Commons:Help desk

Shortcut: COM:HDSkip to table of contents | Skip to bottom | 🌐 Help desks for other languages

This help desk is a forum for questions and help on How to use Commons Anyone, from newbie to experienced, can ask a question here. Questions will be replied to here as well. Any answers you receive are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. Please sign your question by typing four tildes (~~~~). In order to get quick answers consider the following points: Have you checked the frequently asked questions, help pages and the help desk archive? For licensing and copyright issues, please use the copyright village pump For proposing changes to the way Wikimedia Commons works, please use the proposals village pump For community-wide discussions, please use the main village pump For changing the name of a file, please see our file renaming guidelines For matters requiring the attention of an administrator, please use the administrators' noticeboard or contact an individual administrator directly For questions not related to this website, try English Wikipedia's reference desk Resolved sections (marked by {{section resolved|1=~~~~}}) will be archived after four days. Sections with no discussion will be archived after ten days. Click here to ask your question about using Commons or For quicker help, join our live chat room.

Translate this page

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Commons Help desk Village pump (general discussion) Copyright Proposals Technical Graphics and photography discussion Photography critiques Image improvement Illustration workshop Map workshop Photography workshop Video and sound workshop Categories for discussion Undeletion requests Deletion requests OTRS noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests #wikimedia-commons webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 4 days.

Error. Page "Category:William Henry Margetson"

Resolved

The page listed contains a painting entitled "Jane Eyre". The painting is not by Margetson, and is instead by Max Nonnenbruch and is entitled "An Evening by the Lake".

I am brand new at this, and just want the error corrected. If you look under Nonnenbruch's paintings you will find the duplicate which clearly bears his signature. Please fix the error. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PaddyNZ (talk • contribs) 21:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't see that there was ever a problem, but if there was, everything seems fone now. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Alternative

Can someone please look for a non-copyrighted image of Michael Hainisch on the internet? We really need an alternative to this one. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Would this image suffice? Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, perfect thanks a lot. Colonestarrice (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

(File is Michael Hainisch (cropped).jpg.) Where do you derive the license from, Colonestarrice (ping also @Ruslik0)? Also date and author ({{unknown}}) are wrong and you forgot to categorize (at least Michael Harnisch’s category). I did not do the changes myself, because I’m not sure, that this image can be kept. — Speravir – 01:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Speravir: I corrected the licence and description. It is likely in public domain as {{pd-1923}}. Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Ruslik. I’ve used a different template and made some additions. What do you think about the missing original? Because Colonestarrice uploaded only a cropped version. — Speravir – 01:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The original can be uploaded as well. Ruslik (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Colonestarrice lade doch bitte die unbeschnittene Dateiversion auch noch hoch. Du kannst im Wesentlichen die Beschreibung aus der anderen Datei übernehmen. Da es Michael Hainisch.jpg schon gibt, müsstest Du dir einen anderen Namen ausdenken, so was wie Michael Hainisch LoC.jpg. — Speravir – 02:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Tests

• I want to see how looks a existing commons svg-file with new letter types before i upload it. Where can i test it?
• is https://github.com/scour-project/scour the only optimaizing tool for SVG? can you recommend one?

--Juan Villalobos (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Juan, I only have an in some way dangerous idea: Use SVGedit.js. After installation and reload go to File:Test-SVG.svg. After you opened the edit box, remove the existing code and replace with your’s, then press Preview, but nothing else! The danger is, you guessed it, that you accidentally save your content which will result in immediate uploading of the new SVG code as new file version. (Obviously you could do the same procedure on the file you actually intend to update, but my suggestion should slightly mitigate an unwanted saving.) — Speravir – 02:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Should adding location info put image on OpenStreetMap?

If someone adds location information to a Wikimedia Commons item, should that Wikimedia Commons item show up on OpenStreetMap link on the Commons item?

For example:

1. Add location information to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People%27s_Drug_Store_no._10,_18th_and_Columbia_Road,_N.W.,_Washington,_D.C._LCCN95511687.jpg
2. Save
3. On item page, there is now a "Camera location" field with coordinates accompanied by "View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap"
4. Click OpenStreetMap and you're taken to a map that has lots of other Commons images mapped, but only a red X for your newly-geo-located image.

I'm new to OpenStreetMap, so there may be some fundamentals I'm missing.

Thanks! -- Retrent ! talk 22:53, 8 December 2018

Abuse filter (obscenities)

An attempted upload of mine has triggered the "Obscenities in titles and headings" abuse filter. Does "titles and headings" include the file Description? Because this (not the image title) is where the all caps profanity appears; I was giving a literal description of the graffiti which appears in the image. Perth Jaywalker (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Perth Jaywalker: Yes, it does (at least until you have 50 edits). Try using lowercase and "in ALLCAPS".   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This was logged at Special:AbuseLog/4193410. The details of the rule are public and can be seen at Special:AbuseFilter/56. There is nothing in the rule that limits it to titles and headings, so MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-obscenities-in-caps seems misleading and should probably be changed by an administrator. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Thanks, your suggestion worked perfectly. And yes, probably replace "headings" with "descriptions" or get rid of "in titles and headings" altogether. Perth Jaywalker (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Perth Jaywalker: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@LX: Thanks, I agree.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:20180202-bishop-russell.jpg

I uploaded this photograph from a press release. Because it was distributed in a press release, it is in the public domain. I do not understand the problems regarding tags. Will someone kindly help, please?

