Template talk:Copy to Wikimedia Commons/Archive 1

ian
I've just saw Image:IanMcKellen.0051.jpg and I think that the phrase "Wikipedia is not a collection of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles" is not reflecting properly the "status" change (aka move to commons) of a gfdl-compliant image. +MATIA &#9742; 16:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

This template is nonsense. Someone can move the file or not, but to tag it with a template "that anyone else should move it" is a waste of time. All images could have such a template, but nobody would have anything from that. --Saperaud 17:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The text should reflect the fact that this template is usually used to quickly tag an image that should and can be moved to commons, so that it's available in all projects, but cannot be moved right away due to time constraints. Shinobu 04:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Shinobu, so the reasoning in the text seems to me not to be appropriate. All free images could be moved, but not all of them are so usefull in all other projects like others, so it is good to tag the most important. -- R eo  ON   |   + + +  01:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And another thing. I don't know if this is possible now, if it isn't, perhaps it will be in the future; perhaps transwikiing a page could also copy the edit history. Obviously normal editors like me wouldn't be able to do that, so an admin would be needed to finish the job. Shinobu 03:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to Wikimedia Commons is now Copy to Wikimedia Commons
Per Template_talk:Move_to_Wiktionary, and for reasons I'll explain here, all the "Move to" transwiki templates are being moved to "Copy to". Putting this template in place does not cause an article to be moved, it causes it to be copied. Once copied, the original might be deleted from wikipedia, or it might be rewritten, expanded, etc. Calling this "Move to Wikimedia Commons" makes people who come across the template think that the template will cause the deletion of the article, and often leads people to remove the template inappropriately. Giving it the proper name ends that. There are mentions in various articles and help files and such around wikipedia which mention "Move to Wikimedia Commons" which will need to be changed, I will do that after some time has passed, waiting first to see if there is some major disagreement to this change. --Xyzzyplugh 02:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

adding info about the wikiproject
&#123;{editprotected}}

I think a note about WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons could probably be helpful and attract more people's attention so they join in the process. Maybe Moving images to the Commons as well. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 14:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅, and documentation moved to sub-page so you can edit yourself in the future. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-16 08:43Z 

Bot
We would use a bot to copy files from Wikipedia to Commons. --HybridBoy 09:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons helper
editprotectedThe Dutch version of this template contains a link to a handy page that helps copying images to the Commons. See e.g http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:Trassie_oedang.jpg. Shinobu 15:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've disabled the editprotected request. There should be consensus before changing this. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Extra link
Adding this link  to the template would make wonders. I've done it on the Icelandic Wikipedia is:Snið:Færa á Commons and seen in one the French, so I was very disappointed not seeing it used here. It makes it so much easier to move the images. --Steinninn 16:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Use on articles
editprotected This template is seeing a lot of use on articles recently, as pure gallery articles are getting moved to Commons. Ex. Gallery of dependent territory flags. However, the wording doesn't make sense for articles. Could this be remedied somehow? Thanks, Himasaram 23:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm... I considered adding switches or other parserfunctions to display different messages, depending on the namespace of the page being transferred... but I'm beginning to think it may be easier to refactor (and possibly rename) Moving images to the Commons to reflect current practice, including galleries. Thoughts? – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The editprotected tag is premature - first there needs to be consensus about exactly what change to make. The tag is only to get the attention of admins to implement already decided changes, not to suggest that a change might be needed. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetize images
editprotected

It seems that all images in Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons are being alphabetized under "I" due to the "Image:" prefix. This means that the table of contents in that category is worthless, and it's very difficult to navigate among the images. I believe this can be fixed by some clever use of or something along those lines. —Bkell (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * → would work, I think.  Grace notes T § 22:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 02:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick link to the CommonsHelper
Adding this code: CommonsHelper Will make it easier to move the images. Also, copied needs to be fixed because it leads to a disambiguate page. --Steinninn 00:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

editprotected


 * Where exactly should this be added? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See for example nl:Sjabloon:Verplaats naar Wikimedia Commons. Cheers! Siebrand 00:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Note that this template is heavily used, so it may take a while for all uses of it to update. --ais523 18:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

