User talk:Luke Westwalker

We know that there is a lot to do
Most of the problems you talked about are correct and known to us. But we have not enough time to solve all problems now. It was a huge work to check the most of the 6000 figures to have complete information.

Most of the problems came from Wikitravel with only a few clear rules. And a lot of confusions to create categories. Easily spoken the WT repositories are a catastrophe. A lot of these problems are now solved. But you know it is a huge work.

The standards we have chosen are similiar to that of Wikimedia Commons to make it easier because of the same rules. I know some problems can be understood only from a historical point of view. When we started (similiar to WM Commons) there was no list of licenses to select. So all informations must be don in the description field. A permission section in the Information template was needed. Now it is often empty because the MediaWiki software was changed. For backward compatibility this option was kept.

In some cases I do not know what you are meaning or which problem you really have. I tried to give answers as good as I could.

In the case of licenses I will repeat: we chose CC-by-sa 1.0 to give users the chance to use our contents easily. This is not the case for GFDL (see also the German article on Wikipeia in Wikipedia on its problems). So it is possible to store free images, but we can not use them in articles1. The easy use is possible only with CC-by-sa and PD licensed material.

--Roland 18:23, 4 November 2007 (CET)


 * 1 Are you sure this is a view shared by all admins? Have you seen these(A, B, C) opinions? May be now it's more precise what I meant with 'clear policy'. LukeWestwalker ⇔ 22:58, 9 November 2007 (CET)


 * I know the opinion in particular of Bobo11. I will start to write policy drafts next week and to start the discussion about it. --Roland 13:37, 11 November 2007 (CET)

No guidelines
Sure, there is a lot to be cleared up. The list you link is a todo list for our Italian guys. We had to import a lot of images from WT with very unstructured license info. No reason to complain, but to work on it.

There are guidelines, but not all of them are already translated into English. We are happy for every help in translating. Me personaly, I can't do it. The number of level 3+ English speakers is limited. Thus, things need time. However, in some special cases, you are right since there no guideline yet. Anyway, if you do as I have told you and have a look on Unger's recent corrections on image descriptions, you will easily find out the system of categorizing. If a guideline is realy important, write a draft and ask for comments.

GFDL images
The image is dual licensed1. No problem at all. In fact, there are very few pure GFDL licensed images on shared and they should be replaced as soon as there is a CC-by-sa image available. All other questions have already be answered in the Lounge. Again, drafts for a policy are welcome.

(In)accesibility
Please, please, please help to make shared: easier to use for non German speakers2. We are just about to launch our first non-German languge version and I agree with you, there are still many internationalizantions to bee done. We need people that know English on a good level and also can understand discussions make on de:.

-- Hansm 12:53, 5 November 2007 (CET)


 * 1No it is not dual, it's only GFDL. I linked to show that images are uploaded with a wrong license because there is no policy. Please look at what I have moved from its VFD reason: . Mess and more mess to come.
 * 2With pleasure -- as soon as someone directs my work (in any way) so as to limit, not to enlarge the mess. LukeWestwalker ⇔ 22:58, 9 November 2007 (CET)

Flags
Hi Luke. This question of the license on the flags is quite confusing. I am a contributor to Wikipedia, and there the flags are tagged as GFDL. Moreover, while some flag design is relatively new (e.g. Colombia) most date back so far that any trade mark protection shall have expired long since. The escamotage somebody suggested, to tag as PD, is not at all satisfactory, since it assumes the possibility to use the image, and this conflicts with what you say. The problem seems to be solved : our friend Gobbler replaced my miniatures with others, assumedly PD and CC-by-SA (any), but something is strange : the images are not editable, which conflicts with the license. A commercial logo, you probably see it, is a completely different matter, and does not seem to be pertinent to this complicate issue. All the best,--Ub 19:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for immediate answer. I hope I can understand well your arguments. It seems to me we have contradictory opinions on originality of national flags authorship. I have found an example of discussion on the controversy of flags authorship . The only firm conclusion there is that the copyright depends on particular flag, which is not helpful in our discussion. The facts at this moment (20:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)) are that flags you uploaded are still present on WV shared and have not been replaced by anyone. Moreover, it is true that there are flags in Wikipedia tagged as GFDL. Simultaneously, all the flags you uploaded except for UKflag are tagged with PD-shape tag on Wikimedia commons, sayin the images do not contain original authorship. The only exception is the UKflag.


 * Word of explanantion: It is very dificult for me not being an expert to firmly reason my opinion on licenses. I have noticed WV lacks expertise on that subject. Threrefore I am in favour of choosing simplest solutions to make rules easiest to understand and accept even for users unfamiliar with image licensing. Can I sustain my request to change licenses of the flags you uploaded, except for Image:Uk-flag.png? That would at least reduce controversies to one image only. Thank you in advance. LukeWestwalker ⇔ 20:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)