Commons talk:Deutsche Fotothek

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Congratulations and thanks[edit]

Congratulations and thanks again to the German Wikimediaists.KTo288 (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

PD- images[edit]

Whats happening with the public domain images? I think there especially on the old high resolution maps of "Kartenforum". Kartenforum is a part of Fotothek and has maps for saxony. I would be nice and helpful to get some of this maps incl. meta-datas. --Kolossos (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Bundesarchiv images were first uploaded with a standard template as CC-BY-SA, but the template contains a parameter "PD" which can be set to "YES" subsequently, tagging PD images appropriately (Example). I presume that the Deutsche Fotothek upload will be handled in a similar way. The Fotothek would, of course, appear in a very unappealing light if they decided to except PD (resp "gemeinfreie") images from the upload because we treat PD as PD... Gestumblindi (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Bundesarchiv images with the template containing a parameter "PD" which can be set to "YES" was a problem, because one could not specify which PD template to use, so in the most cases a new license template was added instead of using the "PD" parameter. May be this time the "PD" parameter could expect the name of the PD license to use. --Jarekt (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Geodata - caution![edit]

Deutsche Fotothek mentions on their website that some of their pictures are already anotated with geodata. When uploading please do not simply convert this existing geodata into {{Location}} templates without making sure that the geodata complies with the geocoding standards on commons. We try to code the camera location and heading (as exact as possible). --Dschwen (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

We do have a set of "Object location" templates with lower geocoding standards (since object location is easier to set than camera location). I do agree with Dschwen that "camera location" is the preferred , but we can probably settle for "Object location" if can not get it. --Jarekt (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Internationalisation[edit]

I'd like to suggest creating a template like on Bundesarchive for other languages. Something like Template:Lang-Deutsche Fotothek would be appropriate. What do u think?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Mass upload[edit]

I just started a very simple category scheme for location and years (compatible with the BArch categories) that can (and should) be accustomed and refined. For example the date field is not really suitable for giving a single year. See Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Something like "left(datefield, 4)" would be a good estimate for years, but Wikimedia projects have not implented string parser functions so far. :-( the only workaround I can think of is to change the upload bot: it should upload another, new field, containg the first 4 digits of the date field, with every upload. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
As long as we destruct these categories when everything is categorized it's fine with me. I'll ask slomox if he can run his bot over all the images to harvest dates and update the data parameter. Multichill (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Link to original photo[edit]

Why is it not possbile to view the original photo at Deutsche Fotothek? The Link is given in the description but do not work for me. Sample:

Greetings, Conny (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC).

Weil die Fotothek eine bescheuerte und erzlangsame Javascript-Software verwendet (wie auch Foto Marburg), die man den Verantwortlichen 24 h am Tag um die Ohren schlagen sollte... Ich hoffe, dass es bald eine Möglichkeit gibt, direkt zu verlinken. Öffentlich dokumentiert ist bisher jedenfalls keine. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Das war unser erstes Feedback an die SLUB. Die Funktion mit www.deutschefotothek.de/?$signatur klappt für fast alle Bilder, leider nicht für das Subset, mit dessen upload wir angefangen haben. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Klasse. Ich denke, die Fotothek wird langfristig auch davon profitieren, wenn man alle Bilder von außen verlinken kann. Sonst ist so ein Onlineangebot ja irgendwie völlig sinnlos. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ist schon bekannt, dass viele Links zur Fotothek auf falsche Dateien verweisen? (z.B. File:Fotothek_df_pk_0000007_005_Szenenbilder.jpg; File:Fotothek_df_pk_0000155_019_Kartoffelernte.jpg) --Video2005 (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Kulturschock[edit]

For somebody who was raised in West Germany, browsing through the c. 5000 pics that have been uploaded so far amounts to some sort of Kulturschock in socialist esthetics... OMG, I have never thought you could make so many pics of Werktätige and what they do and how they do it. For me, this is an overload. --Concord (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope that in future more Western archives will donate their collections too. Otherwise the wikipedia readers could get the impression, that the GDR has won the cold war - 20 years after the demolition of the Berlin Wall, sigh. Mutter Erde 85.180.224.101 09:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hab mal die ersten 2000 Bilder überflogen und sogar eine der typischen Ruinen entdeckt. Man muss aber genau hinschauen. Mutter Erde 85.180.224.101 10:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Image inverted[edit]

