User talk:Montanabw

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

Welcome to the Commons, Montanabw!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Bahasa Banjar | বাংলা | Català | Нохчийн | Čeština | Cymraeg | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Kurdî | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Ирон | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Scots | සිංහල | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Basa Sunda | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Tagalog | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−
Crystal Clear app korganizer.png First steps tutorial

Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy.

Icon apps query.svg Getting help

More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.

Transmission icon.png Goodies, tips and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak.
  • All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~
  • Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!)
  • To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg
  • If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper
Nuvola filesystems trashcan full.png Made a mistake?
  • Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}}
  • For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)


hello. i have a question re your Image:Horse360.png. can you diagram in your illustration where the field of vision overlaps in front? --emerson7 | Talk 23:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean. The diagram shows where the "blind spots" of a horse's vision are. I probably could find a diagram somewhere showing the range of a horse's binocular vision, which, obviously, isn't as great as their range of monocular vision...I'd like to be helpful, but not sure what you are asking...if the binocular vision range, I'll see what I can do, but let me know. Montanabw (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


Dear Montay, raving palomino breeders aside, it's a commonly known fact that there are no true albino, completely unpigmented horses. However, I will have to ask you to tell me why horse dilution genes, especially the Cream factor (which resides in the same block as Charlie the flying unicorn everyone talks about but who has never been seen) are not forms of equine albinisim in its non-albino but albinistic forms. Pitke (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I threw a fit. But here's the scoop: "Albinism" is a word that has a specific meaning but is used loosely to encompass many types of non-pigmentation that actually have different causes. (Kersti actually was the first person to alert me to this, actually, I was as ignorant as anyone). NONE of the dilution genes have any genetic connection with any form of non-pigmentation genetics nor are they linked in any way to dominant white. It's apples and oranges. In the horse industry, particularly in the US and Canada, the word "albino" has EXTREMELY negative/perjorative connotations with both lethal white (frame) overo, and the possible lethal "homozygous dominant white" that seem to affect certain white horse breeds (exists in the Camarillo white horse, though studies to figure out why are inconclusive). For decades, cremello foals in parts of the USA were routinely shot because people were afraid they were "lethal white" and many registries would not (and many still do not) register them because of the fear that they were "albino" and hence somehow would pass on "bad" genes. People who bred for palomino knew they had a one in four chance of getting a cremello every time they bred two palominos, and while some of them did put down blue-eyed foals as sucklings, others just hid them in the back 80, unregistered, but KNEW they were perfectly healthy (some also were the foundation horses for the "American Paint Horse" registry, which was basically the catchall registry for all the blue-eyed and cropout-colored Quarter Horses that AQHA refused to register due to their "white rules." Truth is, the least Melanistic color in horses is actually chestnut ("red")! (And it is the same genetic mechanism that makes humans blonde or redheaded with blue eyes) Non-pigmentation in horses is somehow related mostly to things happening along the KIT locus (so your bit on roan being a white-related pattern is correct). And that form of depigmentation appears most often to be leucism, not albinism. But the dilutions are no way, no how related genetically to "albinism," and the palomino/cremello breeders in particular have been working for a couple of decades to educate people about this. Montanabw (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh and, check out this article: [1]

