Category talk:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons

Image deletion?

I have been adding pictures to this page after I moved them to commons for some time. Is there a plan to have a bot go through and delete images listed here? Or should admins go through and delete them? I have seen some moved images go through speedy deletion so maybe this category should be put under CSD. BrokenSegue 23:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think these are speedy candidates and may be deleted at will. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion notes that redundant images may be deleted as long as the links are fixed for the new image. Duk 05:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

opps, the CSD says not to speedy delete images moved to commons. Still a proposal. -- Duk 13:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it'll eventually become possible to move images along with their history to the Commons ... in which case, we'll wish we hadn't deleted these! dbenbenn | talk 22:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please sysops, start deleting these before category is going to be too big. -- 85.76.79.162 7 July 2005 11:37 (UTC)

English wikipedia is possibly the only wikipedia that doesn't delete images moved to commons. It feels useless to add the NowCommons tag to images, at this rate they won't be deleted until 2010 or so. --Fred-Chess 09:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's really strange to see what happens here (or what not). Moving images with free licenses to the Commons is working without problems at the other wikis but not here ..... --Denniss 01:17, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

What on earth can possibly be a valid reason to leave these images here "rotting"? This is one of the most annoying things about English Wikipedia (compared to other Wikipedias), there is too much bureaucracy for anything to be efficient. Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 16:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

or we take the view that we are in a far better postion to fight vandalism if we protect images here rather than relying a group with completey different priorities over at commons. we also have rather a lot of other backlogs to attend to (see Wikipedia:Copyright problems).Geni 17:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I would call bureaucracy. And do you seriously mean that because 1 % (or, even more likely, 1 ‰) of them might be used on the main page is a reason for not deleting 2000+ (I got tired of counting after 600, and then I was only at the letter B) redundant images? Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 19:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yep. And the size of the task means that doing it by hand is going to be a major task but our rules say you can't use bots that have admin powers. A tricky problem.19:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If you just carry on discussing whether the images should be deleted or not, the number of images just grows and grows and grows... What a lazy bunch you are. This page truly is a joke. --62.167.112.153 14:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One solution would be to use {{db}} on images that you have uploaded to commons. I regularly do it for images that I upload and no one has objected to it and it gets deleted quickly. --Pamri ^{• Talk • Reply} 14:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the image is not deleted, the template still serves a useful purpose for people looking for images for another project. Lots of times i upload an image to commons, only to find its already there. Bawolff 20:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is already at commons, on en or for that matter, other language wikipedias, mediawiki will display that it is coming from commons. --Pamri • Talk 04:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awareness of the problem

Ok, I marked about 700 or more images as NowCommons in en and within 6 monthes I've seen 2 deleted images commented "deleted NowCommons". In other Wikipedias all images which have different filenames at Commons are changed in their articles. This is not done here because it's a lot of work without any effects if images don't get deleted. You can see that as an example at Image:Ac.nikita.jpg, but some of them are used really tricky hundreds of times (especially excellent image galleries at user pages and other metastuff). So if you want to delete these images you will need at least around 1 to 10 minutes for one image in about 10 to 20% percent of all cases. You can't delete any image with bots because it has to be checked if the filemove was ok. That means license is identical, sources are given (especially the orignal uploader/copyright holder -> GFDL), the newest&best version is on Commons and also important the image is sorted in categories and/or articles in Commons (not the main point but would be fine). So you will need at least 10 to 30 seconds per image, even it is moved correctly. There's another huge problem with that: as time passes images will be more and more edited, so that the file versions here and on Commons are not the same. Many users improve "their" images here at en because this versions will be bound in here. Other Wikipedias will not profit because they use the unchanged Commons version (typical comment "why I should change the Commons file too? It's not bound in"). If you want to delete now such images in en, you must a, see these differences and b, upload the new version at Commons. If you delete fast and systematically a, is a huge problem, which can only be solved by comparing the upload dates (costs a lot of time in sum). Additionally Wikipedia and Commons have to be very fast or you have to wait for them.

Some other problems: In my estimation about 5000 en images are on Commons and not marked as such (my numbers are only a fast estimation, nobody has made a real investigation), often with different names so that someone who moves the file with it's en filename will make a redundancy at Commons. About 30 to sometimes 50% (or even more) are not moved correctly. The english Wikipedia is something like an image marketplace, if you want to see if there are images you first look at the english article. This is done by dozens of Wikipedia communities. So it can be estimated that en WP has a hell lot more of file moves than ohter Wikipedias, even the German one. There it takes only some days to fill a 200 image category page (while around 20% were copyed earlyer from en images). As a follow it can be estimated that there will be huge problems in future if no steps will be made to get this category cleared.

