Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.   B2T2 13:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 19:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Please see this discussion about possibly adding a Barnstar for people who make simultaneous contributions to Wikipedia and Commons. We welcome your thoughts. Johntex\talk 15:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Barnstar discussion

message: I have created a user script called CommonsHelper Helper to speed up the process of moving images with CommonsHelper by doing everything inline on the image edit page. It's personally helped me out a lot in my own image moving endeavors and I would like to invite others to try it out! — Krimpet (talk/review) 23:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can also use User:Legoktm/com2.js LegoKontribsTalkM 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CommonsHelper Helper 

message: See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SieBot Addhoc 10:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a good idea to use an automated bot to move pictures to the Commons. There's too many non-free images inaccurately tagged as free, human judgment is needed to determine whether a picture is truly a candidate to be moved or not. Additionally, only a human can properly categorize the image once it's on the Commons. Krimpet (talk/review) 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When the image is taged as , after a time the bot could move it automatically. (for non free or doubt images we could use  to replace the free image message. In any case, the Special:Uplad page in Wikipedia would redirect to Commons:Upload --HybridBoy 09:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot 

message: A copyrighted image should not be moved to commons without the photographer's permission. It is being done wholesale. 5033R5995 11:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Garion96 (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If nothing else, it is common courtesy to a photographer who uploaded a photo with copyright notation. Can we advocate courtesy here? 5033R5995 16:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would indeed be nothing else but courtesy. Plus not really necessary. Whether an image is on en.wikipedia or on Commons makes no difference for the copyright holder. Garion96 (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I advocate the policy as a courtesy to the photographers affected. I think courtesy warrants more than nothing else. 5033R5995 16:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. ...it would take a lot of work and I don't think it is that important. I guess avoiding "a lot of work" is more important than common courtesy to Wikipedia contributors. 5033R5995 11:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By releasing their image under a free license, the creator of the image agrees to permit unrestricted redistribution. Notifying them is unnecessary. They may even wonder why they've been notified, because they've already (through licensing) stated that we could move the images around as we see fit. —Remember the dot (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been advised it is "not necessary" and "it would take a lot of work." I am talking not about necessity, but about courtesy and respect. If a photographer wants his image in the Commons, let him put it there.  Why should other people be doing that? 5033R5995 14:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The images can be easily shared across all Wikimedia projects by putting them on the Commons. Also, Wikipedia is not a media repository, so the Commons is there to hold collections of photographs and other images that are not currently used in any articles. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Depends what is meant by copyrighted. Every edit I make on this site is copyrighted by me. The same counts for every image I take and upload to Commons. I also release it under a free license but it's still copyrighted. Garion96 (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've incorrectly interpreted the licenses. When you "release" a work under a free license, you relinquish any copyright you have on the item. The disclaimer right under the edit window that says, "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL," means that the text you contribute is not copyrighted by you as soon as you click the "Save page" button. The same is true of images that you contribute with a free license tag.  is not a free license template becuase the creator can still invoke their usage rights under copyright at any time. —M (talk • contribs) 18:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. I hold the copyright to everything I write. See also here or here. If I would relinquish my copyright it would be public domain. When I release it under a free license, I have some control. For instance, I would be the one suing a company if they use my images without giving my attribution. Copyright (except public domain) is always there, who else would have the copyright of the content of wikipedia? Not the foundation but all the individual contributors. Garion96 (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suing them for what? Releasing your work under GFDL allows for anyone to freely use your works even for profit. So it would be difficult for you to sue for damages if someone didn't give you attribution. Your two examples, though stated as policy, are flawed. One of the aspects of copyright law are that you control the right of distribution i.e. making copies. When you upload a digital image and release it under GFDL/CC, you may still hold the copyright in theory, but you've given up the most important right that copyright grants. It pretty much makes your copyright null. —M (talk • contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: To add and clarify: Yes, you do keep your copyright under GFDL. But it makes so many amendments to the copy and distribution rights to make copyright virtually pointless. You also can't revoke GFDL. This is my point about the  template. It's improper to use because the policies you point out instruct users to release their works under GFDL. —M (talk • contribs) 02:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suing them for copyright infringement. The damage is that they used my photos without attribution, therefore my market value as a photographer is hurt. But that's just hypothetical, I just used it as an example that I do own the copyright. And even under the GFDL, your copyright is less, but definitely not zero. Which, legally, makes a big difference. How else would you word the two examples I gave? They could perhaps emphasize more of the free content part, but what they state is correct. Garion96 (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. It is rather unlikely that many commercial media organisations are going to use GFDL images in the near future. However if they see a GFDL image, they are perfectly entitled to contact the copyright owner who is perfectly entitled to license it under an additional license for a fee. Also, there are many, many sites and people out there who misuse GFDL images (i.e. in ways not in accordance to the license). Technically, it may be possible for anyone to persue or sue these people but it is a far clearer legal situation and you are also likely to get a better response when you are the person who owns the original copyright to the image. Nil Einne 12:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving Copyrighted images to commons

