Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons

WT:MFIC

Some images not to be moved to commons

I believe that some free images, those used just for a userpage, aren't meant to be moved to the Commons. If this is correct, we should mention it on the project page.--Commander Keane 19:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? If they're on a userpage, it's even more reason to move to Commons, since it's still a free image, but it's wasting space on Wikipedia (and people with images only on their userpage will get their RfA opposed by Masssiveego for having orphan images). There's no real reason I can think of not to have it accessible from all projects instead of just this one.

Yep, ok, all free images are should be moved to the Commons.--Commander Keane 20:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Even something like a boring self-portrait? Phr 12:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this a little further, I agree with Commander Keane's original post that a userpage photo (I'm thinking of a self-portrait of the user) should not be moved to Commons even if it's GFDL. See model release for the issues. Basically, the photographer's copyright is just one issue in deciding when it's legal to use a picture. The other is privacy-related. Basically it's ok to use a photo of John editorially in an article about John (John's userpage would qualify), but not in some other context like an advertisement. Commons is basically a big gallery and might not qualify as editorial use. There has been some discussion of this over at Village Pump on Commons in the past few months. Phr 12:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also that we should move all free images to commons, except the unencloypedic orphans images like personal photos not used anywhere, they should go to WP:IFD , most other wikis does that, moving all free images to commons --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just a note to please apply an extremely critical eye to allegedly "free" images here before uploading them at the Commons. This project is a good chance to catch many of the dodgily sourced and licensed images here (I have noticed there are a very good many). If you have any doubts please don't upload to the Commons (send to IfD) because it will just create unnecessary duplication for Commons admins.

Also check out the Commons Helper. And pleeeeeeease add categories to your uploads. :) Thanks -- pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project directory

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)[reply]

Why not a simple image URL redirect?

--Timeshifter 00:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC). It would be so much easier if there was a single link on any wikipedia image page that would transfer the image to the wikimedia commons. Even easier, why isn't a bot doing this now? I find all the scattered instructions for transferring images from wikipedia storage to wikimedia storage to be mind-boggling in difficulty. Aren't we mainly talking about changing, and/or copying, the image URL from[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:filename.png

to

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:filename.png

All the work for most of the images has already been done. I mean the work of getting the author permissions (or public domain, etc.), uploading various versions of the image, providing details of the image and the camera, etc., etc.. Sounds like a simple redirect to me.

Instead of a redirect, another possibility is for a simple bot that would go through certain approved wikipedia image categories and create another copy of the image on wikimedia. The bot could leave a notice on the old wikipedia image page with the URL for the image copy on wikimedia commons. If the commons image has the same filename, then when the wikipedia image is deleted, the wikimedia commons image automatically replaces it.

The only reason to keep the wikipedia image is if the bot didn't also copy all the revision history and image description info, along with the permissions info. So the key to make this work in a big way is for the bot to copy all the info, too. Not just the image.

If the wikimedia image copy has a different filename, then by the bot leaving the new URL, people would know that they could manually replace the image URLs on wikipedia pages if they so chose. Or... A different bot could be sent around to replace all the old wikipedia image URLs with the new wikimedia image URLS. In the Frontpage website editor I can change image URLs in many web pages all at once on my websites, and then upload the changed pages. Why can't this be done for Wikipedia pages? It should be easy in wikipedia pages since the wikipedia image page lists all the pages using that particular image. The bot could be sent to just those pages needing the image URL changed.

Why are people allowed to load images to wikipedia at all anymore? Why not block that, and only allow future image uploading to the wikimedia commons? --Timeshifter 00:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reasons:

Wikipedia allows fair use images, while Commons does not.
the Single User Login (SUL) is still awaiting implementation, which means that currently Wikipedia users have to sign up separately to Commons. If there was an automatic redirect this would be confusing and unexpected.
Wikipedia contains many images that have poor or weak licensing claims. Transferring them to Commons is an ideal time to review their claims and turf (delete) the ones that don't hold up (of which there are many).
Instructions are all over the place because that seems to be what happens when you write instructions on a wiki. Help on every single topic is like this - scattered. cheers, pfctdayelise (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I did not know about fair-use images being allowed on Wikipedia only. Maybe only fair-use images should be allowed into wikipedia anymore. When people try to upload other images maybe they should get a message telling them they have to use the commons? Because people are uploading images to wikipedia with public domain (or similar) permissions but the robots are not correctly identifying them when others like me upload the same images to the commons. Even though I fully explained the source of the image as coming from wikipedia where the public-domain permission was clear. Since it came from the author of the image there. --Timeshifter 05:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I explain the specifics here in the section titled "Bot incorrect in failing set of images for commons." --Timeshifter 06:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