--Press Release 2018 (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

All images are copyright unless it is specifically waived by its creator. In this case, the copyright owner is Sussex Police, and looking at their website, there is no indication that this image is free of copyright, or licensed for use. "Public Domain" does not mean the same as "Publicly Visible". It might be usable on Wikipedia under a claim of Fair Use, see policy but sorry, can't be hosted here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: The individual is still alive and so the image would not qualify under Wikipedia's fair use policy. GMG^talk 21:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It would only fail to qualify, as I read the policy, if no free alternative was available. This person is in custody and likely to remain so for the rest of his life, so I'd argue that a free alternative would be impossible unless someone is prepared to bribe a prison officer, which would be a risky proposition, and I don't recommend it. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

So, it seems that everyone in the universe is allowed to reproduce this image, except Wikimedia Commons. Press Release 2018 (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Not legally. Its use in the UK is covered by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which sets out what "fair dealing" is and what conditions attach to it. Commons only accepts images that (a) are out of copyright, (b) have never been in copyright or (c) although in copyright, have been appropriately licenced by their creators. Sorry, it's a fact of life here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Press Release 2018: to elaborate a little further, the media on Commons are not just reproduced here, but they are offered for any and all kinds of reuse elsewhere. That’s why we need to be more scrupulous about licensing than do sites that merely display content (with or without permission), and that’s also why fair use / fair dealing is inapplicable.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm getting error while uploading images to Commons

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T211693

I'm frequently getting an error while uploading images to commons. It only shows none of the uploads were successful.--IM3847 (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey IM3847. If you could give us more information about what the error says we may be able to sort it out. GMG^talk 13:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Can I email you the video? --IM3847 (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure IM3847. You can email me by clicking this link. GMG^talk 17:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've uploaded the video on Phabricator with ticket number (T211693).--IM3847 (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. That is strange. Phab likely the best place for it. GMG^talk 18:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

i want to know about fr,seraphim disciple of elder sophrony

i want to know about fr,seraphim disciple of elder sophrony —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 223.191.32.80 (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello anon. You may be in the wrong place. Wikimedia Commons is a repository of files for use by Wikipedia, other related projects, and the general public. If you speak English fairly well, you may want to consider asking at en:Wikipedia:Reference desk. GMG^talk 13:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Beginner uploader to wikimedia, question about error messages

I am trying to upload using Upload Wizard (trying to get my own photos to some bird species pages) but I'm getting an error message under the "Describe" section. It's giving me the error message "Please choose a different, descriptive title (more info)." However what appears to be a link under "more info" doesn't go anywhere. This may be simple stuff but I've never uploaded photos myself before. I have tried to use various iterations of "plain language" as requested there. What can I do to rectify this problem? Example: I've tried using language varying from "Brown-capped Babbler" to "A Brown-capped Babbler that was found near the Kitulgala Police Station, Sri Lanka."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandhillcrane (talk • contribs) 14:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Sandhillcrane. That's very strange. Either one of those file names should be complex enough to work. This error usually only comes up with names that are things like random strings of numbers and letters. Are you sure you are changing the file name field and not the file description field? (See screen shot at right.) GMG^talk 16:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Uploading Plans of Government buildings to Commons

Plan and view of MLA/MLC quarters in Government complex, Amaravati

Hi, I'm a resident of Amaravati (a planned greenfield capital city) of India. Our government has displayed the plans and views of certain buildings near the construction sites upon public request, can I upload those images to commons. For now, I've uploaded three of them, like one shown on left. I've gone through Freedom on Panorama and found that we can upload images of Plans and views of buildings in India unless copyrighted. These structures are government buildings i.e., public buildings and quarters.--IM3847 (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Why do you believe these would not be copyrighted? - Jmabel ! talk 07:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Because those were being constructed in Government complex of Amaravati by Government of Andhra Pradesh (GoAP) and the they stated that, citizens have rights to reuse information related to city's construction.--IM3847 (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

But were that plans created by government? Or may be commercial contractor? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Those were created by engineers and architects of APCRDA & ADCL, which were government organisations. But plans of Judicial complex, Assembly, HOD quarters & Secretariat were developed by Forsters+Patners group from Europe. So, plans developed by Norman Foster were copyrighted but we can upload 3D views under FoP.--IM3847 (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:MLA or MLC housing under construction in Government complex, Amaravati 3 (November 2018).jpg‎. Yann (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Counting uploaded files

