This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
When I had more free time...a long time ago, I saved several quality images from deletion as you can see in this image history or this image history or this one or this.
I fought like hell two or three times before the flickr owner agreed to change the license on this heavily used image as you can see in the image history of the file. But they were quality images. I even persuaded a flickr owner to license this this set of photos freely in the past...he was a good contact of mine on flickr.
My point is I don't always delete images but this DR cannot be kept, I'm afraid as the copyright owner has rejected the use of her photos on Commons.
Making final fixes to initial version of Federation (needed to be able to use Wikidata items and properties to describe media on Commons in the future)
More work on baseline for Lexeme entity type for Wiktionary support
Wikidata Query Service got additional servers, the data has been reloaded to fix a number of issues caused by missed updates and an increase of the time-out of 30s is being looked into.
I just found the NHHC template that you created and am wondering if we should add the copyright language from the NHHC website to the template itself: “Most of the photos found in our collection are in the public domain and may be downloaded and used without permissions or special requirements (those which are not will be noted in the copyright section of the image description).”[1]. I think that we'd still need to keep the statement that ordinary copyright tags are still needed, but putting all this in one package might help to clarify things for people who might wonder how the USN got photos of, say, foreign warships. What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: It might be a good idea, actually... I was including that in the 'permission' field of the ones I uploaded, but I had not considered that other people might be using the template without including that text. - Reventtalk14:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggest making an announcement on WP:Ships as well as MilHist. I'm more interested in foreign ships, myself, so I've been uploading those that are pertinent to the articles that I'm working on at the moment. But I've only been uploading the medium-res files, probably just out of habit from the days when storage wasn't as cheap as it is nowadays. I suppose I should change that; anything special I should know when replacing a jpeg with a high-res tiff? Do I need to rename the file when I do so?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: Don't directly replace a jpeg with a tiff.... I mean, don't actually 'use' the tiff on articles. The reason why is that even though the actual 'tiff' is actually lossless, mediawiki does not display it (most web browsers don't understand tiffs). Instead, it displays a jpeg thumbnail, and the thumbnails created directly from tiffs are of noticeably lower quality than those scaled from a jpeg. Instead, the best practice is to upload both... the TIFF as an 'archival' copy, to be used as lossless source material for any edits, and a jpeg for actual use. See, for example, File:USS Saratoga (CC-3) - 19-N-11981.tiff and File:USS Saratoga (CC-3) - 19-N-11981.jpg. If you notice, the jpeg actually 'looks' better, but was actually created directly from the TIFF.... any edits should be made starting from the TIFF (other than lossless crops) to avoid a generation loss.
As far as renaming them, it's not really needed if the existing name is 'good', but quite a few of the old versions have really useless names (that particular image was File:SaratogaBuildingn11981.jpg). It's helpful if you keep the image ID in the filename (the schema I've been using) to make searching easier.
The easier way to create a jpeg from the tiff is with ImageMagick... 'convert' will do it from the command line.
FYI, I talked about the template with とある白い猫, and he rewrote it to not only mention the permission text, but also to 'pass through' a license. - Reventtalk01:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Awesome! I haven't used tiffs very often in the past, although I think that I used either Graphic Converter or Photoshop to down convert them, but I'll play around and see if there's any real difference between them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Uploaded one tiff and a derivative jpg. File:Colossus NH 110246.tiff.tif and File:Colossus NH 110246.jpg A few problems: I was caught unawares by the additional .tif name in the file name so that needs to be fixed. As soon as I used the NHHC template, I started to get a categorization of Invalid licence and I also couldn't use the institution and accession number parameters like you did in the Saratoga pics. These are a bit different than yours as mine is a duplicate of a British photo so I used that license. We have the low-res IWM version already as File:HMS Colossus Battleship.jpg, so that should be deleted. Hopefully this won't be too much trouble to clean up and you can tell me what to do better next time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: Basically, your problem is that you're using the Upload Wizard... it's really only intended for very simple cases. It uses {{Information}}... the other parameters are part of {{Photograph}}. If you turn off the upload wizard (in preferences) then Special:Upload will take you to a form that allows you to write the file page directly (you can ignore the 'licensing' and 'categories' sections, and just put the information directly in the box, including using all the various other Commons:Infobox templates.
