Template talk:Viollet-le-Duc
At the beginning it work fine but now it doesn't. Why? I have a discussion on myPage and on User_talk:Buzz, so for 5000 pictures we need Subcategories like Viollet-le-Duc/Doors. So what could be the solution? Kolossos 10:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi!Thanks for showing me this problem : I hadn't even noticed it since I rarely go on the categories pages.I discovered 2 things :-The subcategories pages have lost all their images. Apparently, that's because I used to categorize the images using curly brackets, like {Category:Viollet-le-Duc/Abacus}, which used to work, but is now broken... By replacing curly brackets with normal brackets, like [[Category:Viollet-le-Duc/Abacus]], the subcategories pages get their images back. (I made a test on the very first image, "Abaque.XIIIe.siecle.png").- Then, on the Viollet-le-Duc page, it looks like the wiki engine doesn't like the '/' caracter. For a test, I created a category named "Abacus (Viollet-le-Duc)" instead of "Viollet-le-Duc/Abacus". and it seems to work.If you agree (please test by yourself and tell me if you get to the same conclusions), I'll change all the pages in the next few weeks...
- I'm not really sure what you're trying to do. I understand Category:Viollet-le-Duc: it contains pictures from the Dictionary of French Architecture from 11th to 16th Century. Perhaps a better name for the category would be Category:Dictionnaire raisonné de l'architecture française du XIe au XVIe siècle, since that is the book's title.
But I don't understand Category:Abacus (Viollet-le-Duc). What is supposed to go in there?I see now, it's referring to w:Abacus (architecture) ...
- Anyway, the pictures should also be categorized by subject. For example, Image:Chapiteau.maison.Gallardon.png should presumably go in Category:Capitals (architecture). Unfortunately, that has to be done by hand for each picture; I don't think a template parameter should be used for that. User:dbenbenn 21:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Is the dictionary broken into sections; one about abacusses, one about columns, one about arches, etc? That would give a nice way to subcategorize, then. User:dbenbenn 22:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm agree with Buzz. A category with 5000 images is not to handle and we should seperate the old images from the new colored photos. And please short names for Categories. I do the same in Category:Lueger. So than Subcategories of Lueger for instances Lueger/Doors are also be Subcategories of Category:Doors. So the pictures are also be categorized by subject.
In "Lueger" Categories works also with "/" carakter and it works, so I believe the problem is to handle the template. I don't understand why Category:Viollet-le-Duc/Abacus doesn't work. For tests it works in Category:Lueger.
Perhaps, somebody should write the roles/hints for scanning old books for commons.Kolossos 12:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- OOPS ! Forget about anything I wrote yesterday. I mixed the whole thing between templates and categories ! Sorry about that!
- So, what's obvious is that, for some obscur reason, using sub-categories like [[Category:Viollet-le-Duc/Abacus]] doesn't seem to work for that very special "Viollet-le-Duc" category. And it might be because of the slash "/", even though it works for your categories, Kolossos !
- SO, since I don't see what prevents me from using categories with slashes, I was proposing yesterday to rename subcategories [[Category:Viollet-le-Duc/SomeSubcategory]] to [[Category:SomeSubcategory (Viollet-le-Duc)]]. I know each image will have to be manually edited, but it's not such a big work, I don't mind doing it...
- Unless somebody finds out how to fix the problem...
- This dictionnary is effectively divided in articles, one about abacuses, one about arches, one about castles... and this is indeed a nice way to categorize things. Exactly what you did Kolossos, and the result is nice and clear.
- Buzz 19:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, than we have a solution. At the end Buzz (if every image is in a subcategory) can perhaps decide to erase the Category:Viollet-le-Duc from the Template:Viollet-le-Duc so we have nothing duplicated. Kolossos 19:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Last info from user Duesentrieb:
Warning: there seem to be some problems with the templatelinsk table currently. Some pages may be reported as untagged, while they are in fact contain a template. This will hopefully be fixed soon.
Perhaps this has something to do with our problem. Kolossos 20:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Request change to the PD templates[edit]
{{editprotected}} Change {{PD-old-100}} to:
{{PD-1923}}{{PD-old}}
{{PD-1923}} is to signify that this work was published before 1923; hence, it is no longer copyrighted in US. France's copyright is 70 years pma (and most of the artists of the Dictionary signed their works). The 100 years does not seem to fit. Jappalang (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- If somebody processes this request, could the one also remove the category, please. I added the category to the documentation subpage. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- The PD-100 tag indicates that the work is in public domain in countries where the protection time is under 100 years pma. If we used PD-70, that would indicate only that the image is PD in countries where the protection time is under 70 pma. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 18:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please remove the {{PD-1923}} template? Its German version tells people that the image can't be used in the German Wikipedia, because the authors did not die at least 70 years ago. If seems reasonable though that the authors did die as early as that. The book was published in 1856, and clearly none of the authors was born after 1840, which means that probably all authours have died before 1940. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
1923 to expired[edit]
{{Edit protected}} Please change the transclusion of {{PD-old-100-1923}} to {{PD-old-100-expired}}. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Done —RP88 (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)