German
Please could we have a German version of this template (or a link to the German version if it exists)... Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to check here: de:Hilfe:Dateien auf Commons verschieben. --evrik (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see the template on that page (even with the aid of Babel Fish), only the template used on Commons after the bot has moved the image over ( Template: BotMoveToCommons).... Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * More German wikipedians read English than English speakers read German. WHy don't you post a request over there asking someone to comment here? --evrik (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * de:Vorlage:Commonsfähig the german -- (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Croatian
There's a Croation version of this at hz:Predložak:Premjestiti na Commons, can it be added to the languages list... Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hyphen vs. Dash
editprotected

Could someone maybe replace the hyphen-minus (U+002D) with either en dash (U+2013) or em dash (U+2014), whichever is more to the typographical taste in written English. I've seen other templates using the correct quotation marks so some people obviously care about typography on WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey-das-WBF (talk • contribs) 10:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose this is about the spaced hyphen between move and please, in which case I must agree. Either an unspaced em dash or a spaced en dash should be used in this case; spaced hyphens do not constitute an acceptable style option. Waltham, The Duke of 05:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Changed to an em dash (—). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:BotMultichill
If User:BotMultichill moves images to the commons, why is there such a backlog? Philly jawn (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Commons ok
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) 17:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Toolserver link
editprotected

Can the link to tools.wikimedia.de please be updated to toolserver.org? Thank you. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done - Right you are. So done. --David Göthberg (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting categories
Could it be possible to suggest categories on Commons by writing i.e., meaning the image would fit in commons:Category:Pearl Jam? Preferably CommonsHelper should be modified to pick up suggested categories. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

New format
Firstly, switched to mbox, since that can switch namespace styles automatically. Also, changing the wording per namespace.

Also please note that I added a little note about the differences in policies up there too. ViperSnake151 Talk  19:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would it need to switch namespace styles automatically? Banaticus (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not done for now:. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Please allow time for discussion before placing editprotected.
 * 2) The best way to propose new code is to put it on the sandbox. I have now done this for you.
 * 3) There are various problems with your code. includeonly's without their closing tags is one example.
 * 4) If there is consensus for this change, and you fix the bugs, I'd be happy to implement in a few days' time.

point?
I see this was brought up way back in 2005, but not really addressed. This seems like one of the most wrong-headed templates I've ever seen. What is the point of adding a tag to a page informing users that it could or should be moved to the commons, and that anyone can easily do it? I don't understand why adding this tag is a better option than just doing the move. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This template is useful because it helps categorize images, is used with a transfer bot and is a tool of a longstanding wikiproject. It is also used across the different wikis. Philly jawn (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
Given the lack of response to my above question, I have nominated this for deletion, but I can't tag the page with the TFD template because it is protected. Deletion discussion is at: Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 14 Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

editprotected
 * Nominating the template for deletion just wastes everyones time. Thanks. Philly jawn (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your unhelpful snide reply, you don't have to participate in the deletion discussion if you don't want to. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just calling it like I see it. Philly jawn (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've withdrawn the nom per WP:SNOW. If anyone had bothered to answer my question in the intervening weeks this wouldn't have needed to happen in the first place... Anyway the deletion tag needs to be removed. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Also, if you would have posted the same question at Wikipedia talk:Moving images to the Commons or the village pump it wouldn't have been needed either. Garion96 (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

point
What is the point of this template if images tagged with it are never moved to Commons?--Avala (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They are being moved. There just is a huge backlog of images still to do. Garion96 (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