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)[reply]

Barnstar discussion

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)[reply]

I second this. --evrik ^(talk) 15:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommonsHelper Helper

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)[reply]

You can also use User:Legoktm/com2.js Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SieBot Addhoc 10:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

When the image is taged as {{free file}}, after a time the bot could move it automatically. (for non free or doubt images we could use {{doubt image}} 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)a[reply]

Ideas for getting less free images here, and more to Commons

I have some ideas to help reduce the number of free images uploaded to English Wikipedia, and to encourage moving existing free images to Commons. Maybe someone could implement some these ideas.

The "Upload file" link the sidebar (seen on every Wikipedia page) should lead to Wikipedia:Upload instead of Special:Upload. At Wikipedia:Upload a clear choice between Commons (free stuff) and Wikipedia (fair use stuff) should be presented. From anecdotal experience, I think when people see the upload form they don't bother reading about how Commons is the place to upload free images.
All free image templates on Wikipedia (eg {{GFDL}} and {{PD-self}}) should get a warning/note added saying "All freely licenced images should be moved to Commons, see Moving images to the Commons for instructions".
Users that upload free images to Wikipedia should be told that Commons is a better place. I didn't see a template for this at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, but maybe {{uw-wiki2commons}} would be handy.
A bot could monitor uploads and automatically add the {{uw-wiki2commons}} to the userpage of people uploading free images to Wikipedia, so they know to try Commons instead
A magical "Move to Commons" button on image pages would be great - I'm not sure if javascript or import/export could be used for that.

--Commander Keane 05:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Item 1 would be a good idea, but Wikipedia:Upload is not complete. For example, try clicking on "promotional photo" and you'll see there are no specific instructions. If Wikipedia:Upload became complete, it would be great to use it.
Items 2 and 3 are good ideas, and should probably be discussed at the Village Pump.
I'm not sure that item 4 is a good idea because some free images are better left just on Wikipedia, such as images used solely on a Wikipedia userpage.
We already have a semi-magical "Move to Commons" button; it's called the CommonsHelper Helper.

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Wikipedia:Upload needs some work done on it.
For item 4 I can see what you mean but I think even Wikipedia userpage images should go to Commons. But I suppose it would be better to have a human rather that a bot checking the upload log (to catch people using free licences for non-free images etc).
With the CommonsHelper Helper (I just gave it test) is there an easy way to downlaod the original image to your harddisk? Or do you still have to right click and save-as?--Commander Keane 05:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you have to right-click, it's a browser limitation =( Krimpet (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Wikipedia:Upload form is a really good idea. I did a little digging around, and found the MediaWiki templates in question that need to be edited to finish it:

As you can see, usgov, nonfree, and promophoto don't exist. If anyone wants to work on these templates in their userspace, I'd happily copy them over to the MediaWiki namespace. Krimpet (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Copyrighted images to commons

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)[reply]

Why not? Garion96 (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

When an image is moved to Commons generally the {{NowCommons}} (or {{ncd}}) template stays on the Wikipedia image page for 7 days - so the uploader will see it in their watchlist and get notified. When you say "copyrighted image", the images moved are all freely licensed and I think all the free licences don't require notification of the photographer if you want to move or use the photo. I agree it would be nice to notify photographers when their image is moved to Commons, but it would take a lot of work and I don't think it is that important.--Commander Keane 06:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You shouldn't be uploading copyrighted images to Wikipedia anyway, even if they are your own images. The copyright with attribution is a deprecated template. The multi-license GFDL/CC template should be used. —M (talk • contribs) 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. {{Attribution}} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 {{attribution}} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

PD images without sources

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 {{no sources}}. 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)[reply]

Why delete an image from the English Wikipedia after moving it to Commons?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Changing file format

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)[reply]

GFDL with disclaimers

I'm wondering what to do with images tagged with {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}} and {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}}. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requesting some help to move some images

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)[reply]

(add) Sorry, except for this image, as you can probably tell it's not a compilation of the authors work. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can use User:Legoktm/com2.js for help. Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 17:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arrowsmith's Map of Central Asia.jpg

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)[reply]

The "'" is stopping it. You will have to move it manually. Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many images are there?

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)[reply]

Tons, see CAT:COMMONS Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 17:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template for talk pages

Maybe we should also have a template, like {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}, 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)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Commons ok

Template:Commons ok 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)[reply]

License on Commons references Wikipedia?

