- 1 Crescent City
- 2 Notification about possible deletion
- 3 File:Pamphlet; The medical consequences of nuclear war Wellcome L0075369.jpg
- 4 Confusion re use of Public Domain image - additional comment
- 5 NYPL fire insurance maps
- 6 File:'the Chief' Art.IWMART1305.jpg
- 7 File:A 'camouflage tree' was an observation post made from a hollow metal cylinder, camouflaged as a dead tree. Art.IWMART2283.jpg
- 8 Category:Pages using Artwork template with incorrect parameter
- 9 User:Fæ/Fry1989 revert analysis
- 10 De morbis contagiosis libri septem
- 11 Landscapes is not a dustbin category
- I had left it, as I feel unknowledgeable with regard to location. It may be worth chasing up on en.wp where there is a more active project area for NRHP. --Fæ (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
|Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.
- File:Cameron Balloons Bertie Bassett-90 SS AN0320585.jpg
- File:Cameron Balloons Douglas-110 SS AN0320583.jpg
- File:Cameron Balloons Grand Illusion SS AN0279649.jpg
- File:Cameron Balloons Home Special-110 SS, Barclays Mortgages AN0320586.jpg
- File:Cameron Balloons N-105, Wonderbra AN0320589.jpg
- File:Cameron Balloons N-133 SS AN0275858.jpg
- File:Cameron Balloons N-133 SS AN0275859.jpg
- File:Cameron Balloons N-90 AN0320584.jpg
- File:Cameron Balloons Parachutist-110 SS, Action Man AN0339981.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pamphlet; The medical consequences of nuclear war Wellcome L0075369.jpg Prosfilaes (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Confusion re use of Public Domain image - additional comment
I refer to your earlier response of 10th October to my question regarding the IWM comment attached to Wikipedia Commons images of WW2 that they are being released under a non-commercial IWM licence.
In particular you referred me to your correspondence with the IWM last year and I have been reading this again. In particular, in early January, they said that:
i.e. However, IWM also wants to support and encourage public access to our collection by offering low resolution images suitable for online use under a non-commercial licence on our website. We are happy for you to download or embed images from our site for use on Wikimedia Commons under our IWM non-commercial licence.
I see that you then re-approached them on 27th January, 2013, basically challenging them by saying that they could not claim new copyright simply by reproducing or rescanning an earlier Crown Copyright expired image and then saying this was being issued under a IWM non-commercial licence.
I wonder whether you ever received a response from the IWM to that e-mail. This is of particular importance to me as the book on which I am working, and into which I would like to insert a number of WW2 images placed on Wikipedia Commons via the IWM, will technically be sold commercially - even if only a few hundred books will be sold and for which I am still likely to be out of pocket. I therefore wish to be certain that I am doing nothing illegal as far as IWM is concerned by using those images under the Public Domain licence in that the original Crown Copyright licence over those images has long since expired. The book will be published in the UK
Can you give me any final comfort that I can rely on the Public Domain licence and ignore any reference to the non-commercial use comment by the IWM which still accompanies all their images?
- The only responses I have are published on the page you looked at. The IWM is welcome to contact me again. You can have my amateur opinion, as someone who is not a lawyer but has uploaded over 600,000 images to Wikimedia Commons. In this case, there are a few components:
- The "sweat of the brow" involved is non-existent for almost all expired Crown Copyright images hosted by IWM. There has been no digital or physical restoration by curators, there has only been scanning of images, and in some cases negatives. Where photographs have been taken of 2D artworks, these are purely intended to be faithful reproductions, so there is no additional creative component that might be relevant under UK law. Lastly, there has been no additional research at the time of digitization, as far as I can see. The categorization and description of images remains pretty much as it was when the images were placed in the archives. Note that any "sweat of the brow" argument is irrelevant for images hosted on servers in the USA and the WMF has firmly rejected this as a reason to create new copyright on public domain works.