Hi, I'm trying to fing out how many files someone uploaded, but it are to many for tools like xtools.wmflabs.org (my Commons stats) - see here what happens if someone has a lot of edits here. I want to know how many uploads he did, does someone know another tool? Thanks in advance, - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Database reports/Upload log stats.--BevinKacon (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Richardkiwi, BevinKacon: https://tools.wmflabs.org/glamtools/glamorous.php "User "Mr.Nostalgic" has 434825 files." (3870 used on nlwiki, 1777 used on enwiki, 1422 used on wikidata, 1265 used on dewiki, 1178 used on frwiki, 616 op frwikibooks, 613 op itwiki and the rest is small potatoes) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 07:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Oke, thanks a lot ! - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Richardkiwi: More precisely: per your GLAMorous, you have 1,146 files; per Mr.Nostalgic's GLAMorous, Mr.Nostalgic has 434,825 files; and per Fæ's GLAMorous, Fæ has 4,363,073 files.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

There must be difference . I have more files, but under other usernames, but totally maybe 1,200. The difference is that Mr.Nostalgic uploaded files from elsewhere and I made 99,5% of the pictures myself. :-) Fæ with more than 4 million, lol. (S)he rules more lists, like file mover nr. 1, etc.. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

SVG file not accepted

I uploaded

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_shape_of_the_rotating_Earth.svg

It does not display due to "Technical Issues"

The identical files

http://wgpqqror.homepage.t-online.de/pict.html http://wgpqqror.homepage.t-online.de/The_shape_of_the_rotating_Earth.html http://wgpqqror.homepage.t-online.de/The_shape_of_the_rotating_Earth.svg

render fine, though

Is the size <svg height="1600" width="1600"> </svg> possibly the problem?

Experimenting is somewhat difficult as it is not obvious to me how to remove "File:The_shape_of_the_rotating_Earth.svg" from wikimedia and the existence of this file seems to block a second upload!

I see nowhere a "height/width" restriction, though!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamcose (talk • contribs) 15:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually , there is an error message

"This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below." and what is shown below: <svg height="1610" width="1600"><polyline points=" 1332, 1046 1227, 931 1115, 825 994, 727 866, 640 732, 562 592, 495 447, 439 298, 395 147, 362 " stroke-width="1" stroke="black" fill="none"/><polyline points=" 550, 1033 800, 600 756, 575 " stroke-width="4" stroke="green" fill="none"/><polyline points=" 506, 1008 800, 600 " stroke-width="4" stroke="red " fill="none"/><polyline points=" 843, 625 800, 600 814, 575 " stroke-width="4" stroke="black" fill="none"/><polyline points=" 857, 600 800, 600 " stroke-width="4" stroke="brown" fill="none"/><rect x="60" y="1120" width="50" height="50" style="fill:red;stroke-width:0;stroke:none"/><text x="160" y="1150" font-family="Verdana" font-size="20"> Gravitational force off-set towards the pole from the local vertical </text><rect x="60" y="1220" width="50" height="50" style="fill:green;stroke-width:0;stroke:none"/><text x="160" y="1250" font-family="Verdana" font-size="20"> Decomposition of the gravitational force in a vertical and a horisontal component </text><rect x="60" y="1320" width="50" height="50" style="fill:brown;stroke-width:0;stroke:none"/><text x="160" y="1350" font-family="Verdana" font-size="20"> "Centrifugal force" orthogonal to the polar axis </text><rect x="60" y="1420" width="50" height="50" style="fill:black;stroke-width:0;stroke:none"/><text x="160" y="1450" font-family="Verdana" font-size="20"> Decomposition of the "centrifugal force" in a vertical and a horisontal component </text><text x="10" y="1550" font-family="Verdana" font-size="18"> The Earth has an oblate shape such that the horisontal component of the gravitational force prevents a mass point at rest on the surface to slide away towards the equator </text> </svg>

For SVG there exists a <STYLE> tag but it appears irrelevant here and no browser needs it, only Wikimedia!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamcose (talk • contribs) 16:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Stamcose: standalone SVG files (that is, not embedded in an HTML page) need some extra information at the top of the file to identify them as such. At the very least, the svg tag needs the attribute xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" or it won't render. See COM:SVG#Document declaration or the W3C SVG 1.1 specification for more details. I've gone ahead and fixed the file for you. Hope that helps! clpo13_(talk) 17:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, it works! Did you change to

<svg height="1610" width="1600" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000">

It seems that the option "view source code" is supressed!?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamcose (talk • contribs) 18:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

OK! What I get from Wikimedia is not SVG, it has already been rendered!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamcose (talk • contribs) 18:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's what the svg tag is now. The file page at File:The shape of the rotating Earth.svg shows a PNG rendering of the SVG. You can find the SVG itself by clicking on the image or the "Original file" link below the image (or here: [1]). Then you can view the source code of that file in your browser or a text editor. clpo13_(talk) 18:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It is still not OK! The uploaded SVG file is fine!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/The_shape_of_the_rotating_Earth.svg As it should be!