Just one thing. Cream is located in the same locus as the albino factors of other species. Johannma Viitanen references Furugren 2000 and Jones 1982 to say that being albino is to possess melanocytes in the skin, but no tyrocinace (I'm half guessing how this is spelled in English) that would fuel the formation of pigment. Pitke (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
In the realm of genetic research, 2000 is the stone age. 1982 is the mezolithic era! (grin) The gene was mapped in 2001 and the specific mutation found in 2003. "The cream locus is on exon 2 of the MATP gene; a single nucleotide polymorphism results in an aspartic acid-to-asparagine substitution (N153D)" [2]. I also found this: [3] You know I have been a bit critical of Viitanen in the past, mostly because so much has changed in the last decade. But more to the point, albinism in humans and some other animals is associated with health problems, while cream in horses has no link to any particular health problems. Montanabw (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Well the book IS from 2007. You keep saying "albinism" and I'm not sure whether you're including albinistic colourations along with albino. Pitke (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Same difference. "Albinism" is a scientifically precise term that is used by laypeople to refer to a lot of things that are not albinism. Neither dominant white nor cream/champagne/silver dapple/dun dilutions have anything to do with real albinism, any more than people with blonde hair are "albinos." I found a web site that explains it in layperson's terms, the second link has all the various "mythbuster" stuff: [4] [5] Also, for a quick summary of all the dilution genes we now can test for, here's the basics at UC Davis Montanabw (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't want laypeople's terms, I want the cold steel science jargon with all the spiky bits :P The first link only talks about cremellos being not albino (while not discussing the albinistic possibility at all), which I have never argued with in the first place, and the second one is just a list of misconceptions I've recognised as such for a long time as well. Pitke (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I guess I don't get what distinction you are making between "albino" and "albinistic." Same concept in my mind. See [6] "Albinism is a defect of melanin production that results in little or no color (pigment) in the skin, hair, and eyes...Albinism occurs when one of several genetic defects makes the body unable to produce or distribute melanin, a natural substance that gives color to your hair, skin, and iris of the eye." White and pinto horses are generally considered Leucistic, while the dilution colors all have some sort of diluted pigmentation going on, not an absence of pigmentation. I think science that you are after may be in the footnotes of this section of the cream gene article: [7]: " The human MATP gene ... is best-known in humans as being the location of a mutation that results in human type IV oculocutaneous albinism (OCA4). Type IV oculocutaneous albinism, like other types of human albinism, results in hypopigmentation of the skin and eyes, with increased rates of skin cancer and reduced visual acuity.[32] None of these effects are associated with the equine cream gene. Other human MATP polymorphisms result in normal pigment variations, specifically fair skin, light eyes, and light hair in Caucasian populations.[8]" So my previous comment that cream horses are no more "albino" than are fair-skinned, light-haired people is still my position! There is also, for the most part, no health issues surrounding these colors, either, as far as I know: Cream, pearl and champagne appear to have no health issues, though I admit there is a connection between silver dapple and vision problems. But similarly, the KIT locus colors also have some harmless forms (Sabino, Tobiano, Roan) and some troublesome ones (Frame and maybe Splash) Montanabw (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


My apologies for this. It has all got rather out of hand, and I don't wish to give the impression that your photographs are unappreciated. I appreciate now that this was rather a "photo of opportunity", with the only camera you had to hand. From that basis, then why not upload it? It would certainly have had value at the time, even if better images become available later.

The article generally is very good and it deserves images that do it justice. I hope that these can be produced, possibly of this same stone. I have made some suggestions, based on my own experience of doing this sort of work with reasonable cost and techniques (The jeweller's loupe and a couple of dime-store LED book-reading lights with flexible necks can indeed achieve a lot). They have however gone down less well than I'd have hoped, so I won't push the issue further.

Once again, my apologies for any annoyance caused to you. That was never my intention. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that AD has withdrawn and made the DR moot, I hope you will delete this image as a user request Montanabw, per the reasoning on it I gave there. Keeping it here simply annoys/confuses/dissappoints users who click on the thumb in a category expecting a usable image, and not getting one. Ultra7 (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Fake diamond 2012.JPG
My intention is to get a better image and keep this as a placeholder until I do. I need to talk the nice people at the jewelry store into letting me take another, better image; this is about a $5000 gem and I don't want to bug them too much, as I clearly have no intention of purchasing it. I have tested my camera's macro settings on some costume jewelry, and the image posted here is probably the best I can get (I'll bring a tripod to the store and they have brighter lights, but this is what the point and shoot can accomplish in terms of a close up. If this is good enough, Ultra, I shall continue in my attempts to get another shot at the gem, literally. I believe that the camera's settings can be accessed at the file's page, so any additional suggestions are welcome. I do not believe the camera will allow me to manually jigger f-stops and shutter speed, though I used to own a film SLR so I DO know how all that used to work in the days we used that ancient substance called "film." Montanabw (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
If you can make the lighting brighter, then the camera will adjust the exposure automatically and close the aperture, thus improving the depth of field.
You can also adjust the "film speed" on most digital compacts. 800 ASA is reasonable: too low is like having it too dark, too high can introduce false colour problems as the camera sensor becomes non linear.
It's a good idea to "bracket" exposures, by taking three or four shots instead of one, with a doubling or halving of whatever settings you can access.
Tiny pocket tripods, like a Gorillapod, are always worth having for tabletop work. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Good tips. I have a tiny tripod, though to shoot down on the gem, my old-fashioned tripod from the days of "film" photography might also work (Oh! How I wish there was a digital SLR that took 49mm lenses! I have a zoom telephoto and a macro! I had so much nice equipment that is now collecting dust!) Montanabw (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Your old "good" lenses can now be surpassed in quality by something half the weight and a tenth of the cost. Lenses are now often moulded plastic, not ground glass, which means that they can be made as aspheric surfaces (at a reasonable cost), thus offering far more freedom in optical design. I too have a huge past investment in 35mm optics, but I almost never use it now - the modern stuff just works better. If you do have a strange old lens (I have a 600mm mirror lens) then you may be able to adapt it for use on some modern DSLRs (this seems to be most practical for Canon to Canon). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been looking (and drooling) at digital SLRs. Seems that people discourage buying the ones under $500, but I have been curious as to how much of that is due to fewer bells and whistles and how much is actual quality problems -- the old 35mm SLRs seemed to have price tied directly to bells and whistles once you settled on a brand. Seems the Canon Rebel line is where the most digital SLR controversy is -- looks like it's a decent camera line even if low-end and the reviews seem to mostly criticize the plastic body and the lack of geegaws, but curious... Montanabw (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Gibson Park and Giant Springs[edit]

