User talk:Rd232/Archive 5

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

Template:Creator‎

I was initially quite exited about new changes to Template:Creator‎: the linkback icon is more intuitive and I always wanted the linkback icon on the right (in case of ltr languages), but I never managed to get it to work properly. Unfortunately, the linkback icon is no longer working for me. For example in case of File:Philip the good.jpg, repeated clicks at the new icon in creator template do no send me to the template while clicking on the old icon of the institution template seem to work just fine. (I am using Firefox on Windows XP machine). --Jarekt (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm, thanks, I've no idea why but apparently the span breaks the link behaviour. I've removed it. But then I can't figure out why the template forces a line break after it either, so you can't use it inline in text... Rd232 (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please revert Template:Creator to the version that was used in this comment screenshot? I think this will be confusing for Chrome team to fix the bug that I reported. −ebraminiotalk 22:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there some reason you can't take a new screenshot or explain the icon replacement? Rd232 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't think. I just guess this will confusing for them so I think temporary reverting to that version would be nice. Also I must add personally I like the new icon more. −ebraminiotalk 22:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I think anyone capable of coding Chrome will be able to figure it out as long as you explain it - even if you don't provide a new screenshot. But certainly providing a new one should make things clear enough. Rd232 (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It makes sense! :) I don't think changing the icon makes problem but if you can please don't change style of things. Also it would be nice if you put a comment there or follow that bug if you like. Thanks :) −ebraminiotalk 22:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia

Hallo Rd232, wenn die Überarbeitung dieser Seite aus deiner Sicht abgeschlossen ist, sollten wir auch die deutschsprachige Fassung entsprechend aktualisieren. Spätestens bis zum WikiKina-Projekt auf der Photokina hätte ich dort gerne eine wunschlos-glücklos-Fassung, weil dort sicher beide Sprachfassungen reichlich präsentiert bzw. thematisiert werden. Ggf. könnte man auf dem Forum mal zur Äusserung von Ergänzungswünschen aufrufen. --Túrelio (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, ja, die Übersetzungen sollten alle erneuert werden; ich glaube die englische Version ist jetzt stabil. Kannst du eine Notiz im Forum für mich machen, und die Übersetzung organisieren? Danke! Rd232 (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

second time?

This picture has already been elected in July--David1010 07:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

OK - removed. Feel free to suggest a replacement. Rd232 (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified authors

Hi Rd232. Are you planning to create the category page? --Leyo 08:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. I didn't do it immediately as nothing was showing up in it, and I wasn't sure why. Rd232 (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Job queue… The category will probably be quite “full” soon. For images below the TOO, a missing author does not matter at all. --Leyo 14:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It's populated automatically by {{Information}} when the {{Unknown}} template isn't used, and instead the word "unknown". The idea is such files probably need checking, and can be removed from the category by using the template, if appropriate. Rd232 (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, this makes sense.
For some reason, File:Stuttgarter Zeitung Logo.svg seems to be in this category (shown at the bottom for e.g. uselang=de), but does not appear in the category. --Leyo 15:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
That was probably a caching issue; it's not in the category any more after your cleanup. Rd232 (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It does not seem to be a cache issue. If I add {{unknown|author}} to the author field of a random image, this category is shown at the bottom. --Leyo 11:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Logo vdf.svg, yes? It was a caching issue - a purge took it out of the category. It should have been in the category before your edit (because of |Author=unbekannt.) but it probably wasn't due to, er, caching.... :) Rd232 (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I did not mean this file (it's still there anyway). I added it to Test.svg, where the category also appears. Hence, it is not a caching issue. --Leyo 12:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Purge fixed that too. If you're still seeing it, it's your client cache. Rd232 (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I checked File:Stuttgarter Zeitung Logo.svg und Test.svg on a friend's PC, but Category:Unidentified authors is also shown there as a hidden category (uselang: de, de-at, de-ch, de-formal, als). Hence, it cannot be the browser cache IMHO. --Leyo 09:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The following piece of code is responsible: 
{{Information/author processing|author={{unknown|author}} }}
I see that you are the creator of Template:Information/author processing. --Leyo 16:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I see the category showing on Test.svg on another PC, when it shouldn't, as it has {{unknown|author}} in the author field. But I don't see why; {{Information}} calls the subtemplate with {{Information/author processing|author={{{author|{{{Author|}}} }}}}}, and the subtemplate doesn't match {{unknown|author}}, it only outputs it. I don't understand :( Rd232 (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ding! I think it's a parsing confusion issue... {{Information}} is getting the result of {{Unknown}}, which causes a match! Hm. Quick fix done. Rd232 (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That solved the problem, indeed. Thank you. --Leyo 09:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files

I found it very confusing that this is now a redirect to the new guideline, yet there is still a banner requesting comments. I spent some time looking for changes between the two pages that were linked as the old and new versions, without realizing that the link for the old version had been redirected to the new page. Finally, after failing to find any differences, I looked at the top and saw it had been redirected to the new version. (The discussion did not say it had been closed, so there was no hint that it had already been converted to a redirect.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a redirect from one proposed guideline to another proposed guideline. I thought it would be confusing to have two, so I redirected it. I made it a soft redirect for the moment, maybe that's better. Rd232 (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You might consider altering the link at the discussion to point to the old version in the history. That would be less confusing to editors are first reading the discussion at this point in time. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, sure, done. Rd232 (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I did not realize (until now) that we were comparing an older proposed guideline with a newer proposed guideline. (Probably I did not read carefully enough, and thought we were comparing an existing guideline with a proposed revision.) Anyway, thanks for your help and patience! --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

