Wikipedia talk:Moving files to Commons/Archive 1

Discussion moved from Talk:Wikimedia Commons
Note: See also the parallel discussion at Wikipedia talk:Images for deletion/Archive/1.

There are a number of issues with moving images from Wikipedia to the Commons, and I don't have a good handle on what to do and what not to do. I'd like to hash out a policy of how we handle this. Some discussion has been made at Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion, and probably other places as well, and I'd like to centralize discussion in one place. (I'm not sure where the best place to have this discussion should be. Feel free to move this discussion if you can think of a better place.)

I used to speedily-delete images on Wikipedia that had been moved to the Commons, since it was a duplication. Then I heard that we shouldn't do this for GFDL-compliance reasons, since page history is destroyed. I was informed that images duplicated on the Commons should be listed on IFD instead, and deleted after seven days. (I don't understand how that helps with GFDL compliance, but I've been following that directive.)

Now I've heard recently that deleting these images at all is bad news. First off, you can lose info, which is bad, and second, you can lose image history, which is a GFDL violation. This is particularly important for me, since I pretty much take care of Images and media for deletion, which means I delete hundreds of images per week, many of them because they are duplicated at the Commons.

Okay. So what should we do? When there's an image on Wikipedia that we'd like to move to the Commons, what is the proper way to do this? I'd welcome anyone's thoughts on the matter. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:42, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Image history is easy to deal with: simply upload the first version of the image, then the second, etc. (And put the attribution in the upload summary!)  Of course, it isn't even an issue for public domain images and images which have only had one version.  (See, for example, Commons:Image:Argentina provinces, blank.png.)


 * In cases where the history of the image description page is an issue, we can simply keep it around. Question: if you have Image:a.img and Commons:Image:a.img, and you delete the image associated with Image:a.img without deleting the text, will the image start being pulled from the Commons?  dbenbenn | talk 20:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It isn't possible to delete the image without deleting the image description page IIRC. But if you delete both the image and image description page, and then recreate the image description page, however, it does pull the image from the Commons. But of course it isn't possible to authentically recreate the page history. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:54, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to do this on the server side, i.e. copying all files with history? Copying files one by one by hand is very cumbersome, and also does not copy the attribution/date of the original image upload. A server side copy would probably be best, possibly after the unified login that is discussed since quite some time. Furthermore, there needs to be an easy way to check where a commons image is used on the Wikimedia projects, as commons images do get deleted or renamed on occasions. -- Chris 73 Talk 05:06, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

This clearly requires a technical solution, preferably soon. But stepping back a bit, I still don't understand the alleged GFDL issues. Could you point me to a prior discussion, please? --MarkSweep 06:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * IANAL, but to the best of my knowledge the GFDL requires attribution, i.e. who contributed what. That's why the history of the uploads is needed, including who added it. Not sure if there is a previous discussion about this, though. Possibly just listing the upload history on the commons talk page may suffice. But then, maybe the image versions itself are needed.-- Chris 73 Talk 07:01, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no prior discussion in the context of moving images to the Commons. However, this has come up before in the context of moving pages to meta, although I'm not sure where ot find it. The short answer is that the GNU FDL requires a "History" section, and the "history" tab is our way of providing it. Histories that say things like "Moved from Foo", so that you have to look at the history of Foo now also, are already stretching, if not violating, the letter of the FDL. But if the history of Foo is not there at all, then we are definitely violating the spirit as well! -- Toby Bartels 11:06, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

I suggest deleting nothing, but changing the image description to a redirect. Those images that have been deleted (on these grounds) should be undeleted, then edited to a redirect. Check out Image:Separation axioms.png to see what this results in. (Actually, you probably want to try ). If we decide that we really do need to delete something, then we can always do it later. But the burden of proof lies on deletion.

Note: When I undeleted Image:Separation axioms.png, only the description came back, not the image uploads themselves! The image is being drawn from the file on Commons. -- Toby Bartels 11:29, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)


 * The trouble with this solution is that if someone were to change the image on the Commons, any Wikipedia pages will still show the old image (that exists on the Wikipedia server). It also defeats the purpose of having a Commons in the first place. (I don't have a better solution. I'm just saying.) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:42, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea: delete the image, then undelete the description and turn it into a redirect. Note that in this particular case (Image:Separation axioms.png) the relevant part of the description (the image's TeX source) has no history anyway.  dbenbenn | talk 16:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've tried this, and it seems to work fine. The only caveat is this: if the image is released under the GFDL (i.e. if it's not in the public domain, and it's not available under a less restrictive license such as cc-by or CopyrightedFreeUse), and if the image itself has a history (not that the image description page has a history, but if there exist previous versions of the image on Wikipedia), and if the current version is dependant on the previous versions of the image, then one should not use this method. If one does, the image revision history will be lost, in violation of the GFDL. Otherwise (in the vast majority of cases), this method works quite well.

Let me reiterate. Here's how to know if you can use the "Toby Method" to move an image to Wikipedia. Are there previous versions of the image? If not, you can use the Toby Method. If so, is the current image dependent on prior versions? If the current version was created from scratch, then it's not dependent on prior versions of the image. If the current version is available elsewhere under a free license, or is a modification of an image available elsewhere, then it's not dependent on previous image versions here at Wikipedia. But if the current version of the image could not have been created without using a previous version of the image, then it's dependent, and the Toby Method cannot be used.

If the Toby method can be used, then simply move the image to the Commons, delete the image here on Wikipedia, and restore the image. And, it seems to me, all is well.– Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:44, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to add that if you are moving a copyrighted image to the Commons, and the image is released under a license that requires the copyright holder(s) be credited (such as GFDL or cc-by), then you must note the copyright holder in the new image description page. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:46, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

So, should we make a how-to on the subject? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:46, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, please. The Toby method is a work of genius; still, better support for such moves by the mediawiki software would be good. --MarkSweep 00:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Not really. It is often likely to result in a copyright infringment at Commons, requiring that the image be deleted from Commons (if there ar emultiple versions). Better than not doing it though and if there is just one version it's possibly good enough (haven't thought that through with enough care to be sure at the moment). Jamesday 08:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Issues for GFDL only:
 * The GFDL requires the preservation of the history. That's every version of the work. Even if a different image now, that choice may be based on the images which went before so it's prudent to include them all.
 * Someone screwed up very badly and added a link to the en Wikipedia disclaimer to the en GFDL template and the instructions for uploading suggest including the template in the upload description. Sadly, if a disclaimer is present, the GFDL includes that specific version by reference and all reusers must then include that specific version of the en disclaimer with all uses (that is, it effectively sabotages their and our ability to use just the base GFDL).
 * One workaround for this is to include the full text the disclaimer and also the full history of every version of the disclaimer up to the time of upload with the image (you need the full history of the disclaimer as well to avoid breaching its own GFDL license).
 * The best workaround is to ask the uplaoder to license it under the GFDL without disclaimer, so all reusers, Commons included, no longer need to include the disclaimer things. Much neater. Remember to ask them to upload to Commons - that's even more clean.:)
 * A full copy as above of an image to Commons is fine for Commons.
 * If the image is then deleted from en.wikipedia.org, that makes the image use here not in compliance with the GFDL (only a link to the details the GFDL requires, not the details themselves). Remember that a link is not sufficient for GFDL compliance, it's just something most people choose not to file infringement complaints about. That means that we should process the image as a GFDL license infringment (which means copyvio) at en if it's deleted from en, since it's no longer GFDL use, just ignored infringment.

