Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Untagged images/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

oggs?

What are all these ogg files doing in the Image namespace? They belong in the Media namespace, don't they? Should we bother trying to get tags for these as well? -℘yrop (talk) 23:49, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I think those are two different names for the same namespace, but I could be wrong about that. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 21:49, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

My incredibly stupid question

I've been on wikipedia for two years but I'm a words guy, not a pictures guy, so I've never done a thing with images ... so here's my stupid question: How do you tag an image? Where do you put the notice - do you edit the image page and just plonk it down at the bottom? - DavidWBrooks 15:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Baicaly, yes, all you have to do is to go to that images image page (click on link on list, or on image itself if in artical), and then hit edit. it brings up the normal edit pain, just like any other artical, where you add the tag(s). hope that helps tooto 19:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Screenshots?

If its a screenshot, does the copyright belong to the software desiner, web page creator, ect. OR the person who took the screenshot? eg. Image:BitTorrent download.jpg Is there any advise for this kind of thing, anyere. or any other kind of sanirio based advise, eg images created from other images, like maps?

Screenshots should be tagged with the {{screenshot}} tag. I don't know who owns the copyright, but that tag covers it. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 21:46, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Unverified

Could people please check what they're tagging? I got a remark that I should really put the licensing information with my image, because it now was tagged 'unverified' when I had already put "Material from this source may be used with acknowledgement of the source." Seems like licensing information to me? - Andre Engels 00:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is there a way "may be used with acknowledgement of the source" could be expressed using one of the existing templates, such as maybe {{cc-by}} or {{cc-by-2.0}}? --MarkSweep 01:24, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There's a {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|...}} tag. Just say {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|the source is acknowledged}} or something.

"Personal" GFDL tags?

What about {{User:Halibutt/GFDL}} – will that satisfy the automatic sorting? Or should {{GFDL-small}} be added to the description page, too? See Image:Przemysl Voivodship 1975.png and many others by the same contributor. (BTW, is his demand that his name accompany any use of the image compatible with the GFDL?) --Kbh3rd 03:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The {{User:Halibutt/GFDL}} tag will work fine, now that I added Category:GFDL images to it. His demand is, in fact, not compatible with the GFDL. Since the images are clearly licensed under the GFDL, it would be up to a re-user to decide whether to follow that demand (really a request) or not. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 15:40, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons?

How to handle images that don't have a Wikipedia description page, but are on http://commons.wikimedia.org/, such as Image:Potala Palace.jpg? It's properly licensed there, but I assume it's showing up in the lists here because the scan didn't find a tag on a Wikipedia description page. Just delete it from the list? Create a description page? - Kbh3rd 19:33, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Just delete it from the list. It's showing up here because at the time the scan was run, the image was here without a tag. Now it has a tag on the Commons. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 16:27, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Non-image files

Hello all,

Recently a user added a {{gfdl}} tag to Image:Wikipedia.vim. This file is not an image (it's a syntax file for the vim text editor), and it wasn't specified anywhere that the file was GFDL—if anything, the comment "published on Wikipedia and declared authorless" would seem to make it more of a public domain file. Is there any set standard for files which aren't images? I added a {{pd}} tag, but I just thought people should be a little more careful about tagging files without any specific license attached. --bdesham 15:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I've been tagging non-image media files the same way I tag image files (with PD, GFDL, unverified, etc.) I guess that's the best solution for now. It's kind of odd, because it gives the file a category like "public domain images" or somesuch, but it's the best solution for now, I guess. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 16:35, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Images that aren't there anymore

I've noticed that some people have been setting aside images that aren't there anymore like Image:Wood_sorrel_thumbnail.jpg. Personally I've just been deleting these from the list. Have I been doing it wrong. Evil Monkey → Talk 20:58, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • These images can be speedily-deleted. Sysops can just delete them, or non-sysops can mark them with the "delete" tag. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 22:20, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Un-used images

The Image_copyright_tags page says that un-used images my get a {{Dead-image}} tag, but the Dead-image template says something else (...missing or corrupt image...)

I see, I misread the tag description on Image_copyright_tags as no page association, when it actually says no file association. Duk 02:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How should un-used images be tagged? How sould an un-used image, with no information and a long-gone user be tagged?