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)[reply]

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 Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great; thanks for the info! -- Natalya 00:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics - how many images uploaded are Commons compatible?

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)[reply]

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. Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 01:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Bot II

John Bot II is a bot that was recently approved to move images to the commons. It will only move images that have {{Jb2move}} on them. You can use User:CWii/JB2script.js to help with tagging images. Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 23:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL 1.3

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. Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commns auto tagging.

In order to assist the 'identfication'/movment of images to Wikimeda Commons, would it be possible to amend a number of compatible licence tags, to automatically flag these images?

My proposal (for which consensus is sought) would be to have a new template which could be embedded in licenses which had a 3 stage process, different messages would be displayed dependent on the process stage.

Commons compatible image license templates would then by amended to use this new template, whilst still for the time being allowing the use of older tags.

My rough spec for the new template is as follows:

A new template, based on {{move to commons}} and {{CommonsEncouraged}} which could be embedded in image license tags, that places the image into a specfic category.

The template would accept an additional parameter to determine the process.

Intended behaviour as follows (This can be amended):

Parameter Value.	Process Stage	Display Commons Helper?	Template message
(default or blank)	Automaticaly flagged image	No	"This Image, if licensed correctly is a candidate for Wikimedia commons- If this image is correctly licensed,sourced and attributed, please update the commons= paramter to commons=canmove, If the image has an issue, please change the paramtter to commons=problem, and leave a note on the talk page."
problem	Problematic image	No	"This image has been identified as having issues which may render it incompatible with Commons, please update this image with a relevant tag identifying the specfic issue, Do NOT reset the paramater until the issues has been resolved."
canmove	Image that can be moved to commons	Yes	"This image has been identified and confirmed as a candidate for moving to Wikimedia Commons, A link to the Commons Helper tool has been provided to assist this, Once the image is on Wikimedia Commons, please replace the paramatter with commons={{subst:ncd}} or appropriate template insertion returned by the Helper tool."
{{subst:ncd}}	Image is present on commons.	No	"This image is now also present on Wikimedia Commons, subject to certain conditions this local copy may be removed."
(Other specfic image issue template)	Image has specfic issue	No	Template as passed in parameter

This proposal would mean major changes to the existing move to commons and image templates, and might deprecate a number of them.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look to bad now actualy, not sure if this was what you where going for all the time or if it has been refined after the comments me and one or two others gave after your initial WP:BOLD changes (by proxy) where reverted. My main problem with the initial bold change was that it automaticaly moved all images with one of the effected license tags indicriminately into Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons filling it up wtih images that had not been reviewed in any way. I also had some issues with the Wording on {{CommonsEncouraged}} (wich was originaly embedded directly in the license template) that I felt didn't make it clear that at least some minimum review of the license information should be done prior to copying the image to Commons (check sources, permission from cited 3. party author etc). This seems to mostly have been adressed in this proposal as I understand it in that no images are automaticaly flagged as "Copy this to Commons" automaticaly, but rater just have a reminder added to the license template that if the template is indeed accurate then the image can be moved to Commons, and then leave it to the person to descide if it should be added to the backlog of images to be moved or not.

Only other comment is that all the parameter stuff might be unnessesarily complex, not that it will hurt to implement it, but since (as I understand it) the default state will no longer be to explicitly say that "this image should be copied to Commons", but rater just "Images with this license can be copied to Commons if properly sourced and atributed" (or simmilar) there is not rely any need for a parameter to disable that note, and the rest of the steps can just as easily be acomplished by adding existing templates directly tot he image page rater than pass them as parameters.

Oh and I know I suggested this be posted here, but I didn't realise quite how "dead" this place was... I'll post a note on the proposal village pump to see if anyone else actualy have any views on this. --Sherool (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am opposed to any sort of Commons auto tagging because there are far too many images that are not uploaded and tagged correctly to leave out the human element. Also Wikipedia:Upload clearly states: "Uploading a free image or media file? Please consider creating an account or logging in at the Wikimedia Commons and uploading it there. Items uploaded to the Commons can be used on Wikipedia and elsewhere, helping to create a central repository of free images and multimedia. If you have a unified login, you can use it at Commons."

In case someone misses that, when you click on "my own work" you will see this:

If you are uploading a file for use in an article, please create an account at the Wikimedia Commons and upload it there.

The Wikimedia Commons is a collection of freely licensed images that are automatically available to all Wikimedia projects, such as Wikipedias in other languages.