In short: it's a right mess at present and I suggest not doing it for GFDL images. The license really makes life tough (and wasn't helped by that disclaimer bit!).

The future is brighter if more development work and some cleaning up is done, though:
 * It can be made possible to copy an image, complete with all of its history.
 * It can be possible to display (and also dump) the full Commons image history with the en things, including displaying the Commons image page in en. At that point, with all of the GFDL things in place, it's no longer infringing the license here, so no need to treat it as a copyvio. (Until then any use of a GFDL image from Commons here is not in accord with the GFDL, unfortunately. But most people probably won't object, fortunately. While it means ignoring copyright infringments, for images initially uploaded to Commons, that may well be the best course - but making it worse by deleting images from here isn't a good idea, since a bot can take care of deleting all of them once it's cleaned up)
 * Either removing the disclaimer bit from the GFDL template or using a new GFDLUpload template without the disclaimer part would remove the disclaimer issue for images uploaded in the future. Please remember that this is a license granted to wikipedia.org by the uploader - so keep it as pure and simple GFDL as possible so we don't pick up extra requirements again!:)
 * Clearing up the mess for the current GFDL images which require the disclaimer really requires asking the uploader for a new, bare GFDL, license. Best to ask them to upload to Commons as well, since that helps with the other issues.

Also need to check the user page for any and all other licenses which apply and be sure to include all copyright and other copyright managment information (like uploader name, address, copyright date and such. US law makes it an offence to remove copyright management information so we have to be sure we preserve any of it which is associated via the user page. Best also to include a link to the user page on en on the Commons page. This still isn't perfect - the user may modify their license details on en and expect it to be appllying to the mved image if they don't know it has been moved. But at least it's a try. One reason why it's better to ask them to do it - they get to decide what they want to include and we successfully duck.:)

Yes, this is all very messy. Jamesday 08:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Would it be correct to say that images tagged as public domain such as from the USGS or NOAA do not have this issue of preserving history? Obviously, if you have moved an image from the English wiki (or other wiki) to Commons, information from the image description should be copied as well. RedWolf 03:53, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * It depednds. Mostly it's a GFDL issue. Do be sure to preserve what you can though, since moral rights exist in many jurisdictions and that grants (independent of any license) a right ot be associated (or not associated) with your work. Including for PD images. Use the Toby method to keep the license details here at en so it's not a license infringment at en. Jamesday 08:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Discussion location
In order to make a how-to on the Toby method, we need a "project page" in addition to this talk page. I suggest this discussion be moved to Wikipedia talk:Moving images to the Commons. dbenbenn | talk 06:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. --MarkSweep 08:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Redirects
There's no way to discover inline links to an image (links like Image:foo.image ). Hence, when an image here gets deleted in favor of a Commons version with a different name, I think it would make sense to put a redirect from the old image page to the new. Just in case it wasn't really an orphan. dbenbenn | talk 06:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

separating disclaimers from copyright tags
someone (perhaps ignorant of the way the gfdl treats disclaimers) added disclaimers to the gfdl tag. This poses problems when people copy images to places where the tag is defined differently (most notablly commons but other places too).

i propose the following soloution 1: find out when the disclaimer notices were added to the template. 2: have a bot go to all images the gfdl tag was applied to since the disclaimers were added to it and add the disclaimers directly into the page. 3: remove the disclaimers from the GFDL tag

I think its better NOT to wrap the disclaimer messages in a template to make sure they are preserved when someone transfers the image to another wiki.

the box above is what i think the bot should add immidiately below the gfdl tag on images where the tag was added during the appropriate time period. Plugwash 16:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

should there be a template for images that are duplicated on the commons
should there be a template (with category) for images that are duplicated on the commons for ease of future deleting, etc.? - Omegatron 00:23, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, there already is Template:NowCommons. Adding a category to that template may be sufficient. However, looking at the above discussion, perhaps we should distinguish between PD images that are also on the Commons (and can safely be deleted here), GFDL images, and perhaps others (I don't know what other cases are problematic). --MarkSweep 20:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

is there a tool for moving to commons yet?
i want to move almost all my images to the commons, but i don't want history, etc. to be destroyed. is there a tool for this yet? which page should i watch for progress on this tool? - Omegatron 14:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * This page seems to show the current state of things: Commons:Transfer script, though I suspect that this isn't the only idea floating around. - Pioneer-12 06:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So what happens after an image is moved to Commons?

 * (a) Is it speedily deleted?
 * (b) Does it have to go through the full deletion process?
 * (c) Is it deleted as soon at it meets the criteria at Images and media for deletion?

- Pioneer-12 06:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Simpler case of GFDL moves -- own images, single revision?
In case I have uploaded an image to commons, and the only version that had been on the English Wikipedia was mine as well, with just a single revision, and the only history changes being my clumsy attempt to craft the initial description/wfy it, is it fine to just speedy the images? Right now I have tagged such an example image with both and. BACbKA 21:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * i think this case is ok to speedy. Anyone else have any objections? Plugwash 21:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GFDL
"If the image is GFDL or cc-by, life is difficult."


 * ALL images uploaded to the wiki are GFDL, in addition to any other licenses they may have, correct? - Omegatron 00:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think all images are GFDL. All text is but not images. Consider copyrighted images used under fair use. They can't be GFDL. Somebody please confirm/correct this because I am not completely sure. Borb 5 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)
 * Images are not necessarily GFDL. Text is. Stifle 16:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing instructions on how to use the Commons
Suggest here putting on the main page of the Commons, right after the first or second paragraph a brief indication about how someone might access the media repository of the commons, like: "To find and download a media file stored in the commons, search for its contents by keyword in ..." or "To browse the contents of the Commons by category go to ...". My suggestion comes since after reading the Commons main page I still have no clue as to how to use them. If the information is contained somewhere in the long text, still I suggest moving it up to a more visible location. --Iani 14:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Commons: When? Why?
Discussion archived from Village pump (policy)

When and why should one put images/figures into the Wikimedia Commons rather than creating local files on Wikipedia? What are the advantages/disadvantages of using one rather than the other?