These and the others from Great Falls are FANTASTIC! - Tim1965 (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy! Montanabw (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol given[edit]

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. INeverCry 21:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Montanabw (talk)

Costumes vs. clothing[edit]

Why not costumes? This was actually the one that triggered me to ask at the Village pump because when I went to call these "costumes" I noticed that category contained a lot of actual Native Americans. But this image (File:Dedication of Chief Seattle statue, 1912.jpg) is a group of Seattle newspapermen and businessmen dressed up as Indians. As I wrote there, "Despite appearances, these are not Native Americans, as can be seen from the identifications written onto the photo. They were members of the Tilikums of Elttaes, a civic booster group who used pseudo-Chinook titles." More realistic costumes than most, admittedly, but still, I'd call these "costumes," not "clothing." - Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, I went ahead and changed that image back to "costumes," since they are essentially dressing up. Let me know if you don't want it there. The masks are definitely not legit, and the "Chilkat robes" look a little thin to really be actually wool robes. Cheers, Uyvsdi (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Ah! I see that those were white people dressing up as Natives. I get it for that one. See the longer discussion on Penyulap's page too (sigh) Montanabw (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I think images like these are very educational; that cultural misappropriation has a strange and longstanding history, that is even weirder than we can possibly imagine :) -Uyvsdi (talk)Uyvsdi
True that. Curious your take on that one site I found that made the argument that white (or black, for that matter) people dressing up like indians is as offensive as white people dressing up with Blackface. I can see the argument; akin in a way to the Native sports mascots issue. Montanabw (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Was looking for and found the 1491s video comparing dressing up like an Indian for Halloween as being comparable to black face. Seems like that ticked off a lot of people, but it drove the point home. Between the 1491s, Adrienne Keene at Native Appropriations, and Jessica Metcalfe at Beyond Buckskin, it seems like the cultural tide is turning. I know the argument is always that there's more pressure matters to focus energy on (poverty, health issues, etc.), but this seems like a solvable problem. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I've never really understood why people don't "get it" about Native folks, even people who are PC about everything else seem to think that it's perfectly OK to engage in blatant stereotyping. (The sports mascot stuff is particularly notable) I once referred to the Columbus encounter and subsequent events as a "holocaust", in reference to the impact that it had on Native population and culture, and someone who was Jewish just ripped me a new one for it; (Hmmm. 40 million people dead, even if many from foreign diseases as well as warfare and other forms of genocide, isn't a holocaust?) Puzzling. Montanabw (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
When you look at the racially motivated black vs white murders in the US and notice that it kills more people than the Ireland republican Vs monarchist thing (think IRA think bombings) and they don't want to call it a 'civil war' it's pause for thought when someone on TV suggests the white owners of the media and so on don't want to acknowledge the blacks have intelligence enough to know what they are fighting or organise themselves. They like to 'own' certain words. Not much has changed in the US in the centuries, the grinding poverty of the slaves, and the destruction of everything that opposes, half of all children born in Fallujah now have serious birth defects, Hiroshima taught them nothing. Penyulap 17:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Very sad. Depleted uranium munitions or something else? Empires do have certain characteristics in common; just bigger and more damaging weaponry now. (sigh) Montanabw (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
There are better sources out there than wiki, you know that :) and there are a LOT of people paid to sanitise the truth. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out what all that radioactive dust would do to a human embryo, any scientist would do. It is sad. Heartbreaking. Penyulap 20:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, though wiki can also be a great source for scuttlebutt too! Depends on the article. (Great fun to spat with drones of the Chinese government on Tibet articles, for example!). Yeah. In Vietnam it was Agent Orange and other herbicides, in a lot of places it's unexploded landmines, now in the desert it's radiation. War makes no sense at all. Montanabw (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
...and yet there is so much of it. Penyulap 22:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Native Americans in art by country. You've dealt with this discussion a million times already, right? :) -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Oh gawd... Montanabw (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

argh ! Penyulap 10:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Shuisky Michael[edit]