I wrote en is an image marketplace and to my knowledge Wikipedians are interested in "development assistance": one central part of this assistance is to give new or small Wikipedias an illustration database so that they can use their time for other tasks like writing articles. This category is a perfect illustration that the English Wikipedia has major problems to fulfil such a function. --Saperaud 18:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, Saperaud. You are true, this category doesn't seem too many deletions and I seem to be the only admin who is doing it right now. And as you have correctly pointed out, moving takes a lot of time on en.

I currently plan to delete all the files marked with {{NowCommonsThis}}. I definetly would appreciate some help in cross checking the license status of the images and in case of gfdl images, whether proper attribution & file history is marked.(especially for the Image:Map of USA highlighting city.png images.

Also, if you find a particular task repetive that could be automated, try requesting for a bot. --Pamri • Talk 06:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend to delete some dozens images manuelly to get some experience what can be done via bots and what not. This bot would need some extra functions, not only "delete all images in this category". Major task: proof if there's really an image on Commons, if it has the exactly same size like the english one and if it was uploaded after the newest version at en. Without these features a bot will make huge troubles: images are not as easy to restore as articles. The best solution would be a program showing both images and their description pages so that they can be compared fast by a human. --Saperaud 03:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NowCommonsThis

What do you think about creating this cat and mdifying the NowCommonsThis template to add files to both the NC and the NCT cat. It should now be easier for Admins to see easy moving in NCT and standard moving procedures in NC cats. --Denniss 22:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a single category is enough and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:NowCommonsThis can also accomplish what the cat would do. --Pamri • Talk 10:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I now realised this category was already created. I have updated the NowCommonsThis template to reflect this. Thanks. --Pamri • Talk 09:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request

I have made a bot request at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#NowCommons for some tedious tasks involved here. --Pamri • Talk 07:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So lemme get this straight

You need to be an admin to clean out this list, since ordinary users cannot delete images. Is that right? Qviri (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - we users feed the list and hope some of the Admins have enough time to reduce the list by deleting these images. --Denniss 21:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've started attacking it, if we all chip away, it'll get done, we just need to recruit more admins. It's quite a quick process really. A bot to do check that the images exist would be most helpful, I've checked with User:Pamri if their previous offer of bot help still stands.Kcordina ^Talk 09:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is necessary to be critical enough whether the image CAN be added to commons. I've nominated a few for deetion there (unlikely {{PD-old}} are frequent.) Circeus 13:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need some advice

While going through CAT:NCT, I've encountered this image: Image:Cadiz-logo.jpg, which is tagged as {{coatofarms}} on Wikipedia and GFDL+CC on Commons. This is strange, and the image looks like it was taken from somewhere. What should be done? (The thing that comes to mind is to nominate the Commons copy for deletion). Conscious 08:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else, not the uploader, added this strange license, I tagged it as source missing at the commons. If you encounter similar images with questionable or missing source please leave them here at en and tag the Commons version as missing source or missing copyright. --Denniss 13:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I hope admins will be cautious enough not to delete it here. Conscious 14:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL required history of revisions

What does "The file was properly uploaded (preserving GFDL required history of revisions)" mean? How can I verify that? -- timc talk 13:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I think I understand. I was confusing the image revision history with the image page revision history. -- timc talk 13:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping that this will also click for me, but what does it mean and how do I do it? --liquidGhoul 23:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is GFDL, the file versions history should be copied to Commons. Conscious 06:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how do I do it? --liquidGhoul 06:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of how I do it: commons:Image:Benzene-orbitals.png. Conscious 07:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. --liquidGhoul 08:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions - 3.

Ehm, I just read the "Instructions" section on the page this talk page belongs to. Instruction 3 is confusing: "Please always include the complete image caption and note the author, uploader and upload date to en wiki !" So where (and on what page) should we include and note that stuff? --David Göthberg 10:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative works

I'm concerned that too few people understand that a photograph of a copyrighted sculpture, for example, is a derivative of that sculpture, such that the photographer's license is insufficient to make the photograph free. While Commons has a clear and correct policy regarding this (see Commons:Derivative works), many derivative works nevertheless get uploaded there regularly, without source information being provided for anything but the photograph itself. I don't know if any of these were uploaded here first, then there, and removed from here, but I wonder if there is a need to make the process more clear on the need to check for derivatives. Wikipedia now has Template:Statue, with which all photographs that make fair use of a sculpture should be tagged, but many other derivatives are likely just tagged for the license to the photograph. Postdlf 01:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images without exact duplicates on the commons