This information is probably written down somewhere, but I haven't been able to find it. Dragons flight 14:53, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * One advantage is that it is accessible to all Wikipedias (across langs). Guettarda 15:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Any images that could be used across different wiki projects are great candidates to go to the commons. Stuff like personal mugshots for your userpage and images to show a problem you have specifically on Wikipedia, probably belong here. And then there's the copyright policy on both projects you need to take into account. Mgm|(talk) 20:11, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Any file which is available under a free license should be uploaded to Commons to allow for easy use on all projects. The only real disadvantage is that you need to create an account there, and remember which site you're on. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 00:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate the above comments, I haven't heard a clear explanation of why I should add material to Commons. The only argument seems to be that it could make it easier for material to be used in other projects, but merely releasing an image under the GFDL does all the heavy lifting there. Someone looking for free images is likely to make Wikipedia one of their first steps, so Commons strikes me as largely redundant. So let me phrase my question more directly, why should I bother with Commons? Dragons flight 06:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Releasing under the GFDL is the easy part. Uploading, tagging, and providing a description is the hard part.  If you upload to the English Wikipedia, someone who wants to use the image on the French Wikipedia would have to save it and re-upload it.  Same with someone on the Spanish Wikipedia.  Same with someone on the Swahili Wikipedia.  On the other hand, if you upload it to Commons, all someone on the French Wikipedia would have to do is insert an [[Image:]] tag in the appropriate article.  Someone who wants to use it on Memory Alpha or Wikinfo would still have to save and re-upload it, but finding is a lot easier. --Carnildo 06:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You say a number of interesting things. However, let me turn this around, why should the Swahili Wikipedia tolerate images that are tagged and described in English?  Why would this Wikipedia want to use images that are described only in French?  In that respect it actually seems better for someone to reupload the image and describe it in the appropriate language.  Am I missing something?  And I would disagree that uploading, tagging, etc is hard.  Compared to the effort the creator of the image likely went to, it is unlikely that writing a description is more than a minor part of the process.  You also say that "finding is a lot easier".  Is there some quality of Commons that really it makes it much easier to find media related to a topic than say searching for that topic on Wikipedia?  If an image becomes orphaned or obsoleted, I can understand putting it somewhere else, but for images in active use on Wikipedia, its not clear to me that having it hosted on Commons would make any significant difference on how easily people find the image.  Dragons flight 00:04, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * The big difference is that Commons is one place. Wikipedia is somewhere upwards of 100 different places, as List of Wikipedias indicates. --Carnildo 00:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You should place an image on Commons if you think someone might use it in another Wiki project. For example, if you put an image on a page, and someone from the German Wikipedia links across and thinks s/he might want to use that image in that Wiki, all they need to do is copy the link if it is in the Commons.  If, on the other hand, the image is only on en. then they will have to download the image and reload it onto their own Wiki.  If your image is a graph with a lot of commentary in English it may me less useful in the Commons because it cannot be directly loaded into a foreign language Wikipedia.  Similarly, if you come across an image in a non-english Wiki, if it's in the Commons you can add it directly to your article just by copying the image location (and you don't have to worry about what the copyright tag in Estonian actually says).  Guettarda 06:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The Commons aims to be the largest collection of free images on the net. Uploading it there centralizes all images in one place for easy access and sorting. Mgm|(talk) 14:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

It's also not just other Wikipedias that can use the images directly from Commons, but all other Wikimedia Foundation projects. So, if you have an image that is useful to the English Wikipedia, it might also be useful to the English Wikibooks, English Wiktionary, English Wikinews, etc, as well as all the projects in other languages. Gentgeen 00:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Doesn't using images from the Commons (assuming they are tagged in a language foreign to the user) run the risk of having images incorrectly used?


 * For example: Consider this image of Benedict XVI from the Commons, with it's English description. A German user, who doesn't speak English, is writing an article on the pope's vestments, and while searching the Commons for images, comes upon this image and co-opts it for the German Wikipedia. He writes the description "the standard vestment of the Pope, worn for all public engagements." Unfortunatly, what the user would have known, if the image tags had been in German, is that the image is of the Pontiff when he was still a Cardinal, and wearing his cardinal's vestments.