- Individual downloads from the IWM website cannot be challenged as systematic misuse of their website. The website terms might prohibit download of high resolution images. However if you are a reuser of the same Public Domain material from elsewhere, such as Wikimedia Commons, then any website terms on the IWM site are irrelevant as you would not be going near their website.
- Fees that the IWM may wish to charge are for reproduction services, not copyright. This is clear enough in their website contract. Consequently any payment would be for optional services, and has no implication for copyright. In particular, the IWM has no lawful basis to charge for copyright payments on works they cannot demonstrate they hold the copyright for; this is easy to understand in cases of Crown Copyright works and expired Crown Copyright works that they hold copies of.
- The risk you would take in publishing expired Crown Copyright works in a book is none. Many years have passed since "sweat of the brow" was bandied around as a blight on public domain works in the UK. To this date nobody has had to pay damages or been prosecuted by anyone. It is not in the interests of any institution that demands money for "sweat of the brow" to have the law clarified as they rely on the effect of the perceived "risk" rather than wanting to make a claim of damages that would be rejected by any judge worth their salt. However, you could do as I did, and write to the IWM IP manager and explain your intentions and ask if there is any legal reason for you not to proceed that they can put forward. This at least puts the ball in their court and you can have any response checked over by an IP lawyer or your future publisher (and perhaps make it available to educate contributors like me on Commons).
- Let me know how it goes. --Fæ (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
NYPL fire insurance maps
Thank you for your excellent work. I've started a discussion on subcategorizartion of them at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/10/Category:Sanborn maps of Manhattan. If interested, please comment. Thank you. Vzeebjtf (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into it. I doubt there will be any controversy. --Fæ (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:'the Chief' Art.IWMART1305.jpg Steinsplitter (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
File:A 'camouflage tree' was an observation post made from a hollow metal cylinder, camouflaged as a dead tree. Art.IWMART2283.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:A 'camouflage tree' was an observation post made from a hollow metal cylinder, camouflaged as a dead tree. Art.IWMART2283.jpg Steinsplitter (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Fæ. Could you please fix your hundred uploads in this maintenance category? Thanks. --Leyo 10:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for having fixed most of the cases. --Leyo 12:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- NP. I don't like to over-compensate in batch uploads for possible rare oddities in metadata, and these seem limited to an oddly formatted reference style for Science Museum artefacts with photos in the Wellcome, and even rarer stray pipe symbols in description metadata. This upload is 65% done, so there should not be many, if any, more of these. Ping me with another alert if another run appears and I'll happily take a look.
Commons:Deletion requests/User:Fæ/Fry1989 revert analysis
Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
De morbis contagiosis libri septem
You've uploaded many images from the book "From Morbis contagious Libri Septem" and EACH of the images are categorized in different diseases:
- Category:Sexually transmitted diseases and disorders
- Category:Wellcome Rare Books Collection
This is a wrong way to categorize the images. I have corrected your wrongness creating a container category of these images: Category:De morbis contagiosis libri septem, after adding links to corresponding categories to the category. Surely you would create new specified categories in Category:De morbis contagiosis libri septem by chapters, and perhaps only one chapter can link (for example) to Category:Plague or Category:Leprosy.
After I created two categories in Category:Wellcome Rare Books Collection where I move some pictures (to Category:A collection of engravings...Midwifery, Category:A course of lectures on midwifery). It is wrong to have a category with more than 12000 images (Category:Wellcome Rare Books Collection), or EVEN a few hundred images.
BEFORE loading the images, you must create the category (or categories) where the new images will be placed, not doing this means more work. All images should be put into categories.
Also, You can read Help:Category.
Finally: Excuse me, my English is not very good
- Hi Jmarchn, thanks for looking at this book category. Please keep in mind that we now have a much improved search engine on Commons and this avoids the need for lots of highly specific sub-categories as we can create intersections of categories, and indeed filter large categories by specific text or even words in filenames. It is also quite normal to have very large categories which have their own uses, for example all images as part of my project with the Wellcome library are automatically added to Files from Wellcome Images, which is very useful to create searches like this one for "John Bull" cartoons found in the Wellcome Images archive.