PD money cz

Hallo, ich habe gerade bei Category:Banknotes of Czechoslovakia gefunden, daß die tschech. Nationalbank (auf die sich "money-CZ" bezieht) Rechtsnachfolger für die tschechoslowakische Staatsbank (und Vorläuferinstitute) ist. Bitte in dieser Category die Löschdrohung entfernen und "money-CZ" zulassen. Siehe auch Česká národní banka (ČNB) auf der dt. oder cs.-Wiki. mfg --Drdoht 10:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ja, ich sehe dass daß die tschech. Nationalbank Rechtsnachfolger für die tschechoslowakische Staatsbank (und Vorläuferinstitute) ist. Aber {{Money-CZ}} bezieht sich auf Tschechisches Recht fuer heute gueltige Waehrung, nicht auf dass Urheberrecht der Nationalbank. Wir muessen wissen, was Tschechoslowakisches Recht dazu zu sagen hatte, oder dass die heutige Nationalbank dass Urheberrecht freigegeben hat, usw. Rd232 (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Nein, nein, das ist falschrum gedacht. Die Institution "Tschech. Nationalbank" hat das individuelle Urheberrecht an allen ihren Banknoten. Die Modalitäten in {{Money-CZ}} werden vom Rechteinhaber diktiert, nicht vom tschech. Staat. Nur dadurch, daß das Land Tschechoslowakei 1993 zweigeteilt wurde, gehen ihnen doch nicht die Rechte an ihren früheren Banknoten verloren. Josef Tošovský war Vorstand von 1990-1997 und damit Vorstand auch in der tschechoslowakischen Staatsbank. Anderes Beispiel: Wenn ich persönliche Patent- und Markenrechte halte, dann gehen die mir nicht verloren, wenn dieses Land hier umbenannt oder geteilt wird. Noch ein Beispiel: Die Reichsbank gibt es nicht mehr. Deren Rechte hat das BMF übernommen. Daher muß man, wenn man etwas über Reichsbanknoten wissen möchte, den HEUTIGEN Rechteinhaber befragen. --Drdoht 16:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Nein, die Entscheidung dass kein Urheberrecht fuer Waehrung zutrifft ist eine Entscheidung des Staates, nicht des Rechteinabers. Und es ist ueberhaupt nicht klar, dass diese Entscheidung auch fuer alte (nicht mehr gueltige) Waehrung zutrifft. Villeicht kann man das belegen; sonst muesste der Rechteinhaber Stellung zur alten Waehrung nehmen. Man kann nicht einfach von gueltiger Waehrung (wo der Staat ein Interesse daran hat, das die Waehrung erkannt wird) auf ungueltige hochrechnen. Rd232 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

>> dass kein Urheberrecht fuer Waehrung zutrifft ist eine Entscheidung des Staates, nicht des Rechteinhabers<< Nun, dies mag die Sichtweise eines diktatorischen Ostblockstaates gewesen sein. Ich „rechne auch nicht von gültigen auf ungültige Währungen hoch“. Mit dem EU-Beitritt Tschechiens am 01.05.2004 gelten auch für Tschechien EU-Gesetzmäßigkeiten. Über die Währung entscheidet tatsächlich der Staat (Czech. Rep.), die Ausgabe der Geldmittel überträgt er an seine Zentralbank (Czech National Bank), die auch die graphische Gestaltung der Geldmittel übernimmt. Den Druck übernahm die Druckerei STÁTNÍ TISKÁRNA CENIN http://www.stc.cz/deutsch.html?p=281 Und dafür hält die Nationalbank das Urheberrecht (in Einzelfällen kann der Grafiker daran beteiligt sein). Nur der Rechteinhaber entscheidet darüber, wer seine Grafiken „verwerten“ darf. Der „Staat“ legt nur fest, welcher Art die Rechte des Urhebers sind (Laufzeit etc). Urheberrechtsverletzungen müssen vom Rechteinhaber stets zivilrechtlich beim „Störer“ reklamiert werden. Der „Staat“ (bzw. ein Gericht) befindet nur darüber, ob eine solche Klage zu recht oder unrecht erfolgt ist.

Die Tschechoslowakei zerfiel am 1. Januar 1993 in die Republiken Tschechien und Slowakei. Das Nationalparlament des tschech. Staats legte gesetzlich fest im Act No. 6/1993 http://www.cnb.cz/miranda2/export/sites/www.cnb.cz/en/legislation/acts/download/act_on_cnb.pdf

  • Art. 1: Die tschechische Nationalbank CNB ist die Zentralbank der tschech. Republik
  • Art. 2: Die tschechische Nationalbank CNB gibt Banknoten und Münzen aus
  • Art. 51: Die tschechische Nationalbank CNB wird aus der tschechoslowakischen Staatsbank (State Bank of Czechoslovakia) abgespalten.
  • Art. 53: Die tschechische Nationalbank CNB ist Rechtsnachfolger der tschechoslowakischen Staatsbank.
  • Art. 55: Übernahme aller Konten, Vorschriften etc
  • Art. 61: Die tschechische Nationalbank CNB wird Teil des europäischen Verbunds der Zentralbanken.

Czech National Bank Erlass No. 37 - of 21 February 1994 (decree 37/1994) http://www.cnb.cz/en/banknotes_coins/issuance_of_money/platidla_37.html

  • §1: Umtausch tschechoslowakischer Gedenkmünzen
  • § 1 para. 2 of Act No. 60/1993 of the Coll., on Currency Separation

http://books.google.de/books?id=7vx5mSZ3zGEC&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=Act+No.+60/1993+currency&source=bl&ots=R-05hhvz8S&sig=CT695VTcHtBnGRj6EFK-_IRbVbs&sa=X&ei=mrkvULq8AcfGswa_kICADg&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Act%20No.%2060%2F1993%20currency&f=false Umtausch tschechoslowakischer Banknoten bis Mai 1994

Das Nationalparlament des tschech. Staats legte gesetzlich fest im ACT No. 136/2011 http://www.cnb.cz/miranda2/export/sites/www.cnb.cz/en/legislation/acts/download/act_136_2011.pdf (Act. of 27 April 2011 on the Circulation of Banknotes and Coins and on the Amendment of Act No. 6/1993)

  • Art. 14: Reproduktionsvorschriften zu Banknoten und Münzen soll ein decree (Anm.: der Bank) oder eine direkt anwendbare EU-Vorschrift regeln.

Der Vorstand der tschechische Nationalbank CNB (Miroslav Singer) verfügte durch Erlass 274/2011 (decree 274/2011) http://www.cnb.cz/miranda2/export/sites/www.cnb.cz/en/legislation/decrees/decree_274_2011.pdf (DECREE of 5 September 2011 on the implementation of certain provisions of the Act on the Circulation of Banknotes and Coins)

  • Art. 13: Reproduktionen von umlaufenen Banknoten unter Einhaltung geom. Vorgaben sind zulässig
  • Art. 14: Nichtmetallische Reproduktionen von Münzen sind zulässig.

Die tschechische Nationalbank CNB zeigt heute auf ihrer Homepage http://www.cnb.cz/cs/platidla/bankovky/ukonceni_platnosti/historicke_padesatikoruny/historicke_padesatikoruny.html historische Banknoten. Sechs Banknoten mit namentlicher Nennung der Grafiker betreffen 1950-1987, also die Zeit der tschechoslowakischen Staatsbank. Die CNB nutzt die Urheberrechte, die ihr durch den tschechischen Staat von der tschechoslowakischen Staatsbank übertragen wurden. Q.e.d.