The rendered PHP file is not OK! https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_shape_of_the_rotating_Earth.svg&oldid=331074243 Red line missing (or rather "not visible") Text at the bottom too long for page The missing red line must be a technical issue The long line could be cut in two but it is still not clear to me how a new replacement-image (same name!) is uploaded! The "edit" option just leads to text! Stamcose (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Normally, to make changes to an SVG file, you have to download it to your computer and edit it with a text editor or graphics program like Inkscape, then you can upload the modified file as a new version of the existing file (there's a link near the bottom of the file description page, under the file history box). I'm using a user script (User talk:Rillke/SVGedit.js) that allows me to edit the source code without downloading the file, but there's no built-in way to do it. It looks like the problem is that the red line tag has the attribute stroke="red ", which should be stroke="red". The extra spaces are why it's not showing up. clpo13_(talk) 19:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

South Canyon Fire, 1994 image

The image I am uploading IS NOT A DUPLICATE. The labeling on the image includes more details, and is larger and easier to read.--CerroFerro (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Existing image - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SouthCanyonFireMap.jpg

The image I wish to upload - https://www.fireleadership.gov/toolbox/staffride/downloads/lsr9/lsr9_aerial_photo.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CerroFerro (talk • contribs) 17:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@CerroFerro: and you are telling this because...? --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:UditNarayan2018.jpg

I have uploaded a file for Udit Narayan page . This image is from official site S-Events and Multimedia so please let the file be on Wikipedia it will help the page . This picture was clicked by them in Australia . This is the site for original file where you can find all information written in the photo itself . I just adjusted the photo to upload for the article. Hope you cooperate. Source below: https://m.facebook.com/228084564239209/photos/a.228092614238404/228092617571737/?type=3

--Aomine9 (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Aomine9. If you do not own the copyright to the image, then you cannot license freely and upload it here. Wikimedia Commons only hosts free content, and if it is not free, then we cannot retain it even if it would be beneficial for use on Wikipedia. I would suggest that you contact the owner and request that they license it according to the instructions at COM:CONSENT. However, if they will not, then there is little we can do, because they are the legal owner of the image. GMG^talk 14:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Photos in Sandbox

Good morning, in September I uploaded four images in my Sandbox page, thinking - in levity and absolute good faith - this would work the same as the textual content, only to make a trial of the updating of a page before modifying content. The whole of them had gone through deletion - and for this I beg your pardon for adding issues to your work. May I ask you which could be the correct way of requesting the upload of a photo of a company building? I made on my own a photo similar to one of the deleted pics from the street, I know the company allows me to upload it but - I admit - I didn't understand how to upload it properly without infringing any rules and/or guidelines. Thanking you in advance, I wish good work and a pleasant evening to the whole Wikipedia team! --Riccardo Bigazzi (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Riccardo Bigazzi: You don't say what country, which will be the main issue in terms of rules about uploading a photo of a building. - Jmabel ! talk 16:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Jmabel: Whoops! You're totally right, my fault! The company building to be uploaded is set in Italy, and the image should be shown on the Italian and English versions of the page. I found some information on [Commons:Email templates/Consent], could it be sufficient to follow these instructions asking the legal referent of the company to send the indicated e-mail? Thank you a lot! --Riccardo Bigazzi (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The issue, then, wouldn't be the company (they have no special rights about having their building photographed) but the copyright-holder of the building, which is typically the architect. Apparently the situation around this in Italy is a mess, legally speaking: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2017/07/freedom-of-panorama-in-italy-does-it.html. Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Italy says we consider this to be a complete lack of Freedom of Panorama for that country. So, presuming that this is a modern building, new enough to still be copyrighted, the only way we can accpet it is if you go through the consent process with the copyright-holder of the building, most likely the architect.
  • My apologies if that is very restrictive: the restriction is basically one of Italian law, combined with Commons precautionary principle. - Jmabel ! talk 18:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • No need to apologize - nay, you've been absolutely precious! I'll start to work about it immediately, thank you a lot Jmabel! --Riccardo Bigazzi (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Have picture requests moved?

I looked for picture requests and ended up posting to a page here. But is this actually active? Most of the posts are from years ago, and the discussion pages dates back a decade. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Maury Markowitz. I'm no professional, but is this the kind of thing you're looking for? GMG^talk 17:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Perfect! But is this the place one should ask? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Eh. Seems as good as any. It doesn't look like very many people at the actual request page are responding to requests, but rather that people are removing requests after a suitable file gets uploaded by happenstance. Seems a lot like the way the requested article page wound up on the English Wikipedia. A good idea, but there's not very many people actively answering requests, so they mostly just sit around for years. GMG^talk 19:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd have gone for Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. - Jmabel ! talk 19:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

list not showing

Does anyone know what's going wrong here and why the list isn't showing? Joostik (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a disambiguation page which is supposed to contain links to other categories for different "Saint Antoninus"; removing the Wikidata box fixes this, but Sculptures of Saint Antoninus needs to be split into more specific categories. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but wikidata boxes on disambiguation pages are not uncommon. I tried putting it back, and for some reason it now shows normally. Joostik (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Can't update

I have not been successful in tryng to remove the obsolete dimensions from here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Not absolutely certain what you mean, but I'm guessing you need to clear your cache. - Jmabel ! talk 05:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No, it's because a Wikidata item has been defined in the Artwork infobox, meaning it now gets its dimensions from d:Q18599938 regardless of what is edited here at Commons. You would have to remove the Wikidata ID from the Artwork infobox to break that connection to Wikidata. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding a Podcast from Soundcloud.com to a Wikipedia Page

Hi!

