, unlike the images from the EU Commission's page which are perfectly fine to freely redistribute. Thank you to anyone for taking their time for this in advance! :) -- Bakir123 (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bakir123: Hi, You can see #European Council, a few sections above on this page. It's probably better to wait until the related deletion discussion is decided. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bakir123: All such files were recently deleted as not being sufficiently free for us to keep. Ww2censor (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picture I submitted has gone[edit]

I submitted two pictures a few days ago, one, nude man with erect penis and one with flaccid penis, the flaccid picture has disappeared and I do not understand why. It was a classic pose, in fact it was a photograph of me posing for an art class. I’ve looked through your page of nudes with flaccid and mine would have been the only classic art pose, in fact I noticed that one picture of a man with a waist band cock string was included three times and at least one picture of an erect penis so I see no reason my offering could not have replaced one of these.

xyz666xyz Xyz666xyz (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude man with erect penis.jpg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
is that supposed to be an answer? I followed the link which was about my picture with erection which was still published even after the objections, when I saw my post I assumed the objections had been dismissed. I’ve read the comments of the objectors and if you feel my submissions are not good enough I accept your opinion and please remove them and my membership too. Xyz666xyz (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was an answer, yes. If you want to upload garbage-quality borderline pornography, then it will be deleted. If you keep on doing it, you'll be blocked eventually. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Borderline pornography? You have a page heading “ nude men with erect penis” and that is what I sent you and you have published several dozen similar images. Please feel free to delete my image and cancel my membership. Xyz666xyz (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do be careful what portion of your anatomy the door hits on the way out. - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
COM:PENIS refers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this photo of a recent model a breach of copyright?[edit]

Vasas hull profile

Is this a breach of copyright? It is a photo of a modern model. So I am wondering if this breaches the copyright of the maker of the model. I am hoping that it does not, as images like this are in short supply. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above was originally raised as a question on [1] and referred here. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could be problematic if the model is considered to have enough originality to be copyrightable. You might be able to get permission from the holder of the copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The model is on—presumably permanent—display in a museum in Sweden. Refer to Com:Sweden. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I am aware, this model is inside the museum as part of the permanent display. The existence of donated images, per [2] makes me wonder if a photo of a modern model has a copyright problem. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Originality of model: since this model is the result of a massive archaeological investigation, a great deal of interpretation and measuring, I doubt that those who produced it would see it as anything other than original work. The same people have published pictures in books and academic papers that convey the same information as the model and those pictures are certainly copyrighted. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photo is mine and I'm the primary author of the article about Vasa. I used to work at the museum and I know that they are very much aware of how these photos are used. Not going to comment on the specific legal issues involved, but it's worth noting that the museum has never raised any concerns or objections to any of this. It's not an argument per se to keep an image, but it might be more constructive to simply ask them about it.
From a more general perspective, Commons needs to get it's act together regarding the copyright status of models on display in public museums and the likes. There has to be clear and reasonably simple guidelines for these cases and they need to be applied consistently. It's not reasonable to try to figure this out for each individual photo of each individual scale model of... whatever.
Peter Isotalo 09:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)::"Reply[reply]
@Peter Isotalo:
  1. quoting from Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, '…arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims" and, as an example, 'The copyright owner will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated their work.'
  2. There is no general answer to the copyright question, because it varies greatly from country to country; also, oddly, the more accurate a model, the less likely it is to be copyrightable, because it is simply a skillful reproduction rather than a creative work. The rules can't be made simple, any more than for any other sort of work. Copyright is inherently complicated.
  3. If you used to work at the museum, you are probably in a better position than anyone else here to obtain permission. - Jmabel ! talk 18:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I worked there part time over 10 years ago for extra cash as a student, not because I'm a museum person. I don't have any special contacts. They're run government agency and are available for anyone to contact, including in English.
And I'm not the one bringing up this up as a copyright issue. Just trying to provide some context. Peter Isotalo 22:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we know who negotiated the donation of images by the museum (for example File:Block - Vasamuseet - 03741.jpg)? Surely that is the best route into gaining permission for an additional image. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's from DigitaltMuseum. Peter Isotalo 21:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the set of free-to-use images on the Digital Museum is a larger number than those identified here as a "donation". That is what makes me think that someone specifically arranged use of a smaller group of photos. Or perhaps a broad-brush term was used in the identifier here. Someone within Commons should know. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The block photo wasn't "donated" but taken directly from DigitaltMuseum as far as I can tell.
DigitaltMuseum is a collaboration directly with various museums, including the Vasa Museum who have provided the metadata and chosen licenses themselves.
I'm figuring that they've thought through their position on the copyright of the models they've commissioned through their uploads to DigitaltMuseum. Here's one of the model in question. [3] Peter Isotalo 07:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have opened a new thread here to ask for the procedures needed to request release of the model's copyright to the extent needed to continue to use the photo here. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel, even if we disregard how different countries treat the issue, do we have any guidance regarding scale models where the creator hasn't been dead over 70 years? We're supposed to deal with this by a purely individual basis? Peter Isotalo 19:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peter Isotalo: "70 years" is relevant in many countries, but not all (e.g. for the U.S., it has only relatively recently been relevant for anything, and I'd be hard pressed to come up with an example of where it would matter for a museum model). I don't think we can "disregard how different countries treat the issue," because "the issue" is (1) whether the model has a copyright and, if it does have a copyright, (2) whether there is sufficient freedom of panorama in the country in question to make that irrelevant. Both of those are country-by-country questions, including differing thresholds of originality. - Jmabel ! talk
"Whether the model has a copyright" is impossible to actually figure out because Commons doesn't seem to address this issue anywhere.
I've started a thread over at the Village pump regarding this. Feel free to join.
Peter Isotalo 21:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glitch with paragraph break[edit]

Hello, I created a template at template:Monohedral quadrilateral tiling series description to use as a general description for multiple files. As you can see, it has two paragraphs, with a break between. However, when I actually deploy the template in an image description field, such as at File:Monohedral quadrilateral tiling 6, 2, 1(M), T4 (1).png, the paragraph break disappears. Anybody got any idea why? I did the apparently identical thing with another template, and the paragraph breaks show up fine, see e.g. File:Monohedral pentagonal tiling 4, 1, 1(M), T100 (1).png. Tai Ling (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did a quick HTML hack, but yes, that is very weird. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, well, the "hack" seems to work anyway, so thanks for that. Tai Ling (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do add appropriate categories or at the very least {{Uncategorized}} if you make future templates. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I understand it, categories are to help people find content, but there seems no reason for anyone to want to look at these templates separate from finding the files where they are used, which are themselves correctly categorised. But if the templates do need categorisation, what category should I use? These are file descriptions that are used across multiple files, created in order to avoid having to edit numerous descriptions individually in the event of any changes. Is there any category for that? Tai Ling (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tai Ling: Category:Image description templates. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Tai Ling (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

unable to upload[edit]