New server
Hi, I'm uploading Magnus's toys to http://misterwiki.host22.com/tools/. So it is possible to link the server from the template?: http://misterwiki.host22.com/tools/commonshelper.php. Thanks -- MisterWiki   talking! :-D  ( SIGN!!! / REVIEW - 22:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Should this one be a replacement or an addition to the existing link? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * An addition, something like:
 * Toolserver's
 * Misterwiki's
 * That's it! -- MisterWiki   talking! :-D  ( SIGN!!! / REVIEW /SUPPORT ME AT META!!!) 18:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a prototype: User:MisterWiki/Copy to Wikimedia Commons -- MisterWiki   talking! :-D  ( SIGN!!! / REVIEW /SUPPORT ME AT META!!!) 18:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm testing some free servers to see who's better. I'll post here the definitive one. --  MisterWiki   talking! :-D  ( SIGN!!! / REVIEW /SUPPORT ME AT META!!!) 20:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally the better was host22.com. -- MisterWiki   talking! :-D  ( SIGN!!! / REVIEW ) 21:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It redirects to my tool page, please replace the link to MisterWiki's to http://misterwiki.host22.com/tools/commonshelper.php?interface=&image=&lang=. Thanks. -- MisterWiki   talking! :-D  ( SIGN!!! / REVIEW ) 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit protected
 * Please revert. This is a rip of Magnus' tool on an untrusted host run by a user blocked from editing on both this wiki and on Commons. multichill (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Brian Jason Drake 11:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Toolserver CommonsHelper link
How about adding  to the URL ? I think that'd ease up some stuff. Currently I find myself adding this manually but I don't see why one wouldn't add it by default ? I've seen this on other wiki's aswell in their MTC-ish templates.

From: Copy tools: Toolserver To: Copy tools: Toolserver Krinkle (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request
Please remove this tag after this image has been copied to Commons. → If this image has been copied to Commons replace this tag with  . Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅  Ron h jones (Talk) 20:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why use "db-nowcommons" when that template redirects to "NowCommons"? Would it not be better to change to " "? --MGA73 (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Interwikilink
de:Vorlage:Commonsfähig the german -- (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Non image pages should not get categorized
Please put into  to avoid non image pages to be categorized. Thank you. --Leyo 12:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, thank you. --Leyo 14:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this template really needed?
It is said above that this template is needed because:
 * it helps categorize images,
 * it is used with a transfer bot,
 * it is a tool of a longstanding wikiproject,
 * it is also used across the different wikis.

Why is it good to have in one big category? All images with free licenses are candidates to move to Commons so we could just ad the category to the license templates.

Well it would be a help if it was only placed on images that could and should be moved to Commons. But the problem is that sometimes it is added on images that are crappy/useless or can not be moved to commons (no FOP issues etc.). So even if there is a mtc on the images the user that does the transfer still has to check the image.

As far as I know there is no bot that transfer images automatically and the pywikipedia bots really do not care if there is a template or not. If it is needed because of the link to CommonsHelper then we could just add that link to all the free license templates.

So I would like to hear if someone actually uses it to something?

If we do a few changes it could however be usefull. We could add a better description/instruction on the template to tell the users ONLY to add that template on images if they have been checked and is found free AND usefull. Then there could be a review-option that shows which user has checked that the image is free, usefull etc. and the images should go in a category "Mtc checked by user MGA73" etc. If user has proven to be good then it is easy to move all images checked by that user and if the user does a bad work checking then we can add a warning on the category "Please note that this user does not check images before tagging with mtc - please be carefull".

Also it would be nice if all images with a free licenses end up in a category for "Mtc candidates that needs review". Then it is easy to see which images has been checked and witch images has not been checked. --MGA73 (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * “As far as I know there is no bot that transfer images automatically”
 * You might want to have a look at de:Wikipedia:Commons-Transfer per Bot. --Leyo 23:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes that is an interessting project. But an important text is "Ein Administrator überprüft, ob die Datei commonsfähig ist und klickt auf das Feld „Bestätigen“" (in short someone has to review it before file is transfered). Also the bot is only active on de-wiki so tagging here on en-wiki does not work. --MGA73 (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
Please remove this tag after this image has been copied to Commons. → If this image has been copied to Commons replace this tag with     .

My last edit request was misinterpreted. Marcus Qwertyus   21:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- &oelig; &trade; 07:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please update
There is a new, and more stable version of the CommonsHelper available at http://toolserver.org/~commonshelper2/ -- please update the template accordingly. Example of target url: http://toolserver.org/~commonshelper2/?language=en&project=wikipedia&target_file=Pinto_sport_horse_mare.jpg&file=Pinto_sport_horse_mare.jpg&use_checkusage=1 Pitke (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * IMHO the previous one is better. --Leyo 19:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unless it has just been updated. This "improved" version has made a lot of junk on Commons and it has been blocked because it did not work. So I prefer that we wait a little time and see if the bot really does work better. --MGA73 (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

languages that doen't have MTC templates
How do we get free-use images at smaller wikis moved to Commons?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * CommonsHelper or CommonsHelper2 can be used without this template. --Leyo 09:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. The template is not needed. Please don't use CommonsHelper2 - it is broke and unless you correct things manually you will leave a mess on Commons. CommonsHelper works fine. If you have many files you want to move you can also ask someone with a bot and we can move it for you. --MGA73 (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