I still consider myself a newbie to Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons and searched through Community portal, FAQs and elsewhere to try and find some information on how to add a soundcloud podcast to a Wikipedia page that I've been contributing too.

I found this page on Wikimedia Commons that contains audio files from Soundcloud but they all seem to be music files and no podcasts. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Files_from_Soundcloud.com

I emailed the author of the podcast Bob Calise from subjectmatterx.com requesting permission which he provided. Subjectmatterx.com has their own Soundcloud account where the podcast is located. https://soundcloud.com/subjectmatterx/005-exploring-the-universe-with-nasas-x-ray-telescope

Can I use the url to stream the content from Soundcloud to the Wikipedia page or do I need to download/record the podcast and upload to Wikimedia Commons? I found the location to upload images but not audio files.

I've had uploaded my own image (my own work) for the Wikipedia page I've been contributing too at this link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kimberly_Kowal_Arcand_at_TEDx_Providence_Rhode_Island.jpg

Thank you for your time, patience and support.

Best

Tracykarin (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• You say he provided permission. What license did he provide? Did he post an indication of the license online someplace? (I don't readily see anything of the sort when I follow the link to soundcloud.com that you provide.) Did you do this through the COM:OTRS system? If neither of these, is there some other way to verify that the copyright-holder has granted a sufficiently free license? - Jmabel ! talk 05:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel!

Thank you for your assistance. I received an email from the author of the podcast Bob Calise from subjectmatterx.com to use his podcast on Wikipedia. I sent him an email to select one of the three recommended licenses from Wikimedia Commons. I suggested he could upload the podcast and select the license that would allow me to use the podcast, and offered to upload the podcast for him as long as he informed me which license to select and that he provide an email authorizing me the use of the podcast. I just sent him the email and hope to hear from him tonight or maybe sometime this week. Thank you for your patience and support...so much appreciated.

Tracykarin (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Tracykarin: You kind of jumped the gun here, but we can work with that. The problem is that an email from him to you won't meet Commons requirements (even if forwarded). We'd need an email as described at COM:OTRS, sent to the email address indicated there.
• If he takes an account and uploads it himself, that is simpler (as long as he provides an appropriate license), though since this was already published online, we'd still want email from him to OTRS indicating that the account is his.
• Finally: it all gets much simpler if he indicates the license on his own site where he normally posts these. Then we don't need all that OTRS rigamarole to validate that he granted the license. And OTRS is pretty backlogged. - Jmabel ! talk 01:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel!

Thank you for your expedient reply! So the best option is your last. He just needs to post the Wikimedia License statement on his soundcloud website where the podcast is posted.

He could choose one of these three licenses which are recommended by Wikimedia Commons: {{CC BY-SA 4.0}} (some rights reserved – attribution and sharing alike required) or {{CC BY 4.0}} (some rights reserved – attribution required) or {{CC0}} (no rights reserved – public domain or waiver if the PD release is invalidated) on his soundcloud account for this podcast.

I could then save him the trouble download his podcast and upload it myself and used the license he chooses.

I'd gather, I'd upload the podcast to Wikimedia Commons? Do I need to create a category to upload the podcast, or should I upload the podcast where my own work (image) already exists for the Wikipedia page that I'm already contributing too?

Thank you Jmabel...at your convenience...no rush my friend!

--Tracykarin (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'd recommend {{CC BY-SA 4.0}} here: he probably would want his work attributed.
• The most important categories would be those that relate to the subject matter of the podcast. Presumably there are also a number of relevant descendant categories of Category:Podcasts. I don't know enough about the particular case to tell you whether any new category or categories would be in order. - Jmabel ! talk 06:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Categories named after saints

Hello, I don't know if this is the correct place to ask this question. Here an user removed the category "Places named after Saint Anthony the Great" from Category:Via Sant’Antonio (Milan), stating that the name of the street comes from the homonym church placed in the street itself (church that, in turn, is named after the saint). Even if this was true, woudn't be the category equally correct? --Horcrux (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, that sounds to me like a distinction that doesn't make a difference. - Jmabel ! talk 17:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Can I use screenshots from this source? It says it's usage is Public Domain

https://archive.org/details/Sgallasch-wwwgmvcomau_gmv416122 AHC300 (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Looks likely. A little messy: that notice was the predecessor to cc-0, and was not entirely clear about being a dedication to the public domain (rather than an assertion that the material was already in the public domain). To my mind, the only question would be whether there is any doubt that the person/organization who posted it in the first place owned the rights they claimed to be waiving or to have already waived, but others might see this differently. At the very least, leave a day or two for people to comment, and don't be offended if you upload this but later someone decides it's not OK. You might want to take this to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 17:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

seeking details regarding a beautiful old wall-carpet

This is wall-carpet my mother bought in the market of Tunis, a short period after her marriage, less than 70 years ago. It's obviously very cherished & precious to me. Does anyone know anything about its style & techniq, possible manufac, as well as the site it shows (river, Ottoman bridge & castle) ?