Another way to do it (possibly easier) is to use the 'chunked uploader' (Help:Chunked upload)... it adds a 'upload this file' link to the page header, even on redlinked file pages (so you can use it to upload new files) and also lets you write the file page directly when uploading. The caveat with it is it 'starts' as soon as you select the file to upload, so you have to write the file page first (or you get an uploaded file with no file page). - Reventtalk22:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I moved the tiff to File:Colossus NH 110246.tiff without leaving a redirect, fyi (as a brand new upload, it doesn't really need one), and also used Global Replace to move the usages of the lower-quality jpeg over you your version. - Reventtalk22:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing these problems and holding my hand as I navigate these unfamiliar waters. I knew it would be useful to have an admin helping me out! I'll follow your recommendations on my next round of uploads from the NHHC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: No problem.... it's nice to not be looking at doing them 'all' myself. :) BTW, if you just mark the lower resolution copies as {{Duplicate}}, the usages will get moved over when they are processed... even if they are not exactly duplicates (slightly different cropping) after dealing with a few hundred I can pretty authoritatively say that such replacements are not controversial. If the cropping is 'distinctly' different, you can just overwrite the existing file with the same crop, and link it as an 'other version'. You should have a 'duplicate' link in the toolbox... if not, turn on "AjaxQuickDelete" in Gadgets. - Reventtalk23:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I certainly do NOT agree with your idea of replacing existing NHHC photos with photos named after their whatever filename used in an archive, the BuShips or whatsoever. What does "19-N-16455" mean? Nothing. It is just a random BuShips file name. So why not just modify the existing File:USS Craven (DD-70) underway in November 1918.jpg with uploading the highres photo?!? I care to refer to the Commons file naming policy: Names should be: descriptive, chosen according to what the image displays or contents portray and When the year, date or version may be of importance, it is good to include it in the file name.. Do you plan to rename/replace all NHHC files with NH ... 80-G... 19-N... . I think this would be utter nonsense. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Cobatfor: I don't specifically 'plan' to rename them, and I have no particular problem with them being under a better name... the names I'm creating are really just based on trying to do this in a somewhat 'streamlined' workflow (the script I'm using makes names in that format, because trying to create hundreds of better names would become maddening). Also, quite a few of the 'existing' names are, honestly, far worse (things like File:USS Shark;H41903.jpg or File:Uss-akron-manhattan.jpg). Most of the images I'm uploading from there don't seem to already exist on Commons, though. Having the 'number' in the name is helpful when searching, though, and is somewhat standard for material from GLAMs.
As an example of why it's helpful, try searching Google for "111-SC-43563" or "111-SC-43617", as random examples... the copies at NHHC don't show up under that number, and the hyperwar and navsource pages are the old poor-quality copies. Since the ID is the 'standard' way of identifying those images, it's helpful to potential reusers to have it visible in the page title. Those ID's are not 'file names'... they were, in most cases, used decades before the Internet existed, and are actually quite 'meaningful' in an obscure way... '111-SC' is "Photographs of American Military Activities, 1918 - 1981" created by the Army Signal Corps, and refers to the location of the physical source material (which could be used to create a better reproduction) in the National Archives. These are not 'digital photos' with an ephemeral existence, they are images of specific physical objects (the originals) that are referenced by that ID.
If you want the versions I'm uploading under better names, just ask... anyone (including me) will happily rename them (just please keep the ID). I also have no problem with merging the ones that I upload on top of your previous upload, if you want, so that the history of yours is still visible. Part of the reason why I am not 'directly' overwriting the existing files is that sometimes they are 'not' duplicates... they have sometimes been specifically cropped, and it's honestly hard to tell that without the 'blink' view that the "process duplicates" tool gives. When they are different crops, I do upload a higher-res version of the specific crop on top once I notice.
Since you mentioned the 'file naming' page, I'd point out that it's not actually a policy, and that the "IDs" I'm including have been used to refer to the specific images in print sources for decades....they are, at this point, quite arguably 'descriptive' of the specific image, and I'd argue that any version of the name that includes the ID is better for visibility of the material to potential reusers who are looking for a better copy of an image they have found elsewhere.