Mein Vorschlag war gewesen, auch die alten tschechoslowakischen Banknoten mit PD-money-CZ abbilden zu dürfen. Wenn Sie diese Sachverhalte bitte mit andern kompetenten Wikipedianern diskutieren könnten, ich klinke mich an dieser Stelle aus. Mit freundlichen Grüßen --Drdoht 09:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, s. Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#PD-money-CZ. Rd232 (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Lizenz-Informationen

Hallo Rd232, Nochmals besten Dank für die Infos zur korrekten Lizenzierung, die wir im Topic Commons:Village pump/Copyright diskutiert hatten (und auch zur Verlinkung auf meiner Diskussionsseite, die Du eingefügt hast). Ich habe inzwischen noch ein weiteres (wahrscheinlich letztes) Bild hochgeladen: Johann Conrad Rogg, um 1680 (mit ausführlicher Information zur Lizenzierung in der Bildbeschreibung), das ich auch schon im entsprechenden Artikel in der deutschen Wikipedia eingefügt habe. Die anderen drei Bilder Prof. Emil Müller im Jahr 1970, Prof. Albert Büchi im Jahr 1924 und Karl Rogg, ca. 1890 habe ich heute ebenfalls in die entsprechenden Artikel eingefügt, allerdings ist Emil Büchi von einem anderen User schon wieder entfernt worden (mit einem gut gemeinten Kommentar auf meiner Diskussions-Seite) - ich will da nicht vorpreschen, falls das noch nicht ok ist - was meinst Du? Frau Verena Baumer-Müller hat ihr Mail an OTRS ja vor einigen Tagen abgeschickt. Bitte gib mir kurz Bescheid, ob das für Dich ok ist (auch ob die Beschreibung in Johann Conrad Rogg, um 1680 ausreichend ist), und ob ich noch etwas überwachen soll, oder ob soweit alles passt. Gruss, --Tarboler (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm, s. User_talk:Krd wegen der OTRS-Mail - da muss Frau Baumer wohl antworten. Wegen File:Johann Conrad Rogg, um 1680.jpg - wer genau hat das Foto gemacht? Namensnennung ohne Namen geht kaum. Auch ist "Falls dies Probleme bereiten sollte, ist auch CC-0 (Gemeinfreiheit, freie Weiterverbreitung) ok." etwas unklar. Sollen wir beide Vorlagen einfuegen, so dass Benutzer zwischen den Lizenzen waehlen koennen? Oder sollen wir entscheiden, ob CC-BY-SA hier OK ist, und CC-0 benutzen, wenn nicht? Rd232 (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Frau Baumer hat schon an OTRS geantwortet; ich denke, das sollte soweit (bald) erledigt sein (ich habe einen kurzen Kommentar eben auf der Diskussions-Seite von Krd geschrieben). Zum Bild von Johann Conrad Rogg: das gemalte Bild wurde von Frau Verena Baumer-Müller selbst fotografiert, bevor sie das Original (das Gemälde) 1980 dem Historischen Museum des Kantons Thurgau geschenkt hat. Lizenzierung nach CC-BY-SA (für alle Bilder) wäre zu bevorzugen: wenn dies so eingegeben weren kann, wäre das am besten. Beste Grüsse, --Tarboler (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, ich glaube das Johann Conrad Rogg Bild ist jetzt OK. Rd232 (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

template:creator

Sorry I undid you latest changes to {{Creator}} but I do not think they work well. I run into several pages with wikipedia icon (icon not matching in style wikisource and wikiquote icons) which led me nowhere (for example Creator:Ursula Stock). I think we can not be guessing wikipedia article names, since they often differ from Commons names or in quite a few occasions point to a wrong person. Even if Commons have a gallery or category with the same name as English biographical article, there is no reason to believe that the people are related unless you match their dates of birth/death or link them through interwiki links. --Jarekt (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well it only did that when the name info was provided without interwiki links provided (in that case, Name will never match a Commons gallery). So if it was wrong, it could be easily overridden. And if it pointed at a non-existent page, that would encourage people to create an article. So I think this should be reinstated. Rd232 (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The articles often exist, they just have different titles (for example with disambiguation or without middle name) or you link to a page of totally different person with the same name. I think that is very confusing, especially if the only way to fix the bad link is to delete the gallery. However, I can see that this feature could be useful for quickly looking for articles on en:wiki, if we turn it on for all creator templates (or at least all that do not have links in the name - those can be found by looking at the first couple characters of the string) and hide the link somewhere so it is mostly accessible for those that find about it in the documentation. However that might be controversial as elitist (see en:User:Bahamut0013/Secret pages). Either way it should be tried in a sandbox and discussed first so others can express their views or suggestions. --Jarekt (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood the code maybe. I was tempted to do an ifexist on the PAGENAME, but that would have caused the problems you describe. By doing an ifexist on the Name parameter (i.e. whatever Name data is passed from the relevant template for the user's language), it will fail if the Creator template data provides an interwiki link, regardless of whether a gallery exists for that creator's name. The wiki icon and link was only provided in plain "Raphael" cases (if a Commons gallery was matched), and never in "[[:en:Raphael|Raphael]]" cases, because that would never match a Commons gallery. It's also unlikely that there are disambiguation clashes by this method, because that means there's a gallery (or redirect to a gallery) on Commons, whilst the same name points to someone else on the Wikipedia. Anyone important enough to have a gallery will normally be the primary usage on the Wikipedia - and if they're not, something should really be renamed. But it can also be fixed simply by changing the template data for the language with the clash to make it a wikilink ("[[:en:Raphael|Raphael]]"). I did actually think about this, and the end result is of quite limited value (most creator templates use a LangSwitch with wikilinks, AFAIK, and the code does nothing at all in those cases), but also of very limited downside. Rd232 (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I think I understood the code, although not the logic behind it. I run into it while cleaning up some creator maintenance category when I run into a template with wikipedia icon that led me nowhere, than I found another with also broken link. I think I run a code once trying to match all the creator templates to wikipedia articles by name, and dates or birth/death and adding wiki-links if I found matches. I also run User:JarektBot/Commons creator maintenance.py to add most of LangSwitch with wikilinks, so I do not expect too many cases there you will find an article, unless the template is newer than a year and so few categories have galleries that I agree that it is rather limited. Anyway I am off for vacation for 2 weeks, without access to the internet, lets try to catch some other opinions on the subject. Could you ask on the template talk page about it, if others think it is a good idea than it will be fine with me too. Although I might still not like broken links. --Jarekt (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Well I didn't know about the bot... I don't consider the redlinks "broken", but between your bot and the uncertain potential of the upcoming Lua, I'm fine with leaving it be for now. Rd232 (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiederherstellungsbitte

