Commons:Help desk

Shortcut: COM:HDSkip to table of contents | Skip to bottom | 🌐 Help desks for other languages

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. Please sign your question by typing four tildes (~~~~). In order to get quick answers consider the following points: Have you checked the frequently asked questions, help pages and the help desk archive? For licensing and copyright issues, please use the copyright village pump For proposing changes to the way Wikimedia Commons works, please use the proposals village pump For community-wide discussions, please use the main village pump For changing the name of a file, please see our file renaming guidelines For matters requiring the attention of an administrator, please use the administrators' noticeboard or contact an individual administrator directly For questions not related to this website, try English Wikipedia's reference desk Resolved sections (marked by {{section resolved|1=~~~~}}) will be archived after four days. Sections with no discussion will be archived after ten days. Click here to ask your question about using Commons or For quicker help, join our live chat room.

Translate this page

Commons discussion pages (index)

Commons Help desk Community-wide general discussion Copyright Proposals Graphics and photography discussion Image improvement Photography critiques Categories for discussion Deletion requests OTRS noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests #wikimedia-commons webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 4 days.

Commonsdelinker

Hej! In the past, soon after an image was renamed/deleted, a bot called 'Commonsdelinker' stopped by on Wikipedia to fix references to that image. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Has that bot been retired? Richard 10:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No. See for example contribs on nl.wp. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, though, Commons delinker does not do this automatically. You need to make a request at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, which an admin will eventually move to the protected User:CommonsDelinker/commands. - Jmabel ! talk 16:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

In that case, someone probably missed a step in the deletion process. Thanks for your feedback. Richard 08:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion? I thought that was automatic. User:CommonsDelinker/commands is for renaming. Pinging @Steinsplitter: as one of its current maintainers --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please elaborate what isn't working. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hard to tell, as long as you keep secret what file you have in mind. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned deletion in my original question. This is a file to which a reference on nl.wikipedia was removed manually a full week after its deletion on Commons. Dinosaur918 (the user who removed the reference) reports some 50 similar cases in the past week. Richard 20:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I see that on en.wp the link to this file was removed by a different bot [1], Filedelinkerbot, which does not seem to exist on nl.wp. I wonder if the Filedelinkerbot just catches files missed by the CommonsDelinker or if somehow the bots could interfere with the work of each other. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker seems to be working for removed images at this time. Richard 13:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

New version of File:Double six.svg

I made a new version of File:Double six.svg where one set of six lines is colored differently to help differentiate it from the other set. Apparently I can't upload it without logging in, and I've been unable to log in ever since Wikimedia made HTTPS mandatory (long and complicated story that I won't go into). So all I can do is drop this link here and maybe someone will upload the file for me. The edit is completely trivial so the copyright status (i.e., Public Domain) should be unaffected. I don't know if this edit should replace the former version or not, that's for whoever uploads it (if anyone) to decide. --2001:7A8:78AE:0:0:0:0:1 22:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: This should be interesting for you as the original uploader. — Speravir – 18:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but I think modifications such as this that add information rather than merely correcting errors should be uploaded as separate files, not as replacements for the existing files. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Setting watchlist to "all pages visited" needs confirmation?

Maybe I simply never realised that behavior, but did the watchlist always require another confirmation after clicking the "Mark all pages visited" button? Or has something changed recently? A small box with some text "Are you sure blah blah?" pops up and needs to be accepted before the watchlist is reset (I am using Firefox 50.0.2, Windows XP, and Vector skin). If this additional confirmation step is intended, is is possible to disable this behavior for single users with some .css or .js setting? GermanJoe (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick update for other interested editors: this annoying change has been mentioned at en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Watchlist change, including a suggestion for a possible workaround if anyone wants to opt out of this "feature". GermanJoe (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

inquiry

If I feel that an admin has acted improperly how do I go about reported that / having that looked into? (Lilic (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC))

I think, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems is the right place for this. — Speravir – 17:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Vlag Sint-Crijspijnsgilde Izegem.jpg

Hello,

I've added above mentionned file to Wiki COmmons. There is no registered copyright. I also have no clue how I can find such a thing. I've requested this (and some other) picture from a museum I'm working with in order for this wiki page. These pictures are exhibits they have at the museum or photo's they have in their archive. They know nothing of a copyright on those pictures.