File:Fotothek_df_n-06_0000386.jpg is inverted. See the label "Drogerie". -- Stefan Kühn (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

✓OK It was taken care of by Head. We should set up an error report page like the BArch page. --Yarnalgo (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Datumsformat[edit]

In welchem Format sind denn die Felder "5064" etc. zur Datierung gehalten? Wäre schön, wenn man das gleich beim Hochladen in ISO 8601 machen könnte, damit die Daten lokalisierbar sind. --Slomox (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Bis jetzt nur "YYYY", aber dummerweise eben oft auch "YYYY / YYYY" oder gar ""YYYY / YYYY / YYYY". Das ist für uns bisher schlichtweg nicht nutzbar (weil wir keine Stringfunktionen haben). Siehe mein Beitrag ein paar Themen weiter oben. Es wäre wirklich wichtig, ein vernünftiges Datumsfeld zu bekommen. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The data is spread over several fields. If you take a look at Template:Fotothek-Description/layout you'll see i try to put the date from:
  • date - always empty, can be used to override the data from Fotothek
  • 5064 - Datierung
  • 8450_1_8494 - Aufnahmedatum
  • Maybe even more fields
The data is formatted in all sorts of forms. Maybe nice to find a date in 8450_1_8494 or 5064 and than add {{date}} to the date field (like this). We should leave the original fields untouched. Multichill (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I switched the data order. First Datierung and than Aufnahmedatum otherwise it would give strange results on images like this one. Multichill (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with template[edit]

I can't remove the unknown location category even after I add a location category. Can someone fix this?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to add the parameter "5108_1 = Dresden", not just add a category. I doubt if such edits are indeed helpful, since if the Fotothek was not able to find out where these apples were photographed, how should you know? On the other hand, clearly identifiable objects like buildings should be localized by us even if Fotothek was not able to do so. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This can be easily identified: Example: images like File:Fotothek df n-14 0000299.jpg which have Körperschaft= "Kooperationsverband "elbeobst dresden" " is identified as location= Dresden.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but "Kooperationsverband "elbeobst dresden"" could have had branches, farms etc. at any other place. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way: I know that "my" category template scheme is not perfect, but since we did not get any help or documentation for coping with the mass upload from those concerned with the uploads, I just went ahead and started some simple scheme. I think it is quite helpful right now, but of course it may to have be enhanced or replaced in the future. I could only take the data and templates that we already had as a starting point, and I am sure there will be many more problems to come with future uploads (regarding dates and locations, but probably many others, too). I just hope that we get some better documentation on what all these fields actually mean before more problems arise. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Template with licences other than Cc-by-sa-3.0-de[edit]

Some concern has raise about the usage of the {{Fotothek-License}} with other licences than the cc-by-sa 3.0 de. So i made a small change, adding a parameter |licence= that allow us to use teh template for other licences, such as PD-old-100.

Exemple can dbe seen on this picture's page : File:Johann Georg von Einsiedel.jpg.

It works like that :

  • {{Fotothek-License}} will display by default the Cc-by-sa-3.0-de‎ license tag.
  • {{Fotothek-License|license=''license tag code''}} will display any valid license tag.

Example :

  • {{Fotothek-License|license=PD-old-100}} will display :
Deutsche Fotothek Logo 2012.svg This file was provided to Wikimedia Commons by the Deutsche Fotothek of the Saxon State Library (SLUB) as part of a cooperation project. The Deutsche Fotothek guarantees an authentic representation only by using copies of the original images as provided by the Digital Image Archive.

العربية | Boarisch | català | čeština | Deutsch | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | македонски | Nederlands | Plattdüütsch | português | русский | Türkçe | +/−

Public domain This work is in the public domain in the United States, and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or fewer.
This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.


What do you think of it ?