I'm really not trying to create drama here, though... I'm just trying to improve on our collection, and replace the (many) terrible copies of these images with better ones in the various Wikipedias. Since it's a huge task, I'm trying to do it in as streamlined a way as possible, and this way seems to have gotten more thanks than complaints... honestly, the main complaint has been from other admins that I didn't just delete and redirect the duplicates instead of just tagging them. It also has the benefit (when global replace is used) of pinging editors on other wikis that the image in a page they are watching has changed, even if slightly, and that they might want to create a new crop... I consider that a significant benefit of this method, since often the existing files would be unusably low quality if cropped.
Just to be clear, I'm not 'targeting' existing images to replace them... I'm importing the bulk of the NHHC collection to Commons, and replacing lower-quailty versions when I notice they exist. - Reventtalk11:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I am still not convinced. The old DVIC and later defenseimagery had file names like DN-ST-86... and since all photos were moved to the NARA, all have 8-digit numbers. Only the old BuShips "19-NN" names survived, but the descriptions are not always correct. If you insist on keeping a special file designation, how about a compromise like "USS Craven (DD-70) underway in November 1918 (19-N-16455).jpg"? And, by the way, since I can rename files, I rename them if I ever find "USS Shark;H41903". :-) Cheers Cobatfor (talk)
@Cobatfor: I have no problem at all with you moving any of the NARA images I have uploaded to a more descriptive name. I just think it makes sense to keep the ID, and that seems to be the general consensus for GLAM material. - Reventtalk13:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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!
Thanks for uploading File:USS Skipjack - 19-N-18862.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.
Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.
You can now make your Harvest Templates tasks run automatically. After you have generated a permalink to your task, add &run= to the url. When you open it next time, it will load and then run automatically. Alternatively, you can use &load= which will only prepare the task for running.
Continued to finalize the initial version of Federation (needed to be able to use Wikidata items and properties to describe media on Commons in the future)
More work on baseline for Lexeme entity type for Wiktionary support
I was doing some checking on railroad photos when I came upon this user. All of the uploads are licensed as own work; it's impossible because much of what's pictured was scrapped well before 1960. Some examples:
File:D&RGW 1601 On The Station.jpgGeorge Beam, who died in 1935. From the Denver Public Library, who really keeps tight control over their photos and won't allow commercial use without buying a license. The Otto Perry photos that are here were gotten because Perry published a lot of his work and distributed it to fellow train buffs before his death in 1970.
File:NYC Rexall Train colorizing locomotive.jpg From a company called Imbued With Hues There are a lot of colorized photos in the user's uploads with this watermark-no idea as to the copyright status of the photos, but I doubt this person is Imbued with Hues.
File:NH I-5 Hudson Steam Engine On Snow.jpg Reading the description on this one and on others, it's obvious they were taken from eBay without any checking re: copyright status. "Money Order or Bank Check works okay. Personal Checks are fine from bidders with a five (5) or higher eBay in Positive Feedback. Funds provided via PayPal gets expedited shipping! Payment expected within seven (7) days after Auction end date."
Converted undo/restore interface to use OOUI. You can test it here (phab:T134643).
Fixed an other rounding issue on geo coordinates (phab:T158772).
Added thumbnail images to the Wikimedia Commons suggester (phab:T160319).
Continued working on introducing Lexeme entity type.
Finishing federation prototype.
We are going to change all snak, reference, and qualifier hashes with the planned DataModel 7.0 release. If you are a tool developer, make sure you do not persist hashes, and never use them to request edits to entities. Statement IDs are safe (phab:T157965).
Hi, Revent. Several files uploaded by me (see User talk:Roblespepe#Notification about possible deletion), have been deleted, but I don't find the reasons. The only reason I found is "Claimed to be copyrighted in the US by the uploader" (that's me), and sending me to "Commons:Licensing". But "Commons:Licensing" says: "After discussion, it was determined that the affected files would not be deleted en masse but reviewed individually". But in these cases there was no individual revision. Can you explain me what happened here, Revent? I think it's a mistake. Thanks, in advance.--Roblespepe (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Roblespepe: The images I deleted were all tagged, by the uploader (you) with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Please read the template. The licensing policy requires that works must either be freely licensed, or PD in both the source nation and the United States... you indicated (probably correctly, given the dates) that the works had US copyrights restored by the URAA, and are thus copyright violations in the US (where Commons is hosted). If the uploader themselves says that the work is a copyright violation, it's deletable. It's Commons policy (COM:EVID) that the burden of proof to show that a file is acceptable lies on the uploader, and you specifically indicated they were not okay.