message: Hi, I seem to have caused an almighty row without meaning to, by tagging some PD-art images - which I wanted to move to the commons as having . The majority are obviously PD due to age but without a source I can't move them to the commons. If anybody is good at designing templates, we could do with having a new one specifically for asking for sources for PD images. It would need a template to leave on the image page and something to copy to the uploader's page that asks nicely for a source, explains what that means (i.e. where did you get the image from, not its copyright status) without threatening deletion as the current tag does? Oh well, I guess you're not a true wikipedian until you've caused a row. Madmedea 01:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PD images without sources

message: Hi, I have a question which I can not find the answer to: Why delete an image from the English Wikipedia after moving it to Commons?
When I first started editing Wikipedia, I initially uploaded about 40 free images here, before realizing that I should create a Commons account and upload there instead.  So I created my Commons account a month ago, and uploaded all of those images to Commons.  However, it is unclear what the advantage is of deleting the image on the English Wikipedia.  Since deleted images now remain stored on the servers, it obviously does not save any disk space.  Is there some other advantage to deletion which I'm missing?  Is it so that when someone clicks on an image, they find a link to Commons?  Is that the only advantage?
I'm an admin, so if the advantages of deletion were clear to me, I could quickly go through and delete all 40+ images which I had uploaded here, and which now have identical copies on Commons.  Thanks for any insight you can provide.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone updated the version on commons then the one on Wikipedia would not be updated. It would be too hard to have multiple identical images that all have to be updated. Also (I am not sure) I think after a while deleted images are removed from the server. --Mschel 23:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mschel has it exactly. Basically having two versions of the same thing is a bad idea. Makes it a lot harder to keep track of things and to keep things consistent. It's easily possible that one of the versions will be updated but the other won't. Or maybe someone will notice the image is not from the source it claims and it will be deleted as a copyvio but the other version will be preserved because people might not notice it's still there. Also while I don't know for sure how the servers work, I presume deleted stuff takes up less resources then existing stuff (not that we're supposed to worry about performance) Nil Einne 12:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why delete an image from the English Wikipedia after moving it to Commons? 

message: I've been copying some images to commons. They are on en.wp as PNGs and I've been converting them to the more appropriate JPEG file format before uploading at Commons. For example, see :Image:Rirani.PNG and :commons:Image:Ronnie Irani.jpg. Can the copies here now be deleted, and if so, what process should I be using? I don't think CSD I8 applies as these are not "bit-for-bit copies", although they are exactly the same image. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing file format 