Hi, would you please check my article. Thank you.Шуйская (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, I was hoping you can direct this newbie to some nice helpful editors ? The 'article' is sandboxed on the editor's userpage here on commons. I hope I haven't bothered you by recommending the editor ask you for assistance, I thought 'who do I know who is active on commons, is into editing (I'm not ;) )and won't bite?' Penyulap 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not over here a lot, maybe ask User:Pitke or User:PumpkinSky. Montanabw (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
will do ! thank you. Penyulap 16:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ratcheting down the "drama"[edit]

I see you got dragged into a spat about images of Akhal-Teke horses (above). I suggest that the upset person cool down for a bit and I recommend against any changes. As one of the most active members over at WikiProject Equine on, where we have dealt with this sort of thing frequently, I think you should know that the Akhal-Teke article over there is "blowing up" too, but not as bad as here. Basically, this is what we like to call "breed politics." One "registry" gets into a fight with another "registry", claiming that "their" horses are the "real" ones and the other ones are "impure" or whatever. There are also nationalistic spats too (my favorite was when Slovenia threatened to sue Austria in the EU over whether any country other than Slovenia could call their Lipizzan horses "Lipizzans" Talk about lame!) As a rule, neither side has a real corner on the truth and it is wise for us wikimedian sorts to not take sides. There is no need to create a new category, if people want to create a category called "Akhal-Tekes registered by registry X" that's fine, but to take out all the others is to just get ourselves involved in a fight that we don't want to be in (next thing you know, the other side will come roaring in and what their horses "in" and the other ones "out") Also, the "Turkoman horse" is considered an extinct breed, with many claiming the modern Akhal-Teke to be its modern descendant. A category like "horses of Turkmenistan" would be OK, but it would still need to cross-link if the horses are also considered Akhal-Tekes. Just a heads up. Montanabw (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As always, we can only work with what is sourced in situations like these. Mind that each image can be tagged with multiple categories. We can even have creative options such as Category:Akhal-Teke being the parent category with various "Akhal-Tekes registered by registry X" as subcats (a horse can be registered in two or more registries I presume). I know very little about horses and based on what I can read it is not possible to determine a breed by just looking at the photo. So, "horses of Turkmenistan" could indeed be a category for the horses which do not have a clear breed defined (until a source establishes that). Would this make sense to you? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 00:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Luckily, I think there already is a Category:Horses of Turkmenistan. User:Pitke is probably the best horse expert at Commons and well worth consulting if stuff like this comes up. I agree with your analysis. And as a "horse person" myself, yes, a horse can have a strong resemblance to a particular breed but not have "pure" bloodlines. Because we have so many photos in commons taken by people who don't know what they are shooting (many "white horse" photos, for example, are actually of gray horses that have, like many humans, had their hair coat go completely from its dark color at birth to pure white...), sometimes we have to guess a bit when categorizing, or go by what the people who owned the horse tell us. Montanabw (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of horses in Australia categorised to Wales[edit]

I draw your attention to a series of pictures uploaded by you on 14 December 2014 of Simeon Stud horses, for example this picture. You have categorised these to "Wales", which is in the UK. The pictures appear from the Simeon Stud website to have been taken in New South Wales, Australia. I would be grateful if you would amend the categories for these pictures. Lloffiwr (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you User:Lloffiwr, what happened is that this was an upload via Flickr2commons, and the automation must have read "Wales" in the flickr categories (I remember seeing them as "Newsouthwales" on the upload) instead of "New South Wales." (Dang technology!) I'll see what I can do to fix. Thanks for the ping. Montanabw (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


May you help me create the Category:Danedream? It is linked from the German article. --PigeonIP (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Category:Arravani misses some other categories as well (like type of horse). You are the expert ;) --PigeonIP (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you shoot me the links on I'll try to figure it out. Montanabw (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
--PigeonIP (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Notes[edit] has pd images

License review[edit]