What am I to do in such a case in order to use these pictures?

Thanks.

--SuperEggMan (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• There are two different copyrights involved here: the copyright of the banner and the copyright of the photo. The photo is the simpler. You say "Zelf foto", so I presume you are the photographer. Since this is a 3-dimensional object, your photo inherently has a copyright, and you will need to provide an appropriate license, just like with any other photo you take.
• The underlying object is trickier. Given that it's a museum, they probably have various information that you haven't given about the item (e.g. an acquisition number but most importantly at least an approximate date). Those would determine the copyright status. Most likely it is in the public domain, and all we would need is the license for your photo, but it is imaginable that the banner itself is copyrighted, in which case, if the author is unknown, we are almost certainly out of luck because there would be no way to obtain that required license. - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• If the 1885 on the banner is the date of the banner, then I think we can reasonably presume public domain. Is it? - Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

       Hiya, To be honest. I've got no idea what you're talking about. The banner is made in the 1800's, when the specific shoemakers guild was founded. The museum does not have any papers, licences
       or anything like that which proves it's copyrighted material, either for the banner itself or the picture of the banner. The same goes for a bunch of other pictures I have used in my 
       wikipage Schoennijverheid in Izegem. They told me it is free material, even though they don't want others to use it without their permission (which is understandable). I've been working with the 
       people of the museum in order to have as much usable information on the subject as possible (since it's a academic assignment for my education as social worker. Since I have their permission and the
       pictures are free to use, please inform me how I can use these safely on Wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperEggMan (talk • contribs) 08:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Page you are presumably referring to: nl:Schoennijverheid in Izegem. - Jmabel ! talk 19:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• If the banner was made in the 1800s, I think it's a pretty safe bet to say the banner itself is covered by {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. But it remains the case that the banner is a 3-dimensional object, someone took the photo, the photo is inherently copyrighted, and if there has been no transfer of rights the photo belongs either to whoever took it or (if it was work for hire) to their employer. If an employee of the museum took the photo as part of their job (which sounds like the case, though you haven't spelled it out) then the museum presumably owns the copyright of the photo and only they can grant a license to reuse it. If I correctly understand "They … don't want others to use it without their permission" as "They don't want others to use it without crediting them", then the appropriate license would probably be {{CC-BY}} or {{CC-BY-SA}}. Unless they already have posted the image elsewhere on the web with an indication of such a license, the museum needs to send an email granting that permission, as explained at COM:OTRS. They must specify a particular license. The simplest thing would probably be if they say you will be uploading multiple images on their behalf, and that the license applies to all of your uploads of their copyrighted material. Then on the image page, indicate in the permissions section that the underlying object is public domain, and for a license tag give {{CC-BY}} or {{CC-BY-SA}} (whichever the museum prefers). Also, put {{OTRS pending}} so this doesn't get prematurely deleted as the OTRS process (which is backlogged) works through.
• All of this would be much simpler if you'd taken the photos yourself. Since the underlying object is in the public domain, you would be the sole copyright holder; you could grant any appropriate license you wanted. The legalities around uploading other people's photographs that have not already been free-licensed are tricky, hence the COM:OTRS process. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• By the way, "Registered copyright" is almost completely irrelevant under the Berne Convention, which the Netherlands signed in 1912, and any color photo is certainly more recent than that. Anything that is eligible for copyright is automatically copyrighted at creation. - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

    Cheers for your assistance with this matter. I'll have to consult with the museumworkers to verify if they'll allow me the free license, as they were somewhat reluctant in the first place if someone 
    else could just use the pictures without their consent. I guess if I altered the data in the picture properties that'd be a bad thing to do and I would get banned? ;).
    Salutation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperEggMan (talk • contribs) 07:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• More or less. We're not at all interested in obtaining things fraudulently. Again, if the museum is near you and you can take your own pictures of objects that are now in the public domain, that would be simplest. Also, for anything in the public domain and strictly 2-dimensional (e.g. a painting without the frame, photographed straight-on) in most countries (I have no expertise on the Netherlands) the photograph has no copyright of its own, because there is considered to be no creativity involved, simply reproduction of a public domain work. - Jmabel ! talk 17:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