message: I'm wondering what to do with images tagged with  and . According to Wikipedia:GFDL standardization, the inclusion of disclaimers in the GFDL requires that the disclaimers be inherited by any downstream work incorporating the GFDL image. In other words, while GFDL is still a free license within Wikipedia regardless, the addition of the disclaimers creates a burden on the license that makes it fall short of the fullest expression of the ideal of free content.
So what do we do when moving images to Commons? We already know that Commons has a more stringent standard of free licensing than Wikipedia - no fair use images for example. Commons allows images moved over to be licensed with disclaimers (see :Commons:Template:GFDL-user-en-with-disclaimers for example), but Commonsfolk seem unhappy about it (for example :Commons:Template talk:GFDL-en).
Is it this wikiproject's procedure to proceed with moving disclaimered images to Commons? Are there any extra steps built in, such as asking the original uploader to modify the license? Does CommonsHelper properly handle licenses with disclaimers? (The one time I tested CommonsHelper on this, it produced two license tags on Commons: one with disclaimers, one without.)
Any perspective is exceedingly welcome. Ipoellet (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and created a template that requests an editor, when placed on that editor's talk page, to remove the disclaimers from a GFDL license. See Template:License disclaimer notice. To see the template in action, take a look at User talk:Jbermudez#License for Image: 2IndianPark.jpg. Any comments welcome. Ipoellet (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GFDL with disclaimers 

message: Hi guys, I tried using the "helper helper" tool and "Commonsnist" thing but can't get either to work. I don't suppose someone would mind moving all the images from here (the article is currently being re-written in my sandbox) then deleting them please, would be much appreciated. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use User:Legoktm/com2.js for help. LegoKontribsTalkM 17:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting some help to move some images 

message: The name of this image :Image:Arrowsmith's Map of Central Asia.jpg not is compatible with CommonsHelper, why? Shooke (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "'" is stopping it.  You will have to move it manually. LegoKontribsTalkM 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Arrowsmith's Map of Central Asia.jpg 

message: How many Commons-compatible media files exist here at the English Wikipedia? How big is the task? Richard001 (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tons, see CAT:COMMONS LegoKontribsTalkM 17:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but that's not anywhere near all of them, and counting them up manually seems a bit much to ask. Richard001 (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many images are there? 

message: Maybe we should also have a template, like , for article talk pages where many/all of the images should be moved to Commons. This would raise awareness about the issue, as they would be seen more often than the more obscure image template.
E.g. 
Some or all images in this article are candidates to be copied to the Wikimedia Commons. 
Appropriately licensed media are more accessible to other Wikimedia projects if placed on Commons. Any user may perform this move - please see Moving images to the Commons for more information. Please do not remove this template until all the images have been moved to the Commons.
Richard001 (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for talk pages 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Philly jawn (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Commons ok}}]] 

message: If an image on the Commons' license references having been released into the public domain here on Wikipedia (referencing the first uploader), if we delete the image here, does that make the license over at the Commons not make sense? Do those images fall into a category of images we can't delete, or does it not matter?  Just want to make sure they're okay to delete (or, learn that they're not) before doing so.  As an example, :Image:100 1721.JPG; I've seen a number of the tags used for this image on the Commons, so I'm assuming that it's okay, but wanted to check.  Thanks, -- Natalya 14:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the images description on commons, it shows that it was from enwiki, and if someone wanted to see proof, they could send an email to OTRS LegoKontribsTalkM 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great; thanks for the info! -- Natalya 00:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  License on Commons references Wikipedia? 

message: I am interested in how many images uploaded here at en.wikipedia would be suitable to move to Commons. Is any such information available, or would I have to gather it myself (perhaps with the help of a bot, if I wanted a large sample)? Richard001 (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All GFDL images, PD images, and CC images.  Make sure they have a source, and weren't just tagged.  You will probably weed out some to go to IFD. LegoKontribsTalkM 01:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics - how many images uploaded are Commons compatible? 

message: John Bot II is a bot that was recently approved to move images to the commons.  It will only move images that have  on them.  You can use User:CWii/JB2script.js to help with tagging images. LegoKontribsTalkM 23:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:John Bot II|John Bot II]] 

message: Recently the GFDL was updated to 1.3.  It was pointed out that it may cause some problems to images, videos, and sound.  So I would recommend not moving any GFDL licensed images to the commons, until this whole mess is figured out. LegoKontribsTalkM 00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GFDL 1.3 

message: As auto-tagging is problematic, I've started to look through :Special:FileList manually for possible candidates
with proper licensing/sourcing/permissions.
I've also been able to fix a few 'fair-use' images that will remain on enwiki at the same time.
Anyone want to join me?
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematic scan of [[:Special:FileList]] 