  • I'll try to get my hands on a geek to check the code
  • If this change is accepted, maybe we could get the upload bot to update its code to use the template when he got PD images to upload, rather than just the normal licence tag without the thingy about the SLUB 'n categorisation.
  • Maybe run a bot to apply this change to already uploaded PD images.

That's all i could think about regarding this matter, hope i did nothing wrong. Kiss Lilyu (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, in fact i realise i didn't changed much on the template code, in fact the previous edit just before mine in the template history, added the same thing as me, but with the parameter name PD rather than licence, which confused me. Thus, it might be correct.--Lilyu (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

See also above regarding the parameter issue: Commons_talk:Deutsche_Fotothek#PD-_images. So, probably your solution is the better one. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The other {{Fotothek-Description}} is just silly : half number criptic code, half german, no documentation.
Like the location parameters, it's :
  • | 5108_1 =
  • | 5108_1_5110 =
  • | 5108_1_5116 =
  • | 5108_1_5117 =
no human can work with that. I understand it might be some code from the SLUB, but we dont need to keep their coding system : we have to deal with human users here. 5108_1_5116 means nothing to you or me, but it's a SLUB code meaning street :.
First thing we need to do, is an english translation of this : http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Fotothek-Description/en&action=edit
Than, maybe changing the parameters from cryptic code to meaningfull words.--Lilyu (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I have try few things, hope i broke nothing ;)
We need someone good in english and german, to check this translation : Template:Fotothek-Description/en from Template:Fotothek-Description/de, please.--Lilyu (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's no single correct way of translating "Körperschaft" (which was left untranslated). It's a very wide term for any kind of, well... corporate body, legal entity... I first chose "legal entity", now I think "corporate body" is better. "Schlagwort" was translated as "keyword"; however, there's a difference between a "Schlagwort" and a "Stichwort" in German library terminology... the word for "keyword" is "Stichwort", whereas a "Schlagwort" is a defined subject heading. Although there is a lot of confusion in this area and "Schlagwort" gets nevertheless often translated as "keyword", I therefore think that "subject heading" is more fitting here. I also changed the translation of "Ortsteil" to "quarter" (the German Wikipedia article de:Ortsteil interwiki-links to en:Quarter (country subdivision)) and tried to translate "Leit-Tag" ("Tag" here is not the German word "Tag", i.e. "day", but an anglicism - therefore "Leading tag"). Gestumblindi (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank youvery much for your help  :)
There is stil a | 5230-label = Sachbegriff/category ? --Lilyu (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes... I'm not sure how to translate "Sachbegriff" there. The word is often used as a synonym for "Schlagwort"; however, as the Fotothek is using "Schlagwort" in other fields, "Sachbegriff" is apparently used with a different meaning. It seems to be used for the most general categorizing ("Foto" for all photographic images), so maybe we could translate "Sachbegriff/category" as "Category heading"? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea : i'm french. I'll have to understand what you meant when translating from german to english ;) Or maybe, i'll be able to put my hand on someone speaking german 'n french.
Maybe you know someone on german WP who is doing a lot of translations from english to german, who might help ?--Lilyu (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

right template[edit]

I think its important to use the ccbysa3.0 lisence template. The Fotothektemplate should only be used beside - so there are no worrys of the possible mediausage. Conny (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC).

Critics[edit]

http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5626206/ --12:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Categoy[edit]

Some images previously uploaded on commons, as public domain images (older than 100 years), were added to this Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek. Because it was the source given in the informations. Is it ok ?

see, for example :

--Lilyu (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not? --62.214.243.61 12:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Category checking[edit]

At User:Multichill/fotothek categories i put a list of temp categories (Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek,....) and possible destination categories. Please check and correct this list. Once this is done, one of my bots will categorize all the images in these temp categories. Multichill (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Because I noticed it recently, why is the date formatted like this YYYY.MM.DD and not YYYY-MM-DD, so it could be displayed automatically in the different languages by the template (seems to work)?--D.W. (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a different topic you're talking about. Multichill (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Errors[edit]