    Thanks again! Will try to take photo's of my own, but the Museum is under construction atm and the exhibits aren't open for public. I'll have to find a different solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperEggMan (talk • contribs) 08:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Unassessed QI candidates

Can a unassessed QI candidates be renominated for QI ? regards --Cvmontuy (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:JanellaSalvadorInDisneyConcert.jpg

Hi! Happy Holidays! I just would like to know how can I get the rights to use this photo on the Wikipedia of the photo owner. Would appreciate your response. Thank you

--Madel SZ (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The copyright holder of the work needs to send permission to COM:OTRS using this email template. Wikicology (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding picture under Creative Common License: allowed?

Dear Sir/Madame,

I want to upload a picture from someone else unto the Wikipedia Upload Wizard, but am not sure whether this is legally allowed. I asked the person who made the picture (of a virus) for permission, and he gave me the following answer:

'You have our permission as long as it has proper attribution (credit) and you use the typical Creative Commons language Wiki uses for attribution.'

So does this mean that uploading is allowed, if I add his name as a reference? If not, is there another way that makes it possible to still add the picture? E.g. to upload the picture to my own account? Or maybe it is allowed on the Dutch page?

Thanks for your answer!

Regards, Maarten — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaartenCos (talk • contribs) 14:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The copyright holder of the work needs to send permission to COM:OTRS using this email template. If you have already uploaded the image to Commons, follow the instructions on Template:OTRS pending. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Podpis

Witam Chciałbym dodać zdjęcie podpisu pewnego artysty na jego stronie wikipedi. Czy mogę to zrobić ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanibon (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Zależy to od konkretnej sytuacji, ale często jest możliwe. Mamy stronę pomocy Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag, ale niestety tylko po angielsku. Matma Rex (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Lockwood Silver Fern Flag.png

Hi There, this photograph is New Zealand Crown Copyright 2016 (public domain) but I am not sure which licence to add, or how to add it.

Sorry I am a very new editor to Wikipedia!

--Iambicpentameter186 (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably the same as File:NZ flag design Silver Fern (Black, White & Blue) by Kyle Lockwood.svg, these proposed flag designs were released under a CC license. --ghouston (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

That's assuming they released that photo under the CC license too. The process was a bit strange, in that the NZ Government was assigned the copyright to the flags, so that they became crown copyright, released them under a CC license, and then assigned the copyright of the failing designs (which was all of them?) back to the original authors. The statement on [2] actually says "After the referendums, copyright in unsuccessful flag designs will be assigned back to the designers as appropriate. Once copyright has been assigned back to the designers, any use of those flag designs will require permission from the designers or any other owner of copyright in those flag designs (unless the use is otherwise permitted under the Copyright Act 1994)." The CC license can't be revoked though. --ghouston (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

They never were under a CC license. The footer on the website was: "Unless indicated otherwise, all content on Govt.nz is licensed for re-use under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand Licence" (emplasis added). The more complete general statement on the "copyright" page also included the caveat: "Unless indicated below, or on specific items or collections of content [...]". It also specified: "Exceptions - Copyright in photographs on Govt.nz is not owned, or licensed to you, by the Crown. Unless otherwise stated in relation to specific photographs, you cannot copy, distribute or adapt any photograph without the agreement of the copyright owner." When it comes to the flag designs, it is clearly "indicated otherwise". The "resource" page with the flag designs specified: "These designs are for personal use only and are not available for commercial purposes." Another specific statement spelled out that "... In accordance with the Flag Design Terms and Conditions, the copyright in the flag designs is owned by the Crown during the referendum process, and following that process if a new flag is chosen. After the first and second referendums, copyright in any unsuccessful flag designs will be assigned back to the designers as appropriate. Once copyright has been assigned back to the designers, any use of those flag designs will require permission from the designers or any other owner of copyright in those flag designs ...". -- Asclepias (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Right, it's a government site, so I should have expected a statement in one place to be contradicted elsewhere. That's bad news for File:Lockwood Silver Fern Flag.png, but I don't think it would apply to the flag designs in general. They aren't photographs, and copyright was transferred to the Crown, although temporarily. So they should be covered by the general CC release. --ghouston (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The specific Flag Design Terms and Conditions just says the copyright would go back to the designers, it doesn't say that the general CC release of the site doesn't apply. However, it doesn't imply much respect for the irrevocable nature of the CC license either. --ghouston (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