 * Now, I realize that this scenario wouldn't cause an international incedent, but still, it's incorrect, and it pushes false information. I'm sure another user (one who edits more controversial areas of the wiki) could come up with a scenario where such a use would be an international incedent. Isn't this an inherent risk of publishing images in the Commons? Aren't they better off in the individual Wikipedias, where in this case, the need for a German tag for the German Wikipedia (where the image will be uploaded) would necessitate a translation and thus a realization of the mistake? Essjay •  talk 10:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Consider the case of someone translating articles between Wikis. Frequently they have a good command of the two languages they are working in, but it is still a fair bit of effort. Adding the task of downloading several images, uploading them to the other Wiki, tagging them, translating the image description page, attributing and linking to the original image source, and finally translating the caption and adding the images to the translated article, tends to make it too much trouble to bother. As such, quite a lot of translated articles don't get illustrated, or only get the lead image (pick a few decent sized articles and try looking through some of their inter-wiki links on the left).
 * Now if all the relevant images are already on Commons the translator just has to copy the same image tags and translate the captions.
 * It cuts both ways. If you look at some of the requests on Translation into English, you will find many of them are will illustrated on their native Wiki. For example the request to translate material from the de:Spirale, the English article at spiral. All those diagrams would be much easier to use on the English Wiki if only they were all hosted on the Commons, but they were mostly created in 2003 before Commons existed so they are all actually on the German wiki and can't be used directly.
 * Besides, the intention is for images on Commons to have captions and descriptions translated into a range of languages. See for example commons:Image:Robal.png -- Solipsist 12:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I know, I know. Really, I just wanted to be the bad guy for once...I'm always Mr. "I don't get involved with controversey because I'm an academic not an attorney" and I wanted to be ornery. I certainly see the point of having images in the Commons, although I do think that images should be multi-tagged, at least in whatever constitutes the "most popular languages" (the ones surrounding the globe on the page, perhaps?). As long as they are properly tagged (and truly, the tags could probably be auto-translated with something like  at least enough that anyone coming along to find the image could make out what it was supposed to say. Now, I'll go find something to do as pennance for being bad. Essjay •   talk 14:02, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Essjay may not want to play the bad guy any more, but I am happy to. Why is Robal.png not a perfect example of situations in which the commons must ultimately fail?  That image clearly requires an explanation.  Presently that explanation is provided in 3 langauges, but what about the next 3 languages, and the 10 after that, and the 50 after that.  Surely we do not want the commons image description to try to cover every language for which there is a wikipedia version.  Right now, any wikipedia could make a copy of that image and provide a description entirely in their own langauge without the clutter, which seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to me.  Of course, commons could implement multi-lingual support so that a single image had many different description pages depending on language preference, but we aren't there yet.  Dragons flight 15:17, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, I will grant you some of the translation issues on the Commons makes my mind boggle. And I don't think that all the tools are in place to make it easy (for example many of the categories are effectively English, except the natural history taxonomies which are Latin and makes me have to think twice). However, it does look like a big step forward for sharing images compared to having the pictures on the individual Wiki's. -- Solipsist 20:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Key benefits of the Commons:
 * Instant use. In the future, this may include availability on external free content websites. In a volunteer project like ours, every second of work we can save can make a big difference. If the only option is to download and re-upload an image from Wikinews to Wikipedia, or from the English Wikipedia to the German one, in practice, this will often mean that this is simply not going to be done. This is also confirmed by observation before the Commons was put into place, where the samller language Wikipedias often had no images at all, even though plenty of material existed. For an individual file, the work saved may be minor, the accumulated effect on image use across the projects is massive. For example, the Norwegian Wikipedia grew from 67 images in December 2003 to about 2000 images by September 2004, and from that to 8000 images by May 2005 (the second period is when the Commons was available). Even some of the smallest Wikipedias have grown to thousands of images thanks to the easy use of the Commons.
 * Storage space. Wikimedia's resources are very limited and funded entirely by donations. Already, the Commons is taking up 40 gigabytes of space, and this amount will likely multiply in coming years. In computing the cost of this space, you cannot simply take the prices for current harddisk space, but you must keep in mind reliability and backup requirements, thumbnail and metadata processing time, etc. This makes it highly undesirable to adopt a system where images and larger files are multiplied across several projects.
 * A community with a strong understanding of copyright makes sure that the archive only includes free content, making content generally safe to use at least from a legal perspective. This discourages the common practice to simply take an image from another Wikipedia and claim it to be safe because it was "on Wikipedia" (which is not true, as images on WP are a) often tagged incorrectly or not at all, b) fair use exceptions vary from language to language and from project to project).
 * Galleries can be built regardless of present need or use. This leads to a much larger variety of content. See the 100,000 files press release for examples of the diverse content that is already available. The Commons is quickly growing to become the largest archive of useful free media files in history, much of it user-produced, and this role is important beyond its significance within the Wikimedia project framework.

Current disadvantages:
 * Licensing information and image descriptions are not passed on from the Commons to the using wikis; instead, users have to click through to get the information.
 * No support for internationalization in descriptions or categories. In description, this is addressed by having a multitude of texts on a description page, in categories, there is no solution other than trying to agree on "language-neutral" names, such as Latin names for biological taxonomies.

The benefits of the Commons are here right now, and the disadvantages will likely be remedied in the future. As such, I would argue that there is a very strong general use case for the Commons, but also a good case for technical improvements.--Eloquence* June 29, 2005 15:06 (UTC)

Appended later:

Another huge benefit of the Commons is that it prevents extra labor for people making diagrams or filling photograph requests. Often a diagram or schematic or graph or photo of a specific object is already available on another language wiki, but is hard to find if you don't speak the language. So a user on the French wiki spends 30 minutes making the same diagram that I already made on the English wiki, and so on. It prevents a lot of wasted effort. And hey, maybe his is better. Now I'll be able to easily replace my inferior version with his. The language issue is solved by not putting language-specific text in the image (only in captions) or by uploading an additional no-text version, or by uploading instructions on how to reproduce the image, if it is generated by a graphical programming language or whatever. - Omegatron July 7, 2005 20:18 (UTC)

Another issue
There is another issue, unrelated to GFDL and such, that I've run into with images being moved to Commons. After an image has been moved to Commons, and the one on Wikipedia deleted, when an image with the same name is uploaded to Wikipedia, the Commons version becomes inaccessible from Wikipedia. For example, the Wolverine page had a photo of a wolverine called Wolverine.jpg in its taxobox. This image was moved to Commons a while ago, and the Wiki version was deleted. All was fine until a few months later, a scan of the X2: Wolverine's Revenge video game cover was uploaded as Image:Wolverine.jpg, thus the wolverine aticle now had a picture of a game cover in its taxobox. As soon as someone noticed this, the image was simply removed from the article. Luckily, I noticed this and relised what had happened, so I had to save the commons image (actually, I went to the image source and got a higher quality version), upload it under a different name (Image:Wolverine perching.jpg) and place it in the taxobox. This could've been avoided if a description page was created on Wikipedia for the Commons image after the original Wikipedia image was deleted, and it is probably a good idea to recommend or require a local description page to be created for all images moved to the Commons. Would everyone agree with this, or are there any objections? --Aram&#1379;&#1400;&#1410;&#1407;&#1377;&#1398;&#1379;a|  03:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
One of the problems with commons images is that there is a relatively small number of admins on commons, and so there may be difficulty dealing with vandalism of commons images since the tools of page protection and user blocking are unavailable to en admins for commons images. This may pose a problem for images used on prominent articles such as George W. Bush. Futher, the fact that edits to commons images do not appear in en recent changes may complicate attempts to figure out what has happened. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Same filename or different
But it makes life for Wikipedia admins easier if you use the same filename at the Commons because there's no need to modify articles using the old filename.

1 - if you're moving to commons, surely YOU should be updating any image links, no waiting for admins to clean up after you. and 2, if you give it the same file name, and the one here locally on en has not been deleted, the image will continue to be sourced from en. I thought a better idea would be to fix all links to the new commons image (if it has a different name), which would allow the local image to be orphaned? pfctdayelise 21:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is definetely easier to retain the original filename, an admin only has to check whether the file is really availabel and correctly tagged with all information as well as categorized or in article. Then the image should be deleted and bang, all article using the local image now use the Commons image. Very often images from en float around the world in other wikis often retaining the en filename. Makes life for other wiki admins easier,too. --Denniss 23:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * On a slightly related note, I was trying to determine how to add an image that I had uploaded (directly) to the commons. It's been a while since I've done so, so I wasn't sure if a prefix was required (such as when linking to content on another Wikipedia), and I thought that this article would say so. I suggest it be clarified on this page that images in the commons can be linked directly on the Wikipedia page, though I am not familiar enough with the structure of this page to best guess where to put it. Either in the intro or in the paragraph with the above-quoted text. This should help remove a level of confusion for people weary of uploading to the commons (as opposed to people like me who are simply too lazy to find the right help page ;-) ). --RealGrouchy (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons Helper
Very handy tool. also note the existence of WP:MFIC (Wikiproject for moving free images to the Commons). pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am missing the possibility to request for move
Many times I would like to have, some of pictures present here, having on Commons to reuse them on different project. (Often cs:) I wished I had the possibility to just tag the image with some template and with the merry expectation that there would some transwiki come in place after some time.