Hallo Rd232, ich wäre dir dankbar, wenn du die folgenden Dateien wiederherstellen könntest:

Die Dateien sollten allerdings nach de.wikipedia.org verschoben werden und dort mit dem Lizenzbaustein {{Bild-PD-§134-KUG}} versehen werden, da sie zwar in Deutschland, nicht aber in den USA gemeinfrei sind. Die genannten Briefmarken wurden allesamt vor mehr als 70 Jahren veröffentlicht; der Autor ist auf ihnen nicht angegeben. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. Ich nehme an, du nimmst die Verschiebung vor; ich bin immer noch nicht 100% sicher das Dateien die in Deutshland gemeinfrei sind aber nicht in den USA (wegen URAA) in der deutschen Wikipedia OK sind, solange die deutsche Wikipedia kein EDP hat (fuer Fair Use in solchen Faellen nach USA-Recht). Aber na ja, wenn du die Verantwortung uebernimmst, bitte schoen. Rd232 (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Danke schön für die Wiederherstellung. Da ich nicht weiß, wie ich die Dateien selber transferieren könnte, habe ich eine Administratorenanfrage gestellt. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Ich weiss auch nicht, ob's besser geht als runterladen und hochladen. Rd232 (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Assessments

Since you protected this template, I'd like you to carry out several edits or perhaps semi-protect the template so I can make these edits myself. I have waited long enough and clearly no one cares about this template. Alvesgaspar for instance hasn't bothered to comment in the past ~2 months despite putting the greatest opposition to change of any kind. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 17:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's fully protected because it's widely used, on our most important files; I don't want to change that. Where are the changes discussed which you want to make? NB you can always use {{Editprotected}}. Rd232 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
No admin wants to touch a parser heavy template. :( I have had {{Editprotected}} requests that did not get applied for months (Template talk:Autotranslate#Parameter count). Please unprotect the template briefly so I can add the necessary line or else you can add it in the following line before az.wikipedia:
<!--
          ar.wikipedia
-->{{Assessments/wikipedia|lang={{{lang|{{int:Lang}}}}}|wiki=arwiki|num={{{arwiki|0}}}|nom={{{arwiki-nom|{{{renamed|}}}}}}}}<!--
Also I don't think "heavy use" matters since template is not a vandal target. There is a lot of work remaining to improve the code and this greatly limits my ability to test and update code particularly when routine improvements such as this one is needed. I cannot editprotect ever 5 minutes while adding a line or two since I make the changes and hit preview to see if it breaks or not.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done the ar.wp code. For the rest, try {{Assessments/sandbox}} and test it on {{Assessments/testcases}}. Better than testing on the live version of an important template, and you can see outcomes immediately. Rd232 (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:PD-Ottoman Empire

Warum wird das Ding eigentlich nicht gelöscht? Den Staat gibt es seit 1923 nicht mehr, wir können doch einfach Template:PD-Turkey verwenden...--Antemister (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

nein - es ist nicht unbedingt klar ob und wie Werke die ausserhalb der heutigen Tuerkei innnerhalb des Ottoman Empire veroeffentlicht wurden in Nachfolgerstaaten geschuetzt sind. Die Vorlage ist fuer Faelle wo wir wissen, dass der Ottomanische Urheberschutz verfallen ist, oder dass das Werk nie geschuetzt war. Rd232 (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Was nützt es wenn der osmanische schutz verfallen ist, das Werk aber z. B. im heutigen Albanien veröffentlicht wurde und nach dortigem Recht noch geschützt ist? Praktisch heißt es immer auch das Template eines Nachfolgestaates mit dazu muss. Dann kann man sich das Ding doch sparen, oder?--Antemister (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Wenn ein Werk im osmanischem Reich veroeffentlicht wurde und wo der osmanische Schutz verfallen ist (oder das Werk nie geschuetzt war), kann man annehmen das der relevante Nachfolgestaat den Schutz nicht wiederhergestellt hat (auf jeden Fall ist mir kein Gegenbeispiel bekannt). Auch ist die Vorlage nuetzlich weil es teilweise voellig unklar ist, welches der Nachfolgestaaten des Reiches rechtlich zutrifft (auch wenn man alle relevante Fakten hat, ist die rechtliche Lage nicht unbedingt unklar). Rd232 (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Da müsste ein Blick in die Übergangsbestimmungen der Urheberrechtsgesetze aller relevanter Nachfolgestaaten geworfen werden. Wir haben da eine Vorlage, die nicht einmal direkt auf einem Gesetzestext basiert, zu einem Staat der vor 90 Jahren untergegangen ist und heute ein Dutzend Staaten auf dessen Gebiet liegen. Mir erscheint das als eine Notlösung, weil damals die heute geltenden Gesetze noch nicht online/dem Ersteller bekannt waren, mithin etwas, das langfristig weg sollte.--Antemister (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright rules by territory