A CC license looks fine, since the footer of the page archived on archive.org says "Unless indicated otherwise, all content on Govt.nz is licensed for re-use under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand Licence". --ghouston (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

TUERTO (old email)

I am TUERTO, and I cannot edit because I changed my email and I couldn't remember to update it in Wikimedia. I do a new account? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.108.29.71 (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• If you have forgotten your password, and have no access to your old email, I think that's the only choice. - Jmabel ! talk 17:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

using an old photogtaph of an ancestor to edit the wiki page

Hello. I have got a problem uploading my photo to wikimedia commons. I have noticed there is an entry on wikipedia about my family ancestor. (https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Krziwanek) There is his portrait but I think I have a better photograph of this politician. My photo is taken in an atelier Winter in 1860. I wanted to upload a cutout from this photo to exchange the painting displayed but the website said the photo can not be accepted for some reason. Can you help me with this? I speak Czech and English. Thanks. Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Petrus (talk • contribs) 14:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, It is impossible to help you with such vague description as «a problem» and «for some reason». You would have to be much more explicit about what you did and about the message you received. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Any photograph that old should be acceptable, so I'm sure we can work this through if you provide the information. - Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Picture refused

Hello, I want to upload this picture of a house. I made it myself, but it is refused. I want to upload it to Astraat 19 and to Huize Noordeinde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standorhoutmees (talk • contribs) 14:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, It is impossible to help you with such vague description as «it is refused». You would have to be much more explicit about what you did and about the message you received. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Standorhoutmees: you triggered an automated filter designed to stop new users from uploading images taken from web. In this case it was a false positive. The filter simply checks if the image size is below certain threshold. If you have a higher resolution image it should be accepted. MKFI (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Additionally the filter is checked if the file is uploaded from a Wikipedia (cross-wiki upload). If you try to upload it directly to Commons (Special:UploadWizard) it should be accepted. MKFI (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Cannot find author, consent from the owner, OK to upload?

Hi, I wanted to upload an old photo of a person that was taken over 60 years ago. It is impossible to find the photographer now, but the person in the photo, who is now 86 years old, consented to share the photo to public. Can I go ahead upload the picture? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuiliKing (talk • contribs) 20:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Probably not OK. You don't say what country, and there are some where it would be OK. If you can answer that, we can proceed to the relevant questions for that country.

• Copyright does not always vest with the photographer. I believe that under UK law, if a photographer was commissioned to take a photograph, then the copyright belonged to the person who commissioned the phot, not the photographer themself. (The law deemed that when the photographer was paid, he sold the copyright unless the agreement said otherwise). Thus, if the person in the picture is British and they commissioned the photo then they own the copyright. Also, copyright can be passed on to another person, for example, by inheritance. It is worth following up. Martinvl (talk) 07:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Picture Dua Lipa

Moved from Commons talk:Help desk#Picture Dua Lipa.