ER
How about adding a date parameter? EBE!@# talkContribs 14:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you will need to be a bit more specific than that. What do you want the date parameter to do? --RL0919 (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The date parameter will categorize pictures to be copied so it's easier to navigate by date. It will also show from when it was requested like wikify and other templates.   Ebe 123  talkContribs 14:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see an advantage of sorting 20,000 files by date instead of by name. --Leyo 14:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no real point other than for consistency. Regardless, please post the code you want used in the template's sandbox before requesting the edit. –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Parameter bot
The new parameter introduced by Fastily is not documented yet. --Leyo 11:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll get around to doing it shortly. Regards,  F ASTILY  (TALK) 16:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Auto-tagging
What do you think of the current version of Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons/sandbox? Basically, I've tweaked the template so that  could be added to templates like PD-self and GFDL-user to add the files tagged with such a license to a new category specifically for auto-tagged (as opposed to human-tagged) files. This way, most applicable files would be in one easy-to-find place while not overwhelming the set of human-requested transfers with automatically-tagged ones. –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's not that simple. The proposed template doesn't check for other templates on the page such as XfD/Speedy tags, Do not move to Commons tags, ShadowsCommons tags, non-free license tags, ect.  Presently, this solution would work iff everyone understood file policy and did not make mistakes.    This is why I filed a BRFA  for this task.  Commentators at those BRFAs agreed that a Copy to Wikimedia Commons-tagging bot was a good idea, but that users performing interwiki transfers should be visibly warned about a bot-assesed move.   Accordingly, I added a "bots" (now "bot") parameter per consensus at Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 2/Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot.  If anyone has a problem with such adjustments to this template (I made changes per WP:BOLD, WP:IAR), I'll create a similar template in my userspace.  This solution is the most convenient for me, and would be convenient for others running similar bots. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 16:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, right. That's a good reason not to use such a param and to use a bot instead. However, I would request that if you're bot-tagging images they be put in a different category from the human-tagged images, which should be considered higher priority. Also note, in my proposed change, if the  parameter is set it additionally shows "This tag was added automatically based on this file's license. Before transferring the file, please ensure that it is actually eligible. If it is not eligible, please add   to the licensing tag to suppress this message. "
 * Regardless, it doesn't really matter to me. But certainly, please don't have bot-tagged images going into the same cat as human-tagged images. –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please add category
Can someone add this category:
 * Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons --Timeshifter (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Skier Dude  ( talk ) 05:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Usage format
Please change this sentence:


 * If this image has been copied to Commons replace this tag with  

to


 * If this image has been copied to Commons replace this tag with  

See usage format instructions at Now Commons. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference between the two is significant in case of a filename with a = sign in it (in that case, the second option won't work), so I'm inclined to not do this. Ucucha (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this would not work for any file with an = sign in its name. We could use a named parameter such as file but we should not take the parameter name away. (And we should probably fix Now Commons in a similar way. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Bot Text
Currently, the last line of the text for bot-tagged files reads:

" By transferring this file to Commons, you acknowledge you have read this message and are willing to accept all and any consequences for inappropriate transfers. Repeat violators will be blocked from editing."

I find this text quite discouraging, especially the phrase "all and any consequences", which seems to imply legal consequences for the mover. With this text, the template's objective seems more like discouraging transfers than encouraging them. Considering that bot-tagged files outnumber manually-tagged files by about 10 to 1, I think this line could discourage many potential transfers to commons. IMHO, this text is best replaced with something less creepy, or at least the phrase "all and any consequences" wikilinked to an appropriate policy(if it is referring to one).--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from LikeLakers2, 15 October 2011
Could we have a div id tag placed around the "copy to commons" link?

What I mean is this:

to this:

The ctwclink id there is just one I thought up. The point of the request is that a user could add some javascript to their skin js file to add links next to the the "copy to commons" link. I was thinking of adding some code to my js file to add a link to the file page on commons, but I realised this could help other people.

LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 16:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ It seems the current practice is to add a CSS class to the entire tag; someone could then use that class to find this tag and look for the external link to the CommonsHelper tool if they wanted. But before that could be done here, someone would have to upgrade imbox to support adding custom classes as was done for ambox. Anomie⚔ 17:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

CommonsHelper or CommonsHelper 2?
I'm sorry, I'm a newbie in en.wiki, but I don't understand if CommonsHelper is working, or it is obsolete and we are supposed to used CommonsHelper2. If so, could we change the link in this template? --Aubrey (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Both do function, and both have shades of difference in pre-move tests and functionality. I still find the original easier for a move to Commons, but it depends on what you are trying to do. — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I think CH1 is better than CH2 because CH2 in some cases makes a lot of mess. --MGA73 (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't get either of them to work. :| Glacialfox (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Lets put the link for the two! Here's the code:


 * At line 21

That would make:

Ebe 123  → report ← Contribs 14:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems rather excessive. Why not something low-profile, like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Copy_to_Wikimedia_Commons/sandbox&oldid=460763561 this]? Anomie⚔ 11:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ to version by Anomie. An  optimist  on the run! 06:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

MEJA ROAD
— Preceding unsigned comment added by VIVEK123 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See File:Tapti Ganga Express (6169931014).jpg and File:WAM-4 (4165798412).jpg --MGA73 (talk) 11:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

priority parameter
Bulwersator (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Mirror of Commonshelper
http://bots.wmflabs.org/~richs/commonshelper.php - it is faster than commons helper. Is it possible to add it to template? Bulwersator (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's do some more testing first. --Leyo 10:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going through the backlog of PERs, and I've marked this one as answered since you're still testing. Thanks. :-)  K rakatoa    K atie   12:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2012
Template:Now Commons recommends adding the date, so that is can be subcategorized. Please replace the line  with. Thanks,

117Avenue (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * or  do this. --Leyo 08:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which one do you want to use then? Tra (Talk) 19:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The parameter needs to be used if the image name on Commons is different. --Leyo 10:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean choosing between using Now Commons directly or using subst:ncd. If the ncd template is used then the code to be input is shorter, but it means there's one extra template involved in the whole process, adding a little bit extra complexity.
 * With regards to whether or not the image name is different, are you happy to leave the phrasing how it is or would you prefer having the two options for same/different image names mentioned? Tra (Talk) 13:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The option to include the name on Commons needs to be mentioned, because it may not always be the same. I think  is a better phrasing than my original request, since it is shorter. 117Avenue (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If files are transfered with at bot I think the date is added automatically. I do not think it is a big problem if no date is added if the template is added manually. So I do not think the date should be an argument to prefere one version. --MGA73 (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. I've gone with ncd - it doesn't make a huge difference choosing between the two versions but we may as well add the date anyway if we can. Tra (Talk) 00:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Make it shorter
The template is very long. Expecially if the template is added by a bot. I suggest we try to make it shorter.

For example we could delete "Please ensure that the file has a properly descriptive and unambiguous name before moving it to Commons. See here when to rename a file." The name is only one of the things users should think of when moving files and a rename could be done both before and after the file is moved to Commons.

I also suggest that we merge the text from the bot warning with the ordinary text som only a "This file was flagged for transfer by a bot. Please be extra careful before moving the file to Commons" is left in the red box. Just because the template is added by a human does not mean that the file is safe to move. --MGA73 (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I made it a little shorter. To many ineligible files are moved so the warning should always be visible. If tagged by a bot noone has checked if file is actually usable. --MGA73 (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
Could the line "By transferring this file to Commons, you acknowledge you have read this message and are willing to accept all and any consequences for inappropriate transfers." be changed so as to read "any and all" instead as this flows better when read? Cloudbound (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --MGA73 (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

interwiki
Hi, add an interwiki to the greek tamplage please, el:Πρότυπο:Μεταφορά στα commons --Volos F (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 14:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Main space usage
Should this template ever be used on articles? In which situation could this occur? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if someone creates a gallery? --MGA73 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Make human review possible
Some users do not like to move files to Commons and to make it easier to mark a file as checked and found ok for Commons a review option could be made just like on NowCommons.