I feel that it is overkill to the nth degree to auto tag every "free" image with a like message that informs users that "files of this type can be moved to Commons". Having said that I want to be clear that I am not against sending images to Commons. It is the autotagging issue that bothers me. Because the information presented in only based on the information supplied at the time of uploading I don't see how a bot could "look" at an image and determine, for example, it is a copyvio or if it is "blatant advertising" unless the uploader actually said that, and tagged it as such, at the time of upload. A bot could be programmed to search for raw text such as "fair use" or "with permission" and not use a Commons tag but I would be curious to see how that goes.

As only one example from one user - I found this image and it was manually tagged {{to Commons}} in July of 2007, however it should not be because 1> the image itself contains a URL and 2> While the uploader claims there is permission the website copyright says "© 2005 Copyright, Nambassa Trust and Peter Terry" and there is no mention of any images being available under {{cc-by-2.5}}. (Ironically their "gallery" contains links to Wikipedia "gallery's" of their images - such as Images of Nambassa and Nambassa Winter Show with Mahana) This user has uploaded several other images sourced to this website but they all use the same "Summary" that says "Image (photograph) taken by Official Nambassa Photographer" and that attribution must be "Nambassa Trust and Peter Terry". It may be fine to assume good faith that "Mombas" is perhaps the photographer and that "Peter Terry" is the photographer however it takes a human to look at things such as the actual file name, a source (if one is given), the license, the user history and other associated AFD/MFD/IFD/PUI/COI discussions and compare it to the text. In this case the above image contains "Phtographer Michael Bennetts" as part of the file name. This file contains "Photographer unknown" as part of its, but uses the same exact summary that says "taken by Official Nambassa Photographer" and also has been manually tagged {{to Commons}}. I am saying that even humans make mistakes but a human needs to take a look at the users upload log and sort through it, and if it is confusing for a human how could a bot work though it all? (EDIT - In reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Images of Nambassa I see a comment by the uploader that concluded: "However, as owner of the photos I withdraw them from being transferred to Wikimedia Commons" which raises yet another issue.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to concerns, The aim of the above proposal was to meet some of the concerns raised by soundvisions.

Anything tagged as problem, would get moved OUT of the Copy to commons category, by virture of the code included/excluded by the paramatter... I note that thanks to a 'bold' move a number of images got looked at again. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic scan of Special:FileList

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)[reply]

Help needed

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)[reply]

PD-old and PD-US

Please be careful when transferring images tagged with {{PD-old}} or {{PD-US}} 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)[reply]

Proposed project merge

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)[reply]

Redirect proposal

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)[reply]

How to get stuff to Commons

Our goals should be to move all free media from Wikipedia to Commons. We have several ways of accomplishing this goal:

First move easy free files to Commons

We have a huge pile of free images here. We should move all of them to Commons. Probably best to move all the easy images first and leave the more difficult images be for now. This way we can transfer massive amounts of images without having to stop every time we come across a poorly sourced image.

Monitor new uploads

We should monitor the daily uploads. We have three options

The image is fair use (or some other form of not free) : Leave it
The image is free in the U.S., but non-free in the country of origin : Leave it
The image is missing source/license/author (or something else is wrong) : Nominate it for deletion
The image is free and all information is ok : Tag for moving to Commons

Start working back in time

Like the previous topic. Take a starting date (for example today) and start working back in time and apply the three options of the previous topic. The older the images get, the harder it is to correct things.

Get uploaders to move to Commons

We should convince uploaders not to upload to Wikipedia, but to Commons. We should leave friendly messages on local uploaders talk pages and help them with their first steps at Commons. If they had problems in the past at Commons we should help them to solve these problems.

Discussion

We should probably work on these 4 strategies in paralel. Some of these tasks could be made easier with some tools. Any suggestions? Feel free to improve the wording or change the text. multichill (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I tweaked your post so that the various points don't appear in the TOC). That all sounds reasonable. We already have a template for telling users about Commons, which is useful if the image was more recently uploaded. How should we go about coordinating this? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already got a bot approved so every once in a while I move batches of images. More people should operate these kinds of bots. Nothing technical, just like Commonshelper, but much faster. We should probably tell eachother which images we're working on so that we're not getting in eachothers way.

All new uploads are robot checked by User:ImageTaggingBot. I don't know if this bot catches a lot of crap. I could create a daily list of possible free files people could work on.

