User talk:MoMu - Fashion Museum Antwerp
Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions 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 (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump. |
|
-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Why it should include "MoMu_-_Fashion_Museum_Province_of_Antwerp,_www.momu.be._Photo_by_Hugo_Maertens,_Bruges"? The current title is short and descriptive. File's description clearly attributes the photographer. Read COM:File naming.—Bill william comptonTalk 12:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Jacket and shawl in chintz, skirt in glazed printed cotton, 1770-1800. MoMu - Fashion Museum Province of Antwerp, www.momu.be. Photo by Hugo Maertens, Bruges..jpg[edit]
I'm sure they're highly competent in their own fields, but there's only so much featureless monocolor green background which is reasonably needed -- consult what Commons:Overwriting existing files#Substantial crop or un-crop says about File:Miyasaka Hakuryu II - Tigress with Two Cubs - Walters 71909.jpg (the second image version being a change specifically in accordance with Commons policies). Meanwhile, your filenames for these images are somewhat annoying... AnonMoos (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Can't you come up with something more constructive or useful to do than readding featureless monocolor green background when Commons:Overwriting existing files#Substantial crop or un-crop strongly suggests that you shouldn't? If such images are not allowed to be edited in any particular, then they aren't under a real CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Maybe you should focus on cutting down the length of the filename to something reasonable... -AnonMoos (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- The image is a work of art itself of a well-known photographer. It is oke to create a derivative work, but the original is the complete artwork and should be kept as that is how it is originally published in a paper publication, the way how this photo is taken is where the photographer is known for. Romaine (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)