Eine wichtige Sache (sollte aber vorerst noch im BNR sein). Du weiß ja da sicher dass ich das meiste davon schon gemacht habe, durch das Erstellen dutzender Vorlagen, die grob geschätzt etwa zwei Drittel aller Länder abdecken. Mit deinen Sprachkenntnissen könntest du aber insbesondere noch Lateinamerika machen.--Antemister (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Vielleicht, aber es gibt genuegend andere die relevante Sprachkenntnisse haben, du musst dich da nicht unbedingt auf mich verlassen. :) Ja, ich sehe dass viele Laender Vorlagen haben, und andere keine. Wiederum haben manche Laender alles in einer Vorlage, wo es vielleicht besser waere, unterschiedliche zu haben. Was haeltst du uebrigens von dem Tabellenformat bei Commons:Copyright rules by territory? Ich bin mir nicht ganz sicher, wie das am Besten zu gestalten (deswegen erst ein Land, als Test). Rd232 (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Tja, es braucht eben nicht nur Sprachkenntnisse, sondern auch Interesse an der ganzen Sache. Also ich hab zu fast allen Ländern zu denen es Gesetze in Englisch oder Französisch gibt was erstellt, quer durcheinander und noch nicht in einer Liste angekreuzt, aber die meisten Länder sollten abgedeckt sein. Das mit einer oder mehrere Vorlagen ist auch so was... Da bin ich mit einigen Leuten aneinander geraten. Der Übersicht halber wollte ich alles in eine Vorlage packen, die sollen ja ein Hilfsmittel für Uploader sein, die eine Zusammenstellung der Bedingungen für Gemeinfreiheit brauchen. Andere wiederum meinen, die Vorlage müsse in der Bildbeschreibungseite den Grund für die Gemeinreiheit erklären, und dazu brauche eben jeder Grund eine eigene Vorlage. Das würde die Zahl der Vorlagen enorm aufblähen, und den Grund für die Gemeinfreiheit kann man ja auch in der Bildbeschreibung erklären. Dazu braucht es eine Lösung. Dazu kommt noch die Frage, was macht man mit bestehenden und übersetzten Vorlagen, die aber unvollständig sind. Weder ist es sinnvol, ein dutzend Übersetzungen zu löschen, noch die alten Übersetzungen stehen zu lassen, und neue Übersetzungen bekommt man auch nicht auf die schnelle. Da bin ich auch mal mit jemand aneinander geraten. Solchen Konflikten bin ich ausgewichen indem ich dazu einfach noch nichts gemacht hab, irgandwann sollte das aber schon geschehen. Also die Tabelle schaut doch gut aus, einfacher kann man dieses komplizierte Thema doch kaum darstellen.--Antemister (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole graffiti thing

Hi, I was just asked by someone else (in real life) about other examples and we looked at Banksy on Commons. Is this a recognized exception, for some reason, or should all these go (noting that some of these images were uploaded 7 years ago)? --Fæ (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Image_casebook#Graffiti suggests any copyright on illegal graffiti may be hard to enforce, even if the law recognises it in principle. And the law isn't necessarily clear (see eg here for US). So... it seems to be considered an exception to COM:PRP. But: there should really be a tag for such cases, to make it clear that the issue has been considered, as well as for tracking. like, er, {{Non-free graffiti}} perhaps. :) Rd232 (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
But File:Kefalonia Fae084.jpg isn't graffiti and Greece doesn't have FOP. Rd232 (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Er, why isn't Fae084 graffiti? As for the Banksy page, some of that is definitely legal, so it's not the same discussion I guess, though I'm puzzled as to why they should not be deleted as they are obviously artwork with Banksy's copyright and are not covered by UK FoP. --Fæ (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not graffiti because (i) it's a mosaic and (ii) it's surely legal. As for Banksy - maybe that should be a mass DR, if there hasn't been one, especially for any legal ones. {{Non-free graffiti}} (mostly not used...) does indicate the iffiness of the situation. Rd232 (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't check what image that was. 084 is obviously a Council commission mural in the main square at Sami. I uploaded it as I don't think there is any figurative work there that would be creative, it is just a simple geometric pattern with letters and numbers. Plus it is not a simple faithful reproduction, my intent was to take a photo of the center of the square, of which the mural is an intrinsic part (in fact it dominates the center, around it are benches and plant covered gazebo areas, rather pleasant in the hot weather). As for Banksy, I agree, though I'm not doing it... I'm a controversial enough Wikimedian as it is... --Fæ (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Well the central mural in 084 may be argued to be acceptable under threshold of originality and possibly de minimis, but I think that needs testing with a DR discussion. Personally I think neither applies. COM:TOO has no examples for Greece, unfortunately. The central A/W symbol in particular seems an originality problem here (it may be a derivative work of something PD, possibly). I think it needs a DR. As for Banksy - well I raised it at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Graffiti. Rd232 (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

C:AN

Now when you don't like a decision, and you put a message on the AN? Not very sensible. I see that you are not able to accept that your PoV is wrong, and that your arguments are pointless. That show only a poor mentality. 10:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Bitte löschen

Anfrage aus dem OTRS zu WLM 2012: File:Hessen Bad Wildungen Barockschluss Friedrichtstein Sunrise.JPG hat einen falschen Namen, sollte File:Hessen Bad Wildungen Barockschloss Friedrichstein Sunrise.JPG. Jetzt sind beide da und ich kann nicht verschieben.

Bitte beide löschen, dann kann der User selbst neu hochladen und entscheiden, wegen Lizenz und so. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ich habe die fehlerhafte Datei geloescht. Die andere scheint OK. Rd232 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Danke, aber da fehlt jetzt der Hinweis auf den Wettbewerb. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Na gut, auch geloescht. Rd232 (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"New topic" = spam

Hi Rd232. Just wanted to say that I removed the "new topic" here. It's actually spam from a known spambot (46.147.112.45). Trijnsteltalk 12:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh well :) I didn't want to just delete what might have been a cry for help... Rd232 (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

PD-old-auto-1923

Hello Rd232, I tried to use the new {{PD-old-auto-1923}} here, embedded in {{PD-art}}, but it returns an incomplete license saying that I must add a country specific tag.

BTW, please confirm my assumption that anonymous, pseudonymous and collective person works are excepted from the URAA, as appears to be the case reading the wording in this document. That would be very good, but tags such as {{PD-EU-anonymous}} and {{PD-UK-unknown}} should be adapted to exclude the URAA warning, as well as adapted to serve as an US template (since those works are apparently PD in the USA as well).-- Darwin Ahoy! 03:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

PD-Art and probably PD-scan are strict about what they accept - see {{PD-Art/layout}}. Someone needs to sort this out, and I'm breaking my wikibreak even telling you that, so I'm not going to do it... Try raising it at COM:VP or COM:VPC. Rd232 (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see where you're getting the anon/collective exception to URAA restoration in that document. Raise it at COM:VPC. Rd232 (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
NB that circular has some examples that are probably worth writing down somewhere easily accessible, as they're authoritative and clear:
A French short story that was first published without copyright notice in 1935 will be treated as if it had both been published with a proper notice and properly renewed, meaning that its restored copyright will expire on December 31, 2030 (95 years after the U.S. copyright would have come into existence). A Chinese play from 1983 will be protected until December 31 of the 70th year after the year in which its author dies. A Mexican sound recording first published in Mexico in 1965 will be protected until December 21, 2060.
Maybe Commons:URAA restorations would be a useful help page, building on the COM:URAA section in COM:L.
Rd232 (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I guess PD-art accepts pretty much you put inside it, I've used it successfully with other unusual PD tags inside (PD-art seems to be only about the 2D thing & photos, it's not directly linked to PD-Old). The problem seems to be with PD-old-auto-1923 not behaving properly when embedded. But nevermind, that's not that important, I'll use the old system for now there. The other issues I'll raise in VPC. Sorry to disturb your wikibreak, I only noticed that after writing here. C ya soon, -- Darwin Ahoy! 14:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll have another go at getting the wikibreak underway :) Rd232 (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Lizenzvorlagen