Only image reviewers and administrators may review licenses (see COM:LR), and even then it is not allowed to review your own uploads. Do not add 'passed' license review templates as you did at Firing Line Preakness.jpg. Instead, merely add the blank template to request review. Thanks. Revent (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Innocent mistake, I was copying over the templates to try and fix the licensing stuff from a crop. Given that the original image was properly uploaded, reviewed and passed, this was just a crop of that one, have you got any advice on how to do these cropped image uploads better the next time? The wizard doesn't really have the right parameters, and it seems ridiculous to make reviewers go back to Flickr... if derived from an image already approved by Commons, what does one do? Montanabw (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't intending to 'yell at you', though I did make what I said a bit pointed... I was actually looking at recent changes, and your edits popped up among several others (Abuse Filter #70 is for 'License review by non-Image-reviewers', which is what creates the tag in the edit history). I was using basically the same text on about half a dozen talk pages, including those of some other editors who have a history of copyright problems.
For cropped images, the best (IMO) thing to do is to attribute the uncropped image as the source, using {{extracted from}} in the source field (and also using {{extracted image}} in the 'other versions' of the source image). The reviewer can then just refer back to the previous review (which they would have to do if the original source was down anyhow) if needed, though files sourced to other images available on Commons don't really have to be reviewed anyhow.. it's just nice if they actually are, 'for the record'.
The wizard is convenient, but it's not really the best thing for experienced users.. you can use the 'old form' to have more control over what information you put in (if you fill out the 'permission' field with a license template, you don't have to pick a choice from the 'licensing' dropdown. Revent (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Just as a further suggestion, if you want to upload a crop of an image from Flickr (that's not already on Commons), the 'best practice' is probably to just upload the whole image, let the bot review it (it's usually pretty fast, 5-10 minutes tops depending on load), and then overwrite it with the cropped version. Revent (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. Never thought about the overwrite option. Interesting. Montanabw (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Double Arrow Lodge and Resort History 2.jpg[edit]

Regarding File:Double Arrow Lodge and Resort History 2.jpg, this seems to be a copyright violation. Before I tag all of the files in that series, I'm checking with you to see if I'm missing something. The Cabin Fever book itself is clearly copyrighted 1989, with a 2nd edition copyright of 1999. I've found some other copies of the excerpt, for example, at (website CopyRight © 2000 Double Arrow Resort) and The latter isn't clear on the copyright for the snippets of the book, but that website has a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license, you've uploaded your image with a much less restrictive license. What am I missing? Generic1139 (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think it's a problem, I won't contest speedy. In essence, WYSIWYG - the files in that series are the entire document, which was a stapled-together printout they left in the lobby on a coffee table for guests to read; no title, no cover, no copyright notice on it other than the acknowledgements to the book "Cabin Fever" which appear on the pages as you can see them. As to the pages at their web site, if they have a copyright on identical content, I guess we have to respect that. To the extent that any of the images are not attributed to Cabin Fever or on the web site, then we may have something published without copyright notice, and there was also no author... If any of them are NOT on the web site of attributed to the book, maybe alert me to those exceptions and perhaps we can find a reason to keep them?? Montanabw (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
On the text, the only argument would be that the handout was done before the book, and that the handout was also published before March 1, 1989 and therefore required a copyright notice. Otherwise, it would seem that the text (from the book, or the web page) is copyrighted. While the resort can get away with it, wikimedia commons can't. As to the photographs, on the resort website at least, even via direct download they are only thumbnails and not worth uploading to commons. I see that you got some good pics of your own uploaded. I'll make a stub article, at least, and point to the article on the resort site.
Also, you have tagged the handout and your photos with refnum 10000489, which is the Dude Rancher Lodge in Billings. I think we've been talking about the Double Arrow Lodge, refnum 14000958, near Seeley Lake. I think 14000958 is what was intended, agree? Generic1139 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
My screwup, sorry! Two road trips in one month, got confused. Montanabw (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
And now I see that some of the pics are Dude Rancher and some are Double Arrow - I can probably make a good guess, but it would be best if you sorted them out. BTW, on the menu for Dude Rancher - items first published on or after after March 1, 1989, don't require a copyright notice to be copyrighted. Generic1139 (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Meh. I wish these folks would publish their stuff in places where it is useful as a reliable source... I can just see the wikipedia article problem. Source: Restaurant Menu... sigh... but you are right. I appreciate your patience. Montanabw (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I think I have it all sorted out. Only the lodge is on the NRHP, not the cabins and other outbuildings, so I made two categories, one for the resort, and a sub category for the lodge. I also found the nomination form, which does contain some of the history and some of the pics from the 30s. I'll do a multi-deletion request on the resort handout, which is problematic but no longer critical. Thanks for all the pics. Generic1139 (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
And to follow all the rules:

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg 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.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Generic1139 (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)