File talk:Martesana a Gorla nel 1925 01.jpg

This is what is driving away people from contributing to Commons. Yorick39 uploaded a beautiful old photo from Milan, taken from an exhibition "Adesso e citta", where old b/w photos were compared with current photos in color. According to the archives, the photo was anonymous. So uploader's documentation is as complete as can be. But then comes Martin H. with his tags. And he does not let go. And he does not want to make a regular DR. It is infuriating. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I will forget about this bad upload, but however: From having one look at least into the file history you will learn, Pieter, that the image is not "anonymous" because the uploader made an assesment and researched all possible source but that it is anonymous because the uploader simply dont know the author and did not do research. Thats an important difference. Additionally the source lacks verifiablity, if it is from an public archive it would be very, very simple to provide an identification number and a link to the finding aids of the archive. Your claim "PD-EU-anonymous" is a guess, nothing more, your edit, Pieter, is the same quality level as the original upload was ('its a screenshot of free software'). If you appreciate the result: well, do so, but remind that this is not our mission nor our aim. --Martin H. (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit strange to think that a number would make this more verifiable, or that it would have improved the quality of the upload. Martin H., your criteria are not representative for consensus, and when your tags are contested you should take your objections to a regular DR, for discussion by the community. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It will give it a minimum of verifiablity. If I say 'its from my local library' this will give you a population of <2 million books to search. Thats no source at all. In this case we have 850.000 photos - thats no source information at all. Additionally your whole idea is based on what I think is a wrong translation. "from an exhibition"... you said above, no, that information is description, not source information, HE compares old photos with new photos in wikipedia it:Naviglio_della_Martesana#Storia and so he describes this upload. The only source information, that archive - assumed that I searched the correct archive online, www.comune.milano.it/craai, photoarchive - gives only non-anonymous works as result. This all, an incomplete source, an wrong translation and some guessing, is not sufficient in any way to describe this as an anonymous work. --Martin H. (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)