User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2010 January

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← [[../Archive Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".|Archive Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".]] |
Archive {{{1}}}
| [[../Archive Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".|Archive Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".]] →

Thank you[edit]

Andy, Thank you for fixing the self-category in Category:Scans from 'Stokers' Manual 1912'. I should have asked it, but I have a list of 560 self-categorised categories to clean up. --Foroa (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, but killing the use of template isn't the best way to go about it. Those big scan batches _need_ their centralised templates if I'm to have any chance of keeping them tidy. I'll see if any of those other cats are self-catted and fix those too.
What do you think to annotating the scan source cats with the licences? (at present the template applies the licence template to the cat as well as the image) Those {{PD-old}} licences do apply to every scan within the cat, but then again it's not "the category" that we're licensing like this? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again. A license is associated with a picture, not a category. People migth add pictures to those categories that are originating from other sources (reprints, other editions, translations, facsimile editions, artistic interpretations, ...). But more importantly, some images might have other categories. Your template approach, although templates that generate categories are a problem for maintenance, seems to be a reasonable compromise, although I would prefer more generic templates like {{DE Wikisource Book}} as they seem much easier to maintain and reuse. --Foroa (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The licence applies to all (and demonstrably all) content within that category, as it's derived from the age of the book - it's not dependent on which image. The template isn't going to be used for any other content. "Descriptive" categories on these images are applied individually and don't get the licence applied.
Not completely true (but good enough). If the book is photographed in a particular setting/museum/publication, its photo license might be different. --Foroa (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It's true enough - the types of licences claimed in these cases ({{PD-old}} variants) aren't affected by the context. Although UK law does create a new copyright for this scanning (sweat of brow), that's then my copyright, and I'm happy to assign it to Commons as CC-by-sa. It might be different for photographing exhibits, but that's not how these templates are being used, or are likely to be used. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I note that (at least some) uses of {{DE Wikisource Book}} apply it to the category and have the same behaviour, e.g. Category:Katalog Museum Speyer
It would have been possible to wrap my template around {{DE Wikisource Book}}, but not to use it directly. The point of using it at all is to have one single template for each batch, avoiding the need to repeat parameters between image pages. Category:Scans from 'New Catechism of the Steam Engine', 1904 has over a hundred images in it. Internally, the templates use embedded {{Information}} & {{cite book}} templates, so they don't have much additional complexity anyway. It would be nice to build a full generic framework for managing these (i.e. one template to implement all of mine), but the code deployed on Wikimedia servers is too simplified to support this easily (Most of my MediaWiki work is on intranets rather than the Wikimedia projects. These can be more sophisticated in terms of MediaWiki features available, as they don't have to serve the same volumes). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
A more generic framework would be nice indeed. --Foroa (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)