Hi Wiki loves Vizag 2024 page says "not active now" Is there some issue? Drashokk (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To me it looks quite active. Problem solved? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Drashokk.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes! Looks good now. Thank you. 49.204.230.39 23:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having issues with my recently uploaded image[edit]

can anyone check this up? I'm having trouble settings up the licence for the image File:Miss_Universe_Philippines_Logo.svg ItsAxld (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ItsAxld: You can't determine what licence applies to this image unless it is very clearly stated on the site you found it and even then, this is obviously the logo of the organisation. The organisation, or their designer, own the copyright and we would need their written permission releasing the image under a free licence we accept in order to keep the image. As a piece of advise, generally most images you find on the internet are not freely licenced so caution is required before trying to upload such images because you uploading and volunteer editors patrolling such image and then deleting them or nominating them for deletion just causes more work and frustration all around. We are happy to help so if you think an image might be useful, it's a good idea to ask here or on the copyright talk pages before uploading. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How come the photos I uploaded seem to have violate copyright? It is indeed part of an official document issued by Polish Institue?[edit]

Hi guys, I am quite confused and need some tutorial now. So, I uploaded two photos from Polish Institue this post https://instytutpolski.pl/beijing/pl/2019/11/15/li-yundi-laureatem-zlotego-medalu-zasluzony-kulturze-gloria-artis/. Since it is an official document issued by Polish government, I have them licensed under Polish "official documents, materials, signs and symbols", while now they are speedy deleted, under the reason apparently not "official documents, materials, signs and symbols. May someone lecture me on this matter, thanks EleniXDD (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your source states: fot. ARP W PEKINIE / IP. Does that relate to the photos on the page? You seem to be referring to Template:PD-Polishsymbol, I have no idea if that applies here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that's Polish Institute in Beijing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Institute, https://www.gov.pl/web/diplomacy/polish-institutes. According to that copyright law, official documents, materials, logos and symbols is considered public domain. And this one is obviously official document by Polish gvt, if not official material.
I still hv no idea why it is deleted, and the one nominated for the deletion cannot explain well to me. EleniXDD (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Túrelio any comments? We seem to be talking about pics like [4]. Page does say "2024 © Instytut Polski w Pekinie". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

format wideo[edit]

w jakim formacie można dodawać filmiki. mp4 nie można. KristofOSer (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

eMail[edit]

I changed my email over a year ago. Your system has a record of my new email, but you are still sending messages to my old email address. I have never received any message on my new updat6ed address. I rarely look at my old email, hence there are many unread messages on there from you (Jimmy) about continuing to donate, but I don’t see them because I no longer use it. How do I ensure only me new email is used? Arj000 (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arj000: Hi, Donations to Wikimedia are managed by the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find the relevant information at:
wmf:Donor privacy policy#Accessing Your Donor Information
-- Asclepias (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you - I'll try that Arj000 (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for Account Deletion - Mohsen Khajeh 1995[edit]

Hello Wikimedia Support, I am writing to request the deletion of my Wikimedia account with the username "Mohsen Khajeh 1995." Could you please help me in deleting this account? Additionally, here is the link to the images associated with my account:https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=mohsen+khajeh&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=image Mohsen Khajeh 1995 (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have the option to have your account renamed. You can also request to have your account blocked, so that it can no longer be used for edits. You can also change your password to something random, so that you cannot log in anymore. You can also make a notice on your user page that the account is retired. But the account cannot be deleted. You have uploaded three files and if your account was deleted it would no longer be possible to attribute your uploads. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mohsen Khajeh 1995: it looks like all of your uploads are unused personal photos, so those can be deleted if you like, but basically we don't delete accounts on Commons (nor, as far as I know, does any WMF project). - Jmabel ! talk 07:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All accounts are SUL-acounts, therefore the deletion on one project would make no sense (and even if it was done: the account would auto-recreate once the user visits the project in question while logged in to the SUL account). C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Mahesh tagged them for speedy-deletion as unused personal photos and I deleted them as such. DMacks (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to include code used to generate a plot[edit]

I have uploaded the picture shown here, which could be potentially be used on the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space . I would like to also publish the R script used to generate the picture, alongside the plot itself. What is the best way to do this?

CIE 1931 RGB colour matching functions

Jochen (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template {{Image generation}} was built for this, but usually I've seen the source code included in the description or in an extra box after the info box. --rimshottalk 16:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I managed to include the code using the template. Jochen (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Written consent of author[edit]

Can I upload photos with the written consent of the author to publish it under CC BY 4.0 even though it has originally been posted online under another license?

I'm sure this question is stupid because either the answer is completely obvious or this question is already answered on the many pages on here that should help people to know everything about licenses. But still, I am not quite sure as I don't have much experience and I would really appreciate to get an answer to my exact question from another person.

Sorry for having to ask that question but thank you in advance. -- Crazycracker44 (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Crazycracker44: Which license is it published under online? If it's not a free license, you would need the author to contact COM:VRT confirming that they are licensing the previously published photograph under a free license. Abzeronow (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm mainly talking about pictures obtained from Ebay listings... While Ebay itself writes that all the images on there are copyrighted, the authors I contacted all believe that they would be public domain. They all say to me that I could upload the photos here but they don't want to send a confirmation of that to VRT because I guess it seems like a scam if someone just texts you on Ebay to ask you to send a text to an unknown email... Crazycracker44 (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
COM:Hirtle should guide you here. If the photograph was published before 1929, it's free and clear in the US. If published between 1929 and 1964, it needed a copyright notice on the photograph and a copyright renewal to be in copyright. From 1965 to 1977, it still needed a copyright notice, and from 1978 until March 1989, copyright notice or subsequent copyright registration within five years for a copyright. If it's before March 1989, and lacks these, then it's probably OK. Post March 1989, we would require the photographer to grant permission via COM:VRT. Abzeronow (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your two helpful answers, Hirtle gives a very clear overview. Crazycracker44 (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Erroneous image attribution across a large range of species articles[edit]