Duk 23:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about {{ifd}} as per WP:IFD? Especially if another version of the same image already exists and is in active use. --MarkSweep 00:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For images that are the same as another I've been adding {{deletebecause|this is a thumb of [[the other image]]}} as per the Candidates for speedy deletion page which states:
An image which is a redundant (all bits the same or scaled-down) copy of something else, either on
Wikipedia or on the Commons, and as long as all inward links have been changed to the image being 
retained.
Evil Monkey → Talk 00:49, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Screen shots, GNU

Are screen shots made from GNU GPL programs still {{screenshot}} fairuse, or are they something else? EyeBall 18:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not sure, but up intill now ive taged them with whatether copyright that programs under, unless it says anything on there website (eg, firefox's logos are copyrighted). the trobble is that there are too many stiuatins like these, i wish life was simmpler.. ;-> tooto
The copyright status of screenshots of GNU programs has never been satisfactorily ironed out. See, it's not just GNU: the data is displayed on the screen using a driver, and the menus are often copyrighted by the OS, and any data displayed could be copyrighted by the data's owner. Wikipedia's policy for now is to tag all computer screenshots as fair use. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 22:20, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

What about those bleepin' stamps?

From the other copyright pages I gather that USPS postage stamps are copyrighted, and that the USPS protects those copyrights. So what should we be doing with images such as Image:Katzkids.jpg where it's being used for the subject of the stamp's picture, not the stamp itself – doesn't sound like a fair-use arguement to me. Mark them for deletion? Kbh3rd 05:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

USPS stamps designed in 1978 or later are copyrighted. The situation before 1978 is a bit murky; here's one opinion: [1]. You could tag stamps as {{Nonfreedelete}}, in which case they should automatically get listed for deletion after a while. --MarkSweep 07:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Stamps, coins, and coats of arms are my nemeses. They all should be public domain, in a just world, but they're not. (Or not all.) And the research it takes to determine if that Zambian coin or Czechoslavakian stamp is copyrighted or not. . . yuck!
For US stamps, the copyright (when it exists) is not enforced. I think you could make a fair-use claim based on that fact. But IANAL. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 12:45, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
There is a relatively recent template for USPS stamps after 1978: you can use {{USPSstamp}}. --MarkSweep 23:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If all else fails, why not use {{stamp}}? RedWolf 19:36, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Library Of Congress images

Hi, can someone explain what I should be doing with images from the US Library Of Congress where the date is known? For example: Image:1883miltoncounty.jpg where the uploader has written "Milton County, Georgia; 1883; Library of Congress". Obviously whoever drew the map is now dead, but I'm not certain of the correct tag to use. {{PD}}? Oliver Lineham 02:50, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

Short answer: {{PD}}, and perhaps leave comment on image talk page. The issue can be revisisted later and the tag refined appropriately. Longer answer below. --MarkSweep 05:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You could search the catalog of the Prints & Photographs division of the LoC [2]; if you do, please cite the LoC reproduction number on the image description page like the LoC asks us to do and also because it makes life easier for future editors. The LoC should tell you if there are known restrictions on publication, either on the catalog page for the image or on the "rights and reproductions" page for the collection the image belongs to. If the LoC says "no known restrictions", I usually tag them as follows:

  • The artist is known and died more than 100 years ago: tag it as {{PD-old}} or {{PD-art}} (I'm not sure if these tags are interchangeable); see Image:Gcrook.jpg for an example.
  • The artist is known and died more than 70 years ago: tag it as {{PD-old-70}} or {{PD-art-life-70}}.
  • The artist is known and died more than 50 years ago: tag it as {{PD-old-50}} or {{PD-art-life-50}}.
  • The artist is alive or died less than 50 years ago, but the image was published before 1923: tag it as {{PD-art-US}}.
  • The artist is known and died less than 50 years ago: tag it as {{PD}} in those situation where certain reproduction rights were explicitly transferred to the LoC (e.g. Image:KayBoyle.jpg) or where the exact legal situation is unclear but the LoC asserts it believes the image to be in the public domain (e.g. Image:Laurenceolivier.jpeg). Using {{PD-USGov}} might be more appropriate, but I'm not sure if it applies to works whose copyright was transferred to the LoC.
  • The artist is known and (alive or died less than 50 years ago) and the LoC says that reproduction and publication is restricted: list it on WP:IFD.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that at least one collection of the Prints & Photographs division has its own tag, namely {{HABS}}. (Hmm, it appears that some images with that tag, like Image:Malcolm-x.jpg, are not actually part of the HABS collection.) I suppose one could add similar templates for images from other frequently used collections, like the Civil War photographs or the Brady-Handy collection. I have a few quick links to frequently used collections on my user page. --MarkSweep 04:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Mark, that clears things up for me. Did you just write the above, or did I miss it when I searched before asking the question? --Oliver Lineham 05:59, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

This was me rehashing some of the things on WP:ICT as they apply to LoC images. However, I'm still confused about what the difference is between {{PD-art}} and {{PD-old}} etc. --MarkSweep 06:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, they mean the same thing, essentially. – Quadell (talk) (help) 14:23, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Mathematical images

At what point does a mathematical formula become a picture?

Formulae are not copyrightable (but IANAL) even if they are original. but how about Image:PartitionLattice.jpg or commutative diagrams?