בנצי (talk)‎ 21:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@בנצי: the correct term for a wall carpet is "tapestry". It depicts a mirror image of Rome: we are looking over the Tiber river on to Sant'Angelo Bridge, with Sant'Angelo Castle to the left and the dome of Saint Peter's Basilica in the background. Compare with e.g. File:Gaspar van Wittel - View of Tor di Nona (1690s).jpg. Someone with a background in art history may be able to tell more about its "metadata". --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

You're great, and I appreciate your reply so much, including the reference you added. Are you Italian ? otherwise, how do you know this ? I said 'wall-carpet' in order to be more specific - 'tapestry' is too general. Afterall, despite the similarity in its technique, the bridge isn't Ottoman but Roman.

Yes, I do need an expert in art history, or, rather, in tapestry / artistic carpets. However, at least, now, my arrow is, in a way, more sharpened, due to your identification & data.

All the best, בנצי (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. No, I am not Italian, but I have been to Rome once and the basilica's characteristic dome is not easily forgotten. I wish you good luck finding out more about the tapestry. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I see. Good point. I've already made some progress: the modern bridge includes 5 arches, while on the tapestry there are only three, which are the original Roman ones. This implies on the time of the art work, or more correctly, of the photograph / painting used as the original, since the time of constructing the additional two, dates to the end of the 19th century. בנצי (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Browse all pictures that share a certain category?

Hi, i'm searching a way to browse all pictures that belong to a certain ("mid-level") category, e.g. all pics of churches in Calvados region (Category:Churches_in_Calvados sorry, category link doesn't work, don't know why...). I've already found the CatScan tool to get a list of all files belonging to that category, but it only provides tiny thumbnails (smaller than the "usual" preview thumbnails). Is there a way to get a list with bigger preview images? That would save me from opening every single sub-category out of 212 in its own browser tab... Thanks in advance! --Fl.schmitt (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, stupid me - just had to click "Thumbnails" on top of CatScan result list... seems to do exactly what i'm needing for... --Fl.schmitt (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after four days. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Very odd edit

Will someone who actually knows Japanese please look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Chamber_of_commerce_buildings_in_Japan&diff=331418960&oldid=186978598 ? Looks like spam to me, but not a language I can really read. Google translate tends to confirm my guess. - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It was a small rant calling for equality, nothing relevant to the category. Reverted. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after four days. HyperGaruda (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Image from the US Navy

Hello. I wish to upload a diagram/image of a microsatellite that was launched to orbit today and I am writing a Wikipedia article on it (RSat-P or "Repair Satellite-Prototype"). It has 2 robotic arms and cameras to repair other spacecraft. It was built by the US Naval Academy (US Navy), and the diagram is at this web address: https://www.usna.edu/Users/aero/kang/Research.php#panel2RSatRoboticArmSatellite

I am not sure if this image/diagram can be uploaded to Wikipedia, and I ignore copyright and licences needed to upload to Wikipedia. Please let me know if I can proceed and under what (open/free) licences. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It is probably in public domain as {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Why I cant I add an image?

I get error message: 'We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera'. I did take the picture - I did tick the box - what can I do to get the picture accepted?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RupertWegerif (talk • contribs) 13:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• @RupertWegerif: Signing your posts on talk pages is required by Commons:Signatures policy. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload smaller (<50KB or <5MP) jpg photos as a new user while leaving the summaries intact. Each jpg photo you tried to upload is smaller, and you said it's your own work. Usually when someone uploads smaller photos, they are copyright violations taken from the web. If you took the photos yourself, please upload the full-size originals of them, including EXIF metadata. If you did not take the photos, please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept them, and post permission on your website or have the photographer(s) send the photos and permissions via OTRS with carbon copies to you. If you change the summaries or use our Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid that filter.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Licensing image

Hi, is {{cc-by-3.0}} an accurate licensing tag? And, can you give me an example of how it is used in the "description" area of the upload process? Thank you, Pennyframstad (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)pennyframstad

Well... it's a licensing tag. It's accurate if and only if the legitimate copyright holder (which, in the case of photographs, is normally the photographer) has explicitly stated that their work is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. It is not accurate if, for example, the copyright holder has only given you some other less specific permission to use a particular photo in some specific context. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, typically a licensing tag would not be used in the "description" area of any upload process I can think of: it would be precisely in the "licensing" or "permissions" area. Are using the Commons Upload Wizard or something else? If the latter, what are you using? - Jmabel ! talk 01:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Jurin's law