- In this case if the general categories were on all 250+ pages of the book, then it makes sense to filter them off, however this may not be the case for all pages of all rare books uploaded. For example we might want to be able to search for illuminated pages appearing in a general category for that, from others in the book, yet we would not wish to create sub-categories. Note that books were only a small component of the Wellcome uploads, the principle of using the Wellcome catalogue keywords to find categories has been useful for most of the rest of the collection, though there has been a significant issue with the proportion of files without useful keywords, meaning some long term housekeeping might be needed.
- Let me know if there is another large book you would like me to look at, the new search feature makes it pretty easy to use cat-a-lot to quickly recategorize. --Fæ (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, I just populated Letters from David Livingstone 1841 to 1865 where the images had no categories. This may be more of the norm for other parts of the rare books collection.
- I have created a SQL script to generate a list of files that share the first 30 characters of their filenames and sorted these by numbers of images in the set. These are good suspects for further book categories, you may wish to consider them. --Fæ (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
|Possible leaves of books or similar collections|
+--------------------------------+----------+ | Title | COUNT(*) | +--------------------------------+----------+ | De_morbis_contagiosis_libri_se | 259 | | Letter_from_David_Livingstone_ | 250 | | Les_Clavicules_de_Salomon_Well | 221 | | Notes_on_Midwifery_Wellcome_L0 | 213 | | "Chirurgia"_by_Henri_de_Mondev | 209 | | Herbal_with_204_illustrations_ | 202 | | Kitab-i_viladat-i_Iskandar._WM | 190 | | Manuscript_on_alchemical_proce | 190 | | Page_from_'The_book_of_birth_o | 180 | | Vol._II._Les_Clavicules_de_R._ | 177 | | Proceedings_of_the_Royal_Socie | 167 | | Medical_Recipe_Collection_Well | 150 | | Anatomical_fugitive_sheets_Wel | 142 | | Bilvamangala's_Balagopalastuti | 134 | | Allegorical_and_sacred_subject | 129 | | MS_Sanskrit_Epsilon_35_(Radhat | 117 | | Album_of_photographs_of_plasti | 100 | | Andreae_Vesalii_Bruxellensis_W | 99 | | The_anatomy_of_the_human_gravi | 92 | | The_Physician's_Handbook_Wellc | 80 | | Japanese_Herbal,_17th_century_ | 80 | | Anatomie_des_parties_de_la_gé | 76 | | La_Clavicule_ou_La_Clef_de_Sal | 76 | | MS._8932._Medieval_folding_alm | 76 | +--------------------------------+----------+
Landscapes is not a dustbin category
Well, you've done it again. You've dumped dozens of photos of trees, paintings, islands, towns etc into the landscapes category. You have ben doing this persistently since last year. It is taking myself and several other editors a large amount of time to clear your mess.. Could you please stop doing this? If you feel the need to dump images into an existing category, could you just dump them into the "Killer Whale" category or similar? They clearly don't belong there any more than they do in Landscapes, but at least those categories aren't labelled as being overcrowded. You really couldn't find a worse category in which to dump random images than the one that you have chosen. The landscape page says quite clearly that buildings, mountains and forests do NOT belong into this category, a point that I drew to your attention last year. Rather than suggesting useful scripts for others to clean up your mess for you, you might just persist form creating the mess in the first place? Thank you.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done Using the search tool shows precisely 3 files from the Wellcome batch upload in this category. Since the last time you wrote I have uploaded around another 30,000 files in this collection, so the chances of this happening is about 1/10,000 uploads. The project is now 72% complete, so we might see another 3 files in this category. Most contributors would hardly consider this "persistent" or "dumping". Writing this reply took me about three times longer than removing the category from the three files in question, which I have done in parallel with no special tools. Your portrait of this being a mess needing "a large amount of time" just makes no sense to me.
- See the fix explained at /2014#Commons:Categories and please avoid "over-categorization" 2. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)