Ich schlage jetzt mit dieser Thematik heir nochmal auf, nachdem es in den letzten paar Tagen auf dem gebiet wieder Aktionen gab. Die vielen von mir erstellten Lizenzvorlagen sind immer nach dem Prinzip "ein Gesetz, eine Vorlage" erstellt. Bisher ist es ja so das im Normalfall eine PD-old-xx-Vorlage verwendet wird. Und das sehe ich als schlechte Lösung an. Ein Nachnutzer kann mit dieser Information wenig anfangen: Er erfährt "Dieses Werk ist gemeinfrei, weil seine urheberrechtliche Schutzfrist abgelaufen ist. Dies gilt für alle Staaten mit einer gesetzlichen Schutzfrist von xx Jahren nach dem Tod des Urhebers" Ja, und welche Staaten sind das denn nun, warum hat der Uploader gerade dieser Vorlage verwendet und wie sieht die Situation für einen Nachnutzer in einem Land mit anderer Schutzfrist aus? Und was passiert, sollte ein Land, für das bisher eine PD-old-50-Vorlage korrekt war, die Schutzfrist auf 70 Jahre anhebt? Diese Regelung schafft unklare Situationen, die wir bei unserer äußerst korrekten Urheberrechtspolitik hier eigentlich vermeiden sollten. Verwendet man Länderspezifische Vorlagen, so hat man dieses Problem nicht, denn diese Informationen werden dann gleich mitgeliefert. (Angaben zur Frage ob ein Schutzfristenvergleich gilt, wäre natürlich angebracht, das wird bisher ja manchmal in Übersetzungen schon so gemacht) Die Frage, welche Bedingung denn nun gilt, muss so oder so in der Bildbeschreibung erklärt werden (z. B. "Autor: Hans Dinse, 1882-1925", oder "Pressefoto, 1921 veröffentlicht", "Regierungsdokument") Noch dazu kommt dass solche Vorlagen auch dem Betrachter Informationen liefern, welche Dateien er aus welchem Land hochladen könnte. Einige wenige dieser Vorlagen (vor allem aus dem EU-Raum) wurden zerlegt, die meisten blieben einfach so wie sie sind. Redundanzen gibt es, aber stören die in dem Fall? Auch ein Template:PD-European Union könnte ja erstellt werden. Deine Meinung?--Antemister (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Kurz gesagt: ich glaube wir sollten langfristig viel mehr Klarheit anstreben, und in dem Sinne mehr Daten vom Vorlagennutzer abverlangen, und soweit moeglich automatisch ueberpruefen. Beispiele fuer so was waeren {{COML compliance}} und {{PD-in}} (s. auch {{Copyright information}} und {{Author info}}). Aber das wird viel besser gehen, nachdem mw:Lua scripting gelandet ist - vielleicht Anfang 2013. Rd232 (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

DM question

I just saw File:2.11.11SpiderManTurnOffTheDarkByLuigiNovi2.jpg - can this be considered free? Obviously the focus is the merchandise, and FOP can't apply to goods, but also the logos are small, and the uploader isn't a newbie. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 04:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It doesn't fit within DM as I understand it; the copyrighted design is clearly the point of the photo ("look, Spiderman T-shirts"). On the other hand, the lighting and angle and focus is poor enough that it's not as obvious a decision as it might be, because you can't see the copyrighted design that well... Well ultimately bad photography seems like a Not Good way to achieve DM, so I'd say "Not OK", but weakly. Rd232 (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I guess that's my confusion. It doesn't look free or like DM, but I also can't see a conceivable way that someone could use this image to infringe on the copyright. I've nominated it for deletion. Thanks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 18:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your action on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emily Dickinson (perhaps) 1859.jpg. Powers (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Rd232 (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Category definition: Year in country

Hi! Wrote a note about the scope definition in Template:Category definition: Year in country at Commons:Village pump#Incorrect definition for Years by country subcategories. In my opinion we should clarify this scope, as it shouldn't be just photography. Best!--Codrin.B (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Historische Wappen aus Deutschland

Hallo RD232 - zu meinem Erstaunen habe ich gesehen, dass Du die Lizenz der Wappen von Vohwinkel und Osterfeld geändert hast. Ich war davon ausgegangen, dass Wappen, die z.B. mit der Kommunalreform 1929 ihren amtlichen Status verloren haben, nur noch eine einfache PD-Lizenz benötigen. Warum müssen sie nun aber mit einer PD-Coa-Germany ausgewiesen werden? --Maxxl2 (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Bei File:DEU Vohwinkel COA.svg hast du mit {{PD-Germany}} ersetzt. {{PD-Germany}} ist nicht mehr eine brauchbare Vorlage. Soweit ich weiss, trifft {{PD-Coa-Germany}} auch fuer COAs zu die nicht mehr amtlich sind aber es mal waren; somit ist PD-Status gesichert. Ansonsten muss was anderes her, um PD-Status zu bezeugen. Rd232 (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Vielen Dank für Deine Erläuterung. Langsam seh ich klarer: {{PD-Germany}} ist mit This tag is obsolete, and applying it to a file will nominate it for speedy deletion. markiert und also nicht mehr zu gebrauchen. Leider trifft aber auch {{PD-Coa-Germany}} mit dem Kriterium Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (corporation governed by public law) nicht mehr zu, da die ehemaligen Körperschaften nicht mehr existieren. Wenn also beides den Status nicht genau trifft, ist {{PD-old}} vielleicht die richtige Lizenz? Wer kann da eine verbindliche Aussage treffen? --Maxxl2 (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Dass kann man bei COM:VPC besprechen, oder evtl. auf de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen. Meiner Meinung nach trifft das Kriterium weiterhin zu; das COA wurde als Amtliches Werk veroeffentlicht, und demnach ist es gemeinfrei. Dass das COA irgendwann nicht mehr amtlich ist oder die Koerperschaft nicht mehr amtlich ist oder nicht mehr deutsch ist oder nicht mehr existiert aendert nichts am Urheberrechtsstatus des COA. Siehe auch {{PD-Coa-Germany-b1945}} (was hier besser passt, aber sich nur von {{PD-Coa-Germany}} durch die zusaetzliche Erklaerung unterscheidet, nicht durch die Urheberrecht-Rechtslage). Rd232 (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

