User talk:Andy Dingley

2007 2008 October, 2009 April, October, November, December, 2010 January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 2011 2011 January, 2011 February, 2011 March, 2011 May, 2011 June 2011 * 2012 * 2013 * 2014 * 2015 * 2016 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2020 * 2021 * 2022 * 2023

Flat

Please, leave me a flat list of Emmy Andriesse's photographs (and add these subcats as extra cats). If I have to look for photos in all these subcategories, I will loose oversight and it will cost me way more time. Vysotsky (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, you could do that properly by using the tools and just including sub-categories. But WMF has turned those off again and "Petscan and SPARQL are only for staffers, not for minions" so I can't even complain about them not working any more.

The easiest way to provide a flatlist here is by using stuff set up for Anefo. But is it correct to describe Emmy Andriesse as being an Anefo photographer? As these being Anefo photographs?

There are also some issues with author credits and the licensing tags (bad imports on the older ones). The French ones are claiming PD on a dubious basis (and a false claim of 1929 publication), so I'm worried that someone might just try and delete the lot. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, helpful.

Yes, it is correct to describe Emmy Andriesse as being an Anefo photographer, even though she only acted in this capacity for a very short time (my guess: 2 jobs). Johan Cruijff is labelled as being a player of Feyenoord (Rotterdam) even though many people from Amsterdam would consider this blasphemy. And no, photographs from this recent upload are not from Anefo (as far as I can see). Vysotsky (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Andy Dingley, can you take a look at the results of these fix desc format - Doing 5 replacements.? I changed some of them already and wanted to inform you about the spelling: Erebegraafplaats . Cheers [[smiley}} Lotje (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

That's the original import to Commons, not anything I've done. It converts soft breaks to hard breaks, then treats those as property/value breaks. It's really hard to fix this afterwards (it requires a semantic understanding of things like Dutch spelling), that's why it's so important to get initial imports right and to QA them at the time. All we can really do now is look for 'junk' (like this) and then try to work out manually what it ought to have been (as your spelling check has done). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much Andy for coming back to this. I'll keep an even more vigilant eye on the spelling. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

My recently deleted Third Reich images

Hi Andy

I'm sorry I don't know how to reply on the thread that I started about my images being up for sudden deletion. I find it galling that one of the people who weighed in said I should find the descendants of the person who took whatever image I found and ask their permission to post it here. How would I do that when the photographers name is not mentioned anywhere? Why are images taken during the Third Reich not public use or fair use? There are literally hundreds of thousands of images floating around on the net from that period, what am I doing wrong by using one here? I used one for a plane, the Arado Ar 240, it had, and now has again, an idiotic photo of a model. How is that better for an encyclopedia to not feature actual photos of aircraft? Same for the wind tunnel image, other aircraft images, the Heinkel He 280 has a stupid drawingǃ Two drawingsǃ How is that good for an encyclopaedia to have drawings but ban real photos? All you have to do is google Heinkel He 280 and up come all these real photos, but Wikipedia insists on drawings because I didn't ask the descendants of the person who was employed by the Nazis to take a photo of the plane if it's ok to put it here?

There is an image I uploaded years ago of Hitler sitting with one of his dogs, Muck, I think. There was no photographers name anywhere, who would I ask if it's ok to put that in the article about Hitler's dogs? I can't ask Hitler, whoever took the photo is long dead, the dogs dead, the regime is dead, what gives here please? I apologise for putting this on you but you took a civil and reasonable tone with me and I wanted to thank you. I think it's ludicrous that images taken before and during the Third Reich are copyrighted by somebody, but nobody knows or can tell me who or how to find out.

Thanks again

Troy from sunny Australia ```` Troy von Tempest (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome.

• File:Messerscmitt Bf 109E wind tunnel testing at the Deutsche LFA.jpg
• Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Messerscmitt_Bf_109E_wind_tunnel_testing_at_the_Deutsche_LFA.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Messerscmitt Bf 109E wind tunnel testing at the Deutsche LFA.jpg

I'm sorry I can't really add much. This is complicated and I'm no expert on German copyright policy for this period. It may well be that these wind up deleted. I may not even post at the DR, because the last thing I need is another of those arguments based on, "This is German. I am German. You are not German. Therefore I am right."

My concern was just about the way in which this was done. Speedy deletion is clear: it's only for cases where it's so straightforward that no-one is assumed to want to challenge it. If anyone does, it imediately stops and (if needed) goes to a regular DR. But instead, some editors see this as either a more rapid way to do 'urgent' deletions (it's not, and these weren't urgent) or more usually just a lazy way to do deletions, without having to engage with other editors or the uploader disagreeing. That is absolutely wrong.

Whatever these are, they're not clear. Either because the law isn't clear itself, or because the law isn't usefully precised for Commons' purposes here. (Many of the topics we have to deal with have been, but I've not seen anything comparable for the Third Reich) Maybe a DR with some helpful input will be able to clarify this.

Also remember that even if Commons can't host these, maybe WP can. If they're really valuable because of their scarcity, then en:WP:NFCC might apply. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

First off, thanks Andy. SD was inappropriate for the files since as you said, they are 1940s German photographs and so the copyright for these is not an open and shut case that speedy deletion needs, and there is no urgency to delete 80+ year old photographs even if they are probably still in copyright. Troy, as the one who made the suggestion that you are talking about, I meant it as a request for you to research the photograph. Copyright is a complex matter, and copyright terms are long. I'm aware of cases like one where there are photographs from the 1890s that we cannot make public yet on this site because the sculptor lived beyond 1953. There are films from the 1890s that we can't host yet because the director (who was a woman) died in 1968 (en:Alice Guy-Blaché). I do try to be mindful of the various roles I play as a sysop, so if I came across as too en:WP:BITEy, it was not intentional. And I thank you for your contributions, even if some of them may be deleted. I am willing to answer questions you have about copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:Gorsedd stones in Wales

Hi Andy,

My motivation for creating the category above and repopulating was to avoid geographically incorrect categorisations like

Category:Stone circles in Wales -> Category:Gorsedd stones -> Category:Gorsedd stones outside Wales

which would place File:Plaza de los Colonos Gaiman.jpg in a Wales-location-specific cat tree. Just thought I’d explain — no need to revert as it’s not a major problem given the many other illogical categorisations. Dogfennydd (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have given a better explanation at the time, but the phone started ringing off the hook.

Gorsedd stones are in Wales. They're inherently Welsh. So the Welsh stones should stay here in the default location, and the Patagonian ones can be pushed off into an obscure sub-cat. Otherwise we're just adding extra layers of navigation to no real purpose. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Affected:

• File:Mural beside a former railway track, Fochriw (geograph 3248541).jpg

Yours sincerely, Roy17 (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Affected:

• File:Mural beside a former railway track, Fochriw (geograph 3248541).jpg

Yours sincerely, Roy17 (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of licence

Did you mean to remove the Natherlands Archive licence with this edit? It seems like a mistake, so please review the file history. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

No, obviously not. Thanks for spotting it. I've just checked the hundreds of files done in those batches and caught a couple where this happened - an unexpected parameter to the licence tag broke the regex. Should all be fixed now, please let me know if you see anything similar. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)