I was editing the Jurin's law article in English and I wanted to bring this image from Russian Wikipedia ru:Файл:Jurin equation.png, how can I do it? --MaoGo (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@MaoGo: Sorry, you can't do it directly. FlankerFF placed it in the Public Domain, but someone would have to transfer it here or to English Wikipedia for you to use it there.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: so can I upload the same picture into English Wikimedia without any problem? Should I gave credit? --MaoGo (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I've brought it over to Commons as File:Jurin equation.png. I've dealt appropriately with the permissions. @MaoGo: Please add appropriate categories to that file. - Jmabel ! talk 01:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.:Thank you very much. --MaoGo (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@MaoGo: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

author's photo from a book inlet from around 1930

I have a photo from the German buddhist Georg Grimm for which I want to make a Wikipedia entry. I scanned this photo around 1997 and put it on my website from which it was copied by 2 other sites in 2009 and 2010 according to a reverse picture scan.

The author died in 1945, his only daughter died in 1990, the Buddhist association that published his works was dissolved in 2002. There are no heirs to the best of my knowledge.

How can I make this photo part of Commons?

I am not able to upload the photo, not even a screen shot showing the information given for the upload...

Thank you for any help!

Max

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealsupermax (talk • contribs) 16:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• First, I want to get clear: the photo was taken by Grimm, right? (As against a photo of him taken by someone else, in which case that photographer's dates would be the relevant one.) In that case, the photo is in the public domain in Germany, because the term of copyright there is 70 years p.m.a., which in this case means it became public domain in Germany in 2016.
• The question would be what is the copyright status in the U.S. (Commons is concerned with copyright in the U.S. plus the originating country.) That could depend on publishing history in the U.S. Do you know if it was published in the U.S. at all prior to you putting it online in 1997? What did yo scan from?
• Sadly, that whole thing about his daughter having died and his publisher being defunct means that if it is in copyright in the U.S. it's going to be very hard to track down who can give permission. This is the "orphan works" problem. Sometimes something is copyrighted, but there is no reasonable way to find who owns it and get their permission. - Jmabel ! talk 01:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

about an image on your Wikimedia

I was looking for images with lucky charms and clicked on the reuse under the copy right section and saw this charm in an image of Swastika which I find really offensive. I wish that you would take this image off your Wikimedia Commons Sincerely Elizabeth Dyck [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.163.7.11 (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons_is_not_censored.
• I happen to be a Jew myself and no friend of Nazis, but the Nazi use of the swastika does not erase millennia of history of the use of the symbol in numerous traditions ranging from Hinduism to Native American traditions.
• Even in terms of Nazi swastikas: Commons is an educational site. We don't erase parts of history just because they are ugly. Where the context is clear that it is a Nazi swastika, we tag it with {{Nazi symbol}} to indicate that. But we don't remove it, any more than we remove public-domain posters, medals, etc. from any number of repugnant regimes. - Jmabel ! talk 01:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hope to add photo to article about the history of the Gulf Stream

I obtained a photo of Ben Franklin's first chart of the Gulf Stream from the Library of Congress. I would like to insert a cropped version into the piece about the Gulf Stream, but I can't figure out how to do it. There are no copyright claimants and the Library of Congress says I can freely use the photo for use in Wikipedia article. As I understand the problem is that this is not my work and there do not seem to be any relevant categories for downloading and using the photo. Could you please tell me how to proceed? Thank you, Phil Richardson

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Plrichardson7212 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Plrichardson7212: Signing your posts on talk pages is required by Commons:Signatures policy. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 06:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Plrichardson7212: a few things. 1) Commons already contains a high-resolution version (also uploaded by you) of the file you recently uploaded, so I have nominated the latter for deletion. 2) You are correct in that copyright is of no concern for such an old map. Looking at the edit summaries given in the Gulf Stream article, people instead disagreed with showing multiple similar images. I can see why, because honestly, what extra benefits is a second old map going to give to our understanding of the Gulf Stream? --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

What benefit (if any) would there be to only having the cropped version, and what would you crop in or out?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 06:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: with reference to "only having the cropped version", I believe HyperGaruda was referring to the Wikipedia article, not here (the edit he points to is an en-wiki edit). Presumably we would keep both on Commons, but it seems unlikely that a single Wikipedia article would want two versions of the same map. - Jmabel ! talk 17:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly what I meant. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: The chart I propose using in the Gulf Stream piece is the first good chart of the Gulf Stream printed by Ben Franklin in London in 1769. The present chart in the Gulf Stream piece is a copy of a copy of the first chart, was published later in 1786, and has been corrupted from the first chart--the chart projection is different and the position of the Stream has been modified. In addition there is an inset in the upper left part of the present (1786) chart that shows the migration of herring, not an ocean current. People often mistake the herring migration pattern as being an ocean current and sometimes the large scale circulation of the Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic. The person who originally added the present (1786) chart to the piece misidentified it as being the first chart of the Gulf Stream (the 1769 London version). I agree that including two seemingly rather similar versions of the chart might be a bit much for most people (but it is not for me). I suggest that if only one of the two charts of the Gulf Stream were to be included in the piece it should be the first one, the one sketched by Folger and printed by Franklin in London in 1769. That chart is a good summary of the Gulf Stream and was a very significant advance in showing the Gulf Stream. It is still a good portrayal of the mean Gulf Stream today. One more thing--the original Franklin-Folger Gulf Stream was added to a very large chart of the North Atlantic. In order to show the details of the Stream I cropped the large chart to focus in on the Gulf Stream part. This cropped part shows exactly the same area as the second (French) version of the chart and roughly the same area as the third (1786) version of the chart. In summary, I recommend that the 1769 London version should be added to the piece and the 1786 (presently included) version should be deleted (assuming two charts are too many). Is there more information I can provide? What is the next step? Thank you. Plrichardson7212 (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Plrichardson7212: The files were kept. Which to use where in an article page on English Wikipedia is best discussed on that page's talk page.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 20:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Crosby, Stills and Nash in Rock Hall of Fame, not CSN & Young