BK::::Das stimmt so weit. Nur der entscheidende Unterschied scheint mir zu sein, dass es kein Hoheitszeichen mehr ist und somit die Beschränkungen der Verwendung nicht mehr gelten. --Maxxl2 (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Mag sein, mag auch nicht sein. Ich glaube nicht, dass man das in eine Vorlage einbauen kann (dass die Beschränkungen der Verwendung nicht mehr gelten), denn das so definitiv auszusagen, ist schwer. Das muss der Endnutzer selbst entscheiden. Rd232 (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Rd232,

All I want is a focussed discussion where folk think a bit rather than just vote. There are people I respect commenting in both directions. I don't think the confusion over the proposal is nearly as big as you make it. I would really appreciate you collapse-with-a-template the two sub-sections as they are a diversion and not gaining any comments that move things forwards. It is likely that the proposal will be hotly discussed for a while yet so those sub-sections will just add to confusion rather than help.

Regards,

Colin.

Thank you, I'm willing to collapse the subsections as they rapidly became messy - but then you have to fix the problem those sections were designed to address. You fundamentally have created two different proposals (whilst only mentioning one of them in the section header), and it certainly looks like people are mixing up the reasons for supporting or opposing the two. Those two basic reasons are (i) GFDL is fairly useless offline (but OK for online commercial) and (ii) NC-only isn't allowed by itself, but combining it with GFDL allows people to effectively make files NC-only offline. Now those two issues are mixed up and they need to be unmixed for the debate to move forward.
One way to do it, since you didn't like my way, would be to move forward with a proposal elsewhere (maybe COM:VPR to ban GFDL-only licensing altogether. If you do that you can forget about that proposal for FP, and focus on GFDL+NC-only, and point people to the GFDL-only discussion elsewhere. But in any case, I don't see how you can avoid making a new subsection clarifying how the discussion should proceed. Rd232 (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the two issues above need to be unmixed. Both "GFDL-only" and "GFDL+NC-only" achieve the same thing: they scare off commercial reuse. It doesn't matter if they are "useless", which Taxi... suggests, or if Ralf can find some few examples where commercial reuse was achieved despite the licence. Both licensing should not be allowed on Commons. If I was to go to the next step then it would be to ban both for uploads. That may be necessary as so many folk are citing that as a technicality against the proposal. Which is disappointing because they are Commons too, so just saying "Commons allows" fails to engage in the debate over whether that is undesirable, necessary, or desirable.
I'd appreciate if you can do the collapse thingie. Cheers, Colin (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Alright, done. But our discussion suddenly made me think that FP isn't the way to change Commons policy anyway (why should only FP or possible FP images benefit from not being GFDL-only, or GFDL-+NC-only?), so I've said that. Rd232 (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Some wrongly consider Commons to be merely a repository for Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot use -NC but can use GFDL 1.2. Hence ok. This is probably the biggest reason it hasn't been swept away yet. If you study the archives of the licence files, you see the same names opposing change and they are also the ones who wish Commons allowed -NC. Perhaps a debate on the policy is needed -- let's see how this pans out a wee while longer. The whole point of FP is to raise the bar above the dross that Commons routinely absorbs. For that reason, I see no reason why FP can't have a higher standard of free-ness wrt licencing than Commons, just as it has higher standards elsewhere. Colin (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think your proposal is premature and so badly worded it will ruin any chance of a meaningful discussion. Any policy change needs to be carefully drafted by folk with deeper understanding of licences than you or I. It also needs some kind of backing from the Foundation IMO. Would you consider retracting it for now and work with me to discuss this with Erik Möller and others first? Colin (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I’m quite with Colin here. This proposal has such a reach, it should be carefully discussed (probably not an example to follow too closely, but on fr.wp we typically discuss 1 month before the actual vote). Jean-Fred (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I'd like to see us (and perhaps others) hash out this proposal before anyone sticks a support/oppose sticker on it. That way the discussion can avoid distractions about wording. Colin (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
What exactly do you have in mind? Rd232 (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
See my comment/suggestion at the Village Pump. I'm happy to move that off of that forum to some other place (user page) if you want. What do you think of the alternative? If we are nearly in agreement then we could just work at the pump, but if we're still far away from agreement then I think it best to take it elsewhere to work on. Colin (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Oy, I've had enough of it. Do as you see fit (including collapsing the whole NC section if you want). Rd232 (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it will be difficult to work with you on a proposal you don't believe in. However, I know you do a lot of good stuff on Commons and don't want us to fall out over this. We all need to work well together even when we disagree, perhaps even on fundamental stuff like whether NC is good. If you have no objection, I'd like to archive-close the various Village Pump proposals concerning GFDL, and keep the last one more-or-less, to discuss wording of some soon-to-be proposal. I think it just confuse folk once the final proposal gets made to have these others kicking about. Cheers, Colin (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course we should try to work together even when we disagree, which is why I started the NC proposal. Now you can close the NC section, yes (on the assumption that you'll take responsibility for following the issue up), but not the one before that. I don't think there's any harm to the NC issue in leaving that open, and the motivation is substantially different. Rd232 (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Time

Please see Template talk:Time. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Need advice

Can you take a look at this: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Wallpaper? Did I mess up on this one? Is there more that I need to do? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 19:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Well there are still files using it, and the request was for deprecation, not deletion. (I know said "vd" in the DR myself but by that I meant to support the deprecation.) So I would undelete, remove all uses from files, and tag it as {{Deprecated}}. If continuing misuse is a problem, it can also transclude {{Speedy}} to prevent that. Rd232 (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I removed it from the images that were using it, and I added depricated to the temp. Let me know if there's something else I need to do. Thanks for your help on this. INeverCry 00:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks good; I just added a note to clarify the replacement. Rd232 (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your great help with the localisation of sl. --Eleassar (t/p) 05:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Likewise :) Rd232 (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Yann#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Viwashanti_pravarthak.jpg

