Category talk:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons/Archive 1

Cleaned out
At 18:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC) this category had no pages in it. I know it will grow again quickly, but I personally deleted about 6,000 images to get it where it is now. :-) Dmcdevit·t 18:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well done. With 100 deletions/minute, you were doing it a lot faster than I ever did.
 * Fred-Chess 18:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Explain
The major point here is


 * The file was properly uploaded (preserving GFDL required history of revisions)

What does "properly uploaded" mean? — Omegatron 01:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It should say "the image description page contains the necessary information". Fred-Chess 20:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Post deletion
Hi, the Post deletion section says:
 * Restore the tags and inter-wiki links if any (by editing the image page on en and not commons).

Shouldn't all information (such as categories, image descriptions, etc.) be also preserved? restored? --Kjoonlee 14:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC) 14:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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 Filename or do we need a different template? Madmedea 20:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, go ahead and use ncd. I use it on low resolution JPEGs or GIFs here that I find after I have uploaded a high resolution PNG of an image to the Commons. Examples: Image:Wing 0341st Missile.gif, Image:352sog.gif, Image:319SOSemblem large.jpg.

Why can't we have duplicates on Wikipedia & Wikimedia Commons?
Right now my present concern is with the image Image:CN Freight Train in Tampa.jpg. If possible, I'd like to be able to preserve the image as is, and still allow use in the commons, and I'm hoping to do the same with some other images. Is there any way I can have this done? I really don't want my images to disappear in the commons. DanTD (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The better question is, why should we have duplicates? It wastes storage space (at least for people who use only the cur dumps) and makes things less efficient. Superm401 - Talk 05:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you are talking about database dumps, it is much less efficient because reusers need to download the files and page text for both Wikipedia and Commons. Dragons flight (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything non-admins can do to help?
I was going through some of the images and wondered if I can do anything if I find issues, such as the license is insufficient for Commons or MetsBot couldn't decide and I'm sure one way or the other. Can I somehow tag the image as reviewed and ready for deletion notwithstanding the bot's equivocation? Do images that can't be moved go somewhere else?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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) 13:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Who tagged my duplicate images?
I recently had at least four images tagged for deletion because there are duplicates of them on the commons.


 * Image:Farmingdale LIRR Station Memorial-2.JPG
 * Image:Farmingdale LIRR Station West Platform.JPG
 * Image:Old Montauk Station & Bike Rack.JPG
 * Image:Selma-Smithfield CSX Freight-2-.JPG

I'm not complaining about the tags(in fact, I welcome them), I just can't find the user or bot that tagged them in the history of each image. I also had a fifth image that was tagged for deletion because it had a duplicate in the commons, but in that case I knew who tagged that one. DanTD (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Image description page contains a request not to delete the local copy
What can the request for not deleting a file be? Any examples? Vikrant 16:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * An example is Image:20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4)-edit3.jpg. I have no idea why the image got tagged like that, though. LyrlTalk C 02:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

?
Is there any reason that these images are not deleted? --84.227.108.47 19:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it's a bugger of a job, basically. Only admins can deal with it and it means giving up several evenings to do it. It's not just a matter of deleting stuff: to comply with the GDFL licence that these images are under, we need to visit the page on Commons with the image on it, check it actually exists (the tags are sometimes wrong), check the image is the same (sometimes it's a different image with the same name), check the image has the same edit history, copy the edit history across to the Commons image if not, then delete the original.


 * This takes time and energy and isn't very rewarding compared to writing articles or vandal hunting. So it slips down the list somewhat. But it does get done eventually. Also, because server space isn't a problem for Wikimedia (although bandwidth is - please give generously) it doesn't have a priority in the project compared to other image-related admin functions. ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 20:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I can take the time to deal with it, but I would like to know: how are we to fix an image that was uploaded at Commons without the history being properly preserved? Are we to remove the template (because the image cannot be deleted without violating the GFDL license) or try to solve the situation at commons? Circeus 01:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just add the history of the image to the Commons description page; it's not really that hard. --Rory096 04:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's what I suspected, but I wasn't sure whether we were to keep the different files too. Circeus 04:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean if there were multiple files and they weren't uploaded in sequence? Then you need to RfD that image on Commons because once the enwiki image is deleted, the source won't be correct (and remove the  because once it's deleted, it won't be on Commons anymore) --Rory096 04:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please check out this tool Move-to-Commons-Assistant. It is intended to create licence compliant image description pages for the Commons. It shortens the required time for transwiki from minutes to seconds. Perhaps you could add missing transwiki information before deleting the original image. That would help us a lot, really. Commons:Longbow4u, 1 June 2006.


