Wikipedia talk:Moving images to the Commons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Discussion moved from Talk:Wikimedia Commons
- 1.1 Discussion location
- 1.2 Redirects
2 separating disclaimers from copyright tags
3 should there be a template for images that are duplicated on the commons
4 is there a tool for moving to commons yet?
5 So what happens after an image is moved to Commons?
6 Simpler case of GFDL moves -- own images, single revision?
7 GFDL
8 Missing instructions on how to use the Commons
9 Commons: When? Why?
10 Another issue
11 Vandalism
12 Same filename or different
13 Commons Helper
14 Image:OM-4T-1.jpg

[edit] Discussion moved from Talk:Wikimedia Commons

Note: See also the parallel discussion at Wikipedia talk:Images for deletion/Archive/1#Losing information in moves to Commons.

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#Losing information in moves to Commons, 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 Wikipedia: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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wi/index.php?title=Image:Separation_axioms.png&redirect=no). 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 GFDL requires disclaimers made alongside the license declaration to be preserved. this disclaimers link was in the {{GFDL}} tag on the english wikipedia at the time the tag was added to this image.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#Images moved to Commons?

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

[edit] 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 {{delete}} and {{dbc}}. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Commons: When? Why?

Discussion archived from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

When and why should one put images/figures into the Wikimedia Commons [1] 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|✎ 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 m: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 Wikipedia: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 [2] page, perhaps?). As long as they are properly tagged (and truly, the tags could probably be auto-translated with something like [3] 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.[4]
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)

[edit] 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 [5], 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? --Aramգուտանգ 03:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)