Zeimusu 02:58, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Dunno. There are some easy cases, like old images of formulas from before the days of TeX markup support, which can be listed for deletion. One rule of thumb is, are the ideas expressed in the image/diagram part of common knowledge? How much artistic freedom did the creator of the image have? If the diagram is derived from common knowledge and can only be expressed meaningfully in a handful of ways, it's probably ineligilbe for copyright, i.e. {{PD-ineligible}}. For Image:PartitionLattice.jpg one could argue that there aren't many ways the same information could be depicted; however, if you consider all permutations of the intermediary nodes, there are more than 3 million ways to arrange them. Perhaps it's best to wait what the person who originally uploaded it has to say. --MarkSweep 03:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

official governor's portraits

The image Image:Spessard Holland 2.jpg is according to the appropriate article the official governor's portrait of Spessard Holland, and appear to be the same image as here, [3], which seems to agree with that. I wondered if there is a particular copyright status to such paintings, and photos of them. I've tried contacting the uploader Neutrality, to upload the appropriate tags, but so far, he's just put up a {{PD-art}} tag, which would imply the painter died more than 100 years ago, in 1904, when Spessard Holland was only 12. Also, this might apply to other paintings of Governor's, and other public figures. Silverfish 13:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Inmate Photograph

Does anyone know the copyright status of images like Image:EdwardHartman.jpg, which is a mugshot of an inmate. Evil Monkey → Talk 23:50, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure. However, on the source website [4], there is a copyright notice, so I suspect it is copyrighted by the North Carolina Department of Corrections. If it is copyrighted, though, I think it could be fair use. Josh 09:03, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Pictograms.png

Any ideas as to whether this is copyrighted. Evil Monkey → Talk 08:07, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I mean ... Isn't it copyrighted as soon as someone creates it? You could always leave a message on the uploader's talk page to find out where he got it from.--MaxPower 18:13, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

James Clark statue picture

What should I do with this picture?

As I said on the image description page, it looks like it is from here. I would think that it would be copyright-free, being on a government site, but in fact their FAQ says:

"Photographs from the records of the Architect of the Capitol may be used for scholarly or educational purposes; they are not made available for promotional or advertising purposes. For information about ordering images and permission to publish, please send a letter identifying the image that you would like to use and the purpose for which you wish to use it to:
The Honorable Alan M. Hantman, FAIA
Architect of the Capitol
U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515"

I added the non-commercial license tag. Should I list it for deletion too? Josh 19:50, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I've been adding noncommercial tags and leaving them at that. They are tagged and categorised so can be found easily anyway to deal with at a later date.Evil Monkey → Talk 07:06, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Automated conversion

Dunno what to do with Image:Cgisf-tgg.png as there's no original uploader given, just "automated conversion". What's with that? - Kbh3rd 06:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Public domain but restricted ?!?

What's with this: "While they are considered public domain, we need to be sure that the images are not used for proprietary purposes," as used in reference to this image. Unless I don't understand what "public domain" means, they may ask that PD images are used in a certain way, but they have no right, no copyright, to make any demand. Is it they or I that do not understand what "public domain" means? - Kbh3rd 05:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, your reasoning is correct. If an image is in the public domain, it can have no copyright restrictions. Although with government images, there may be other laws unrelated to copyright that regulate the use of an image. Those may be the things to which the letter referred. I would recommend using the {{PD-USGov-DOE}} tag, while listing the particular requirements that they specified on the image description page. Of course, it is possible that I am completely wrong about this, but hopefully that is not the case. Josh 10:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I do know that although NASA images are PD there can be restrictions if they show a recognisable person as then you have other (privacy?) issues I think.Evil Monkey → Talk 10:30, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
And there are all kinds of people that upload images and tag them without understanding copyright very well. One image said "This is a public domain image, fair use." Huh? There are also sites like this that give contradictory information. I quote: "The Artchive includes both public domain and copyrighted works of art. The copyrighted works are presented under the Fair Use Provision of the Copyright Act. . . You are free to use up to five or six images from the site for any personal non-profit, educational purpose." But of course, whether the images are Public Domain or used under the fair use provision, he isn't the copyright holder and has no legal right to limit the use of the images. (He also admits "I am not an intellectual property attorney".) I guess, in these cases, you should just use your head. – Quadell (talk) (help) 13:36, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