File:The birds of America (Pl. 215) Agelaius assimilis (cropped).jpg is an extract from Birds of America by John James Audubon. Audubon depicts a bird that is most probably what is now called Agelaius phoeniceus gubernator, Audubon calling it Agelaius gubernator. Because of a similarity in appearance to the very localized red-shouldered blackbird Agelaius assimilis of Cuba, and Audubon's muddled description, the image has been tagged as a depiction of the Cuban bird. It isn't, the females are entirely black. In expanding the enwiki article [5] I figured this out and removed it, but the image is in wide use across many languages, and I hesitate to do more than correct the description on Commons and categorization. See [6] and subsequent pages for the referenced text and description. I think the image has been misapplied on a large scale, in good faith. Any suggestions on what to do with its naming and usage? There is an alternate image, which is at least correct as far as I can tell,File:Agelaius assimilis 104127030.jpg. I've removed the Audubon image from the Wikidata entry, which has reduced the erroneous inclusions a good bit. Acroterion (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Acroterion: I suppose you can rename the file with the precise current name if you think that's the best solution. But given that it is an "historical" book image that did not use that name, my suggestion would be to simply rename with the book title and plate number, in the same manner as the files in Category:The Birds of America (1841). "File:The birds of America (Pl. 215) (cropped).jpg". Only a few uses remain now. Erroneous uses can be removed. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds like a good idea.I'll see if I can flag the remaining issues on the individual uses. Acroterion (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about maps[edit]

Hi, I have created some maps some time ago using a template. Now I got nomination for deletion of these maps. How should I change the license? Please provide with a step-by-step instruction. What should I include, for example, here? Information

|description=

English: Share of Ukrainians in Iamalo-Nenetsky Autonomous Okrug municipalities, 2002

|date=2023-02-04 |source=Own work |author=Andrijko Z. |permission= |other versions= Thank you! Andrijko Z. (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andrijko Z.: Where did you get the underlying map images / outlines? @Quick1984: FYI.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is the template: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Subdivisions_of_Russia.svg Andrijko Z. (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andrijko Z.: Thanks. So instead of "Own work" you should write "Own work based on File:Subdivisions of Russia.svg". @Quick1984: Are you willing to revert your tagging?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I got it. Thanks. I will correct the files appropriately. Andrijko Z. (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made necessary corrections. Hope all is fine now. If not, please let me know what other changes I should apply. Thanks. Andrijko Z. (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now reverted. --Quick1984 (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploading an Image of an Internet Personality[edit]

I'm adding some details to a wikipedia page for Little Z, currently referencing and trying to pass for recognisability, stuff like that. But I was wondering how I could find a photo of him without it being a restricted image, because reasons of copyright, etc. If you have a good image of him that can be put on wikipedia, or know how I can get an image of Little Z, please let me know! Thank you. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is about en:Draft:Little Z. Note: that contribution has so far been declined for lack of sufficient demonstration of notability (third-party sources writing substantively about the subject). Even what is indicated there as his YoutTube channel gives a 404.
Probably you won't get anyone interested in actively helping you track down an image until you can demonstrate notability.
Probably the easiest thing to do (if indeed his YouTube channel is accessible somewhere) is to ask him to license a still of himself from one of his videos. He can either place it on a public-facing page of his own social media with a clear statement of the license, or can go through the VRT process to grant permission via email. - Jmabel ! talk 07:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I'm sorry about the error with the channel link, this link should hopefully work: https://www.youtube.com/@LittleZReal
I am currently trying to get some notability and references through, I hopefully can gt the page published! But first, I'll need an image so it is sort of a self fulfilling prophecy. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can find more about Licenses here. For commons a photograph must be lincesed under CC-by, CC-by-SA or CC0, so it can be processed through VRT. --iMahesh (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An image will do nothing to add to validation of notability. - Jmabel ! talk 00:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change title[edit]

Please change the title "Sie starben als Preussen une Helden"

into "Sie starben als Preussen und Helden"

Tks

Alta Falisa (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alta Falisa: please link the file that you want renamed. Abzeronow (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, I thought my demand would be linked to that very page. Anyway, it has been done by Tsungam .
Thanks. Alta Falisa (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

code errors[edit]

I ran into errors when I tried to subscribe to a page yesterday. Can anyone assist with web configuration errors. The page I originally created has somehow been taken over and my access is now blocked. I dont know if creating a new page so I can access the settings needed to correct some of the issues would help, any feedback would be appreciated.

Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine. Details: To enable the details of this specific error message to be viewable on remote machines, please create a <customErrors> tag within a "web config" configuration file located in the root directory of the current web application. This <customErrors> tag should then have its "mode" attribute set to "Off". <! -- Web.Config Configuration File --> <configuration> <system.web> <customErrors mode="off" /> </system.web> </configuration> + G Notes: The current error page you are seeing can be replaced by a custom error page by modifying the "defaultRedirect" attribute of the application's <customErrors> configuration tag to point to a custom error page URL. <configuration> <system.web> <customErrors mode="RemoteOnly" defaultRedirect="mycustompage.h

I cant find the setting to modify the default redirect attribute! Prettytata253 (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Prettytata253: Please see Commons talk:Protection policy#page protection.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prettytata253: that is an ASP.NET error message, but to the best of my knowledge Wikimedia servers do not use ASP.NET. This help desk post is the first edit you have made. Where exactly is your page located? MKFI (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wish for my work not to be sold unchanged[edit]

If I wish for my work not to be sold unchanged for real money, should i upload it here or should i instead upload it to the wikimedia project i want to use it on?

This is a pretty serious question as i did see the licensing tutorial and it says that by sharing my work here, one permission i grant by doing so is for people to sell my work without my notice. While i am fine with modified versions of my work be sold, i am not fine with the original file being sold. I am confused of if i should upload it here or the Wikipedia instead because of that? what should i do? AuroraANovaUma (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AuroraANovaUma: Hi, and welcome. Given your non-commercial restriction, please see COM:LJ.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmmmmm, i dont get it, because i still am allowing most commercial use, I'm just not allowing people to sell the original file for real money AuroraANovaUma (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AuroraANovaUma: Hi, The basic mission of the Wikimedia websites, including Wikipedia and others, is to offer works that can be reused for any purpose, provided that they are properly attributed to their authors. If you want to place restrictions on what can be done with your work, that is of course your very legitimate choice, but then it means that your work is not for the Wikimedia websites, because it is not in the scope of why the Wikimedia websites exist. If you want to offer your work on the internet with restrictions, there are many websites where it can be done, but that is not the mission of Wikimedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AuroraANovaUma: You have licensed your uploads with {{self|Copyrighted free use|CC0|WTFPL}}. The first of those, when rendered, includes "If this is your own work, please use {{Cc-zero}} instead", so you should not be using both that and the second. Both the second and the third say "You can [...] distribute [...] the work, even for commercial purposes, [...] without asking permission" and "do what the fuck you want to", respectively, so your manually applied text "you cannot directly sell the original file for real money" is both nonsensical and unenforceable.
If you do not agree to allowing your work to be used commercially, without modification, then you should not upload it here or on Wikipedia, where the same criteria will apply. But do you really think people will pay money for works like File:Graffiti-de-símbolo-de-direitos-autorais.svg? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yeah and why would anyone pay money for my stuff, my first two uploads are ugly. and why buy it when you can get it here for free? AuroraANovaUma (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
but yeah i doubt anyones gonna sell my stuff AuroraANovaUma (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[edit]