The text about individual review is referring to the works that were uploaded to Commons before the Supreme Court case that upheld the URAA... at that time, many thousands of 'potentially affected' files were deleted in bulk, and then (after much community debate) restored for individual review. It's not really relevant to a case where the uploader (presumably, the person with the most information about the work) specifically says the work has a restored copyright. - Reventtalk03:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
But I don't think so, Revent. I thought I had the obligation of inserting that template, because I saw other similar cases. How can I upload an image that I think is not in the PD? That's why I said this was a mistake. If the burden of proof is on myself, I'm explaining that I don`t say that those images aren't in the PD, it was an obvious mistake.--Roblespepe (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Roblespepe: The template is really supposed to only be used on 'old' potentially URAA-affected images, to flag them for review... it's not really a valid 'license tag' for the US, and people who use it that way for new uploads are wrong to do so. Unfortunately, we do have people, occasionally, that intentionally upload images that they know have a restored copyright, under the (incorrect) claim that we simply 'don't delete images just because of the URAA'... which is simply wrong. I don't 'hunt' for such images, but I do habitually delete them if the claim was made by the uploader, unless I can easily find evidence that they were wrong (and the work is actually PD in the US).
If you can provide a valid US license tag for the images, I'll restore them and let the DR run it's course. However, I don't think any US license tag applies, due to the en:Buenos Aires Convention, which Argentina joined in 1950. Any work published in Argentina after 1950 that complied with Argentinian copyright law, and included a 'statement of reservation of rights' (the source of the phrase 'all rights reserved'), had a copyright that was mutually recognized by the US... since the US does not apply the rule of the shorter term, that means that such works (assuming they were renewed, when that requirement still existed) are copyrighted in the US for the full US term, even if they enter the public domain in the source nation. - Reventtalk05:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That's why I ask you why Commons:Licensing says: "After discussion, it was determined that the affected files would not be deleted en masse but reviewed individually". Y thought photos taken in Argentina are ruled by {{PD-AR-Photo}}. That's not true any more? This licence is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons any more? That's my doubt.--Roblespepe (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Roblespepe: That template relates to the copyright status in Argentina, and is completely correct. Works uploaded to Commons, however, are required to be PD (or freely licensed) in both the source nation and the US, since the WMF operates Commons from the US. Since the US does not follow the en:rule of the shorter term, some works can have a much longer copyright term in the US than in the source nation. The text "After discussion, it was determined that the affected files would not be deleted en masse but reviewed individually" refers to works affected by the URAA... I deleted the images speedily since you stated that they 'were' affected by the URAA (and thus copyvios in the US), but I'm fairly certain that they are actually not affected by the URAA (which restored expired copyrights) but instead simply still subject to the original (unexpired) copyright that they obtained due to the Buenos Aires Convention... if they were published after 1964, with a 'statement of reservation of rights' (All rights reserved, or todos derechos reservados, or the equivalent) then they are simply the subject of an unexpired copyright in the US.
Since the images that you uploaded (and that I deleted) appear, on both the simple evidence and your statements, to have been commercially published in Argentina after 1964, the assumption must be that they are copyrighted in the US.
It is unfortunate that the Spanish Wikipedia does not allow local uploads... the images would be allowable there, if they did. - Reventtalk05:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Roblespepe: To be very specific.. if you indicate any particular images I deleted that were published without the required 'statement of reservation of rights', or published prior to 1964, I will undelete them, and let the DR run it's course. I deleted them speedily because you 'said' they were copyvios, and because my interpretation of the evidence indicated that was the case (even if for a different reason). - Reventtalk05:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
_-_19-N-16455.jpg){kind=link}
_-_19-N-11981.jpg){kind=link}
_-_19-N-16455.jpg){kind=link}
_underway_in_November_1918.jpg){kind=link}
_-_19-N-16455.jpg){kind=link}