message: Hi guys, i started moving a lot of images to commons, see :Commons:Commons:Village pump#Moving a lot of images from the English Wikipedia to Commons. multichill (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed 

message: Please be careful when transferring images tagged with  or  to Commons; most of these images do not have enough information to verify their PD status, and are likely to be deleted on Commons if moved. I've opened an RFC on the issue, and I'd appreciate any comments anyone might have. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PD-old and PD-US 

message: Hi! I've proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files that this project be merged with a number of other WikiProjects related to images/files on Wikipedia. All comments there from the members of this project would be much appreciated. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed project merge 

message: Given the generally favorable response to the proposal, it is now proposed that this project be redirected if there are no objections so that its purpose can be carried forward by the new project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media. Please join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images_and Media#Redirect proposal. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect proposal

message: Hi! I wish to inform you that I asked here the approval for a bot able to add, in few very obivious cases and after appropriate checks on Wikimedia Commons, the templates  and . For details or questions please check Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 6. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 10:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  FrescoBot 6 

message: I am going to start a drive for , I am encouraging lots of people to participate, there will also be neat prizes.  It will be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drive Sep 2011.  With a backlog of 50,000 images, its a pressing need to move them to commons.  Remember that its easier than wikifying (by me) and the backlog is over 2 times as big (more 2.5 times). ~~Ebe123~~ talkContribs 19:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In preparation for this drive, I am attempting to figure out the best way to move free images to Commons. The instructions are quite complicated, but suggest using "CommonsHelper helper". I am knowledgeable in userscripts, and I have a TUSC account, but I can't get CommonsHelper helper to work. I mentioned the problem here, and described the problem in detail to the script's author here, but so far I have had no response. Can anyone help me get this working? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be interested in this handy method using a bookmarklet. --Leyo 14:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a great idea, but when I try to use that it just hangs forever and times out. I assume that's a problem with the toolserver, right? Is that also the problem with CommonsHelper helper? – Quadell (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same for me. It only works every other time at the moment. --Leyo 15:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I recommend WP:FtCG Bulwersator (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drive 

message: Categories listed in this table are polluted with images tagged as , unclear copyright status, tagged as "photo is PD, statue is as fair use so resulting image is fair use", moved and tagged as F8 etc. Maybe it will be better to replace with link to category :Category:Move to Commons Priority Candidates? Maybe also :Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons and :Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (bot-assessed)? Bulwersator (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giant table 

message: I've seen them and moved them but what makes them speical? Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prioirty Candidates 

message: ...would be Bugzilla:6071. It just needs a good discussion and sufficient push. Currently I don't have much time to work on that, unfortunately. Any dedicated soul willing to do a little brushing there? Rehman 15:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. The problem with the current article import functionality is that it miscredits users if SUL hasn't been activated or if there is an SUL conflict either here or on Commons. There is also the "upload by URL" feature which would be useful. I'm not sure if an import feature would be very fast for transferring images since it would still be necessary to clean up the data (different template names, different categories et cetera), but it would maybe be better for history keeping. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could instruct the import function to automatically create a SUL account for the user if no conflicts exist (so that no one else can take that username across all projects), or cancel transfer if conflicts do exist. Similarly, the conversion of relevant templates (ie. from en-wiki to wikicommons) could also be done via the same technique (instructing on what to replace with). There are a bit more issues regarding SUL; such as what happens if the en-wiki and wikicommons user are the same but project3 user is someone else; in that case it should allow the transfer from en-wiki to commons, but not from project3/4/etc to commons. I'm not that good with the insides of how the SUL works, maybe someone knowledgeable about this can comment? P.s. the current bugzilla entry doesn't reach much people, maybe it's better to start a discussion about it in somewhere like the VPs? Rehman 05:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More efficient way to transfer files 

message: (Moved my post from yesterday to Wikipedia_talk:Moving_files_to_the_Commons#Some_Pics_to_commons --MGA73 (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ways to find good files easier