"fair use" images

I have re-read some of fair use and it seems to indicate that simply stating "fair use" on the image description page does not automatically make it so. When declaring fair use, the uploader MUST also provide details on source and why they consider it fair use. Otherwise, I don't believe the fair use tag can be applied to the image even though the uploader claimed "fair use". If there is agreement, is there a tag specific for this situation that can be used instead or simply tag it as "unverified"? RedWolf 18:32, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Good question. You're right about "fair use", of course, and I don't upload "fair use" images without providing detailed source and usage info. For me, if the uploader said it's fair use, I generally tag it fair use unless I'm sure fair use doesn't apply. (Similarly, if an uploader said a pic is Public Domain, I tag it PD unless I'm sure it's not.) I know at some point we'll need to comb through all the images tagged as fair use to figure out which ones pass. Until then, I'm not sure. You could tag them unverified, and leave a note that the uploader claims fair use. Or you could tag it fair use and assume we'll go back later. Or you could make a {{fairusedebatable}} for the purpose. I don't know which is best. – Quadell (talk) (help) 21:58, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Error 404

Is it OK to just delete, or should I {{delete}} image files such as Image:Greenlandarms333.PNG that lead to the dreaded "404"? Also, should we work from the bottom or top of the list? hydnjo talk 19:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's fine to speedily-delete missing or corrupted images. It's also fine to delete thumbnails of larger images, if they are also orphans. I've been listing questionables on ifd as I go, killing 2 birds with one stone, as it were.
As for working from the top or the bottom, either way works just fine. I often go through and click on the ones that sound like interesting titles and tag those. (I just have to remember to remove those specific ones from the list.) Whatever works for you. – Quadell (talk) (help) 21:43, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Does speedily-delete mean to use the {{delete}} template? hydnjo talk 03:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes. You can also use {{db|empty/broken image}} for empty and/or broken images (or to provide some other reason for speedy deletion). For thumbnails and duplicate images you can use {{isd|other_image.jpg}}. --MarkSweep 11:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Music notation

How is musical notation copyrighted? Say a song is still under copyright but a user creates a picture of a section of the musical notation? Duk 20:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd say if you show a few bars for purposes of illustration it falls under Fair Use. If it's something generic like just a key signature or the shape of a note or rest, I've tagged those as {{PD-ineligible}}. --MarkSweep 21:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, yes. . . If it is copyrighted, then a few bars should be fair use. And single notes are ineligible. But the specific question, I think, is: if person A owns the copyright to a song, and person B creates sheet music for it, is person B violating person A's copyright? I have no idea, but I'm also curious. – Quadell (talk) (help) 21:42, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Not a lawyer, but an arrangement of a tune as sheet music is a derived work, so if the original is under copyright, so is the sheet music. BTW, Does anyone know of any GFDL or cc-sa musicZeimusu 00:30, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
There's a particulary trendy album at http://creativecommons.org/wired/ – Quadell (talk) (help) 20:09, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

french help

Image:Castaneda-Vedrine.jpg states; ... According to the website, "The photographs in this exhibition are free of copyright abroad and may be reproduced with the obligatory credit "Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Photographic Service": http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/photos/diplo/usa/mexique18.html#photo

  • does this imply that the image is free only when used abroad?
  • Also, if credit is obligatory is it really copyright free?

Duk 19:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that's freeuseprovided. It's not copyright free, but the copyright holder seems to only be demanding the moral right of accrediation. Zeimusu 00:35, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

Fair use

There will be a lot under the variants of {{fairuse}}. IMHO it would be a good thing if somehow each and every one of those could be vetted. There seem to be many people who use "fair use" to mean, "I like this picture and want to use it, regardless." To be done right, though, the review would have to be done by fair use "experts" of some variety. -- Kbh3rd 04:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree that fair use has been applied far to liberally. As well as this there alot of images that have been tagged fair use that nned specific tags like DVDcover and money. And then there are the images tagged PD that should have specific PD tags like PD-USGov-NASA. Evil Monkey → Talk 09:06, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
I concur as well that the fair use claim has been abused. Unless an image is one of the established fair use image (e.g. album cover, screenshot) and the uploader has not provided the rationale for their fair use claim (as required when making this claim), they should be marked with a new tag. For example {{fairuse-nr}} which would state that the uploader claimed fair use but did not provide the rationale required for make this claim. The tag would put them into a separate category so they can be reviewed and probably a lot of them deleted. RedWolf 00:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I think what's happened is that fair use has become an easy cop out. People see it as a reason and then go...well hey...anything I put out there can be labeled as fair use. So I don't have to put a reason out there...just slap fair use on there and wallah...all solved. It's what happens alot on Wikipedia...laziness...so yep...if you run into a fair use tag, double check it. --Woohookitty 08:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If someone claims that an image is fair use without a rationale, you can leave this message on their talk page: 

{{subst:Image copyright|ImageName.jpg}} --~~~~

The new batch

This new batch has a lot more junk in it, if I may say so. For images that aren't used, if they either have no source/copyright info or are only usable as fairuse, I'll like to recommend that we list them on IFD. ("Fair use" doesn't apply when there's no use, and I've been listing unverified orphans on IFD anyway, so it would save me some work.) There are also lots of cases where a page will have 20+ fair use images, which really strains the fair use justification. (One screenshot in an article is fair, 20 are probably not.) Consider putting excess pics like these on IFD as well. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:55, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