Something went wrong with the upload of File:Fotothek df tg 0003771 Physik ^ Kraft ^ Körper ^ Bewegung.jpg and File:Fotothek df tg 0004855 Geometrie ^ Architektur ^ Festungsbau ^ Vermessung.jpg. -- Rosenzweig δ 22:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The image is fine, but the description (infobox, etc.) seems completly corrupt... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
That's the first image, the second image is damaged. As are File:Fotothek df tg 0004824 Geometrie ^ Architektur ^ Festungsbau ^ Vermessung.jpg and File:Fotothek df tg 0004952 Architektur ^ Brunnen ^ Flaschenzug.jpg. Is there a subpage for error reports? --Rosenzweig δ 22:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
More: File:Fotothek df tg 0004710 Astronomie ^ Statue.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0004667 Kriegskunde ^ Militär ^ Waffe ^ Drill ^ Kavallerie ^ Lanze.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0004652 Kriegskunde ^ Militär ^ Waffe ^ Drill ^ Kavallerie ^ Muskete.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0004637 Kriegskunde ^ Militär ^ Waffe ^ Drill ^ Kavallerie ^ Muskete.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0004586 Geometrie ^ Vermessung.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0004546 Geometrie ^ Vermessung ^ Instrument.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0004542 Geometrie ^ Vermessung ^ Instrument ^ Gebäude.jpg. --Rosenzweig δ 22:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Still more: File:Fotothek df tg 0004469 Astronomie ^ Planet ^ Symbol.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0004328 Geometrie ^ Planimetrie ^ Festung.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0004276 Naturwissenschaft ^ Schreibgerät ^ Kopieren ^ Dokumente.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0004266 Naturwissenschaft ^ Wasserkunst ^ Springbrunnen ^ Luftdruck.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0004053 Portrait ^ Bildnis.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0004026 Architektur ^ Festungsbau.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0004014 Kriegskunst ^ Kavallerie.jpg. --Rosenzweig δ 22:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
5 more: File:Fotothek df tg 0003927 Architektur ^ Gebäude ^ Kamin.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0003868 Kran ^ Hafen.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0003851 Mechanik ^ Hebel.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0003835 Geometrie ^ Zirkel ^ Messinstrument.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0003706 Mechanik ^ Mühle ^ Rossmühle ^ Schneidemühle.jpg. I've checked the latest 1500 that were uploaded now, 23 had errors. --Rosenzweig δ 23:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
6 more: File:Fotothek df tg 0003703 Mechanik ^ Mühle ^ Rossmühle.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0003697 Mechanik ^ Mühle ^ Mahlmühle.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0003669 Mechanik ^ Welle ^ Wasserförderung ^ Schöpfwerk ^ Gewicht.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0003666 Mechanik ^ Welle ^ Mühle ^ Wasserförderung ^ Wasserrad ^ Schöpfwerk.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0003639 Geometrie ^ Architektur ^ Perspektive.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0003610 Architektur ^ korinthische Ordnung ^ Karnies.jpg. 1750 checked now. --Rosenzweig δ 23:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
+ 2: File:Fotothek df tg 0003351 Geometrie ^ Fläche ^ Figur ^ Körper.jpg, File:Fotothek df tg 0003343 Druckermarke.jpg. --Rosenzweig δ 23:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The bot page asks for error reports to be directed to User talk:Multichill. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the description for File:Fotothek df tg 0003771 Physik ^ Kraft ^ Körper ^ Bewegung.jpg. I can't fix the images with errors in it, this is how i got them. Multichill (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
In that case I suggest creation of a dedicated template to be used on damaged DF images that would categorize them and inform the viewer that the damage occurred on the DF end, not ours. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
We need to set up an error report subpage like the BArch one. --Yarnalgo (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, I like the template idea. For some of them, the corrupted area can just be cropped out though which is what we should do. I've cropped File:Fotothek df tg 0004014 Kriegskunst ^ Kavallerie.jpg and I'll crop any others where the crop will have little effect on the actual image. --Yarnalgo (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The corrupt area should be cropped out of all of them. There is no point in keeping the an image that is half useless. The template should then also be added explaining why there is only half a picture. --Yarnalgo (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You can follow the link to the fotothek-page, than you see that the thumbnail is correct but the zoomify image is buggy. WE should give the fotothek a error-report, than the can possible repair the images and give us a correct version. Crop is in my opinion not usefull. --Kolossos (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I created {{Fotothek-Broken image}} to track these images. Multichill (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added the template to all listed above and one more I found. --Yarnalgo (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I found a few where only the very corner is corrupt (1, 2, 3). Should I still add the template in case the full image can be recovered or should I just crop out that small bit? --Yarnalgo (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a different template/category for images with minor damage? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(Also 4, 5, 6) --Yarnalgo (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Errors - contacting DF[edit]