This tool could probably be used to work back in time too. For each day the bot could produce a list when requested. The system could be similair to the new article check at nlwp. You sign a page when you're start working on it and when you're done. multichill (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that something could probably be done to avoid stepping on each others toes. I've personally been working on using this most excellent resource to find already-moved images that never got around to being tagged for deletion... there's only 28,000 left! :) I think that I'll usually work more in deleting the local images rather than actually moving them, since anyone can move them but only admins can finish it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drilnoth (talk • contribs) 16:38, 1 May 2009

Sure looks better than my tool ;-)

I moved a lot of images from nlwp to Commons and I can say from experience that deleting is not a lot of work compaired to the rest of the process. multichill (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience it can be about the same amount of work... if an image is properly moved it is easy, but so many images on that toolserver page were copied incorrectly, need the original upload log, have inconsistent licensing and description, etc., and I think that fixing up an incorrectly copied image may actually take more time than copying it using CommonsHelper. Not to mention files where the name was changed in the move but the 5-10 links on Wikipedia weren't updated... –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunatly the amount of time it costs increases when you don't delete the image right away. We could of course make reports of recent dupes to at least keep the backlog from increasing. multichill (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work all, but you need to be careful about something. There are four kinds of images that should not be moved to Commons.

Fair use images
Images tagged {{NoCommons}}
Images free in the U.S., but non-free in the country of origin
Images with something wrong with them.

Be careful about these, especially #3 and #4. I can help if you have questions. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when I move an image to Commons and delete it here, I'm never sure whether to delete the talkpage or not. If it's just a template on the talkpage then I deleted it, but I leave some behind because they look like they might be important. And other ones I leave because they're funny. File talk:Fellatio.jpg – Quadell ^(talk) 20:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I realised it too, but you beat me to it. I was thinking about applying some logic to decide if an image can be moved yes, no or maybe. It's still in a very early stage, you can find it at User:Multichill/Kladblok. multichill (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FrescoBot 6

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 {{commons}} and {{commons category}}. For details or questions please check Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 6. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 10:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drive

I am going to start a drive for September, 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~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You might be interested in this handy method using a bookmarklet. --Leyo 14:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's the same for me. It only works every other time at the moment. --Leyo 15:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend WP:FtCG Bulwersator (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giant table

Categories listed in this table are polluted with images tagged as {{keep local}}, 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)[reply]

Prioirty Candidates

I've seen them and moved them but what makes them speical? Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Move to Commons Priority Candidates: "This is a list of files tagged with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} with at least one link to the mainspace."Bulwersator (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy

Almost three years ago I posted #How to get stuff to Commons. I would like to rephrase this goal: Our goals should be to move all free files to Commons and to also get the uploaders of these free files to contribute to Commons (instead of using local upload).

To help this process I made some pages and tools

To easily monitor new free uploads I've created User:Multichill/Free uploads. This page lists all free uploads uploaded on a certain date so you can easily go through them and move them or nominate them for deletion. The pages are uploaded daily so you don't have to edit them.
To easily find sets of free images to move I've created User:Multichill/top self uploaders. This page lists uploads who have uploaded the most self-published free images. The subpages contain galleries which you can edit prior to moving all the images.
I've written a pywikipedia bot called imagecopy_self.py. It's a highly optimized to mass work on work images. It works very well in combination with User:Multichill/top self uploaders

I think we should have two approaches: Newly uploaded files and old files

Newly uploaded files

If we work on the newly uploaded files we can at least prevent the backlog from increasing. It would be very nice if some people would monitor User:Multichill/Free uploads. Another thing is notifying local uploaders with {{Un-commons}}. Should a bot do this? That shouldn't be too hard to implement. The selection would be a bit stricter than User:Multichill/Free uploads I guess. Opinions?

Old files

At this point Category:All free media contains 370.000 files. Of course not all of these files can be moved, but a lot of them can. I'm a firm believer in the Pareto principle so I think we should focus on the easy files first to make a difference. User:Multichill/top self uploaders is an example of this, but I guess we can find a lot of relatively easy subsets of files which we can move as a whole. We already have drives to move files, but these seem to be a bit inefficient. I think we could increase the quantity and the quality of transfers if we would have better tooling. Multichill (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would be a good idea to have a bot which automatically adds {{Un-commons}} to uploaders' talk pages.

In particular, the quality of the transfers needs to be improved since images frequently are moved without categories being added and with the "bot upload" template being kept on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More efficient way to transfer files

...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? Reh man 15:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? Reh man 05:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to find good files easier

(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))[reply]