New templates

I've made up two new templates, and I thought I'd share, in case they're useful to you. My ordinary template works fine for newbies, but for long-time Wikipedians (who may have tagged some other of their images), I like to use this:

Hello. I was [[Wikipedia:Untagged images|image tagging]], when I came across [[:]]. I was unable to determine the copyright status, so I tagged it as "unverified". Could you add a proper [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags|image copyright tag]] to it? Pictures without tags will eventually be deleted. Thanks, ~~~~

Also, for people who have ignore several requests before to tag their images, I use this:

== Warning: your images could get deleted ==

You don't seem to be responding to image copyright questions. If we can't determine the copyright statuses of your images, they will soon be deleted. They're good images, and we'd like to keep them around. Please let me know the source and copyright information for the images people have asked you about above. ~~~~

I hope these are helpful. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 00:18, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Dumb Question

I have only been working on Wikipedia for 2 months, so bear with me. I saw the "Mysterious Redirects" section where for some reason, there are images that are being redirected to various wiki main pages. I have a question. How the hell do you fix that? :) I know there has to be a way and I'd like to learn. --Woohookitty 06:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Those images have been made that way specifically for use on the Main Page or such I think, so before 'fixing' it you'd probably want to check talk. But, get the URL by right-clicking on the thumbnail image, and then paste it in your address bar and append &redirect=no to it. 119 06:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No I wasn't going to touch it. I just wanted to know how because I've seen before where a page is linked to another page and there is no visible redirect. So I was just wondering how that's fixed. Thanks. :) --Woohookitty 08:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Victoria Cross Images

There are at least 500 Victoria Cross images in the lists. How should they be handled? Every one of them are from the Victoria Cross Reference Site. We should probably use one common tag...which one? --Woohookitty 00:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The owner of the site, Mike Chapman, happens to be a Wikipedian. He's voluntarily migrating his entire site over to Wikipedia, so the images are GFDL whenever the webmaster owns the copyright to the images. He has also stated "Where it is not public domain it is noted as such - for example in people's photos and some submissions." You could leave a message on his talk page for clarification if you like. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 02:39, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
I've moved all VC* images to Wikipedia:Untagged Images/untaggedimages-vc. It may be better to view them as a separate sub-project. --MarkSweep 03:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Finè! I ended up doing all 400+ of the Victoria Cross ones. Don't I get a Golden Taco or something? :-) --Woohookitty 23:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikilove and respect of contributors work

May I (strongly) suggest that a point is added to the guidelines mentioned on this page.

An uploader of an image are by definition unique. There can be only one uploader and this uploader necessarily has a user account, since no one can upload pictures while anonymous.

Even though the English wikipedia has become a huge and rather humanless machine, even though image tagging is very very important, what about assuming good faith from the uploader, and just kindly asking him the status of an image before deleting it for being without any tag?

Just plainly deleting an image without first checking with the uploader, if this uploader is still a wikipedian, is greatly misrespecting him and his work. It is also very likely that he could get quite upset if the image was uploaded a long time ago, before tagging even existed. Deleting an image is permanent, ie, the loss will be irrecoverable. Wikipedia needs images, the best way to get images is to show interest in other editors, thanking them for their kindness in offering images and be polite by talking to him before widely deleting his images.

Wikipedia only rely on the good will of editors. Nurture this good will. Do not crush their work. Thanks.

SweetLittleFluffyThing 17:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anthere is referring to images that are deleted because they are untagged. Before listing an image on IFD or PUI, we should leave a note on the uploader's talk page. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:55, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
IFD already makes the point that the uploader should, as a courtesy, be notified when the listing is made; even so, I guess the point is always worth repeating. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Maybe this is the kind of message left on the user talk page which is not the best... Currently it says (for example), "your images are untagged, what is their status"; to which the editor can answer in faith "they are gfdl". Perhaps the message should be more firm "your images are untaggued, please change their status, or they will be deleted in 10 days". SweetLittleFluffyThing
But it is not the job on Untagged Images to delete things. It is the job of IFD. I think you are confusing the two. --Tagishsimon (talk)

barcodes

Are barcodes copyrightable? dont know why anyone would uplode such things, anyway, for now ive tagged Image:Tool-Undertow-barcode.jpg with {albumcover}, as thats where its off... tooto 15:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IANAL, but I'd say barcodes are not copyrightable. They're sequences of numbers, essentially, encoded in a simple and publicly available cypher. The numbers aren't copyrightable, and typefaces aren't copyrightable in the U.S. Additionally, only creative works are copyrightable; any creativity or straying from the standard would defeat the purpose of a barcode, which is to be easily machine-readable. In this instance, ((albumcover)) is the safer tag, but I think ((PD-ineligible)) would be defensible as well. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:36, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wrongly tagged images