Diagram depicting the morphology of the potato plant

I uploaded this: File:CIP-Afiche-papa-ingles.jpg. (We need it for the potato page, since there there is such a confusion where the tubers arise from). The website (https://cipotato.org/potato/how-potato-grows/) where I took the picture from states under the diagram: This publication is copyrighted by the International Potato Center (CIP). It is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Which is ok to upload here. BUT: it has the logo of the institute on it. Do I leave it as is or crop the logo out? I'd like to leave it as is because it automatically gives attribution. My assumption is that the logo is also included under CC BY 4.0, since the license is for the entire website. Any advice? WikiUser70176 (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WikiUser70176: Hi, and welcome. You can leave the logo there, but don't be surprised if someone uploads a new file with the logo cropped out, say for a cleaner-looking article.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a bunch! WikiUser70176 (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...as someone has now done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are modern black and white photos acceptable?[edit]

Are black and white photos of current subjects taken with modern digital cameras acceptable for uploading to Wikimedia Commons? Or are color photos always the preferred choice? David Ratledge (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@David Ratledge: Yes, b&w images are acceptable (subject to the usual caveats about copyright and scope); but if you can, please upload colour, or both. Users can always convert colour images to b&w; the reverse is less easy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking as someone who does a fair amount of concert photography: there are many circumstances in which it is far easier to produce a good black-and-white photo than a good color photo, either because the lighting is rather bizarre in terms of colors or simply because it is very low light. From my own work, File:Sarah Dougher 02A.jpg (black and white) is a lot more useful file than File:Sarah Dougher 02.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 18:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you (to both of you that replied). This is helpful information. I have recently been shooting more and more black and white out of personal interest but still wanted to contribute it if appropriate to Wikimedia Commons. It sounds like it would be okay to do so but that ultimately it would be best to contribute color photos. I will refrain therefore from uploading most of my black and whites to Wikimedia Commons so as not to overdo it. I have been searching, and while it is not hard to find black and white photos on Wikimedia Commons, modern ones that could have been shot in color seem to be relatively low in numbers. David Ratledge (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

फोटो[edit]

अपने फोटो अपलोड करने हैं Lokmitra bhagwat bisht (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lokmitra bhagwat bisht: Perhaps you are looking for Commons:First steps. If not, you will have to be more specific. - Jmabel ! talk 00:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This file is not "author's work".[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vladimir_Dimitrov_-_Maistora.jpg

This image of the Bulgarian artist Vladimir Dimitrov Maistora was taken in 1908 by an unknown author, and cannot be the "own work" of the uploader, who uploaded it in 2008. I am not sure when it was released to the public, but according to Bulgarian law "Copyright in anonymous or pseudonymous work shall expire 70 years after the work has been first made available to the public." Jaguarnik (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @Balkanregion as uploader of File:Vladimir Dimitrov - Maistora.jpg.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gemeindewappen der Gemeinde Griesstätt in Wikimedia[edit]

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

im Wikimedia-Eintrag unserer Gemeinde ist eine Version des Gemeindewappens eingestellt, das im Allgemeinen nicht verwendet wird und wir auch nicht möchten, dass es weiter verwendet wird.

Die Gestaltung des aus der Königskrone wachsenden Adlerrumpfs unterliegt aus heraldischer Sicht der künstlerischen Freiheit. Der "zerrupft" wirkende Adler sollte nicht verwendet werden. Einen Unterschied zwischen Gold und Gelb oder zwischen Silber und Weiß machen zu wollen, ist heraldisch absolut widersinnig (siehe dazu: welt-der-wappen.de/Heraldik/seite43.htm).

Wir bitten Sie das Wappen im Wikimedi-Eintrag auszutauschen und die von Ihnen bisher verwendete Version in allen Bereichen zu löschen. Den Eintrag wollen Sie uns bitte bestätigen. Gerne lassen wir Ihnen dazu eine den heraldischen Vorgaben entsprechende Dateiversion unseres Wappens zukommen. Vielen Dank für Ihr Bemühen.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Barbara Lechner Vorzimmer Bürgermeister Gemeinde Griesstätt Innstraße 4 · 83556 Griesstätt Telefon: 08039 9056-11 Fax: 08039 9056-20 https://www.griesstaett.de<https://www.griesstaett.de/ 185.95.112.211 08:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gibt es eine korrekte Version des Wappens, die entweder frei lizenziert oder gemeinfrei ist? - Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sulambek Susarkulowitsch Oskanow.png[edit]

Ladies and gentlemen!

I've recently upload the above mentioned file. I got two questions concerning this file:

- Is there anyone at Wikimedia that knows about russian copyright law? I created this file in consideration of all the legal information i could find on Commons, but i'm only 99% sure this file is actually not an object of copyright even though denomination and country name are preserved.

- This file is an adaption of File:Sulambek Oskanov (marka).jpg. I'm not sure i uploaded my file as intended. If i made any mistakes concerning the upload, please let me know.

Thanks a lot, greetings from Vienna - Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü: I made some adjustments; I think it should be good now. - Jmabel ! talk 19:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright release request language[edit]

Is there a standard letter to ask for release of copyright to Wikipedia commons? This request is relative to "Is this photo of a recent model a breach of copyright?" listed above. I intend to contact the Vasamuseet and ask them to release the copyright in respect of the model to allow continued use of the picture. I just need to know commons' own procedures and standard request phraseology to do that.