So, has anybody tried contacting FH and asking them what can be done about those images? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolution[edit]

"The photographs are (roughly) 800x600 resolution. However, in the future for some pictures, we may be able to request a higher resolution from the State and University Library Dresden (SLUB).". How, and why aren't we getting the highest resolution possible? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to know that myself; there is nothing about this issue in the press release, and to put it mildly the low resolution diminishes the value of the donation significantly - in effect they have donated a gargantuan amount of mediocre images, in exchange for the work of thousands of Commoners who will catalog them and enrich their metadata, which will in turn be attached to the high-resolution versions the Fotothek keeps for itself. Makes me wonder how generous this "donation" really is. -- JovanCormac 11:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Consecutive series?[edit]

I started categorizing some of the photographs in the Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek, year 1975 and noticed some are in a time-connected series. Therefore, to File:Fotothek df n-07 0000283.jpg, I also added a "See also" section with a gallery like this:

This photograph is part of this series:

Workers handling a girder using a lifting hook (not necessarily in sequence)
Fotothek df n-07 0000279.jpg
 
Fotothek df n-07 0000280.jpg
 
Fotothek df n-07 0000281.jpg
 
Fotothek df n-07 0000282.jpg
 
Fotothek df n-07 0000283.jpg
 
Fotothek df n-07 0000284.jpg
 
Fotothek df n-07 0000285.jpg
 
Fotothek df n-07 0000286.jpg
 
Fotothek df n-07 0000287.jpg
 

Is this a good idea and/or is there a formal or better way to show related images? 84user (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What criteria did you use to decide which imgae is in this series? I my mind could image 283 and 284 also be part of an other series. So it is not objective and not able to automate by using metadatas. At image 285 the crane hook is red in 286 it is yellow.
It's a new problem for Commons to handle this kind of series. We should dicuse it. It see the problem to categories such a series is not so easy than a simple image. The series are a little bit like spam in our categories, without a huge benefit.
The series seems to small to handle by categories. Perhaps a template construction would be better or a little toolserver-script or an animated gif ;-). But this series have sequenced numbers, so the are in the right order at the category, IMO that can be enough. --Kolossos (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes you're right, I did not use objective criteria. I am not even sure about the time order of the images. And I did not notice there are at least two hooks. I also find the large quantity of very similar images act kind of like spam. Maybe it would be better to include related images in short galleries and tag only the galleries with a category? But I think I will leave the images unrelated from now on and just add the ocassional category; I will not add any more "series galleries" like this! 84user (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of series galleries, but we should wait what other people think. --Kolossos (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I support some form of linking images in a series; what form, I don't particularly care. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Getting the images categorized[edit]

All images need to be categorized in topic categories. This is going to be a lot of work. To make this easier, a temporary category structure has been created:

It's possible to add more temporary trees if someone finds a useful variable. I have all metadata in a database at the toolserver so i (and other toolserver users) can easily do queries. I also added an extra command to move all uncategorized images from a temporary category to another category, see User:CommonsDelinker/commands/documentation#Categorize_uncategorized_images. This should make the whole process a lot faster. If you have any questions / suggestions, please respond here. Multichill (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Ps. If you're not an admin, you can place the commands at User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands

Next images?[edit]

The last upload is 3 weeks ago. Is there a reason for this break? When commes the next images? --Kolossos (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It is work in progress, I will eighter inform you about the new upload cycle or simply pass the files along to the upload. -- 77.176.66.89 15:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm out of batches to process. I'm waiting for the next batches to arrive. I don't know yet when I'm going to get the next batches. Multichill (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Ping. New infos? --Kolossos (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm still waiting. Multichill (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It's still very silent on the new images front. I hope to hear something again after the summer. Multichill (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
did you ever ask what happened to them?... 4 months! that's very annoying 217.234.90.100 12:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