I just (oh, well it's been a while since I started typing this message, got on to other stuff & got back to finishing this ;) ) noticed User:Deansfa tagged Image:J and K.jpg as {{gfdl}} but it is from [5], and it is very unlikely that the copyright owner allowed wikipedia to distribute it under GFDL. Also there is no mention of why it is GFDL in the image description page and there has been no communication in the talk page of the original uploader of the image User:Ackulkarni as well as that of User:Deansfa. I've added a copyvio notice and listed the image in WP:CP, but it just occured to me that there could be a lot of images tagged wrongly. In fact there could be vandals who tag a lot of images wrongly (I'm not calling Deansfa a vandal). Is anything being done to counter that? -- Paddu 00:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If an image is tagged as GFDL without proof, you can leave this message on the talk page of the uploader: 

{{subst:Image copyright|ImageName.jpg}} --~~~~

--Ellmist 01:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note that neither the uploader nor the "tagger" stated the source. I found that since I remembered seeing the image earlier (in a different site) and hence images.googled. BTW I've anyway left a message for the uploader, who hasn't contributed for a while. -- Paddu 07:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments

Over at IFD there's a request for comments going on about what to do with unverified orphans (images that aren't used, and have no copyright or source information). If you have an opinion on the matter, perhaps you can help us build consensus on the matter. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 01:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

PD-flag images

There are a lot of flag images that have been categorised under this label. The user who created it was incorrect in their interpretation of copyright law so far as I can tell. Images of national flags are often not straight slavish copies, there is creativity involved in their making and thus they are eligible for copyright in the US. Images categorised with this tag need to be looked at and tagged appropriately. If they are CIA World Factbook as many of them are, then they are indeed public domain anyway. If not, then other avenues need to be looked at. David Newton 23:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New Template

Anyone can use this template if they'd like. It's based on Quedall's, as you can see, but it has a couple of extra features I like. Superm401-Talk 04:08, May 22, 2005 (UTC):

Thanks for uploading [[:]]. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Until a more informative tag is provided, it will be listed as {{unverified}}. Could you add a better tag to let us know its copyright status? If you made the image yourself, an easy way to deal with this is add {{gfdl}} if you're willing to release it under the GFDL. Alternatively, you could release it into the public domain instead, by adding {{PD-self}}. However, if it isn't your own image, you need to specify what free license it was distributed under. You can find a list of the tags here. If it was not distributed under a free license, but you claim fair use, add {{fairuse}}. If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images by posting to my talk page. If you do this, I can tag them for you. Thanks so much, ~~~~
  • Perhaps we can make this a real template so we can simply do a {{subst}}? By the way, should use {{nosource}} rather than {{unverified}} as the latter is deprecated and a redirect to the former. RedWolf July 6, 2005 05:17 (UTC)
    • Actually, I did make a template out of it. It's in my user space, at {{User:Superm401/ImgTag}}. If other people find it useful, perhaps it should be moved to the template space. The current version(somewhat changed from above) is below:
      • Thanks for uploading [[:Image:{{{1}}}]]. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Until a more informative tag is provided, it will be listed as {{no source}}. Could you add a better tag to let us know its copyright status? If you made the image yourself, an easy way to deal with this is add {{gfdl}} if you're willing to release it under the GFDL. Alternatively, you could release all rights to it by adding {{NoRightsReserved}}. This would allow anyone to do whatever they wish with your image, without exceptions. However, if it isn't your own image, you need to specify what free license it was distributed under. You can find a list of the tags here. If it was not distributed under a free license, but you claim fair use, add {{fairuse}}. If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images by posting to my talk page. If you do this, I can tag them for you. Thanks so much, (~~~~)

New files required

The last files were generated in February or earlier. We're 750 away from finishing round 2. Any volunteers to generate round 3? I've asked Triddle if he fancies doing it, but he may not, or someone else might want to. Does anyone have SQL? Or is anyone already doing something about round 3 without me knowing about it? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

I generated the list for round 2 (see the archive). I can do it again once the current round is finished although given the slowdown in the past few months, I got the impression that people might be kind of tired of this endeavour at the moment. My understanding is that the database schema changed a bit for the MediaWiki 1.5 upgrade so my current sql might not work as is but I doubt it would take much effort to correct that. RedWolf July 5, 2005 03:41 (UTC)