I have posted as a new topic so this gets noticed. I will put a note to refer here on the original post. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThoughtIdRetired: Hi, please see COM:CONSENT, and ask the Vasamuseet to carbon copy you on their permission to keep you in the loop.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did the museum acquire the copyright from the author who made the model? If so, the museum should include a clear statement of that. Also, the author is still to be credited as the author. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please note that the museum has already uploaded a photo of this model themselves here.[7] CC-BY-SA and all.
Peter Isotalo 19:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, so we need one of the copyright experts in commons to say whether or not the picture in the article needs a separate release of copyright of the model. I suspect it does, but we need to know for certain. If we need a separate release and it is difficult to get that (for bureaucratic reasons) then the cleanup applied to the article's picture could be applied to the upload linked immediately above and we would have exactly the same picture. I already have a question with the museum on who to contact on copyright matters. Seems sensible to see if we get an answer. In my experience, some museums are brilliant whilst others are pretty hopeless (that seems to apply worldwide). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you're making this extremely complicated, especially for yourself, for very little benefit. If you think an image violates copyright, you need to nominate it for deletion, especially if there's an almost identical photo released by the museum who both owns the model and has commissioned it.
I've had reason to look at Swedish copyright law before and the legal position as far as I know is very clear: employers own the copyright of anything their staff produce in the line of work. This is work commissioned by the Swedish National Maritime and Transport Museums, like everything else that's part of the permanent exhibitions of the Vasa Museum.
Nominate the image for deletion first and see what the community says. Peter Isotalo 21:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The least amount of work from this point is to wait to see if there is an answer from the museum. There is quite a lot of stuff in Commons with this sort of problem, for instance File:Krummträ.JPG|thumb|Krummträ, which ignores the copyright of the person who marked out the pieces of wood. I have left that alone for now, but it needs investigating as it is a useful image. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The museum has already released the rights to this exhibition through this photo.[8] At my last workplace here in Sweden, we investigated the issue of the rights of commissioned work by employees and concluded that they belong to the employer. From what we could tell, it's standard practice and completely uncontroversial. We have no reason to question the Vasa Museum's position in this case, only whether Commons actually has to require releases to each individual photo.
Aside from that, in both the case of the cut-away model and File:Krummträ.JPG, it's not clear whether museum exhibitions are to be considered works of art or not. Commons doesn't have any guidance on this and the Vasa Museum is not going to answer that question for us.
@Jeff G. and @Asclepias, can you please comment on this in light of the additional info I've provided? Peter Isotalo 07:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peter Isotalo: I think {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} should suffice in this case.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't care whether they are "works of art", just whether they are copyrightable. - Jmabel ! talk 20:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not everything that you find in a museum is actually owned by them. In these days of innovative funding, an item might be loaned, donated with restrictions, sponsored, etc., etc. The only way to find out if the copyright holder of an exhibit is the museum is to ask them. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no question about the ownership of a model in the permanent collection of a museum, researched and built by its staff. That is clearly what we are dealing with here. And in Sweden, it seems pretty clear that the intellectual property rights would belong to the museum. I don't think there is any reasonable question about that. An image released (free-licensed) by the museum itself is clearly OK; the question is whether we can obtain the museum's permission for images not taken by their own staff. (That is, their permission for using the underlying work in a photo that constitutes a derivative work.) - Jmabel ! talk 21:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm personally not going to object if my original amateur photo taken with a crappy camera is deleted when we have an almost identical alternative.
I absolutely respect the precautionary principle, but I can't see any useful purpose in securing a separate release for a separate photo of an exhibition that has been released as CC-BY-SA and where we have no idea if the work is even considered copyrightable.
I know one thing, though, it should be our problem to solve, not the Vasa Museum's. Peter Isotalo 17:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With this level of information, that would be a reasonable position. However, before the majority of the comments above, the question about obtaining copyright approval was asked of Vasamuseet. I don't see any huge urgency in solving this problem immediately, so I suggest that we wait and see if we get an answer. If not, then the previously released picture can be used. The advantage of the photo in question is that it has the background edited out of it, so it is much clearer to see. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jeff G.: I now have an answer from Vasamuseet. They are happy to release the copyright of the model under CC-BY. Is this OK for me to ask them to complete the forms as per instructions above with this licence? I am not totally sure if the forms need to be modified to make clear that they are releasing copyright of the model itself, rather than the photograph – but I wanted to get the question about the licence offered off immediately. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this will take some rewording of the form letter, and might even involve some back-and-forth with the VRT. Ask them to keep you in the loop by cc'ing you on the email so this doesn't go off the rails. And it might be good to include a permalink to this discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 21:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo of a portrait as illustration in a Wikipedia biography[edit]

I want to add a black&white photo of a portrait commissioned and paid for by the Swedish art collector dr Sten Lindeberg (1894-1954) in Paris 1949, painted by the french artist Bernard Buffet (1928-1998). The photo is ment to illustrate Sten Lindebergs Wikipedia .biography.

Please inform me about the best way to do this.

Best regards! Plin38 (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Plin38 I assume the portrait is of Sten Lindeberg (läkare). While you can't upload it on Commons, it's possible you can upload it locally on Swedish Wikipedia. I don't know their rules on this, you have to ask there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Plin38: Different from the strictly enforced en:WP:F on English Wikipedia, Swedish Wikipedia has no mention on m:nfc, so non-free content is not welcome at all on that project.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for the prompt answer! So OK, if I get permission from the copyrightholder(s), how do I proceed from there? Plin38 (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for the prompt answer! So OK, if I get permission from the copyrightholder(s), how do I proceed from there? Plin38 (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Plin38 Simplest for you is that the copyright holder register an account and use [9]. Otherwise, you/they have to follow the directions at COM:VRT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds like the portrait would still be copyrighted (until 2068, 70 years after Buffet's death), with the copyright owned by Buffet's heirs. To place that here on Commons, you'd need to have them grant a license. - 19:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

its not letting me log in after creating an account[edit]

please help me log in after creating an account Tlackey22 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tlackey22 You were logged in when you wrote that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Curiouslogo.png[edit]

C OllieE2b (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convenience link: File:Curiouslogo.png. @OllieE2b: you seem to have successfully uploaded a slightly larger version. I'm not sure what the point was of that, but your upload was successful. What is your question? - Jmabel ! talk 05:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sir I have document a Biography need to upload it to the wikipedia[edit]

Would like to know which format is acceptable to upload the file: Sampath Lakshmi v (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Billbarretta19[edit]

Billbarretta19, who states [10] he is Bill Barretta, has recently uploaded [11] several pictures as "own work". Some of these may be that in our/Commons sense like [12], but for most it is not obvious. Bill Barretta works with Muppets (he is among much else the current Swedish Chef), and he just got an Emmy for it.