But there seems not to be a chance for something like this at present, at least I see no mention of anything similar in project page or in commons. So what I am (we are) expected to do?

Now I prefer to save and upload latest version of image in target project and to give a link to page history of the source.

I do not upload in the commons (even though I greatly acknowledge commons idea), because if I would copy image directly in the Commons, what will happen with it's originall history? History on en: would be deleted and Commons would not contein it. Would'nt be transwiki the best option then? Anyway if there exists already now some solution, then it would be beneficial for all projects and very kind fromi him, if someone more experienced and willing would transfer images on request (ie images with the tag-template), because this is really easilly confusing matter.  R eo  ON    |   + + +  00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you tried using the CommonsHelper tool? It will help you make sure you copy all the relevant info like history. pfctdayelise (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I did not. Yet. Maybe I will try, but it seems to a bit more complicated to learn and use and I will have to find time for it. But again, thank you for your response.  R eo  ON   |   + + +  21:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You could always just tag them with Copy to Wikimedia Commons and hope somebody else does the bob for you. // Liftarn

Barnstar discussion
Please see this discussion about possibly adding a Barnstar for people who make simultaneous contributions to Wikipedia and Commons. We welcome your thoughts. Johntex\talk 15:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup. --evrik (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think?
Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons/UBX Just curious. --evrik (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a Wikipedian who don't agree with that? // Liftarn


 * What about a template? Where should we put it? Should we link the box to a category? --evrik (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please
Would an admin please do something with this image Image:Saint Rita.jpg? --evrik (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please move to commons or instruct me how to
I believe http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Hugo_von_Hohenlandenberg.jpg is an excellent puiblic domain candidate to be moved to commons. Could someone please do this, or instruct me how? Guroadrunner 12:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Bockstorfer_Altar_Mitte.jpg also. Guroadrunner 12:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They both seems to be on Commons. Why not install CommonsHelper Helper for future use? // Liftarn


 * I'll see if that works. I next want to add http://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Att%C4%93ls:Barons.jpg from the Latvian wiki. Thanks Liftarn -- Guroadrunner 12:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * CommonsHelperHelper isn't available in Latian yet, but you could use CommonsHelper instead. But that image has no source nor license. // Liftarn


 * The image is a photo of a person who died in 1923, so I would argue it is likely public domain. In fact... let me see if I can find the photo somewhere else in English - maybe that is the solution. Guroadrunner 14:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * When copyright lapses is based on the time if death since the photographer, not the subject. // Liftarn

Correction needed
Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons says the ncd template needs to be there for 7 days. The template says the image can be deleted immediately once the requirements listed on the template page have been satisfied. That should be made more clear - immediate or after 7 days. - Taxman Talk 03:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

CommonsHelper?
Am I doing something wrong, or is the CommonsHelper tool not working currently? -Seidenstud 07:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind. It seems to be working now! -Seidenstud 08:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks later -- not working? Kane5187 19:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's back! Kane5187 14:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

CommonsHelper
Should the Image: namespace be added to the Image name text box? -- Howard  the   Duck  14:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. // Liftarn (talk)

Please be careful!
Someone moved to the commons but didn't copy the OTRS ticket number with it that had the proof that I had secured permission from Birdlife International and lodged it with the Wikimedia Foundation. I've emailed the foundation again with the permission, but it easily could have been lost. Now I see that is due to be transwikied but I see no evidence that the ticket is something that should be included on this page. If we're going to upload something we didn't create it is important to show clearly we have permission to do so. Please transwiki this stuff too when you move the prion picture. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  03:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Maria Pia de Bragança
I believe that the public domain picture is an excellent candidate to be moved to Commons. Could someone finally do this? 84.90.92.195 (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Millennium Park
This page says: "for instance, most of the images in the Millennium Park article cannot be hosted on Commons."

This appears to be no longer true: most of the images in the current version of that are already Free and hosted on Commons. (It's good that it was written here, though, because otherwise i may have missed those beautiful images.)

I am replacing it with the following: "for instance, most images of album cover art cannot be hosted on Commons."

Feel free to replace with anything better. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:38, 25 July 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) 17:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Pages created for images that are on Commons
Besides, I guess, featured pictures, is there anything that should have a page here when the media file itself is uploaded on Commons? I have been browsing Category:Images of birds and noticed when a few images (e.g. 1, 2, 3; some former FPC candidates - how annoying!) that don't actually exist here, but a page has been created solely to categorize them. Since categorization and presentation is really a Commons thing, especially given how poor media categorization is here at Wikipedia, I don't see any purpose in this and think we should have as part of a guideline somewhere instructions not to do this. Richard001 (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 05:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Request
Can someone move this image to Commons for me please, I've ballsed it up twice. I upload all of my images to Commons now, this one is just old. Cheers, Ryan Ryan 4314   (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Common Good (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers mate. Ryan 4314   (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rats
I attempted to move an image to Commons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger2.jpg