A start has been made in the sandbox (latest version at the moment: here). At the moment it does not work excactly as planned because it will not send files to sub categories like Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons reviewed by MGA73. All files end up in Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons reviewed by a human. Hope someone can fix it :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed it so that it sends files to sub category... --MGA73 (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried to create a script to make it easy to review the files. Script is located at User:MGA73/movetocommonsreview.js. --MGA73 (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The script should work now. Except with Mtc --MGA73 (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Magog helped me... Now it works... --MGA73 (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed the template. It is now possible to review the files. This script can be used User:MGA73/movetocommonsreview.js or it can be done manually. --MGA73 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know how it got there, but in the template it says: "If the file can't be moved to Commons concider" that last word should be consider, I think. Unless their is a different spelling that I am too ignorant to know about. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  22:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Problem with Template:Not moved to Commons
I was checking the copyright status of a file marked for copying to Commons (File:Nicollet plaque 050917 B&W.JPG), but decided to tag it as possibly unfree. Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons says:


 * "If the file can't be moved to Commons consider nominating the file for deletion or changing the template to  "

Following the template's instruction, I changed the template to but I noticed that the template seems to be indicating something different.

The new Template:Not moved to Commons says:


 * It was requested that this image be deleted as it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Not moved to Commons but this request could not be completed. Please check that the image meets all the requirements and retag it as.

The file has now also been added to Category:Wikipedia files moved to Wikimedia Commons which could not be deleted.

The file has not been moved to Commons, as the name of the template clearly says, but the template says that it has. This is obviously incorrect.

Can someone look at changing this? The template recommends tagging the file as if the image meets all the requirements for copying, but since the image hasn't actually been copied yet, the  tag would be incorrectly applied.

Kind regards, Matt (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Magog. I noticed that the template still says "Please check that the image meets all the requirements and retag it as ." Could this be clarified to indicate that in the case that the file has not already been moved to Commons, it should be tagged as and not ? Kind regards, Matt (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * sofixit Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons istruction ar wrong but it is bad reason to destroy Template:Not moved to Commons. I suggest to change instruction on this template to "If the file can't be moved to Commons consider nominating the file for deletion" as Template:Not moved to Commons should be used on files that were moved to commons but transfer was somehow wrong Bulwersator (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is very hard to solve this problem without making a looong template. If a file is marked as free on en-wiki it should be eligible for transfer to Commons. If the file for some reason can't go to Commons we should find out if the file should be deleted or the template be replaced with an other one. For example PD-ineligible-USonly. --MGA73 (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue I had with the template was that the title was misleading. If the template is titled "Not moved to Commons", shouldn't it only by tagged on files which haven't been moved to Commons? Kind regards, Matt (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see now that my edits were reverted. I was only trying to implement the changes I first suggested here. Magog the Ogre encouraged me to make the changes myself and I did. I didn't intend to break the template, but instead make it less confusing. Now I'm more confused about its intended use than ever. Kind regards, Matt (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAIK Template:Not moved to Commons is used to tag files that were nominated for deletion as F8 (template:Now commons) but it was not possible to delete file due to certain problems Bulwersator (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons says "If the file can't be moved to Commons consider nominating the file for deletion or changing the template to ". I interpreted that as meaning that if the file is tagged as being a file that is intended to be moved to Commons but is not moved because of some reason (for example, the license seems incorrect), then the  tag should be replaced with . In which case the file would not be on Commons. I encountered this problem as I was trying to move files included in Category:User-created public domain files to Commons, but would pause while verifying that the files were actually in the public domain. If I found a reason to doubt the license, I would tag the file as  and would investigate the source. Often I would later verify the file as being in the public domain and would continue to copy the file to Commons as originally planned. But now I'm completely confused over the intended use of  and when to use it. Perhaps the instructions of how to use it should be rewritten in the  template. Kind regards, Matt (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that the template is both used for files that was moved to Commons but could not be deleted on en-wiki and on files that was suggested to move to Commons but should not be moved there for some reason. I think this template should only be used for a short period. If it is a permanent problem we should use other templates or delete the file.
 * I agree that it would probably be a good idea also to change the wording on the tag. --MGA73 (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