I've been planning an overall larger project that will integrate all my attempts to scan Wikipedia for errors and I think it makes sense to put this in there too. I'm doing offline analysis of the dump files with perl and its actually quite fast - I can scan the entire english wikipedia in about 10 minutes for Triddle/stubsensor; I believe this would take about half an hour to complete and its simple to run and write. Also it only puts load on my iMac. I'm willing to stand aside if you wish but I think for the longer term goal it makes sense to move in a direction along the lines I'm talking about. Triddle July 5, 2005 17:52 (UTC)

My SQL script runs against a local copy of the database so the only performance impact is on my Mac (with two CPUs it doesn't affect me doing other things though). If you wish to generate the next version of the list from the raw database dump using Perl, that's okay with me too. If you do this, I recommend that you make the Perl script available somewhere so others can run it in the future if need be. RedWolf July 6, 2005 05:14 (UTC)
Hrm after thought I'd better sit this one out. I'm still having problems with some article names not getting through right and it doesn't make sense to replace a working system with one that mostly works. However I have a bit of bad news, I did a quick run and found 211,000 images. That list includes images from all name spaces, not just the main one, but its still a scary number. Triddle July 6, 2005 21:08 (UTC)
Did you scan all the Wikipedias too, or just en? Superm401 | Talk 20:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Round 3

When does round 3 start? --ZeWrestler 14:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I just completed a search of the June 23 database dump and it found 24,617 images without a tag. RedWolf 18:47, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Oh crap. We have really got to make it more obvious how to, and emphasise the importance of adding a tag at upload point. Bluemoose 19:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I have setup the first 1,000. Since the search was done against a relative old state of the database (June 23 although this is the latest available), I'm wondering if a full re-list should wait until the next database dump (which should be coming up in the next week or so I would think)? With 26,000 images, it is likely to be early 2006 before the next round would be done. I think the image upload process needs to be vastly improved to cut down on the number of untagged images. Perhaps a bot that monitors uploads for image tags and automatically puts a request on the uploader's talk page if one hasn't been provided? Some sort of automated/monitoring process is needed here to cut down on the number of untagged images.

RedWolf 03:43, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. The rate of addition of untagged images is greater than the rate at which we tag them - we.ve tagged 16k since mid Feb; they've added 26k. I agree a bot would be handy - to write to uploaders pages and to compile watch-lists so that we can patrol contemporaneously. Meanwhile the image upload page does helpfully say "If you upload a file here to which you hold the copyright, you must license it under the GNU Free Documentation License or release it into the public domain." and so we can maybe be a little quicker to slap GFDL on those images that are obviously taken by the uploader. As to which we list - June or July - it doesn't matter. By the time we finish there will be another 30k waiting for us. May as well get on with it :( --Tagishsimon (talk)
Honestly, i think some people (especially "newbies") literally dont know how to add a tag. It should at least say "add the tag to the summary" (which it amazingly doesn't say!). Or better yet, have a tick box which says something like "did you take/create this picture?" and if they say yes then automatically add gfdl. Or possibly better still, have a separate box from the summary to enter the tag, and if a tag is not given it could then prompt for a tag to be entered, and then either just block the upload (a bit extreme) or send it to a list to be tagged. Bluemoose 08:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
The process needs to be automated. In addition to the summary field on Special:Upload, have an image tag field. Explain clearly how to get information about image tags. If the user doesn't put something in the field, the image doesn't get posted. It would be preferable if the code could check whether the tag they enter existed. However, that's more difficult. Then, if they put something valid, just add it automatically to the summary as a tag. Any objections? Superm401 | Talk 14:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Thats pretty much what i meant (after i said "Or possibly better still") - i think it would be a brilliant idea. Bluemoose 14:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if I stated your idea as mine. However, this is a big deal to me. I'm not willing to restart work on this project until your suggestion is implemented. I'll post it on Village Pump proposals but it needs to get going. Superm401 | Talk 07:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Posted at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive D#Image_Tagging. Superm401 | Talk 07:55, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Ahh...refusing to do this project in disgust didn't really get them moving on the modifications necessary(I didn't actually mention it at all). I guess I'll rejoin the effort. The project needs more help than ever before. I just wish the situation wasn't getting worse every day regardless of our work. Superm401 | Talk 04:12, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Update - blanks from 23 June 2005

I've uploaded a list of blank image description pages from the 23 June 2005 database dump. Sorry these are all in one page, but I didn't have much time. Of course there are non-blank pages that aren't tagged either, but I guess this list will keep people busy until the next database dump. -- Beland 21:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Untagged image list.