(1) Crosby, Stills and Nash, without Neil Young, are in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. That's how the group is listed on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rock_and_Roll_Hall_of_Fame_inductees

(2) However, on this page, the group's name is shown as Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rock_and_Roll_Hall_of_Fame_inductees

(3) I couldn't figure out how to make the two pages consistent and only show "Crosby, Stills and Nash" in the Hall of Fame. I assume the underlying list is the one below, which has the group listed as "Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young". Maybe the second page has to remain incorrect because it uses this more fundamental list? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Inductees_to_the_Rock_and_Roll_Hall_of_Fame

I'm wondering if there is any way to edit (2) or (3) so all the pages say "Crosby, Stills and Nash". Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by L W Frost (talk • contribs) 22:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@L W Frost: please note that this is a separate site from the English Wikipedia. It appears that CS&N is considered there to be the same entity as CSN&Y, as evidenced by such redirect pages as en:Crosby, Stills & Nash. The CSN&Y entry on your page (2) appears as such because the article is categorized there (see the bottom of that page), and category pages automatically just show the title of the pages where the category has been added. It might be possible to put the R&RHoF category on the redirect instead, per the guideline at en:WP:RCAT#Article categories, but it would probably be best to discuss that on the article’s discussion page, or perhaps on one of the related noticeboards at WikiProject Biography or WikiProject Rock music, before changing anything. Certainly nothing we could say or decide here will have any weight at enWP.

As for the Commons category, your (3), it’s not in fact “more fundamental”, but is on a quite different project (this one here), where development of the category tree tends to be driven by what relevant media we host. We don’t have a CS&N category at present, but it would probably be quite acceptable to create one as a subcat of Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young—we do apparently have some images without Young that could be moved into it—in which case the Inductees cat could be added there and removed from the parent.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• (via edit conflict) This is one of those lumper/splitter problems. Commons categories and Wikipedia articles aren't always exactly 1-1 to things you'd want to make statements about, and Commons categories don't have any deep epistemological intent: they are a finding aid. Wikidata, on the other hand, intends that level of precision, but hasn't addressed it in this case. All they have is Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young (Q733159); Crosby, Stills & Nash (Q869918) is just the album of that name.
• I suspect Wikidata is a better place to start to sort this out than Commons. You could bring your question to wikidata:Wikidata:Project_chat. wikidata:Help:Modelling/Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_concepts#Compound_Wikipedia_pages indicates the lines along which this would need to be solved. - Jmabel ! talk 02:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Using Wikimedia Images as References for Artwork

Typically, I create artwork from my own photographs or those supplied to me by clients. However, I am working with a client that wants to use images of famous people in a mural. (For example Martin Luther King, Jr., Ghandi, etc.) I'm curious what steps I need to take to be sure that the finished artwork does not infringe on any copyright. I am looking for images that are public domain, but I'm not sure where to go from there. I found this image on wikimedia of Martin Luther King Jr. Martin Luther King Jr. How do I go about using this file as a reference? Do I need to contact the Nobel Foundation? I have scoured many sections of the Commons looking for an answer, but I have not found an answer to my question. Any help or information on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Greentm (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)greentm

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greentm (talk • contribs) 16:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Greentm: Signing your posts on talk pages is required by Commons:Signatures policy. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That page does not "include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States", as required.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Thank you for your feedback and helping me with the signature. Because the image does not state public domain in the US then it is not PD and has copyright restrictions? Greentm (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)greentm

@Greentm: Yes, according to COM:URAA.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 20:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Open Parliament Licence

I have uploaded two files from https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7281. They are both covered by an Open Parliament Licence - https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/open-parliament-licence/ and I have linked to both, but in each case I have got a message saying Image without license. I cant see what I am supposed to do. Rathfelder (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: the messages were left automatically because an appropriate license template wasn't found on the file description pages. License tag templates quickly identify the license a file is made available under. In this case, the template is {{OPL}}. You can find an overview of such templates at Commons:Copyright tags or in the category Category:License tags, for future reference. clpo13_(talk) 23:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I looked at Category:License tags of the United Kingdom and it doesnt seem to be there. Rathfelder (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)