User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2023

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

← Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 →

Monkey selfie[edit]

At Commons talk:AI generated media#Purpose and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#user:VoidseekerNZ, you said that the monkey selfie case was bad for Wikimedia. What did you mean by that? Brianjd (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've written enough on that topic already, on the many linked discussion pages.
This was an awful PR disaster for WMF. If it was a good thing, why did the photos of Jimbo and Katie Chan posing with monkey selfie posters at Wikimania 2014 have to be deleted with such prejudice? It's bad enough that Wikimedia did this to the photographer, but to start gloating about it like that? Unsurprisingly, this then destroyed many working relationships with other photographers or museum collections.
It's a legally bad move regarding the misinterpretation of copyright (and what happened to COM:PRP?) But as to the appearance of it, it was a disaster. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{Self}} on old Geograph file[edit]

Hello. I'm trying to clear up some licensing anomalies on files from Geograph Britain and Ireland, and one I've found is File:Egg-ended and wagon boilers at Armley Mills by Chris Allen.jpg which you uploaded in 2009, tagged both {{Geograph}} and {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.0}}. Obviously the file is from Geograph, but do you know why you tagged it {{Self}} and {{GFDL}}? --bjh21 (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Might be an overlooked copy-paste from somewhere else. AFAICS it should just be CC-by 2.0, but this could come in via the Geograph template. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, CC BY-SA 2.0 is provided by {{Geograph}}. I'll clean it up. Thank you! --bjh21 (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs by Loek Tangel in Weert[edit]

I see we've been busy with it at the same time. Well done, my friendǃ Kind regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bath City FC photos[edit]

Sorry, but on Friday I went into the club/ Twerton Park itself, and all of the photos on there are owned by the club, the ones you requested to be deleted were actually put on the site by the club photographer himself, you can email them if you'd like to.

No, I didn't take the photos, but the club photographer and club directors, said they own all the images that are at Twerton Park. At the end of the day could you maybe just give us a bit of a break mate? The clubs run by volunteers, we're not exactly a high profile club, don't really need people deleting Wikipedia images that we own, cheers.

Club Director email: <jon.bickley@bathcityfootballclub.co.uk>

Club Director email: <jane.jones@bathcityfootballclub.co.uk>

Club photographer email: <s.howe@sky.com>

Joseph1891 (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This: File:Bath City old women’s team.jpg is 70 years old. This is 110. You described it as "own work" under your own name. It's just as unlikely to have been taken by any surviving club photographer.
If someone owns the rights to a photo, then they might be able to license it here so that it can be used. But still, we have to make some attempt to credit it properly (even to "club photographer" or "unknown") and not to an uploader who certainly didn't take it. (If you do, it's "obviously" wrong and inevitably someone will decide to delete it. Probably a few years from now, when you're no longer watching and able to respond.) In such a case, sorting this properly beforehand will usually involve an official email from the licence holder (such as from an official club email account) to COM:VRT.
It's not about "giving you a break". This site is (mostly) run by volunteers too. It's not my problem to get images uploaded here (and if I ever take that on, it's unlikely to be for football) and I'm not even in any position to do it. I can assist and advise, but really this stuff has to be "pushed" from the rights holder, not "pulled" from this end.
Take a look at COM:VRT. Hopefully that will make things a bit clearer. We should be able to get to a point where these can be uploaded here with {{CC-by-sa-4.0}} licences, with a VRT statement from the club saying, "We hold the rights to these photos and we license them". Take a read of the Creative Commons website too. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, that was actually quite helpful, being fairly knew to Wikipedia I’m not sure how you go about the process of them providing an official license? Do you think it would be possible to give me a walk through, So do the officials at the club just need to send an email to the VRT? Joseph1891 (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read COM:LICENSING and COM:VRT, also http://creativecommons.org
Make a list of all the images you're working on. For each of them, give a clear title, a source, a date of photography, a photographer, a rights holder, and the licence they're being offered with here – I'd suggest {{CC-by-sa-4.0}}.
If these are "unknown 'tog" and "Property of the club" then you're good. Whatever age they are, although it's good to know this.
If some are "local newspaper", then that's a problem. The club doesn't hold the rights to newspaper photos. These might not be usable.
If they're definitely old enough, then claim that they're now public domain and you won't need to license them.
There's a problem here that incomplete metadata leads to deletion. This is wrong, but it goes on all the time (some admins shouldn't be). If an image is licensed here (because the club owns it), that beats whether it's public domain or not and so it doesn't need the photographer, age, or the date of the photographer's death to be known. But some here will try to delete it (wrongly) if they aren't known. So state clearly "unknown" and don't hint at a vague PD claim if you can't back it up. On Commons, all photographers are assumed to live for 300 years, so even a 110 year old photo will be challenged (which is wrong, as UK law defines the cut-off for unknown claims as much later).
Then get someone (club secretary?) to send this list to VRT from an "official" email address, or upload it to some official club web page.
Get this list right first time, because otherwise a few of the admins will latch onto the uploads and your account as "bad" and will then do everything in their power to delete all future uploads and block you. This is wrong, but it's how it works here. We leave bear traps lying out, then shoot anyone who gets caught in them because if they weren't a bear, what were they doing in a bear trap? It's one of the worst things about Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers mate, so have I got this right? Make a list of all the photos with all the necessary details next to them email them to the club, the club then emails the list to VRT, and VRT will upload the photos? Joseph1891 (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a VRT person (maybe find the list of them and ask one of them), so I don't know the precise details (it's also very secretive). But you can treat stuff as "VRT have been notified" and you upload them, giving the same descriptions you've also sent to VRT. VRT will (eventually) check this and then stamp the uploads with a template, which should sort it for good.
VRT offer some templates for doing this: Commons:Volunteer Response Team#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT? / Commons:Email templates which might be useful.
VRT isn't actually licensing (you do that on the upload, same as usual). Really it's more about confirming that the licence wasn't just issued (falsely) by some random drive-by account, but by the traceable person who does hold the rights. Who might even be the same person, but they confirm it "wearing their official hat". Like the old thing of writing it on company letterheaded notepaper.
If the images are already up, I'm happy to run an eye over the draft list for you. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So can I upload them first? With the correct license, then ask the club to send an email to VRT? Joseph1891 (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
? Joseph1891 (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, only just noticed that. Yes, do that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re:[edit]

