Talk:Wikimedia Commons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on April 21, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 7 July 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
This article is part of the WikiProject Wikipedia, an attempt to improve and organize Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.

Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Restrictions on Use

"Licenses that are acceptable include the GNU Free Documentation License, Creative Commons licenses with no restrictions on use, and the public domain."

For CC'd content, does this include the ShareAlike clause?

As I understand it, all CC licenses are acceptable except those forbidding commercial use and/or the creation of derived works. The underlying principle is that there shouldn't be any restrictions on use for any purpose. So cc-by and cc-by-sa are both acceptable, the share-alike clause is not required, if that's what you're asking. All of this should be explained in more detail on the Commons site. --MarkSweep✍ 12:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
According to Commons:Licensing, this is in fact the case. (Very clearly spelled out.) Sorry for being a bit lazy in finding this. Thanks!

[edit] Moving images to the Commons

This discussion was moved to Wikipedia talk:Moving images to the Commons. --MarkSweep 08:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Commons Logo

Could somebody write a short piece about the logo, its symbolism etc?

The logo was created by Reidab, originally as a submission to the Wikinews logo contest (one among several designs he made for that purpose). [1] I suggested to Reidab that he should submit it to the Commons logo contest instead, as I thought it was much more appropriate there. So, the Commons symbolism is accidental, though I've always interpreted it as "people putting something into a central repository (many arrows), to be used in a larger context (single big arrow)."--Eloquence* 01:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The logo is an implosion atomic bomb, right? Astroview120mm 03:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image link question

How do I link to an image on the commons if theres a file with the same name on wikipedia? for instance Image:Fahd bin Abdul Aziz.jpg is different to the one on the commons - [2] but with the same filename Astrokey44 14:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

If by "link" you mean "use", this is not currently possible. See Mediazilla:2717. If you really just want to link, use the commons: Interwiki prefix, e.g. commons:Image:Popcorn02.jpg.--Eloquence* 01:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me, but why am I having so many problems? [3] My attempt seems to have gone strangely wrong... thumb|right|250px|The Manukau Harbour seen at low tide. Mostlyharmless 21:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Miss out the commons at the start of the link See Commons:First steps/Reuse
Manukau Harbour
Manukau Harbour
--Philip Baird Shearer 09:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curious about Commons?

This is probably not fit for the article proper, so I'll put it here. If you're a Wikipedian who's interested in getting to know the Commons, have a read of Wikipedia:Commons, which provides some guidelines and comparisons with Wikipedia. pfctdayelise 11:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patent images and copyright

I found a patent that describes a piece of equipment I'm doing an article for. The patent has an image that would be good for illustrating the article, and it's from 1876 (very old). Would that image be acceptable to upload? I don't know if being more than 100 years old means the picture is copyright free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sociotard (talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 January 2006

I think so. Appropriate tags might be commons:Template:Patent or if it's a US patent, commons:Template:PD-US-patent. or maybe just plain old commons:Template:PD-old. Whichever tag you use, be sure to explain your reasoning for choosing it. pfctdayelise 22:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commons CD is a VERY VERY VERY bad idea

I see that an initiative is in place to create a CD from commons graphics. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Commons&direction=next&oldid=55199121

This is a very, very, very bad idea. It defies everything wiki. It's one thing to see your work transformed before your eyes. It's quite another to privatize it. Further there is arrogance in its implementation by hijacking wikipedia commons.

I no longer trust Wikipedia Commons and will no longer post pictures to it and may even withdraw pictures I have posted to it. The damage has been done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download

Americasroof 13:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you quite misunderstand. The proposal was to put this article onto a CD version of Wikipedia. That's all. As it is, I suggested they remove it, because this is not a very vital article. At any rate I don't know what your opposition to the CD format is. They don't make it CD-only, they simply sell a CD to anyone who wants to buy one (without hiding the fact that it's still available freely). In many parts of the world bandwidth makes viewing Wikipedia (and definitely the Commons) a nightmare. For these people a CD format is a trillion times more convenient and useful. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the slippery slope that occurs when you start selling Wiki. Lots of people donate vast amounts of time working on the project with no hope of compensation. Part of the addiction is seeing your work evolve. You do not get that feedback if its on CD. Further, while folks are giving away material to the commons there's some feeling of control that the work is mostly going to be applied to wiki articles only. Once you start selling Wiki even if it's for a trivial price you're down the slippery slope. There's a perception that graphics given away as free could be turned into for profit projects. As we've seen with other nonprofit projects such as skype and flickr, wikipedia is probably worth billions of dollars if it were sold. The CD -- even if its intention was purely honorable -- would appear to be the first marketing move. To me the damage is done.Americasroof 13:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well indeed the damage is done because the German Wikipedia has been selling a CD for donkey's years, and apparently the sky hasn't fallen in over there. We're just catching up!!
Allowing commercial use is an extremely strong part of the Wikimedia licensing philosophy. The GFDL and all licenses that commons: accept explicitly allow commercial use, i.e. you can sell it.
You might be interested in this post from Jimbo: [4] --pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The points are now made. Americasroof 14:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid question