Couple of weeks ago before i got an account i added to the 1995 page on brths section the singer Dua Lipa With that i added too the picture of the singer. It was exactly the same picture that was on her main page here. Only a lot smaller i did the same thing someone else had done on that 1995 page. Just with another person(Dua Lipa) If it was cause that picture was not free to uuse.With respect none of those are here unless the person in question has been dead long or i made it myself. The first won't happen for most of the pics here i bet.So either you have a busy job removing alot of unauthorised pics or you allow them unless the person on a picture or the maker protests. I bet the picture that is on her personal page now is made by someone else then the one who posted it.I was tempted to put it again as i did before on the other page. But as i am tired of the nonsense i did not.I asked one editor and he had no idea why but i do not know who removed it and i would love to know why so that i can either be justified to remove evey pic on the site put down without authorization. Or can put a new one up and not have the same hassle. If it was cause the person did not like the pic. That is a personal thing i cannot help that. I took the same picture i saw on the main page cause if it can be there and can be on other pages too as long as they make sense of course. So either let people go ahead or rebuild alot of the wikip[edia site.

I am not sure where to put this so I put it here. This is the help desk so HELP.Preferably with rules that make sense. And those everyone has to stick to.O [refer mpt tp have to deal with one eiditor differently then another.Rules are rules I would say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Douglas (talk • contribs) 21:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Which photograph are you talking about? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 22:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Help needed

Could someone please help me avoid having my photos deleted? Both my uploads are my own work. To my knowledge, i have filled in the summary information properly... yet a user is asking for more information (source) which is already listed. I have requested what more information the user is looking for, but i have yet to get a response. I feel as though I'm am being bullied. Please help, I do not want my photos to be deleted for no reason. Thanks.--Brandonlalonde1234 (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Brandonlalonde1234&ilshowall=1

• Just to clarify: are you stating that you were present at the 7th G7 summit in Montebello, Quebec, and that you snapped the photo of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau & Bobby Lalonde yourself? - Jmabel ! talk 21:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Presuming that to be the case, probably the simplest surest thing would be to send an email to the address given at COM:OTRS clarifying who you are (I take it from the account name you are a relative of Lalonde's) and that you are indeed the author of these photos. It would be best if you could send that from an email address that is clearly tied to you (e.g. if you have a web site of your own and the address is given there, or if you are associated with some organizations and use that email). - Jmabel ! talk 21:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Meanwhile, though: it's not as if these have been deleted. They've been nominated for deletion. I don't think the nomination will result in deletion, and I've commented there (as have you, I see) objecting to the nomination. So the OTRS thing may be entirely unnecessary. - Jmabel ! talk 21:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Indeed, the user who jumped at your throat is inappropriately agressive. He or she is also misusing the "no source" tag and making absurd assertions and demands. You are right not to let the user bully you like that. That said, any user may start a discussion and may question the validity of a file, if they can at least articulate some reasonable doubt. If not, they should assume good faith. So far, the comments of the user seem to have missed the "reasonable" aspect. Let the discussion run its normal course. Now, let me ask you a personal question. It's fine to contribute to Commons anonymously, so feel entirely free to answer or not. But the user name you chose for your account leads me to believe that you're not trying to remain anonymous and it seems to imply that you may be related to the person pictured on the photos. If you don't mind, would you tell if and how you are related? That may help a little to evaluate the validity of the photos. Also, just to be sure: are you are saying that you personally took the two photos, one in 1981 and one in 2011? -- Asclepias (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Duplicates

What's the system for flagging duplicates and choosing which to remove? I've been working with converting ribbons and flags to svgs a bit and have spotted a few. Notably:

• 
• 

• 
• 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Houdinipeter (talk • contribs) 21:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• The latter two are not quite identical (slight color difference). For the first two, feel free to make use of {{duplicate}}. - Jmabel ! talk 21:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

is there a way to filter for images that do NOT need attribution?

Is there a way to filter for images that do NOT need attribution? Thanks! Philiptdotcom (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Multiple images in upload history

I just encountered File:First Congregational Church- Manistee.jpg, where the author overwrote an image with a different image of the same church. Is it possible to re-upload and use the old file, or does this essentially count as an author-requested deletion? It seems like a fine enough image. kennethaw88 • talk 05:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Good question. The first thing to do is probably to ask the user what his/her actual intention was. Of course, overwriting is not the way to request the deletion of an image. However, when an uploader correctly requests the deletion of an image a few days after the upload, the deletion is almost always done. In the present case, the overwriting was done one day after the upload. If the intention of the user was to leave both images on Commons, then one of the files should be reuploaded with a different name, or an admin can separate the files. If the intention of the user was to delete the image and if he/she believed, although mistakenly, that overwriting was the way to do it, then maybe the image can be deleted. But the fact that the user never made an actual deletion request probably means that he wants to leave both files. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I left them a message. They haven't edited in a while, so I'm not sure if they'll reply. kennethaw88 • talk 05:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