What is the best way to proceed here, I've never done any mass-tagging. I'll be quite happy if we can keep them all. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Billbarretta19: I believe that the Commons:Volunteer Response Team can go through verifying an account as being a particular person. I would say that would be the best way to proceed.
COM:VFC is certainly the best tool for mass tagging. - Jmabel ! talk 20:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

საკონკურსო თემა,,ქალები ვიკიპედიაში"[edit]

საკონკურსო თემა,,ქალები ვიკიპედიაში" Liana goderdzishvili (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a question here? - Jmabel ! talk 20:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ann Petersen, afbeelding van Engelstalige Wikipedia.[edit]

Beste,

Graag zou ik de afbeelding willen gebruiken van Ann Petersen op de Engelse Wikipedia om deze te plaatsen op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia.

Hopelijk vormt dit geen probleem.

Groeten. Deus Ex Aequo (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De link naar de afbeelding is Ann_Petersen.png en de Media data and Non-free use rationale. Wouter (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could be mistaken, but I believe the Dutch-language Wikipedia does not allow non-free images. You'd have to ask there to get a definitive answer though, not on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 20:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This table gives a clear NO for the Dutch-language Wikipedia. Wouter (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are photos from the White House Historical Association public domain?[edit]

Back in 2022, I began uploading photos of the White House Christmas Tree in the Blue Room. I would like to upload this photo of the 2015 tree.

[13] It also came from this article. [14]

However, I want to make sure that their photos are public domain. I saw this description on their website:

"PUBLIC DOMAIN IMAGES: The White House Historical Association has selected images pertaining to White House history from the Library of Congress, National Archives and Records Administration and Presidential Libraries. Rights information: These images are in the public domain."

Does that mean it's okay for me to upload the image here? And1987 (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@And1987: If they are asserting it is public domain, I don't see any reason to doubt them. You'd probably want to create a template for this institution comparable to the ones in Category:PD-release like license tags. - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Here is a link to the source saying that they are public domain. [15] And1987 (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@And1987: Make sure the individual images are clearly identified as PD or sourced from the stated collections, because everything else on the site appears to be ARR.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

アップロードしたファイルがページに貼り付けない[edit]

アップロードしたファイルがあります。 しかし、クリップをクリックして、本文中に貼り付けようとしても、「ファイルがありません」と赤色で表示されて、記事の中に表示できません。 なぜでしょうか？ Tsuneoyamane (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google translates renders this as "I have a file that I have uploaded. However, when I click on the clip and try to paste it into the article, the message "File does not exist" is displayed in red and cannot be displayed in the article. Why?"
"click on the clip" makes no sense to me, so I can't guess what this user is doing. Of course, if they are trying to copy-paste the image, rather than use Wikitext to transclude it, that will fail, and that may be what they are doing. So I'm hoping the following will help them:
@Tsuneoyamane: ja:Wikipedia:ウィキメディア・コモンズ - Jmabel ! talk 17:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm confused. I don't want a new hobby, I just want to propose an update to one file[edit]

Linking to original: Commons talk:Overwriting existing files/Requests#I'm confused. I don't want a new hobby, I just want to propose an update to one file. Linux dr (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Linux dr: Hi, There are at least two different aspects to your comment.
The specific answer to your question, as mentioned on the page Commons:Overwriting existing files, is that overwriting requires either the autopatrol right or "you may request an exception for a particular file" on that requests page. It seems that the second option is what you were looking for.
The other thing is merely a comment about the change you want to make. I'm not sure if it's feasable to fit into the metadata everything accurately. I understand that the file is apparently CC0, but still, maybe it would be good to first consult the authors to know what they think of your plan. The main author of most of the content used in the file is apparently User:Dmitry Fomin, and there are smaller contributions from David Bellot and User:Guy vandegrift. Note that the contribution from David Bellot is not in the public domain but under the LGPL, which causes a problem with the licensing of the file you want to overwrite. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re: Licensing
Yes, I was trusting in the accuracy of the metadata I saw on the Wikimedia Commons. The metadata claimed that @Guy vandegrift claimed that the "Source" was "Own work". Looking in depth at the Description, This file was actually based primarily on the work of @Dmitry Fomin who also claims his files as "Source: Own work". @Guy vandegrift also included 2 card back designs. One looks like probably his own work (a "O" design), and the second is clearly from David Bellot's SVG cards from here specifying the license very specifically as LGPL 2.1 (with this, unfortunately broken link: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.htm) published 8/12/2005. While the terms of the LGPL as I understand them would definitely supersede the CC0 license, making the entire work LGPL 2.1, I think this was an honest mistake.
In light of this mistake, I think we should:
  • Update the metadata licensing terms to LGPL 2.1 (though we can state that non-CC0 license appears to be accidental, and that the LGPL 2.1 specifically refers to that one particular card back.)
  • Update the metadata source to be @Dmitry Fomin, David Bellot and "Own work"
  • Update a new version of the file with a new name, with David Bellot's 2005 card back replaced with a CC0 card back instead
  • Contact @HFWMan, and suggest he update the card back in File:Golf Solitaire Layout.svg, and suggest he update the image to use a different card-back design.
Does this plan of attack sound like a productive way forward? (Now that this is all researched it appears like a larger task than I had planned on, but cest la vie.) Linux dr (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have updated the file metadata to point out what we have discussed in this thread[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:English_pattern_playing_cards_deck_PLUS.svg]. Please confirm before I:
  • Upload new version of the file with updated metadata
  • Upload new version of the file with a new name that actually is CC0 without the LGPL content.
  • Contact @HFWMan, and suggest he update the card back in File:Golf Solitaire Layout.svg, and suggest he update the image to use a different card-back design.
Linux dr (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flickr upload problem[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T358414

For the past couple days, attempts to transfer different photos from Flickr are not finishing. Upon clicking "Publish files" the system acts like it's processing, but never completes. Here is just one exampleː [16]https://www.flickr.com/photos/markbyzewski/12721286293/ Ron Clausen (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already discussed at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=855447915#The_way_to_upload_images_via_Flickr_is_completely_broken and tracked in Phabricator. - Jmabel ! talk 17:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
https://flickr2commons.toolforge.org appears to be working fine, you can use that. - Jmabel ! talk 17:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can't upload flickr images[edit]

Been away for a few weeks and tried to upload some images from Flickr. They were accepted on the front screen, and I added their details and categorization etc., however, when I pressed the button to finally submit the images to WC, the system just hung. If I tried to go back, it kicked me out of the upload process completely? Is this a general issue, or just specific to me? thanks. 20:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aszx5000: See a few sections above: #Flickr upload problem. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for that. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potential joke on a beetle species[edit]

Hi everybody, Just a question about what to do about these 3 images untitled Lixus Fitszmanicus. It's author @FactsAboutLixus published an article in the the French Wikipédia on this beetle with the affirmation that it is a a new species of Lixus (thisis the unique publication of this contributor to WP). However after searches through databases and scientific litterature, we (users @Givet, @Thulop, @Totodu74, @LD) are all convinced that it is a fake species (wether it is voluntarly or not is another question). We have all agreed in the deletion of the article on WP:fr. One of us (Totodu74) realized that these pics may be pics of the Lixomorphus algirus. So my question is, what to do with these files: Delete, rename, other ?