your comment in the discussion at the time was not related to the photo in question. So I don't understand why it is there. I deleted it because it has nothing to do with the discussion. It's pointless discussing a photo in another DR. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something confusing[edit]

There are 2 pages on Wikipedia for the same class of engine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCR_Class_8K https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Class_O4 What do we do? 89.240.14.140 10:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do nothing. That's Wikipedia. A separate project, so they get to do whatever they wish. If you want to get involved, go over there and discuss it with them.
As the O4s were built under the LNER, then it's not unreasonable to have the pages separate (it might not be best, but the argument can be made for it). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden categories[edit]

If you and Cryptic-waveform don't want people like me to "overcat", then please unhide Category:Images from the National Archives and Records Administration because the 466,944 images in it show up in Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention. This would be appreciated by "humans" like me who are wasting our time trying to reduce this enormous backlog. Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed at your talk page. But we don't reduce a backlog by simply hiding it, from doing something that's generally useless but that just happens to make the tag go away. See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/04/Category:Public transport Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

141 and 181[edit]

I am trying to add simpler categories for them to match the rest.89.240.14.140 11:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Yet again, like the GCR/LNER locos and the NER/LNER electrics you're causing chaos. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is Britain. And I am sorry about the 201/104 but I am talking about 141 and 181.89.240.14.140 11:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's Britain or not doesn't make any difference. Although you seem unconcerned about the difference between North and South.
These are EMD locos of a defined type. We should preserve their listing in the EMD supercat, in a clear fashion. Now adding the CIÉ class is a good thing, because that's a recognisable name of them too. But we shouldn't do that at the cost of the other, and there's absolutely no need to. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Saiyan.jpg[edit]

Might be interested in this since you voted in the DR about Xinnie the Pooh Trade (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scaffolding,_centring_&_shoring[edit]

Category discussion warning

Scaffolding, centring & shoring has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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 it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

JopkeB (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Over de template ANEFO photographer location|Loek Tangel|Tangel, Loek|Beek|Limburg|197|1|....[edit]