{{VN}} template not producing Wikidata link

I added the {{VN}} template to Category:Percina nigrofasciata and the result includes a notice reading "Note: no wikidata item is associated with this category". However, there is an associated Wikidata item. Why is it not showing up? I tried using the useWikidata=1 functionality to no avail. By contrast, {{VN}} in Category:Anas wyvilliana does produce a wikidata link. Why does one work and the other not? --Rrburke (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems to work that way only if the page or category where the template is used has a site link to Wikidata. If a sitelink can't be created, it can be given a parameter like useWikidata=Qxxx. --ghouston (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

"Added to Job queue [INVALID] ago"

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T153747 Resolved

I uploaded File:Krumkake-steking.webm today. In the "Transcode" section, it says "Added to Job queue [INVALID] ago" for all resolutions. Any action required? Regards, Kjetil_r 16:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

We are working on it. phab:T153747 gerrit:328366 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Task resolved, patch will be deployed on 2 January. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 03:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Changing a Photo

Good morning, I and the Creative Services Manager for MSA - The Safety Company, referenced on Wikipedia under our old name Mine Safety Appliances. I wanted to update the logo that is used on the Mine Safety page to the current version that was changed in 2004 to add the tagline "The Safety Company". However, the system will not allow me to do so and the reason given seems to indicate that because of the file type or contents, I do not have permission to do so. Someone placed the old logo, so it seems there is precedence. How can I update the page with the correct image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevieG53 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You probably mean File:Mine_safety.jpg. As you account is not autoconfirmed you can not re-upload files uploaded by other accounts. You can wait for four days to become autoconfirmed. However I advised you not to re-upload the file but to upload the new logo under a different name and then change it in the article. Ruslik (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me take that a step beyond "advise". The old logo is still a relevant piece of history, and should not be overwritten. Please upload the correct logo under a distinct file name, and then in the article change what file is referenced. - Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Being in compliance

Apologies in advance if this information is available but have been all over the site and through the links and still not sure how to proceed so that I use these images correctly. at least in one regard - no surprise, am new to the program.

I recall finding elsewhere that I need to provide a link to the image page, indicate any changes, and make the any changed images available at no charge on Wikimedia Commons, all good.

Here's where I run into a big question: The first image I would like to use is the Black Labrador Retriever, and am logged in as I view the page, where I find this requirement: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor."

But I cannot find where the author specifies this. Can you help me?

Thank you so much for any information.

Best regards, Barbara J Nosek barbara@writesource.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeTime (talk • contribs) 03:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Barbara! It would help tremendously if you would identify the name of the file you have in mind (there are over 200 files showing Black Labrador Retrievers on Commons) and describe how you intend to use it. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Apologies again if there was some other way to reply - I couldn't see one. The file url is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Labrador_Retriever_portrait.jpg

If by some chance you actually see this and reply, many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeTime (talk • contribs) 05:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• That image can just be attributed to "Wikipedia user Kumarrrr". Kumarrrr didn't give any more specific information, and hasn't been active in about 8 years, so I think that's all you can do in good faith. - Jmabel ! talk 07:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

  TeeTime: Disregard that. The photographer should be credited as Jason Oatman. Based on this edit, we may have additional information received via e-mail, and Jcb might know more about it. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible non-free file?

There has been a little bit of contention over the Wikipedia article David L. Richards, which started with one editor (Sophia1778) trying to change the article on the page to something more recent. I've emailed Richards via his university e-mail and he's confirmed that Sophia1778 is his wife and he also commented that the photo is incorrect - I'll ask him to elaborate on this. The photo in question is File:David L. Richards.jpg and the image that Richards and his wife wanted added is this one.