It would be quite an advantage to have the untagged image list be a gallery. You could them pick out images of the same type to do mass editting. --None-of-the-Above 12:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Licensing selector on upload page

As you probably know, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason has added a licensing selector drop-down box to the Special:Upload page -- please come to MediaWiki talk:Licenses to discuss what should and shouldn't be on the list, what to do with people who don't select an option, and ways to use this tool to make post-upload tagging easier on everyone. Thanks! — Catherine\talk 04:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this will make dodgy image indentification worse.. Discussion to continue on that page.. Secretlondon 13:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Update 9 Sep 2005

Once again, these are just blanks and need to be separated into subpages. It's certainly easy enough to make this into a gallery (as suggested above) though with 11,000 images, you'd want to make a very large number of subpages, so too many images don't try to load all at once. Also, you'd probably want to make the links into thumbnail links, so you don't try to load full-size images. -- Beland 23:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned that these really are just blanks. We need to be able to pull out images that don't have a template on - to pick up all the pages that are untagged but may have the name of the subject in the description. Secretlondon 17:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Are we missing some?

I've found uploaded images with no tag from 31 August that aren't on these lists. An example is Image:Crusha chocolate.jpg. Just thought I'd flag this up somewhere. Secretlondon 11:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Derek and Clive come again sleeve.jpg - untagged since February 05. Secretlondon 12:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually I'm convinced we are just picking up images with empty pages. All the untagged, unflagged images I find have text in the description page. Secretlondon 13:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. But just for you, I have whipped up a script to find all the non-blank, untagged images. There were "only" 38,318 as of 13 Dec 2005. Enjoy. -- Beland 00:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Untagged images on the Commons

I'd like to see a similar project on the Commons. The number of untagged images there is probably a lot less, but still not zero. How is the data generated here? What would it take to make a list for the Commons?

On a related note, I wonder if the static Wikipedia included in Mandriva Linux will be smart about Commons images, pulling the descriptions from there correctly. dbenbenn | talk 23:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's happening. The page doesn't seem to have been updated and Mandriva Linux 2006 doesn't mention Wikipedia. Secretlondon 17:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh. And actually I just found Commons:Commons:Untagged images. So never mind. dbenbenn | talk 19:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Someone with a copy of the database needs to run the commons query on en. Theirs picks up pages without templates, ours picks up pages without text. An untagged image with text is picked up by theirs but not by ours. Secretlondon 19:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
We used to detect all of them, but there were so many somebody just decided to do the blanks first. I agree that we're ready to do the others. Superm401 | Talk 01:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see a bot automatically tag images that have blank description pages as {{no source}} shortly after they get uploaded. Maybe 5% of the blanks I tag on this project get something else, like {{logo}} or {{screenshot}}. But these could be caught by people going through Category:Images with no source anyway. It would save a lot of time ... dbenbenn | talk 00:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this... I tried at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and haven't gotten a response so I'll see if anyone here by chance knows. Am I correct that this image of Sembawang Naval Base, taken in 1945, would fall under Template:PD-BritishGov (Crown copyright)? I'm not sure if I'm reading the photo credit right but I think it's been taken by a member of the IX MONAB stationed there, which would seem to qualify... just wanting to make sure before I upload, if anyone can advise I'd appreciate it! — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 09:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

PD-CAGov

I'm concerned about this template - which states that works produced by the State of California are in the Public Domain. I have not been able to identify any such statute; and have found various statutes to the contrary(some of which I mention in the link above). We need to review this tag, and decide what should be done with it. Please publisize this notice wherever you think it should be known. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thats also slightly confusing because CA is also the abbreviation for canada (in some iso contry code standardard). Bawolff 06:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Uploading to commons instead

Is there any recommendation here to upload images to commons instead of here? (when appropriate, ie. when not "fair use") I would like to see that. pfctdayelise 03:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have much to do with image tagging, which is about images already on en. Uploading images to the commons is a laudible aim, but sounds like a different project to me. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Er... good point. For some reason I was thinking this was about re-uploading files (maybe with a more descriptive name?). Anyway I'm obviously totally confused, I do apologise. :) pfctdayelise 14:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I would like to know whether there is a project envisaged to move images to the commons. Seems to me it could be done computationally, based on the PD and GFDL tags already on images. Anyone know where there is any discussion on such a move? --Tagishsimon (talk)
I don't think it's a project as such, but see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. pfctdayelise 15:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, they mention the fact that it is a bit tricky due to GFDL requiring 'history' (so we can't then delete the images from en:, at least, not yet), but it's also a bit tricky because images uploaded to commons should either be placed in categories and/or on gallery pages [this is itself an ongoing debate] so that they're not 'orphaned' there. Unfortunately there is no easy way of checking which wikimedia projects an image is being used on. commons "what links here" only checks commons. I don't know how widely used categories are here. Even if a category is used here, it might be slightly different in commons. (For instance, they insist on commons:Category:Felis silvestris catus instead of commons:Category:Cats. This drives me up the wall!) pfctdayelise 15:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Untagged_images/Archive_2&oldid=1137400221"