When do we use which template?
We have Copy to Wikimedia Commons to indicate that the file SHOULD (perhaps) be moved to Commons. And we have a number of templates to indicate that the file should NOT be moved to Commons or NOT be deleted on en-wiki:


 * 1) Keep local if some user (often the uploader) does not like Commons or if a local copy is wanted (for example highly used files).
 * 2) Do not move to Commons if the file for some legal reason can not be moved to Commons.
 * 3) Not moved to Commons if the file WAS copied to Commons but could not be deleted for some reason OR if it was suggested to move the file to Commons but it was rejected for some reason.
 * 4) + all the Non-free license templates and the "Free in the US only license templates".

First template does not prevent that the file is copied to Commons but normally the local file is not deleted but tagged with or.

Second template is a permanent state and it can be combinated with a "|expiry=[year]" to tell for how long the file can't be moved to Commons. If year is 2020 it will be possible to move the file to Commons in January 1, 2021.

Third template should in my opinion only be used for a short period. For example if there is a deletion request on Commons and we want to wait to see the result there or if the license or upload info on Commons is wrong and needs to be fixed but the user is unsure how to do it (or is to lazy?).

The fourth templates like Non-free comic and FoP-USonly says that the file is not free or free only in the US so it should be obvious that files with this template can't go to Commons (unless the license template is incorrect). All the non-free templates does not need a warning not to copy the file to Commons. The free in the US only templates could have the Do not move to Commons template build in to reduce the risk that someone copy the file Commons by a mistake.

If we agree on that it should be possible to fix the wording of all the templates so we reduce the confusion. So I suggest step 1 is to agree when to use which template. --MGA73 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the fact that Not moved to Commons effectively has two uses is problematic. Not moved to Commons puts files into Category:Wikipedia files moved to Wikimedia Commons which could not be deleted, so there are possibly numerous files which have been added to that category which haven't actually been "moved to Commons".
 * My opinion is that the templates should be applied as such:
 * Keep local should be used if the file should NOT be deleted on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it exists on Commons. It can include a parameter with a link to the Commons copy of the file if it exists. This appears to be the current usage.
 * Do not move to Commons should be used if the file CANNOT be moved to Commons. For example, due to licence restrictions. This appears to be the current usage.
 * Not moved to Commons should be used if the file was previously tagged with Move to Commons, but the move request was rejected. The file should NOT be moved to Commons and should also be tagged with Do not move to Commons or another appropriate tag describing future action. For example, if a file is tagged with Move to Commons but has a non-free licence, the Move to Commons tag should be removed and replaced with a Not moved to Commons tag (describing the rejected request) and a Do not move to Commons tag (describing the licence problems).
 * Non-free licence tags such as Non-free comic and FoP-USonly should be applied to all files with those licences per WP:File copyright tags. This appears to be the current usage.
 * I don't think that any new templates need to be created to cover cases that aren't yet covered. As long as Not moved to Commons doesn't add files to a category containing files which HAVE been moved to Commons, I think that rewriting the templates to match the cases I described should clear things up. That all being said, I am relatively new to file tagging and might have misunderstood the intended (but poorly described) usage of the existing templates. In such a case, I'm all ears to corrections and suggestions to modifications to my ideas. Kind regards, Matt (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

wmf labs CommonsHelper
The link to wmf CommonsHelper brings up a 403 Forbidden notice. I'd recommend we remove that link for now. Cloudbound (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The link still does not work. It should be removed or at least commented out for now. Cloudbound (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --Leyo 23:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cloudbound (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Requesting copy edit
Please capitalise "OK" in "...it is ok to move to commons...". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 18:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Requesting addition of CommonsHelper 2
I don't understand why CommonsHelper 2 was removed. Could it please be added once more? CommonsHelper is limited. Thanks,  James ( T •  C ) • 9:56am • 22:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. See  above. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong template for not moving to commons
There are images that can't be moved to commons because they have no educational purpose, like File:Launchballer-sig.jpg. This template misleaded me into using the wrong template. To avoid this problem for other people, I suggest replacing:


 * "If the file can't be moved to Commons consider nominating the file for deletion or changing the template to  "

with:


 * "If the file has already been moved to Commons, then consider nominating the file for deletion or changing the template to  "


 * "If the file can't be moved to Commons because it doesn't fit Common's scope, then use  "


 * "If think that a local copy of this file should be kept, then use  . Consider using   .