One thing I've noticed, however, is that the person who uploaded the photograph may not have actually held the image's copyright. I found this page which looks like it might be from 2011. It has a portion of the image, but not the full thing. Something that I also noted is that the image itself says that the source is "University of Connecticut", which would imply that the uploader Daver68 does not hold the image copyright but possibly took it from Richards's staff bio or possibly a course page. It's enough question to where I think at the very least the image's copyright should be examined. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• The page also says that the author is Dan Buttrey, which doesn't really fit with the username "Daver", which suggests that the user's name is probably Dave or David. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Commented at Commons:Deletion requests/File:David L. Richards.jpg. Let's keep the discussion in one place (there). —LX (talk, contribs) 11:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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 four days. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Attracting professional photographers

I've just uploaded File:Lee Mack and Tom Parry on Radio 4's 'Don't Make Me Laugh'.jpg. Check the credited Flickr user's photostream, it's simply impressive. There's a wide array of well-shot photographs of top British comedians and actors. I think the photographer is from BBC. All the work is in non-free CC licenses--itself a rare find. I got this one by sending a permission request to change it to BY-SA since we didn't have any photos of Lee Mack.

Now, I was wondering how to encourage possible future contributions besides my usual thanks.

• A plain link to Commons:First steps but someone like this joining here is really less likely--they do have a job (hehe).
• A more realistic expectation would be getting them to release their work and we doing the dirty work (form filing and uploading).
• Plus there's a good chance I'll find another page without an image and will have to request the same person again--me doing that seems impolite. It would be better if I say now will they mind me bugging them in the future.

So keeping all this in mind, are there any helpful links to give them? or simply any advice as to what to say? I've been referring and updating the guide on requesting free content REQUESTFLICKR and especially the section Wikipedia:Requesting_free_content#Recognition_for_Flickr_users. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Even something pointing them to Featured Pictures (showing how awesome it would be if they their work reached that status) since their work definitely has the potential. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Update: I've gave my usual reply with a really vague and not-personal invitation here. I still like to know though if there's anything better for future situations. ({{ping}} me if replying here) Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

language question

I understand the the Commons is multilingual. But I am wondering if it is best to redirect the Black Sea to Чорне море - Чёрное море - Karadeniz - Marea Neagră? Kalbbes (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Where do you want to redirect it to? Ruslik (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Does it have to be redirected at all? Most files in it are translated and the Russian title is confusing (to me at least). All the "See also" cats use "Black Sea" wording. Many may not read the gallery because of the title (I nearly didn't, thinking it was unrelated to the Black Sea) but the "See also"s are useful. Kalbbes (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The redirections (there are from a few languages, e.g. Black Sea, Mer Noire, Schwarzes Meer, ...) may make it easier for some users to find the gallery page (they may also reduce the risk of someone creating by mistake duplicate galleries under those names). In this case, deleting the English redirection would probably not achieve a useful result. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

okay, thanks! Kalbbes (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I would reverse this redirect. Ruslik (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Reverse what redirection, why? The unilingual redirections work fine to lead to the multilingual title. The multilingual title is not likely to be of use as a redirection to one unilingual title. Germany, France or the United States do not have a connection with this location that surpasses the connection with the neighbouring countries. German, French and English-speaking users of Commons are not less able than Bulgarian, Russian or Romanian-speaking users at using a multilingual website. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Do image files that make factual claims need a reliable source?