 * Some images get enhanced after being transferred to commons.
 * The existence of the original local version hides the enhanced version unavailable here.
 * Removing these duplicates does improve the local content.
 * Perhaps this can encourage admins a little...


 * In addition, many of the duplicates I encountered here aren't fron en:, but have been copied here from another project, and in addition have been copied to commons.
 * Often a thumbnail version, sometimes even with the filename prefix removed.
 * Would it help admins if these cases, where only redundant copy is here, could be tagged differently, because they don't require as much attention?


 * --Ikar.us (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to significantly clear out the backlog
Since this page is undoubtedly created by a script, why not increase the scope of that script to also analyze the file and look at its SHA1 sum from both enwiki and commons. Due to the complexity of the SHA1 formula, the possibility of two different files with the same SHA1 sum is infinitesimally small. If a file matches both in filename and SHA1 sum, it can safely be assumed that the files are identical in every other aspect (filesize, dimensions, meta data, etc) due to the near-certainty that they are 1:1 copies of one another.

So, why not use this to our advantage, and see what files truly are exact duplicates and which ones aren't?

Phuzion (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Automatic categorisation
There is a discussion regarding automatic categorisation of images at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikipedia/Commons duplicate images that concerns this category.

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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:NC, and WT:CSD) — kur  ykh   19:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This category is already linked on the main Category:Candidates for speedy deletion page.  Any category page containing image links with thumbnail images takes quite a bit longer to load than a page without them.  Keeping such pages separate is preferable. — Athaenara  ✉  22:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Opening heading
Hy I'm horribly backloged can someone please help? Tx ^_^--Wikipedia_files_with_the_same_name_on_Wikimedia_Commons (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but adminhelp is for specific problems, not backlogs. That's why the page has an adminbacklog tag on it. Admins will take care of it when they have time for it - adding adminhelp here will not change that I'm afraid. Regards  So Why  17:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot Request to Deal with the Backlog
See here. Nautica Shad es  00:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Simplify categories
Do we need to keep files in subcategories by date, rather than just using this category directly? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

New Tool
Well, I was getting very annoyed with always having hundred of files in this category, so... I created this. Its not perfect but it defiantly helps! It lists the images found in this category on the left and then images with the same name on commons on the right along with the content of both pages with some help full bits on bold! It also provides you with a Delete link just about the start of each image! As you can see I just went through the whole cat, hence it is fairly empty :)  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 21:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A question regarding what can be deleted
I see a large backlog here so I'd like to help clear some of these out.

I've read the note to admins and think I follow most of it but I have a question about item 4 "The file was properly uploaded (preserving GFDL required history of revisions) if moved to Commons instead of being uploaded independently."

As an example: File:Burtblumert.jpg is on Wikipedia

and the same file is on commons. So far so good.

However, the Wikipedia image has an earlier version with lower resolution uploaded 16:28, 17 May 2006. That earlier version does not appear in the Commons history. If I delete the Wikipedia file I assume I will be deleting the current copy on Wikipedia and the earlier version which won't remove the current version on Commons, but we will no longer know that there was an earlier version. Is a violation of item 4? My guess is that this is not a problem but I'd like to understand what item 4 means if not this. And if it is okay to delete the Wikipedia version why is it that we don't need to know the history?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it's a violation or not, but there's a link in Template:Now Commons that lets you move earlier versions to Commons, which should resolve your dilemma. --TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 21:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say the "common sense" thing would be that an old lower-resolution version is essentially another file and doesn't require attribution since it was superseded by the newer file. The edit history should still be preserved, as templates, etc., probably carried over to the new higher-resolution version, but the file itself isn't too important. The reverse would not be true (higher-resolution to lower-resolution, where the lower-resolution is a derivative work). ~ RobTalk 21:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with BU Rob13. Applying common sense, the local file can be deleted as the only previous revision is simply a low-res duplicate. Furthermore, the original upload history of the file is documented on the file's Commons description page.  If you do come across a file where there are multiple, different files in a file's upload history, you can use  to request a file history split.  -  F ASTILY   04:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking for advice regarding an image:

File:Jamaica_Mexico_Locator.png

It appears that a locate a map of Mexico placed in the entire world was created in 2009. In 2016 this was modified to show Mexico relative to the Western Hemisphere. I cannot tell whether the more recent file was created from scratch or was created by cropping the earlier version. If created by cropping, the earlier version I think we want to continue to credit the original editor for the contribution.