End of upload[edit]

As the anonymous user points out: I haven't received any word on this for about 4 months. I'm tired of waiting and I don't have a lot of time on my hands, so it's end of upload for me. I will try to document everything at Commons:Batch uploading/Deutsche Fotothek so that someone else can continue if we ever receive more batches. Multichill (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Lack of progress[edit]

I am sorry, I did not keep you informed about the current status. The SLUB asked for a bit more patience in order to ensure that the images they supply are free from images which they do not have sufficient rights to release them under cc-by-sa. I agree with their "better-safe-than-sorry" approach, even if I would prefer progress on this matter much faster. I will try to keep you informed about the next steps, please keep in mind that there are actually a bunch of places, so I might miss some of the less obvious ones (such as this site) for updates. In case of doubt, please email me at mathias.schindler@wikimedia.de. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the update on the situation. I have to point out, though, that Commons:Deutsche Fotothek (of which this obviously is the talk page) is the main page for this project on Commons. And as Commons is where all the uploads go, it is not a “less obvious” place for information about the project. Regards --Rosenzweig δ 15:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Confusing categorization system[edit]

I don't get how to help in this project. The way we categorize isn't clear to me. For example: Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek, location Arzberg include images that should be categorized in Category:Arzberg which later would be diffused into a sub category. It isn't however possible to remove the Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek, location Arzberg from the files. This poses a problem for me as I don't see any improvement for the work that is being done. These images have even been diffused to a lower subcategory namely Category:Wendrichs Bockmühle which has as a parent Category:Arzberg. Furthermore the Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek, building Wendrichs Bockmühle should be removed from the files. This can't be done. How do I know if a file has already been categorized or not? I propose that any category in the Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek by building that has a parent category with the same name be removed as a category. So for example Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek, building Böhlener Windmühle has as a parent Category : Category:Böhlener Windmühle. The Fototothek Category is here unnecessary.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Categorization done[edit]

I've just finished the very last of the categorization. All of the images have now been categorized, and I'm going to file for speedy deletion for the empty and now useless "needing categories" categories. I've decided to be bold and inform the people at the Main Page that the categorization is done, and I brought up the questions about removing the temporary link to this project. However, I want to make sure that users much more experienced and knowledgeable than me are involved in this discussion and making the final decisions. I'm just trying to get the ball rolling and finish the image categorization portion of this project once and for all. Thanks! TFCforever (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question[edit]

File:Fotothek df roe-neg 0000182 003 Die Gläserne Frau.jpg : is there a freedom of panorama inside buildings in Germany ?

The sculptor is probably Franz Tschackert : http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/weimar/wissenschaft/glamen/index.html

Did he die more than 70 years ago (before 1940) ? Teofilo (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no FOP inside buildings in Germany. Franz Tschackert died in 1958 [1]. But is this really a sculpture, i.e. a work of art? Tschackert was not an artist, but a preparator. --Rosenzweig δ 20:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding {{Credit line}}[edit]

See Commons:Village_pump section New_template_{{Credit_line}} for proposal to add {{Credit line}} to Deutsche Fotothek images. --Jarekt (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

More images![edit]

Just received two new batches. Together around 18.000 images. I plan to upload these images soon. Multichill (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just finished preparing the files. All files are ready for import. That's going to happen tomorrow. I use {{Fotothek-Category}} to either add temporary categories or {{Uncategorized-Fotothek}}. The categories are temporary and are only added to easily spot subsets and move these files to a topic category. Multichill (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Categorization process[edit]

With the previous upload there was some confusion about the categorization process. It's changed now and I hope this flow is better.