Hi,

I've found some image files here, such as maps and diagrams, that have nothing to indicate that they are factually correct or cite any sources. Some of these have found their way to Wikipedia (though that's another story), but I was wondering if the uploading policy of Commons means that factual accuracy or sourcing is optional. I'm mostly talking about images like:

• A territory map of a historic country or empire whose borders are not common knowledge
• An image claiming to be the flag of something with no other information
• A photograph identifying something such as a building or animal (e.g a regular plantation home identified as Graceland)

Is it just up to the various Wikimedia projects to determine sourcing and accuracy? --TangoFett (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view should answer your question. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Request Copyrite Permission

From: Thomas Ramstack I simply want to verify with you that the image as described below is in the Public Domain & if I am free to use it in a commercial publication. If so, what would be the appropriate way to credit the image? Thank You!!!

hthttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Empire_%28steamboat_1844%29_01.jpgtps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AEmpire_(steamboat_1844)_01.jpg By Samuel Ward Stanton (1870-1912) [Public domain or Public domain], <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AEmpire_(steamboat_1844) _01.jpg">via Wikimedia Commons</a>

File:Empire (steamboat 1844) 01.jpg From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository Jump to: navigation, search

Download Use this file Use this file Email a link Information 

This image is in the public domain because it is a mere mechanical scan or photocopy of a public domain original, or – from the available evidence – is so similar to such a scan or photocopy that no copyright protection can be expected to arise. The original itself is in the public domain for the following reason: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Rasmatck (talk • contribs) 19:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• An actual working link: File:Empire (steamboat 1844) 01.jpg.
• You can do pretty much anything with it: it's public domain, so there is no legal requirement to attribute it at all. Anything you do would simply be as a courtesy.
• And by the way, the word is "copyright" not "copyrite". - Jmabel ! talk 22:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Reuploading a file that gave an error in the first upload does not work

In uploading a series of 8 files there was one file that gave an error. I deleted that file. Uploading that one file with the upload wizard gave the error "Er staat al een bestand met dezelfde inhoud in de wiki" (There is already a file with the same content in the wiki). Changing the filename and uploading again gave the same error. What to do? Wouter (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what's going on here, but it might be useful if you give the name of the file that you say you deleted, so that someone can check exactly what state it is in. - Jmabel ! talk 17:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The filename is "A0359_Tenerife,_Playa_San_Juan_aerial_view.jpg". Wouter (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• There is currently File:A0359 Tenerife, Playa San Juan aerial view.jpg, is the file you tried to upload? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes indeed, that is the file. I found now the reason. 5 days earlier I had uploaded 4 photos of Playa San Juan and included at the same time the A0359... photo taken during the retour fight of the helicopter. Sorry. Wouter (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Another opinion please

I uploaded this file - " Pollard trade mark 1907.jpg " from a 1907 (now defunct newspaper Truth available on the National Library of Australia's), to illustrate an article on Pollard's Lilliputian Opera Company. I believe its actually a cartoon, not a trade mark but that's sort of beside the point. Any advice on whether this can be used would be good.Nickm57 (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• Convenience link: File:Pollard trade mark 1907.jpg.
• You're going to need someone who knows something about Australian copyright law (which I basically don't). If you don't get a satisfactory answer here, try Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 17:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The work is in public domain in the USA as it was published before 1923. It is also in public domain in Australia because it is anonymous and was published more than 70 years ago. I added necessary templates. Ruslik (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. Merry Christmas.Nickm57 (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Song sheet "Mary from the Dairy" issued in 1950

The song sheet comprised four pages. Cover sheet shows title and photo of Max Miller who sang the song and the composers (words by Sam Kern, Max Miller & James Walsh; music by Sam Kern). Pages 2 and 3 comprise the musical annotation and words. Inside it stated "Copyright 1950 by The Peter Maurice Music Co. Ltd., Maurice Building, Denmark St. London W.C.2"

I wish to publish on Wikipedia the cover sheet which I have scanned (not the musical annotation on pages 2 and 3). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydrafoil (talk • contribs) 11:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Is there any reason to think this would no longer be copyrighted? - Jmabel ! talk 17:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

None that I can think of. Should be © until end of 2020. Fair use only as far as I can tell. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Uploading image with explicit permission from copyright owner

I want to upload the current logo of the Ayn Rand Institute. I emailed the Institute, and they emailed me back granting me explicit permission to upload the logo onto Wikipedia along with contact information for their legal expert and the official logo PNG. I'm unsure how to go forward because I'm not sure how to describe this situation in the copyright section when I try to upload the image onto Wikimedia commons. Please help. Thank you. Michipedian (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)