This is an archive of past discussions about Wikimedia Commons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Could somebody write a short piece about the logo, its symbolism etc?
The logo was created by Reidab, originally as a submission to the Wikinews logo contest (one among several designs he made for that purpose). [1] I suggested to Reidab that he should submit it to the Commons logo contest instead, as I thought it was much more appropriate there. So, the Commons symbolism is accidental, though I've always interpreted it as "people putting something into a central repository (many arrows), to be used in a larger context (single big arrow)."--Eloquence*01:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I have a lot of trouble remembering how to get there, and so thought this article on the subject should link to it prominently.Andysoh21:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
deep sea fish
Could we have some improved deep sea fish articles please?
Photos would of course be nice, but I know they are hard.
Zantaggerung04:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete
I strongly believe this article should not be deleted as it appears to be a valid encyclopedia article relating to the wikimedia commons. It is accurate, precise and does not exist in duplicate. It is not a promotional article for the commons either.
Theonlysilentbob
So, this article is tagged for not having third party sources. That's going to be somewhat difficult because the press doesn't like to write about Commons in the same way they like to write about Wikipedia. Nonetheless I don't see any unsourced or innacurate statements. So is this article doomed to wear this tag until a journo takes interest or could it be safely de-tagged? pfctdayelise (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If it isn't able to be sourced, it must be deleted. We can't just have Wikipedia cruft hanging around because we think it's important. If a reliable source has not written about Commons (or any other Wikipedia or sister project for that matter), this article should be merged into Wikimedia foundation and redirected. Richard001
Someone please add more information about what the logo means beside "The project logo was created by Reid Beels, who had initially submitted it to a logo contest for Wikinews. It was entered into the Commons logo competition, which it won, and was officially adopted in November 2004."..thanks--Alnokta08:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Image of 4 Carlton Gardens, London SW1
Apologies if this is not the right place to make a request, but is there someone in central London who could take some shots of the above? This was the HQ of De Gaulle and the Free French in WW2; images would be useful for historical articles. It would be nice to have shots of the building and of the statue of De Gaulle which is nearby. Mikeo1938 (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just seen another reference to Carlton Gardens and this indicates that the Free French HQ was at Number 3. So if anyone is going to take these shots, pse do both houses. Mikeo1938 (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that there is a blue plaque on the house; a picture of this would be a useful addition to Commons. Is anyone able to oblige with these shots?Mikeo1938 (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The fotothek and Bundesarchiv donations are not mentioned. Can somebody add them - I could, but I am in a rush and at a work computer. It would actually be best if it was under a separate section header, like "major file donations".
125.236.217.145 (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
A template message told me that an image was being discussed for deletion here. Unfortunately, I can't easily find anything of the sort going on here. If Commons includes deletion discussions, the template did not provide a link to them, nor was I able to find anything of the sort linked on the main page (which the template did provide a link to, while claiming that there was a deletion discussion going on here, which I couldn't find). Heather (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Beau Coup Images
Amherst Records sent an email last week giving permission to use copyrighted photos of Beau Coups Born n Raised on Rock n Roll album cover to use on Beau Coups page. How do I find out the status of that? I don't want to load the pictures back without proper approval from you. Thanks for your help!! Mmcard59 (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Curious about Commons?
This is probably not fit for the article proper, so I'll put it here. If you're a Wikipedian who's interested in getting to know the Commons, have a read of Wikipedia:Commons, which provides some guidelines and comparisons with Wikipedia. pfctdayelise11:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Patent images and copyright
I found a patent that describes a piece of equipment I'm doing an article for. The patent has an image that would be good for illustrating the article, and it's from 1876 (very old). Would that image be acceptable to upload? I don't know if being more than 100 years old means the picture is copyright free.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sociotard (talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 January 2006
This is a very, very, very bad idea. It defies everything wiki. It's one thing to see your work transformed before your eyes. It's quite another to privatize it. Further there is arrogance in its implementation by hijacking wikipedia commons.
I no longer trust Wikipedia Commons and will no longer post pictures to it and may even withdraw pictures I have posted to it. The damage has been done.
I think you quite misunderstand. The proposal was to put this article onto a CD version of Wikipedia. That's all. As it is, I suggested they remove it, because this is not a very vital article. At any rate I don't know what your opposition to the CD format is. They don't make it CD-only, they simply sell a CD to anyone who wants to buy one (without hiding the fact that it's still available freely). In many parts of the world bandwidth makes viewing Wikipedia (and definitely the Commons) a nightmare. For these people a CD format is a trillion times more convenient and useful. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the slippery slope that occurs when you start selling Wiki. Lots of people donate vast amounts of time working on the project with no hope of compensation. Part of the addiction is seeing your work evolve. You do not get that feedback if its on CD. Further, while folks are giving away material to the commons there's some feeling of control that the work is mostly going to be applied to wiki articles only. Once you start selling Wiki even if it's for a trivial price you're down the slippery slope. There's a perception that graphics given away as free could be turned into for profit projects. As we've seen with other nonprofit projects such as skype and flickr, wikipedia is probably worth billions of dollars if it were sold. The CD -- even if its intention was purely honorable -- would appear to be the first marketing move. To me the damage is done.Americasroof13:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well indeed the damage is done because the German Wikipedia has been selling a CD for donkey's years, and apparently the sky hasn't fallen in over there. We're just catching up!!
Allowing commercial use is an extremely strong part of the Wikimedia licensing philosophy. The GFDL and all licenses that commons: accept explicitly allow commercial use, i.e. you can sell it.
I'm an amateur photographer and I have taken some interesting pictures (all from Cuba, where I live), I want to contribute with some photos that could be useful to wikipedians, I'm a complete newb in Wikipedia, so how can I help? (I can make logos too).
KatKiller06:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I often browse the wikicommons to see all the wonderful stuff that's been put in here. I am interested in using a few images in commercial endeavors but don't want to step on any toes by violating any rights.
So, my question:
If an image exists at all in the wikimedia commons does that mean that it is available to use in any commercial venture? A couple of images I looked at carry ONLY the GNU license which I tried to figure out, it stated that anything with the GNU license is free for use in any TEXT BASED work. Does that mean that if the item is not text based (say for example a postcard or a t-shirt) that it is NOT okay to use that image on that item?
I apologize if this is a dumb question that should be so blatantly obvious but I do want to be absolutely sure I don't violate any rights with any images I find in the commons.
In principal all work on Commons is free for commercial use. With text is meant work in the GFDL. Bryan21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Stupid question
I admit to being new at dealing with commons, but find several good and useful images, including featured images, in other languages are not available for the English wikipedia. How would I go about copying an image from a foreign language wikipedia or commons for use on the English language side? Badbilltucker16:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, the only stupid question is the one that goes unasked. In other words, none of us were born knowing this stuff; if you don't ask, you can't learn. I'm no expert here, either, but in looking around you might find Template:Information helpful. It seems to me that all that is necessary is that the image(s) you want to upload here be properly licensed. They may be used on the other wikis under licenses that wouldn't qualify them for inclusion in the Commons. Information about licenses that are used in the Commons are at [][Commons:Licensing]].—Chidomtalk18:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Fahd_bin_Abdul_Aziz.jpg){kind=link}