  1. The image gets uploaded. The image contains either:
  2. The image is placed in one or more topic categories, the temp categories are removed and either {{Check categories-Fotothek}} or {{Uncategorized-Fotothek}} are removed

The temp categories are not hidden so hotcat can be used. It's possible to use a bot to move all images in a temp category to a topic category. You can find the all categories here. The files still needing human attention are tagged with either {{Check categories-Fotothek}} or {{Uncategorized-Fotothek}} so it's easy to keep track of these files. Multichill (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You find them all here. --Martin H. (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I found some great images from Poland. --Jarekt (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Attribution[edit]

Lately, Multichill added Attribution section to {{Fotothek-License}}. I fully support effort to clearly spell out what information reusers are required to provide when reusing those images. However I do not think "Deutsche Fotothek‎" meets the license requirements. Section 4c of the license, if similar to the English version (I do not speak German so I can not verify) should state that at minimum what is required is: author and the license. That would produce in the minimal form "© Richard Peter / CC-BY-SA-3.0 (DE)". Additional "Attribution Parties" could be requested by the licensor, like Deutsche Fotothek‎. Although it is not clear from the current license info that they requested this additional attribution info, since they stamp each image with Deutsche Fotothek‎ it is probably safe to assume that they would like it. This would produce in the minimal form "© Richard Peter / Deutsche Fotothek / CC-BY-SA-3.0 (DE)" credit line. I would like to propose to use that form in the {{Fotothek-License}}. See more info on required Credit lines at Commons:Credit line. --Jarekt (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the same attribution requirement from the similar Template:BArch-License/layout, the attribtion there with "Bundesarchiv" was clearly not enough. --Martin H. (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Next bunch of images[edit]

When will the next files be uploaded? Around 60.000 a total of 250.000 are on Commons yet. --High Contrast (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Document collection by Günter Rapp[edit]

Category Category:Document collection by Günter Rapp holds mostly PD-old works related to water and wind-mills collected by Günter Rapp. Unfortunately in all those images year and author are not populated correctly. They show up in the image description but not in the author and year fields. Also Günter Rapp is incorrectly listed as an author of all those images contradicting descriptions. Any ideas of how to fix it? --Jarekt (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

^ ^ ^[edit]

In case additional images are uploaded, maybe "&" shouldn't be replaced with "^" (sample: File:Fotothek df tg 0000097 Architektur ^ Geometrie ^ Perspektive ^ Treppe.jpg. "&" can be used in filenames. If a substitute is needed, "-" could work. -- User:Docu at 13:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Changed in 163 (might take some time for the changeset to show up). Multichill (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks. That was quick. -- User:Docu at 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Change to past tense and add year please[edit]

Update the start of this article to be in the past. The page is semi-protected so I can't do it...

It should be:

On March 31st 2009, the Deutsche Fotothek and Wikimedia Germany e.V. announced details...

and so on.

"comment" field[edit]

Here I've added a comment but it isn't shown anywhere. What's the purpose of this field when it isn't shown? --32X (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What happened?[edit]

Why did this project fail? Uploading was stopped at only 60,000. It's not even 25% of the promised 250,000. Kekator (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I never noticed that. It is a good question, since there was a lot of very good images in that collection. --Jarekt (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I read somewhere (can't find it now, probably some talk page in the German wikipedia or some mailing list) that they still want to contribute the rest of the images (or at least some more), but ran into problems. Not enough manpower to handle it, technical problems, whatever; perhaps someone else knows more or recalls better. --Rosenzweig τ 15:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

New photographs[edit]

After a break of two and a half years I observe that some new photographs have been uploaded from the Deutsche Fotothek, all of them taken by Uwe Gerig, a well-known photo-journalist (see here for a German summary). Some samples, randomly chosen:

It is great to see new uploads. Any news about how this is going to continue? --AFBorchert (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a great news. --Jarekt (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
It is. There might be work for a bot here BTW, field 5108_1 of the Template:Fotothek-Description used holds the place (city) where the photo was taken, that could be used to sort the images into a Commons category. Unless it is felt that category would not be exact enough and every image should preferably be categorised by a human. --Rosenzweig τ 09:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

New template layout[edit]

We are experimenting with new infobox template layout. See Template:Fotothek-Description/layout/sandbox and Template:Fotothek-Description/testcases for examples. Comments and suggestions welcome. --Jarekt (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks much better! Multichill (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)