The Commons version has only the more recent image. Is this a case where I should click on the link to "move old versions to commons"?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like a crop to me, the Bahamas islands look very different in both images and the Cayman islands are gone. Since the Commons version is an independent upload (i.e not moved from enwiki) I'd probably move the older version of the enwiki file to Commons (if it isn't already there) and delete the local file.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. The image as it appears on the Wikipedia page sometimes look distorted a bit for some file types. If you click on both images and open them in different tabs, compared side-by-side, it's very clear that it's a crop. ~ RobTalk 15:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh - I did look at both versions of the enwiki file side-by-side and they don't look "the same".Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The new revision is most likely a crop created from the old revision; here's the side-by-side comparison. @Sphilbrick: I would suggest moving the old revision to Commons, and then deleting the local file.   Regards,   F ASTILY   03:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I tried that and it worked.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Files not the same
For anyone, but especially

I'd like to be clear on the proper procedure when the two files appear to be not the same.

In the first instance, the image on Wikipedia and the image on Commons are similar; my guess is that someone did some image improvement, but managed to upload one version to the English Wikipedia and the other version to commons.
 * File:Andrew P. Canova.xcf
 * commons:File:Andrew P. Canova.xcf

The second situation is more puzzling. In this case, the two versions look different, but it doesn't appear that the editor uploaded two different versions — one version was uploaded to Wikipedia and the other version was created by a bot transfer so I would expect it to be the exact same image. I do see a subsequent edit by a bot, but it seemed to change some of the text not the image itself.

-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Clyde G. Trammell.xcf
 * commons:File:Clyde G. Trammell.xcf
 * It's likely due to a MediaWiki bug or configuration issue with MediaWiki's rendering engine (ImageMagick). The SHA1 hashes of the local copy and Commons copy are identical, meaning the images are byte-for-byte identical.  I think it's safe to delete the local copy in both situations.  Regards,   F ASTILY   21:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  02:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Questionable claim to copyright ownership
For anyone, but especially

I looked at File:BradPharmLogo.jpeg and I think the claim to copyright ownership is unlikely. I left a note at the uploaders talk page but note two things there: only intermittent editing so might be some time before I hear an answer, and a history of questionable images.

One option is to treat this the way we treat many logos and fill out a non-free rationale form then remove it from Commons. Does that make sense?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is probably an incorrect claim of "own work" - I've seen editors working on behalf of groups uploading images from these groups but this one doesn't look like it. Does the icon on the left meet the treshold of originality? If so the Commons copy should be deleted and the local one marked as non-free logo.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. However, my view of the threshold or originality doesn't match the consensus view (perhaps because I know I would be unable to create some things deemed below the threshold) so I'd like to hear from someone else. I think it is above, but I won't be surprised if others differ. If that's the case, we still have some editing to do.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO File:BradPharmLogo.jpeg is probably eligible for, given that the threshold of originality in the US is fairly high. The self-work claim is likely bogus, so I've gone ahead edited the file description page accordingly.  Aside from that, I think it is safe to delete the local copy.  Regards,   F ASTILY   05:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Different license
Not sure how it happened but this:


 * File:Twilight in Landers.jpg

has a different license than the Commons counterpart 3.0 vs 4.0 -- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The enwp and Commons file were uploaded by the same person. Since the enwp copy was uploaded/published first (on 9 May 2015‎), and the Commons version was uploaded second (on 19 June 2016), I have updated the file's Commons description page to match the file's enwp description page.  I believe this was simply the result of an honest mistake by the Uploader :)  -  F ASTILY   00:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It was an honest mistake. What happened was, the file on en.wi was approved for transfer to commons, however, it never got transferred, so I finally uploaded it with the wizard to Commons, without even thinking about the license being the old 3.0. I marked the file: "Now Commons", however, it still hasn't been deleted. Don't know what's going on with that. Thanks for fixing the file :-)Pocketthis (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the extremely prompt responses. I had hoped it was something that simple, but wanted to make sure. I have now deleted the enwp version.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:NCT" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NCT&redirect=no Wikipedia:NCT] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 07:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)