Images and Media ( inactive) | ||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SieBot Addhoc 10:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
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.
-- Commander Keane 05:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
— Remember the dot ( talk) 05:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Kontribs
TalkM
23:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
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 Kontribs TalkM 00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Our goals should be to move all free media from Wikipedia to Commons. We have several ways of accomplishing this goal:
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.
We should monitor the daily uploads. We have three options
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.
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.
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)
Good work all, but you need to be careful about something. There are four kinds of images that should not be moved to Commons.
Be careful about these, especially #3 and #4. I can help if you have questions. – Quadell ( talk) 17:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I've seen them and moved them but what makes them speical? Ramaksoud2000 ( talk) 01:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
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
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 uploadersI think we should have two approaches: Newly uploaded files and old 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?
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)
...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)
(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))
Images and Media ( inactive) | ||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SieBot Addhoc 10:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
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.
-- Commander Keane 05:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
— Remember the dot ( talk) 05:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Kontribs
TalkM
23:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
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 Kontribs TalkM 00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Our goals should be to move all free media from Wikipedia to Commons. We have several ways of accomplishing this goal:
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.
We should monitor the daily uploads. We have three options
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.
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.
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)
Good work all, but you need to be careful about something. There are four kinds of images that should not be moved to Commons.
Be careful about these, especially #3 and #4. I can help if you have questions. – Quadell ( talk) 17:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I've seen them and moved them but what makes them speical? Ramaksoud2000 ( talk) 01:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
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
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 uploadersI think we should have two approaches: Newly uploaded files and old 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?
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)
...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)
(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))