En Wikipedia thinks it has been moved, but it does not appear on Commons. P0M (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you uploaded a copy to Commons? OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to use the automatic process suggested on the current page for that image.P0M (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to be o.k. now.P0M (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploading AVI files created an error
I used Commonist to upload an few files to Commons:Category:Vakgemaal De Leyens but uploading two AVI files of the turning screws of Archimedes created an error. AVI files of about 16 MB. Special trick needed of other format? --Stunteltje (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * RTFM was the answer. Transferred the files to OGG format. Two problems remain: First is that on my browser Firefox they don't show an move other than the slide under de picture and giving an error and second is that the file is too lang. Can somebody cut the files in half? --Stunteltje (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
Copy to Wikimedia Commons was nominated for deletion. Deletion discussion is at: Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 14 Philly jawn (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Two images with the same name
I just happened to came across with an error: there´s a file here in wikipedia which name is: File:Gconf-editor.png, and the problem is that a file with the exact name also exists in commons. I tried to export the file here into commons with another name, but it says that "it has no verificable good license". And even if it´s moved into commons, the file here won´t be erased, so i won´t be able to 'call' the other image that is in commons, so, how can i get help with this (like deleting it)? - Damërung  ...ÏìíÏ..._ Ξ_         .   --  14:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I moved the image to commons as File:Gconf-editor-screenshot.png, and marked the existing local screenshot as a duplicate of the one on Commons. – Quadell (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh thank you. - Damërung  ...ÏìíÏ..._ Ξ_         .   --  19:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Convert/merge two images to Commons
Will somebody please help me to convert/merge these two images File:NationalMedalofArts.jpg and File:Minute Waltz, by Chopin - Performed by Sergej Rachmaninoff.ogg to Commons? I have tried for some times ago, but it was too difficult for me. The process about "TUSC" is difficult, I do not understand it. I hope that someone please will do it for me. Thank you very much. Fanoftheworld (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Common Good (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Fanoftheworld (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment from a Commons admin
Every image on Commons must have a source, otherwise it will be deleted... Wikipedia has the same rule, but I just want to reiterate it, in an effort to save people the time of moving images that don't have sources. Even if it is in the public domain (, etc.) it still needs a source or it will be deleted. Please see here for more info. Just a reminder. :-) Killiondude (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have started a checklist at the Tips section. -84user (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

How often are these pages read
These pages have useful advice. But are the image movers reading them? To determine what the users might be reading here are some unscientific November 2009 traffic numbers from http://stats.grok.se/. These were pages that I suspect the typical image mover might click on. -84user (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Request move File:Slanted_circle.png
Hello, I am not so firm with moving Images from here to Commons, can anybody move this Image to Commons, that we can use this usefull picture in the German Wikipedia, too? Thank you very much. Wohingenau (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Common Good (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Commons conflict
FYI, Commons conflict has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Mass transfer comming up
Multichill and I are working on a mass transfer of images to Commons. Our plan is to start with the images in Category:User-created public domain images. It should be own work when users upload with PD-self so unless an other author is mentioned or there is some reason to suspect that it is not own work then there should be no problems with copyrights.

Multichill made a pywikipedia script to help us transfer the PD-self images. Also NowCommons has been fixed so it is possible to mark the files as reviewed - that should help the admins. There is a script for the review (User:MGA73/nowcommonsreview.js) so that images can be reviewed or marked as not ok with one click.

Everyone could help. We need to check the images befor transfer to see if they are copyvios or if they are useless. In both cases they should be nominated for deletion. If the file is allready on Commons then the image should be checked and reviewed/deleted.

To make it more fun and easy perhaps we should make a "working page" where we could note which subcategory we are working on (next) so any user that wants to assist can help check the images before the transfers start.

Perhaps we could make a change to ToCommons so it is possible for users to mark the files as reviewed. That way it is easy to see if an image has been checked and is ready to transfer.

Any ideas are welcome. --MGA73 (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Need help!
I uploaded some works by Iranian artist Javad Alizadeh into Wikipedia, but I couldn't move them to the commons because the website is banned in Iran. Could someone do me a favor and move them to the sister project? Thanks.Farhikht (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Davidlowrendezvous.png
Can the file:Davidlowrendezvous.png be moved to Commons? Radu Gherasim (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved Dpmuk (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving images to the Commons → Moving files to the Commons — "File" seems to be the universal terminology on these types of pages now. Kelly hi! 19:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support, as it obviously includes all filetypes and there is no other/alt process for !image files and "File:" is the modern wikilink for them. Make sure to keep a redirect though. FWIW, Help:Image page is already a redirect to Help:File page. DMacks (talk) 07:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * Support. But this can probably just be done without bothering with a formal move request. NW ( Talk ) 22:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't sure so I decided to play it safe. Kelly  hi! 22:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, but is "the Commons" wiki-idiom? I'd have dropped the "the".--Kotniski (talk) 09:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

List of free images sorter per day - assistance most welcome
As an attempt to make the move to Commons process more effecient Multichill has launched a new initiative: User:Multichill/Free uploads.

His bot makes a list of free images (files nominated for deletion are excluded) and put them in a gallery. The task is to check the galleries for obvious and possible copyvios and bad files to get them deleted/tagged for deletion. Once a gallery is checked it is easier to move the rest of the files to Commons. Users with a pywikipedia bot should try imagecopy_self.py and have fun :-)

It is not needed to tag with a  mtc since files will be moved anyway if they are ok. If you feel like helping you can leave us a note or just check some files when you have some time. You are also welcome to move files to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bookmarklet
A handy way for efficiently moving files to the Commons is to use a bookmarklet: Once created it even works any Wikipedia. --Leyo 18:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"See the discussion on the talk page."
The reader is told in the lead paragraph of this article, Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons, "See the discussion on the talk page." This is a lazy way of helping someone to find out about moving files because if you select "Print Preview" in your browser while the talk page is open, it amount to 21 pages of text to read, today. That is overwhelming to someone who simply wants to move a file and it is not an ergonomic way to provide Help, which should be succinct. This is a glaring example of TLDR. — O'Dea (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Image:OM-4T-1.jpg
Please move this image to Commons.


 * Done. // Liftarn

Move bot suggestion
Wouldn't it be possible to make a bot that works trough Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons and moves the files to Commons? A sort of combination between CommonsHelper and FlickrLickr. // Liftarn

OTRS verification
Should images with OTRS tickets be moved to commons? I think that they should, that we change the current wording on this page to reflect that. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  03:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an important question. I'd like to know the answer to this as well. – Quadell (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Update: You don't have to do anything differently. The templates work the same, and the ticketing system is shared between them, so just treat them like you would any other free image. – Quadell (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is at least one of the OTRS templates (I think PermissionOTRS) where the ticket number does not transfer correctly with CommonsHelper and you have to be careful to do it manually. Long ago I tried to get someone to fix this with a bot but couldn't get any help. Kelly  hi! 21:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Script, add move to commons on top
Add to your Special:MyPage/skin.js:

function move { if (wgNamespaceNumber == 6) { addPortletLink("p-cactions", "http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commonshelper.php?interface="+wgContentLanguage+"&image="+wgTitle+"&lang=en&commonsense=1&reallydirectupload=1", "To Commons"); } } addOnloadHook(move);

As scripts suggested on this page (no the talk page) were irritating and or not working Bulwersator (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Which ones? I still prefer the bookmarklet. --Leyo 16:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This script is very helpful, it adds file moving related links to the sidebar tool box. This script is also added to your Special:MyPage/skin.js Page. (documentation)