Regards GF38storic (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi !
Sorry I'm late. I've found this cute weevil in Menorca ; I've tried to identify it a lot of time since 2020. Never found anyone answering me clearly. Since I had no answer, I've done this page as a semi-prank. Sorry, not cool, I know, will not do it again. On the bright side, I had a lot of answers thanks to this, and I now believe it's the Lixomorphus Algirus.
You have my blessing to delete the files or the rename them !
Sorry again ! FactsAboutLixus (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’ve gone ahead and categorized the images according to the above, also correcting the specific name in the descriptions. I don’t mind whimsical filenames myself, but if anyone feels they’re actually misleading I’d certainly entertain move requests. (To my mind the current titles are pretty much equivalent to “Lixus by Fiszman”, which I presume would be unobjectionable if not for the incorrect genus.) Otherwise the images seem pretty good (to my non-entomologist eyes) but OTOH I wouldn’t object to deletion if it’s felt that the uploader shouldn’t be trusted WRT the provenance & licensing (noting that the files lack EXIF metadata).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huge amount of problematic name categories[edit]

The user @JuTa seems to have created dozens upon dozens of name categories for names that are not actual names, for example there are tons of categories for "compound" names which are really just a string of given names used by a single person ever, like Category:Johan Marie Jacques Hubert (given name) (and in some cases a couple of given names + a surname treated as a given name such as Category:Marie Therese Nordsletta (given name)), as well as creating surname categories for surnames + initials like Category:Y Goud (surname), and in the case of Category:Yashki(surname) (which I moved to Category:Yashki (surname) 3 years after it was created) I'm not even sure the person who wears it has it as a family name (I'm not overly familiar with how Indian names work). It seems to me like JaTu doesn't understand naming conventions of different cultures and many of the categories they have created are really problematic, but I don't know how to take care of all of them. StarTrekker (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@StarTrekker: this would probably be better at COM:VP, because you are asking for something like an informal policy discussion, not for help in using Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 17:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks.StarTrekker (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License for images found using the Google filter[edit]

Hello, I found a photo on Google Images using the Creative Commons filter, but when I visit the website it comes from, I see a © symbol with the photographer's name under the image, and there is no indication of a Creative Commons license. Can this image be used? Or is the Google filter not always reliable? PheonixU+221E (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PheonixU+221E:
  1. Google is not always reliable.
  2. It is completely normal that someone owns a copyright on a CC-licensed image. You can't license what you don't own.
  3. With no links about the specific site and image, anything else that anyone tells you will be guesswork.
Jmabel ! talk 18:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. Ok
2. True, but I though that for a CC-licensed image it would be circled CC instead of © only
3. Of course, here is the link : https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/provence-alpes-cote-d-azur/bouches-du-rhone/aix-en-provence/jo-2021-nicolas-navarro-conclut-la-prestation-des-athletes-provencaux-et-azureens-aux-jeux-olympiques-de-tokyo-2207803.html (the photography © GIUSEPPE CACACE / AFP) PheonixU+221E (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Press agency non-free photo. Would you mind sharing the search keyword(s) you used to obtain this webpage with the CC filter? -- Asclepias (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. The keywords are just "Nicolas Navarro" on the French Google Images (https://www.google.fr/imghp?hl=fr&ogbl), with the CC filter PheonixU+221E (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I just wanted to try if it could be replicated. I tried the keywords "Nicolas Navarro" yesterday and that webpage did not show in the results. Maybe something tagged CC happened to be on the webpage when you searched. Or a temporary Google mistake. Anyway, unfortunately, the conclusion is that the photo is not tagged with a free license. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, thank you. PheonixU+221E (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bibliotheque Nationale image descriptions that can't be edited[edit]

During a FAC[17] I just came across this[18] strange image description that can't be edited, though it seems to have a maintenance tag that could hinder its use. Turns out there is a whole category[19], if not more, of images using such description templates. What on earth is the purpose of making it so difficult to edit an image's information, and shouldn't it just be disabled? And if the answer is that you can still do it by directly editing some template that isn't even linked from the file description, that certainly isn't very user-friendly or useful for the project. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is apparently a direction some of the people who work with GLAMs have wanted to go, pulling information in from SDC rather than placing it in the wikitext. I personally don't like it at all: editing SDC remains much more difficult than editing wikitext, and if (for example) we want to supplement a description that may have come from a GLAM without simply overriding it, there is no obvious way to do that. I don't believe there was any broad consensus to go this direction, though I'll admit there was not firm consensus not to. - Jmabel ! talk 05:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any link to where this was discussed? I have a hard time imagining any good arguments for why this would be optimal. FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t think it uses SDC at all; AFAICT it’s just the regular info template with some of the parameters pre-filled. Perhaps its being flush to the SDC box, with no section head, gives the impression they’re related. I don‘t know the history or of any discussion, but I suppose the purpose is to be able to change every page of the MS or book with a single edit to the template. For example if the linked item was to be found through research to date to 1456 precisely, or the author was discovered to be pseudonymous, the file and all its siblings could be updated with one edit to {{Bibliotheque Nationale MS Fr. 68}}. Of course this ability is of most use when the info changes frequently, which seems extremely unlikely here.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This may be something different than what User:Dominic is doing (I didn't look "under the hood" at this on), but his definitely uses SDC. - Jmabel ! talk 20:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Odysseus1479: You are right that this one does not seem to be using SDC. Where and how is it getting the date and the source and author info? And how could anyone add to the description? This is way too obscure. And, however it works, it's been more or less this way since 2008! - Jmabel ! talk 20:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: it transcludes the MS Fr. 68 template I linked just above, which has two blanks or variables: #1 is the entire Description field and #2 is the folio that goes in the Source line. Everything else from there (which used to include the {{PD-GallicaScan}} template as well, with its deprecation notice) is reproduced verbatim. It also gets the Bibliotheque Nationale MS Fr. 68 category from the template‘s includeonly section. The description as such can be edited in situ, just as one would in a file with the usual info template. Yes, it showed its age by its lack of headings and language templates.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Odysseus1479: maybe I'm being obtuse, but where exactly do the source and author info come from? - Jmabel ! talk 21:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: from {{Bibliotheque Nationale MS Fr. 68}}. On that page you can see (and edit) the ‘static’ text, including the complete Date & Author entries as well as most of the Source (excepting the folio designation). Changes made there will be shown on every file that uses the template. The {{{1}}} and {{{2}}} in the wikicode are placeholders for the description & folio respectively. (The missing-description message won‘t appear in transclusions on file pages where the desc parameter is non-empty.) BTW I notice, now that section heads have been added, that clicking the section-edit link on a file page takes you straight to the template. Handy in a way, but unexpected and could be quite disorienting to someone trying to edit the local description line.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. You have a template about the individual work! I certainly wouldn't think this is a good idea. I suppose you could always "subst" it if you wanted to do further editing. - Jmabel ! talk 22:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Does anyone disagree that the best solution is to make the images directly editable? FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm with FunkMonk on this. Just "subst" the template everywhere it's used. - Jmabel ! talk 19:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No objection here, especially considering the section-edit-link easter-egg I noted above, but when carried over to other MSS or books I would remind people to first update the applicable templates, as Yann & I did here, so as to to minimize subsequent cleanup.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

