Commons talk:Bundesarchiv/Archiv 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

remvoing of the Bundesarchiv name from its images

There seems to be a spreading habit by users to crop the images of the Bundesarchiv in a way to remove the name of the Bundesarchiv from the images: i.e.

Question: Is this ok? Or is this a violation of the Bundesarchivs licensing deal for the photos with wikimedia? Please someone check if this is legal, and if not how can the issue be resolved? There seem to be hundreds of photos that have been cropped from their original to remove the Bundesarchiv name. Noclador (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read this current discussion: User talk:Bundesarchiv-B6#Reverts of Imagen clean ups. Raymond 10:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Also see User talk:Noclador#Reverting crops. Multichill (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
After reading the discussion at the Bundesarchivs official user "Bundesarchiv-B6" it is now clear that the cropping is absolutely not ok and actually damaging to wikicommons. How can we revert these croppings and avoid re-occurrences? Noclador (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Removal of watermarks is a standard practice at Commons, otherwise images do not look right in articles. Only images with a licenses allowing cropping are allowed at Commons. It is sad and unfortunate that Bundesarchivs feels that way about cropping. If Bundesarchive worries about attribution than it should be understood that all reuses are allowed to change the image but are still not allowed to use Bundesarchive images without proper attribution. Just watermarks is not a way to achieve it. --Jarekt (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Plus the captions are too small to be read when images are viewed in articles and all of the information of each image is in the file description, its not like it is being removed altogether. Fallschirmjäger  21:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

usage, attribution, linking Bundesarchiv images

I have used seven pictures from the Bundesarchiv on a webpage. I downloaded them to my own server for response time, but have not modified them in any way. I even kept the original file names, the alt tags, and title tags. But rather than link each individual picture file, I included a link to Wikimedia and Creative Commons underneath the images. Does this comply?

Yes, thanks for checking --Jarekt (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

New template

As discussed a few months ago at User talk:Bundesarchiv-B6, a new template would be useful to replace {{BArch-description}}. User:Jarekt and I have developed {{BArch-image}} with that in mind. Changes include:

  • Cleaner layout, more similar to other Commons descriptions.
  • Avoid nesting the template in {{information}}: it is a bit confusing, and results in a slightly inconsistent structure.
  • Take advantage of other templates for internationalization and formatting.
  • Simpler and more maintainable structure: the current template structure makes changes difficult, and as a consequence some upgrades have not been carried over from English and German to other languages.
  • Change parameter names to make them more similar those of the Bundesarchive website (I had some hard time understanding how they map).
  • <Add inventory and location info from {{BArch-License}} to the description, and format them
  • Replace {{BArch-License}} with standard CC tag>Zolo (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The template has been tested on these pages. Unless there is opposition to it, the change should occur pretty soon now. --Zolo (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks very good, thanks for your work. One point to fix:
The attribution in the license template is missing the photographer: i.e. File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-695-0424-12A, Warschauer Aufstand, Mörser Karl.jpg: {{cc-by-sa-3.0-de|attribution=Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-695-0424-12A / CC-BY-SA }}
See File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-464-0385I-32, Nemmersdorf (Ostpreußen), Grabkreuze.jpg for an example of the current attribution where {{BArch-License}} is used. Raymond 12:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I will fix that --Jarekt (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I did another batch of 50 images. Any other issues that should be corrected? --Jarekt (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

[1] had a bad syntax, so the bot did not get it quite right [2]. Would there be a way to detect that {{information}} lacks a parameter -or has some unrecognized parameter- so that we can fix that by hand ?--Zolo (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
My intention was to skip any unusual files. I do the template substitution through a series of regexp replacements, culminating in change from {{Information}} to {{BArch-image}}. If any of the intermediate step fails than the last step is not completed, and the image is skipped if the final description do not have {{BArch-image}}. That way, the code should only do substitutions that fit one or two standard patterns. I will try to add this pattern to the recognized list, tweak the code to prevent similar issues and run another 50-100 images. I also created Category:BArch-image templates without key information maintenance category to catch, such issues. --Jarekt (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I did another small batch --Jarekt (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Another small thing: it may make sense to add some creator templates. I noticed that about 1000 photos were taken by Rainer Mittelstädt, so "Mittelstädt, Rainer" could be replaced with Creator:Rainer Mittelstädt. See Category:Images from the German Federal Archive by photographer. --Zolo (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

We could do it, but my issue is that there is very little information about many of the photographers of pictures in the collection. So little that it might be hard to uniquely identify them in case there might be more than one person with that name. But if there are Bundesarchiv photographers we know something about other than name and nationality, I agree we should add creator templates. Although it might be more easily done as a separate run. --Jarekt (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I could not find any information on the few I have looked up (apart from Ernst Schäfer that already has its creator template. Many photographers categories are name "Bob, PK", which stands for "Propagandakompanie" and was apparently a propaganda organization of the Third Reich. It may be worh mentionning in the author field, but I do not know it it justifies a creator template. --Zolo (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There are 7.6k images with {{BArch-image}} now. --Jarekt (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

hmmmm... misses the photographers name in the license template. Could you please check this? Thanks. Raymond 14:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The previous version also missed the author in the License. It seems that {{BArch-description|author}} and {{BArch-License|author}} are supposed to be the same but that the latter was not provided in the first uploads. If that is right, we should use {{BArch-description|author}} for the attribution. --Zolo (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh right, that was a file of the very first batch which was with incomplete data. Raymond 20:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in license I copy the author's field from the previous license template. I was concerned with possibility of people adding {{creator}} templates and interwiki links, which might not work correctly with the license template, and I do not have a good way of recognizing with the current rules. --Jarekt (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess we are mostly done with adding new template: 81k done with 1500 to go. Unfortunately what is left are mostly odd-balls, or images different in syntax than the other 81k files: those are files with rearranged or missing fields, additional sources, unusual licenses, etc. I will try to automatically change some more, but I am sure I will not get them all, and the rest will have to be done by hand or left as is. --Jarekt (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the majority of the odd-balls (~500 out of 750) are files with descriptions generated by derivativeFX, like File:Wilhelm Pieck.png. Those will require very different set of replacement rules... --Jarekt (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Depicted place

  • There are many cases where the "depicted place" could be internationalized through templates. Those I noticed (beside German cities, where it the translation already works):
  • Südfrankreich -> Southern France
  • Nordafrika -> North Africa
  • Ungarn -> Hungary
  • Estland -> Estonia
  • Russland -> Russia
  • Belgien -> Belgium
  • Polen -> Poland
  • Frankreich -> France
  • Tsingtau -> Qingdao
  • Lettland -> Latvia
  • Türkei -> Turkey
  • Atlantikwall -> Atlantic Wall

Should the German form be added to {{City}} or should a bot turn it into English in individual files ? The latter would be cleaner and more understandable, but would require many edits.

There are also cases where the "depicted place is not really a place. I think they could be moved to the top of the "wiki decription" field, or alternatively to a "depicted event" parameter (I do not know how useful that could be)

I added German form to {{City}} template where English version was present. I was always trying to use multiple alternative versions of place names, see Polish section for example. Other place names can be added to {{City}} if necessary. For other places like Atlantikwall, Südfrankreich, or the events, I think we can do bot edits to replace the German name with a template, or create {{BArch-place name}} to translate them. --Jarekt (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)