Replied on your comment. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The description is available in {{PD-India}}. Also regarding the "as per previous discussion", Commons_talk:WikiProject_India#Ravi_Varma_press is only about lithographs printed by Ravi_Varma_press. It was concluded that Ravi_Varma_press + Anant Shivaji Desai (name as distributor) was pre-1945. There is no discussion/proof about "Anant Shivaji Desai Press" being PD-India. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
About 1911 Act, [1]. All works pre-1957 will be PD as 1957+50 = 2007 is gone. author+60 came into effect in January 1958. {{PD-India}} also needs to be updated. It shows that only pre-1952 are PD-India.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I see now 1911 Act was also life+50, so never mind, it's the same. That leaves the damned COM:URAA problem :( Rd232 (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:COML compliance

Are you aware that the template is buggy? It says that File:Abschied der Mutter von ihrem Sohn.jpg is copyrighted in Switzerland because the author hasn't been dead for 70 years yet, but the author died in 1928. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

? which file are you looking at? For me it says "Copyright expired in Germany in 1999. / Copyrighted in US for 95 years after publication in 1927." Rd232 (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Of course it wouldn't surprise me if it did have bugs... I think I gave up on it when I realised that Lua may actually arrive earlyish next year (it will make this sort of very complex template task much easier). Rd232 (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, it seems that the template calls {{PD-in}}, which is where the bug is hidden. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, yes. I didn't do PD-in, but I think Magog reached the same conclusion re waiting for Lua. Rd232 (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Bitte setze den botgesteuerten Beitrag

auf der Benutzerseite von Gerardus zurück. Er kann leider nicht mehr antworten. Ich würde selbst revertieren, habe aber nicht die hierfür notwendigen Administratorenrechte. Danke! --4028mdk09 (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ich weiss nicht was du meinst, und hatte nichts damit zu tun. Frag besser User:Túrelio. Rd232 (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Das meinte ich - Foroa hat sich zwischenzeitlich schon darum gekümmert. --4028mdk09 (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
OK. Rd232 (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Gadget-HotCat.js/fr

Thanks you for your modification for the French translation! Regards, --Solitarius (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gheorghe Cantacuzino-Granicerul.jpg

You tagged the files in this discussion with {{PD-1996}}. How do you know that this tag is valid? All US tags except {{PD-US-unpublished}}, {{PD-self}} and {{PD-USGov}} require publication before 1 March 1989, but in most cases there is no evidence of publication. Many of them have probably been published, but how do we know that all of them have been published? --Stefan4 (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for double-checking (especially as too often this issue is forgotten). I think publication around time of creation is a reasonable assumption in all cases. Some files explicitly say they're scanned from 1932 publication, others are official government photos; there's no hint of a reason to think they might be unpublished (or published much much later than creation). Rd232 (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Some are listed as published, yes. Have all been published? In my opinion, it is the uploader's responsibility to tell whether something has been published. The vast majority of all photos are presumably unpublished. Press photographers often seem to take hundreds of photos of the same event but publish at most one of them. Is File:Manifestation Iron Guard.jpg published, for example? It seems to have been scanned from the actual photo and not from a publication containing the photo. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
That one looks to me more like a screen capture from TV than a scan from a print. As I said, I see no reason to think these photos were not published long ago. If you're concerned about any, do a DR. Rd232 (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Kadenz.mid

Rd232, could you check for me File:Kadenz.mid, an old file with incomprehensible (to me) license in German. I DR it in hopes that someone will find a proper license for it, but it was deleted instead (maybe DR is not a good tool for starting discussions). I am pretty sure the license is OK, it might be {{PD-Ineligible}}, or something similar. --Jarekt (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It was tagged with de:Vorlage:Musik-PD (Werk) on German Wikipedia, which claims it's an audio work that doesn't reach the threshold of originality; there is no equivalent on Commons, so it was converted to bare text. I know nothing about this kind of PD claim for audio files (or audio file licensing generally). I suggest raising at COM:VPC whether there should be an equivalent license tag on Commons. Rd232 (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thank you for your reply, imho a 'user problem' should not been explained by the 'opponents' (orrling and me), i preferred just to link imho 'important' facts without any personal statement or 'explaination'. As we both having a 'wikibreak', let's just send some final greetings with my best regards, Roland 14:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

OK then, I didn't understand the relevant facts. Anyway, if you don't want to pursue it (now), fine. Please do fix your signature when you return from your wikibreak (or even right now, so you don't forget...) cheers, Rd232 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:MORS

Could you please correct the ticket number in Template:MORS so that it points to the right place (#2007121410015342). Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. Note that I don't have OTRS access to double-check the new number is correct. Rd232 (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
...but I now see you've just gained OTRS access so I trust you have checked it :) Rd232 (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's ok. Thanks. The collaborative spirit rules! :) --Eleassar (t/p) 16:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

File:LübA - Bismarck.jpg

Hallo,

please help me to understand. I thought that a pd-old is suffisant. And the creator died in 1915. 1915+70<2012.Sincerly --1970gemini 13:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That file looks fine to me - I've added a better PD tag. Note that PD-old is not enough by itself, as it doesn't cover the US PD status ({{PD-old-auto-1923}} does, for PD-old works published before 1923). Rd232 (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Language codes ku, kmr, ckb and sdh

The language Kurdish (ku) has three main dialects Kurmanji (kmr), Sorani (ckb) and Southern Kurdish (sdh) which are not mutually intelligible (this source explains the lingusitc reasons in greater detail). I want to replace the uses of {{Ku}} with {{Ckb}} where the expressed dialect is in the ckb dialect. A hint for this is this as only the kmr dialect is written with latin. Use of the macrolanguage code ku is hence unhelpful to the reader whom may not even be able to read latin characters at all.

A specific example would be File:Pięść (ubt).jpeg where "ku" is preferred and it should be ckb. At that page, the language is indicated as "Kurdî", but this is not comprehensible to a non-Kurmanji (kmr) speaker, whereas in another language (say in German) it says "Deutsch" and anyone speaking German would understand it. This would also orient the alignment as Arabic text is written right-to-left (rtl) unlike latin which is left-to-right (ltr). The actual change would only replace "kurdi" with "kurdi" but in arabic characters which better reflects the text used. Edits would be similar to this.

I was wondering if you would be interested in working to this end. What would be your opinion on this.

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well on the face of it it seems uncontroversial to correctly label translations. So if we can reliably identify ckb, we should label it that. But I would not like to do it without some discussion with Kurdish speakers, preferably from different dialects, because there is a potential for pissing people off... Rd232 (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Before you conclude that this will be uncontroversial, you might like to read a somewhat related proposal on meta. --99of9 (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rd232/Archive_5&oldid=358623205"