I admit to being new at dealing with commons, but find several good and useful images, including featured images, in other languages are not available for the English wikipedia. How would I go about copying an image from a foreign language wikipedia or commons for use on the English language side? Badbilltucker 16:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the only stupid question is the one that goes unasked. In other words, none of us were born knowing this stuff; if you don't ask, you can't learn. I'm no expert here, either, but in looking around you might find Template:Information helpful. It seems to me that all that is necessary is that the image(s) you want to upload here be properly licensed. They may be used on the other wikis under licenses that wouldn't qualify them for inclusion in the Commons. Information about licenses that are used in the Commons are at [][Commons:Licensing]].—Chidom talk  18:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
If the image is uploaded at the Commons, you can use it here already as if it was uploaded here! So you don't need to do anything at all. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Want to contribute

I'm an amateur photographer and I have taken some interesting pictures (all from Cuba, where I live), I want to contribute with some photos that could be useful to wikipedians, I'm a complete newb in Wikipedia, so how can I help? (I can make logos too). KatKiller 06:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fantastic! I recommend registering an account at Wikimedia Commons (at commons:Special:Userlogin). Then I strongly recommend reading through the commons:Commons:First steps guide. If you have any questions, you can ask at the commons:Commons:Help desk or on my talk page. cheers, pfctdayelise (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to Understand Rights in Wikimedia Commons

I often browse the wikicommons to see all the wonderful stuff that's been put in here. I am interested in using a few images in commercial endeavors but don't want to step on any toes by violating any rights.

So, my question:

If an image exists at all in the wikimedia commons does that mean that it is available to use in any commercial venture? A couple of images I looked at carry ONLY the GNU license which I tried to figure out, it stated that anything with the GNU license is free for use in any TEXT BASED work. Does that mean that if the item is not text based (say for example a postcard or a t-shirt) that it is NOT okay to use that image on that item?

I apologize if this is a dumb question that should be so blatantly obvious but I do want to be absolutely sure I don't violate any rights with any images I find in the commons.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

- AM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.17.195.167 (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

In principal all work on Commons is free for commercial use. With text is meant work in the GFDL. Bryan 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

I have a lot of trouble remembering how to get there, and so thought this article on the subject should link to it prominently.Andysoh 21:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deep sea fish

Could we have some improved deep sea fish articles please? Photos would of course be nice, but I know they are hard. Zantaggerung 04:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

I strongly believe this article should not be deleted as it appears to be a valid encyclopedia article relating to the wikimedia commons. It is accurate, precise and does not exist in duplicate. It is not a promotional article for the commons either. Theonlysilentbob

Delete? Why? Rsduhamel 21:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

yea great work i sorta agree cuz it's my work too

drusa

[edit] Sources

So, this article is tagged for not having third party sources. That's going to be somewhat difficult because the press doesn't like to write about Commons in the same way they like to write about Wikipedia. Nonetheless I don't see any unsourced or innacurate statements. So is this article doomed to wear this tag until a journo takes interest or could it be safely de-tagged? pfctdayelise (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't able to be sourced, it must be deleted. We can't just have Wikipedia cruft hanging around because we think it's important. If a reliable source has not written about Commons (or any other Wikipedia or sister project for that matter), this article should be merged into Wikimedia foundation and redirected. Richard001
It is able to be sourced. Just not with third party sources. pfctdayelise (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on the logo

Someone please add more information about what the logo means beside "The project logo was created by Reid Beels, who had initially submitted it to a logo contest for Wikinews. It was entered into the Commons logo competition, which it won, and was officially adopted in November 2004."..thanks--Alnokta 08:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image of 4 Carlton Gardens, London SW1

Apologies if this is not the right place to make a request, but is there someone in central London who could take some shots of the above? This was the HQ of De Gaulle and the Free French in WW2; images would be useful for historical articles. It would be nice to have shots of the building and of the statue of De Gaulle which is nearby. Mikeo1938 (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen another reference to Carlton Gardens and this indicates that the Free French HQ was at Number 3. So if anyone is going to take these shots, pse do both houses. Mikeo1938 (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that there is a blue plaque on the house; a picture of this would be a useful addition to Commons. Is anyone able to oblige with these shots?Mikeo1938 (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)