// mw.loader.load('//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Krinkle/Scripts/OneClickCommoniser.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); Mlpearc  powwow  16:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

A short How-To, made for the September drive
I have created an abbreviated "How To" guide, specially made for the September Move-To-Commons drive. My short guide is at User:Quadell/MoveToCommons guide. I hope it is helpful. – Quadell (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki links
I have recently tried moving a few images from English Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons. One problem I've noticed is that the same image sometimes is stored locally on several Wikipedia projects, and it might not be easy to spot this. Would it be possible to let some bot generate interwiki links for all images stored on several projects so that deletion can be requested everywhere at the same time? It should be easy to do this if the file name is the same (search for other wikis with a file with the same name and then check if the contents are the same). To cover the cases where the file name is different, maybe all images could be sorted by some hash value before checking whether they are identical. Interwiki links would also help tracking several copies of the same "fair use" image across several project, and it could help sorting out licence problems if the same free image is available on several projects but with incomplete licensing information on some of the projects. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bots can just run on each wiki from time to time and tag files with a "NowCommons". But as far as I know we do not have a "fair use"-bot. It would perhaps be a good idea to add hash value to some database so it is fast and easy to find files that is uploaded more than once. If hash for deleted files is also added it would also be very easy to find out where badly sourced files was originally uploaded. --MGA73 (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's also an option. However, if the file uses a licence which requires keeping the history, it would be nice to find the oldest upload and move that one to Commons (in order to get the correct history). It would also be useful to check whether the article has contradicting templates. For example, today I had an issue with an image marked as "move to Commons" on English Wikipedia and "don't move to Commons" on German Wikipedia. These cases might be harder to spot without interwiki links. I only noticed this because I accidentally looked at the articles about the guy on all different Wikipedia projects. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You might be intested in de:Kategorie:Datei:Identisch. Its main purpose is that a file is transferred from its original place (usually uploaded by the author) to Commons in order to preserve the information given. --Leyo 22:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

How can I test my commonshelper bookmarklet without breaking something
have read the page and I think I have a good grasp on moving files. I want to test my bookmarklet without causing a problem. Any suggestions? --Adam in MO Talk 10:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I figured it out.--Adam in MO Talk 10:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned but free images
I have been helping with the WikiProject_Images_and_Media/Commons/Drives/Jan_2012.

However, I'm not sure about alot of image tagged to move to commons are unused, but are free. Should these Items be moved or left on the local Wikipedia? The "What not to transfer" sections say they shouldn't be marked for deletion, but doesn't address if they should they be moved.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Moving orphaned files to Commons and categorizing them there makes them “visible”. If a file is worth to be moved or if it should get deleted has to be decided on an individual basis. --Leyo 16:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you give me some examples of images that would be good to move and not good to move. I hate not knowing what to do.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to move: non-personal photographs (of sufficient quality), good quality graphics, etc.
 * Better delete: personal (non-encyclopedic) photographs, good quality, replaced graphics, etc.
 * I quickly went through Special:UnusedFiles and picked one good example (File:Jb reform alamo 1 e.jpg: drawing of notable artist) and three bad examples (File:Iceland satellite image.jpg and File:USS Wasp LHD-1.jpg: a version of higher resolution is available on Commons; File:Bittersweet3900.JPG: many better versions in commons:Category:Solanum dulcamara). In the case of File:Timeline Earth Geological.png (replaced by Template:Timeline geological timescale) I am undecided. --Leyo 16:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Images with embedded English-language text
Should images which contain text be kept off Commons? They are of no use to any other language Wikipedia unless the text is translated. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:817 (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No they could be usefull even if the text is in English. Once a file is moved to Commons and categorized properly it is very easy to find and reuse. --MGA73 (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Some Pics to commons
Hi, is it possible that someone transferred here are some pictures to commons. The images are already characterized by a bot. The processing continues for a relatively long time. It would be the following images:

File:Time Cover E L Cord 1932.jpg, File:Sociable 3.gif, File:Sociable 2.jpg , File:Sociable.ogg

Thanks --217.246.213.6 (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See Possibly unfree files/2012 August 6 --Leyo 17:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The file was deleted. I am not sure what to do with the three remaining files. --Leyo 08:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ways to find good files easier
With 324,564 files in Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (bot-assessed) and 181,856 files in Category:Move to Commons Priority Candidates there is a lot of work ahead before these categories can be emptied.

I have been talking with other users how to find files to move easily and there is no easy way to avoid junk, copyvios (like derivative work and Internet files).

A suggestion is to combine:
 * The category with free files that is in use (Category:Move to Commons Priority Candidates) with
 * Files that is licensed as "Own work" (for example PD-self) and
 * Photos used in articles in
 * about counties with Freedom of panorama,
 * about animals,
 * about plants or
 * about persons and perhaps also
 * A filled out Information template.

Instead of creating 25 categories and changing 150,000 files we could start with one of the categories we expect to be small and without problems. For example a category with plants or animals.

However, I think the template is complex enough so we need to discuss it before we start. So any other ideas? Comments? --MGA73 (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I just moved this post from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Images_and_Media/Commons. I think it fits better here. --MGA73 (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I prefer to Google for most files I move before moving them, and by doing this, I tend to find lots of copyvios. Googling somehow disables automated bot moving. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If a user gets a selection of files that he has a certain “relation” with, it might be easiest for judging. For the three of us this might be images from Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland. In de-WP, there is an convenient way of getting a list of files in the defined category tree. --Leyo 23:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. But personally I would know of everything just because it is related to Denmark :-) I had a suggestion some time ago in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Images_and_Media/Commons/Drives about making galleries of files with a specific word in the title. For example the words train and locomotive. The trick is not just to make good lists but also to have someone work on them :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you create a “Swiss” gallery for me with < 1000 images, I will take care of it. --Leyo 19:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A gallery of files with “Swiss” in the file name is easy: User:Leyo/Swiss. But creating a gallery of files used in articles related to Switzerland is harder. I will probably need some help for that. --MGA73 (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am working on it. BTW: Adapted the gallery to use using Template:IsLocal. Files that have already been moved to Commons will disappear automatically from the gallery. I think that this is quite convenient. --Leyo 08:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Very cool :-) --MGA73 (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See also User talk:Multichill. --Leyo 15:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Unusable pictures
What we should do with pictures that are used somewhere in completely unimportant place and are impossible to be reused? Files like File:SiphonWithoutReservoirsAndBubbleTop.png - used only on Talk:Siphon/Archive 3.