شركة اقمشة[edit]

HATUN TEKSTILمرحبا انا انس اعمل مدير تنفيذي لشركة اقمشة المعروفة اصبحت شركتنا مشهورة عبر التواصل الاجتماعي وبعد تواصلي مع الخدمة على الانستغرام بعض نقاش طويل عن كيفية توثيق الصفحة الخاصة بنا اذا كان هناك مقالة على موقعكم ولكن قمت بكتابة مقالة تم حذقها من قبلكم بسبب سوء كتابة المقالة على ما اعتقد هل يمكنكم مساعدتي في هذا الامر وشكرا لكم Anasalghazzawi (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are no articles on Commons. Perhaps you are thinking of Wikipedia in one or another language? Those are sister projects of ours, but each is a distinct project with its own help page.
As far as I know, there are none of the Wikipedias where it would be acceptable to write about your own company. For example, see en:WP:Conflicts of interest. - Jmabel ! talk 05:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

சித்திரக்கவி[edit]

விமானபந்தனம் முத்துராமன்1974 (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Google translates as "Pictorialist aviation")
@முத்துராமன்1974: Did you have a question? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i can not upload a picture[edit]

I adapted a picture to make it original. However i am not able to upload it. If i try to find why, i do not find any relevant information Wentaland (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have uploaded 5 files by now. Do you still have questions? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External link to be replaced[edit]

External link to be replaced into Category:El mundo físico : gravedad, gravitación, luz, calor, electricidad, magnetismo, etc.

I'd kindly need some technical advices in this talk I've opened some minutes ago. Best regards. Mess (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOTE TO ALL: please keep further discussion at Category talk:El mundo físico : gravedad, gravitación, luz, calor, electricidad, magnetismo, etc.#External link to be replaced. - Jmabel ! talk 21:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Folders[edit]

create a main folder for each project or category, and then create subfolders within each main folder to organize specific files Lil Akeme (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lil Akeme: What help do you need? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flickr uploader doesn't work[edit]

When I try to upload a picture from Flick it stagnates on the Description tab. I tried different browsers on different machines. Prolete (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an ongoing issue. See above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Embedded video player doesn't play audio in recent WEBM uploads[edit]

Recently I've uploaded several videos in WEBM format (codecs: VP9/Opus):

But embedded video player doesn't play audio from these files. If you open "original file" link you'll hear that audio tracks exist in these files.
I use ffmpeg tool to encode videos to WEBM format. And earlier I had no problems with it (File:Петрозаводск, ул.Университетская, птенец БПД в дупле и его родитель.webm, File:Сортавальский р-н, Рюттю, обыкновенный жулан.webm).
What's wrong? Avsolov (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploads just stuck "submitting details"[edit]

I tried many times, but flickr-uploads just got stuck on the last "submitting details" loading forever. Navstar2777 (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Navstar2777: Hi, and welcome. There is an ongoing issue. See above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question[edit]

How can I find non-copyrighted images for politicians Yousifali777 (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look through the category system we use here (at the bottom of image pages). Start at Category:Politicians, then maybe Category:Politicians by country and Category:Politicians of Italy (or wherever). Or search by name, if you know who you're looking for.
Note that all images on Commons should be freel licensed, which means that you can use them elsewhere. See COM:REUSE. But most are still copyright, it's just that their owners give you permission (a licence) to use them, even though copyrighted. But there might be restrictions on what you can do with them, usually this means that you have to give credit for who's original work this was (See COM:REUSE). If you have questions about a particular image, please ask again. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andy Dingley: He is asking about finding images to upload to commons, not ones already on commons. Number 57 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yousifali777: I think you mean "free-licensed" rather than "non-copyrighted". Except for a few governments, like the federal government of the U.S., that have special laws placing their work in the public domain, nearly all photos from recent decades are copyrighted by default.
Usually, for most countries, there won't be a lot of these. You either have to go out and take them yourself, or contact photographers who have already taken them and try to get licenses. If you are lucky, on a site like Flickr there may already be some that are free-licensed. - Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replacing Official Logo with updated one[edit]

Hello, I am an employee of Singapore Chinese Girls' School. And we are looking to update the official logo on our wikipedia page with the new official logo. When I try to upload it to wikimedia commons, I am rejected by the system. May I find out how I can go about uploading the new official logo? Mr Zheng at SCGS (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trying to upload a video[edit]

Hey folks. I'm trying to upload my first ever media file, a video. But I got an error message saying that .mov files are not allowed. What extension should I change it to, and how do I do that? Sorry, I'm too lazy to search the help archives, so I thought I'd bother y'all instead. :) Thanks in advance for your help. Yesthatbruce (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yesthatbruce: see COM:VIDEO. - Jmabel ! talk 04:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I just knew there'd be a how-to article all about it, but I didn't know how to find it. Yesthatbruce (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can these images be published?[edit]

Hello, I would like to ask if it is possible to post images (specifically the screenshot of the Arcadia Tales Trilogy series and movie) from the following link 1, and how and who could be credited to the author (or authors) and what type of Comoons license could be used in those images. and the reason is that I would like to use the images in the Wikipedia articles Bolitachan (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk&oldid=856250770"