Also, I suggest renaming Not moved to Commons to Already moved to Commons to avoid confusions. Problems with these templates already happened back in 2012 here --Enric Naval (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. Would you care to update Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons/sandbox with your proposed text? And I have acted on your final suggestion. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I updated the sandbox. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Deployed &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, it looks good to me. Hopefully this will make the template easier to use. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think some of the changes need to be fixed. The second sentence "If the file can't be moved to Commons because it doesn't fit Common's scope, then use   " needs to have "because it doesnt fit Common's scope" removed. That is not the only reason for an image to not be moved.  There are also copyright or fair use reasons, or a similar duplicate. The way it was prior to editing (without the scope was perfect).  If your reasoning for not moving the file is due to scope, put that in the reasoning.
 * Also, you have linked the flat out wrong template in the first sentence.  is for if there is a reason that the image moved cannot be deleted on the Wikipedia side.  If the files are moved and everything works correctly the template  should be applied. The Already moved should only be used on an image that was moved, but there was a problem with. Generally I would think this would be added by an Admin or an editor with loads of experience moving to Commons
 * Sorry I did not make it into this conversation sooner. I understand wanting to make this template more user-friendly, but I think there is still some misunderstanding about some of the templates. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  15:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really have an opinion and have little experience with files, but perhaps you could work this out with Enric Naval and hopefully come to a conclusion? Reactivate the request when ready, thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I also thought that I had to mention copyright problems, but then I saw that they are already included under Commons's scope: the content has to be "public domain and freely-licensed". Anyways, I am OK with removing "because it doesn't fit Common's scope".
 * I don't know how to fix the confusion between and  . Please propose a wording that can help users understand this better. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Requesting change in a line
There is a line in the template to which I would like to propose a change. The line is - "If the file has already been moved to Commons, then consider nominating the file for deletion or changing the template to " . I think, instead of the template Already moved to Commons the template Now Commons should be used. When you go to the two templates it is clearly said that Now Commons should be used first and if it was declined by an administrator, the administrator should then replace it with reason. But in the template, only Already moved to Commons is given. I hope this change will be made without any problem. Thanks. Regards. - Jayadevp  13  12:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done. I've made the change as I don't see any problems with that reasoning. If anyone has a problem with this, feel free to reactivate edit protected. Harryboyles 16:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding. Regards. -  Jayadevp  13  07:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Possessive
The phrase "it doesn't fit Common's scope" (second line from bottom) should read "it doesn't fit Commons' scope", with the apostrophe after the s in Commons. &mdash; TORTOISE WRATH  20:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Copy to Commons Bots
Prior to two edits by User:MPelletier (WMF) (see first edit), the template linked to Magnus' Commons helper bot (a fully functioning bot) but now links to wmfLabs CommonsHelper bot, Which has not edited since March 2012. Can we please change the bot link back to a working one to allow for easier movement of images to Commons? I commented on MPelletier's MediaWiki talk page (which he says is more watched) on November 2, 2013, but have not heard a response. Thanks, -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 19:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Considering that the toolserver is going away soon (most recent mention is "mid 2014" ), it would probably be a better idea to contact the maintainer of the new tool to find out why it's not working. Anomie⚔ 19:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then, can I request we remove that all together? If toolserver is "eventually, but soon" going away, and the current bot is not functioning properly and could take some time (especially since we're all volunteers here), wouldn't it make more sense that if we are to wait, we should wait with nothing, as opposed to a broken link? -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 20:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I asked the current operator: User talk:methecooldude/Archive29. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 20:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * How about pointing it at CommonsHelper which isn't on toolserver and actually works? Mackensen (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Anything that works would be better than nothing. --  TLSuda  (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I had the ability to do it myself, but as I was the one who originally asked that it be changed (prior to getting the mop) I didn't feel comfortable doing it. Thanks! --  TLSuda  (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, tool labs isn't going away (I see it's already done, too). Anomie⚔ 11:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)