I'm having a bit of a grump at the moment about the number of images, particularly those tagged as PD-art, often orphans, that are already available on Wikimedia Commons, normally in a higher resolution. I know {{ncd}} is meant to only be for exact duplicates but what about non-exact duplicates. For example: Image:JoanOfArc.jpeg on Wikipedia and Image:JoanOfArcLarge.jpeg on Commons - identical image regarding colour and contrast, the Commons version is of a higher resolution. Commons is not meant to contain duplicate images itself, so transferring a lower resolution duplicate seems rather futile. Is it ok to tag non-exact duplicates of this type with {{ncd}} or do we need a different template? Madmedea 20:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use images

I have added that images with a fair use claim (and which are duplicated on commons) should not be deleted as duplicates (and the situation of the commons image might be investigated). My understanding is that images only usable under fair use should not be on commons. However, should images with a fair use claim be put in this category at all? Sure, they are duplicated, but the commons version might well be properly deleted (and the en.wiki version retained). Thincat (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License on commons references Wikipedia?

If an image on the Commons' license references having been released into the public domain here on Wikipedia, if we delete the image here, doesn't 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? -- Natalya 14:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind; answered at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Moving_free_images_to_Wikimedia_Commons#License_on_Commons_references_Wikipedia.3F. -- Natalya 00:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Given that CSD I8 has been modified quite a while ago to allow immediate deletion, I suggest we merge this category, along with Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons, into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to streamline and facilitate such deletions. Comments welcome. (cross-posted here, CAT:CSD, CAT:NCT, and WT:CSD) —kur ykh 19:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons date sorting

Has anybody made any effort to sort the images in Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons as of unknown date? Because I just created two categories for two images this afternoon. ----DanTD (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:BotMultichill did that in Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and started it in the other category, but seems to have stopped for some reason. Derlay (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we're waiting for that to happen, has anybody else been moving them by hand, besides me? ----DanTD (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of sorting them by hand just delete them or mark them as reviewed if you are not an admin. See Template_talk:Now_Commons#User:MGA73/nowcommonsreview.js for easy review. --MGA73 (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot to delink images

For some of you that I've noticed removing images by hand, I've left a note on your talk page. I have a bot that was approved to remove images that are linked, specifically a) images that have a different name on commons and are linked on multiple pages on English or b) images that have the same name on commons but are a higher resolution, and as such need to be adjusted. You can see the instructions at User:OgreBot/Commons instructions.

However, I haven't yet put it to use, other than personally (I've been deleting a lot of the backlog recently). I'm only going to implement something for other admins to use if I get some feeling here that it would be a valuable tool. Is anyone interested in me making this public? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we're deleting the same images and this would require a bot with admin rights to do so. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I have also used a bot (nowcommons.py or replace.py) to delink images but it takes a lot of time to review the photo, start the bot, delete the image, review next photo, start the bot again etc. It would be much easier if we could get a bot to work on a bunch of reviewed images.

However, instead of creating a new "review command" I suggest that the bot work on reviewed NowCommons files (Category:Wikipedia files reviewed on Wikimedia Commons). All it takes is that some users start help review the files and once they are reviewed the bot can delink the files.

It would be really nice if we improved the transfer process becaus bots can delink when the files are moved to Commons. The most problems arise when files are moved manually. But that is another problem. --MGA73 (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re @both: actually what MGA73 is suggesting is what the bot was approved for. Perhaps I didn't explain that well enough in my link. An admin finds an image, tags it with {{User:OgreBot/approved}}, and the bot goes and delinks the instances. It then puts the images into a category at which point we can simply to a delete-batch. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe no it is probably me. My suggestion was that it would be better to use the excisting review feature in the {{NowCommons}} template. If you add a .js (see Template_talk:Now_Commons#User:MGA73/nowcommonsreview.js) then you get a "[pass review] [fail review]" within the NowCommons template and all you have to do is click "pass review" if the file is ok and once file is reviewed your bot can delink AND an admin can see it is safe to delete the image. I think it is better to use one template instead of two templates. --MGA73 (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move-to-commons assistant not authorizing for me

When I try to use the Move-to-commons assistant, I get a popup saying "Auth not OK" without being taken to the authorization screen. bd2412 T 22:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]