I see possibilities Bulwersator (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * nominate for deletion - but still, we destroy pages (maybe unimportant, but...)
 * transfer to Commons - pollute it with unusable files?
 * tag with Template:Free but useless or something similar (Template:Do not move to Commons is not right as it mentions legal problems " non-free or potentially non-free in its country of origin")


 * I think that all free files belong on Commons. It is just a matter of finding the right category to put on the file.
 * However, I think it would be a good idea to have a general discussion if we want to keep discussions complete forever. --MGA73 (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coords on linear features.jpg - image of this type was deleted, despite being in use on enwiki Bulwersator (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that Single use may be better name Bulwersator (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Aaargg... Fuck that... Whats the point of trying to get users and Wikis to upload files to Commons if the files are just deleted? I'm wasting my time... --MGA73 (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case author requested deletion Bulwersator (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Now commons dated
I am unsure if this template should have been deleted, but I did not remark the deletion request early enough. It seems that the nominator was not well informed. Personally, I've always used {{subst:ncd}}. --Leyo 07:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This looks wrong. I frequently use {{subst:ncd}} when marking a file as being available on Commons. It saves me the time to type in a date manually. The template wasn't on my watchlist, so I didn't notice the deletion request until the template already had been deleted. Otherwise, I would have opposed deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are also templates such as Nominated for deletion on Commons which ask you to use {{subst:ncd}}. They should have been updated before deletion. I have notified the deleting administrator about this discussion and I also posted a notice at WT:TW. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I edit conflict messaged Plastikspork; surely he will undelete it. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not undeleted yet, it really should be, ASAP.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  18:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

TUSC
I tried to create an account on TUSC but it redirects me to the previous page, I tried both of those links but it doesn't work. Is it a regular problem? Thanks for your help.Farhikht (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you going to tools.wmflabs.org/tusc/? Are you logged into Commons? What are you listing for "language", "project", and "user name there"? – Quadell (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Quadell for your answer. Yes, I'm going to that link, then I click on "Register TUSC account" which redirects me to the same page. For the language and project I have chosen "commons" and "wikimedia" by default and "Farhikht" as user name. I didn't log into Commons. Could you please help me?Farhikht (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Well, I signed up with TUSC a long time ago, so I'm not sure the details here. It's odd that there doesn't seem to be a "submit" button. Does anyone else know what's going on here? – Quadell (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there any other way to move files to Commons without using TUSC?Farhikht (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So far as I know, using a TUSC account is by far the easiest way. You might try asking about how to get a TUSC account at Help desk or Village pump (technical). – Quadell (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I see what's going on. Okay, first, make sure you are logged in on Commons. Then, just as you said, go to tools.wmflabs.org/tusc/ and use "commons" and "wikimedia" by default and "Farhikht" as user name. Then type any password in the first "TUSC password" box, and retype the same password in the second "TUSC password" box. (This does not have to be the same as your Wikipedia or Commons password. It just needs to be something you can remember.) Once you have done this, a large blue button will automatically appear that says "Edit Commons.Wikimedia to activate your TUSC access". Click on it, and it will open a new tab to get you to temporarily edit your userpage on Commons to place in a code. This may seem silly, since you don't really want a random code there, but it's the only way to verify that you are who you say you are. Just follow the instructions and it should work out fine. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Userbox
I created a userbox relating to this page. See below. You can use it by using. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Renaming files
I just read the introduction, but it doesnt say anything about naming. Should a file be renamed, e.g. I moved file:WinchesterBottle2.JPG. Is it preferred to rename it to e.g. Winchester bottle.jpg - or doest it really matter? Christian75 (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO commons:Commons:File renaming should generally be followed also for moving files from Wikipedia to Commons. --Leyo 20:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

File → Commons
Hi! As far as I'm not very sure how it works, I prefer asking here before moving files. I've found a file flagged by a bot, unfortunatelly retired nowadays, that should be moved to Commons. If any kind soul can answer I'd be glad to be pinged (@) in order to receive the notification, for I'm not very active in this Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. --Judesba (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

assistant can't find file
The file eo:Dosiero:Brajla alfabeto.gif "doesn't exist" at eo.WP, according to Move-to-commons assistant. Can s.o. move it over? — kwami (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The New Commons Upload tool is defective
There are two images I'm trying to upload to the commons, and the moment I post the link, the new upload tool claims it doesn't exist. In a previous attempt to upload it, the tool ask for my TUSC code right away, and I wasn't able to get it. The new tool for uploading images from Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons stinks to high heaven! ---User:DanTD (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

CommonsHelper: ERROR: Warning
CommonsHelper now gives me the message "ERROR: Warning" when I attempt to move files to Commons, even if I have "Ignore warnings" checked. Hyacinth (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Vector versions
I can't find any guidance about moving files to Commons where a file is tagged with Vector version available. It would seem redundant to move such files, given that their use is deprecated. Any ideas? Philg88 ♦talk 16:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * A couple of thoughts:
 * Although raster images are indeed inferior in several ways, the Commons mandate extends beyond use in WMF projects, where the servers automagically provide thumbnails and other renderings. Outside content-reusers may prefer the convenience & backward-compatibility of a raster version. So an image of decent size & quality is not necessarily useless to everyone. (Note the vectors-available template qualifies its recommendation with “where superior” or something like that.)
 * I would check out the SVG before assuming it’s an improvement: there are quite a few poor auto-tracings and other sub-optimal drawings (even some files in which the SVG format is just a ‘wrapper’ for a bitmap). In such cases a decent-quality image could be the basis for a better vector version.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  22:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Bot to transfer files in Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons reviewed by Sfan00 IMG
Please see Bot_requests. 103.6.159.65 (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Metadata and file description of commons transfers
I have noticed that metadata from my files has not been scrupulously transferred to commons when these have been "migrated" to commons. In my case, this usually includes source code for generating the image. This should be a requirement of the transfer process, but I see that the page here is unclear what kinds of information to transfer to commons. I am of the opinion that the entire description page should at least appear in the edit history of the commons article. Does this guideline provide any guidance on this? Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Maintaining history when moving files
Hello. I'm sure many of you (like myself), hate deleting precious history on enwiki, when transferring files to Commons. This could all change! Keep an eye out on this page. Cheers, Reh  man  04:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Maintaining history when moving files – the beta feature FileExporter
Hello! As mentioned by Rehman last year, the Technical Wishes project is working on a technical solution to maintain file and page history when importing files from local wikis to Wikimedia Commons: The FileExporter has been a beta feature on a few first wikis since June. Since then, bugs were fixed and features added. Now it’s a beta feature on all wikis, and we’d be happy to hear your thoughts on this on the central talk page.

The page of the wish has more information, including a step-by-step guide and some important information about how to get started. -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)