Beste Andy, Ik zag dat je Category:Photographs by Loek Tangel in Beek (1971) had veranderd. De oorzaak van de problemen ligt in de template. Zou jij het voor elkaar kunnen krijgen om Category:1971 in Limburg leeg te krijgen? Ik probeerde deze categorieën te verplaatsen naar Category:1971 in Limburg (Netherlands), maar dat lukte niet vanwege de template (templates zijn geweldige tools, behalve als ze je tegenwerken, zoals hier). Heb jij misschien meer verstand van templates dan ik?
(Ik dacht dat ik ergens had gezien dat je Nederlands spreekt, dus ik waag het er maar op. Antwoord anders in het Engels.) JopkeB (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translation (in the hope that I can get an answer too): I saw that you had changed Category:Photographs by Loek Tangel in Beek (1971). The cause of the problems lies in the template. Could you manage to clear Category:1971 in Limburg? I tried to move these categories to Category:1971 in Limburg (Netherlands), but that didn't work because of the template (templates are great tools, except when they work against you, like here). Do you perhaps know more about templates than I do? --JopkeB (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cfr. voorgaande opmerking, kan je een manier vinden om er voor te zorgen dat Category:Photographs by Gerard Dukker in Aalst (1973) NIET onder "Aalst by year" categoriseert, want dat is de verkeerde locatie (België) Henxter (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the two Aalsts problem. Then it can't go into Category:1973 in Aalst, North Brabant or Category:Aalst, North Brabant by year because they don't exist. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, what might be the solution? Create these red categories? Adjust the template/create a template for this place? Or remove the template and add categories by hand? JopkeB (talk) 12:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The template used to work fine for this ("Aalst, North Brabant" is already supplied as the right parameter for Commons) – some of the recent changes must have broken it. But it can't create categories from nowhere. Also it has always, deliberately, if there wasn't a "by year" already it favoured redlinking to a category for the year as an encouragement to create it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving & documenting national political history in the Netherlands[edit]

Hi Andy Dingley, thanks for all your work here. In the light of this edit of 18 may 2023 (part of a series of 73) I would like to share some thoughts about what I have been doing in the past year on the historical categorization of political images under Category:Tweede Kamer by year. I will first give some facts and my interpretation of your effort, then explain what, why and how I have continued, and finally raise a question for feed back.

First some facts:

Second your effort and my interpretation :

  • Around 4 nov 2019 you started categorizing (see for example here) images on the Tweede Kamer by "photographer by year" ; "year in the Tweede Kamer"
  • This first round of categorization created categories from 1958 to 1989, with 33 categories, 85 subcategories and about 2477 images categorized (my count 07.10.2023)
  • Now, I presume your intention has been to create an exact category-tree and to categorize every image in the exact one category.
  • This is how you started in 2019 and continued 18 May 2023

Next my efforts since early this year:

  • After the start of a discussion about one politician early this year I tried to find more images on Commons. This took me first a few hours to find one and latter even days to find so more.
  • What I had experienced was, that with that current categorization structure and the search engine one or more images of individual politicians where very hard to find.
  • I traced back the reasons for this to three facts: most individual politicians on those 10.000+ have not been identified yet, the existing picture were spread over to many categories, and lots of pictures were not yet categorized.
  • About his last thing: I only realized two weeks ago, that indeed 2477 of the 10.000+ on the Tweede Kamer where in categories early this year, so about 25%
  • In feb-march 2023 I started expending the Category:Tweede Kamer by year from 33 to 147 categories with hardly any additional subcategories
  • In every year all images of the Tweede Kamer of that year have been categorized in the top-category.
  • In total I categorized an additional 4.000 images together with the 2.500 images, which makes 6.500 images in those 147 categories.
  • I must say to my surprise still of the 10.000+ on the Tweede Kamer still only 6.500 or 65% seem to be in this category-tree of images around the Tweede Kamer by year.

Now my interpretation of the situation is, that you started "archiving" the images on the national political history in the Netherlands, and I continued "documenting" the national political history in the Netherlands. With my efforts early this year I started a first round of documenting, and this week I started a second round by focusing on individual debates, which has been done before by others, see here.

Now why am I telling you this whole story? I think there should be an basic understanding of the complementary archiving and documenting effort here in order for us to continue working together. So far this had been ideas which I have kept to myself, but would like to discuss more in the open. I am very interested in your opinion about these developments and wonder if you could share your interpretation about these developments? Thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert[edit]

Hi Andy,

Just wanted to say thanks for the revert the other day on the panther image. I think this is a clear indication that the wikicrowd tool needs to provide you with additional context when making a decision, not only the image itself.

The list of categories, for example, makes it clear that this is not a "house cat".

·addshore· talk to me! 08:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DenHelderyear[edit]

Since you made one of these templates and commented on my talk page before, I will ask you. Is one of these a duplicate? Template:DenHelderyear & Template:DenHelderYear I have no understanding of these templates so if something is redundant please fix it.

Also, can you fix the year sorting in this cat: Category:Den Helder by year they sort like this: 2000, 2001, 2011, 2002, 2003... This means 2011 doesn't end up in Category:Den Helder in the 2010s but in Category:Den Helder in the 2000s.

Thanks --Larshei (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2011 issue is fixed by correcting the input variables on the page. Kind Regards. Peli (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_2023&oldid=861227853"