Last modified on 29 September 2011, at 10:30

Commons talk:Biblioteca Museu Víctor Balaguer

Return to the project page "Biblioteca Museu Víctor Balaguer".

First commentsEdit

Good to see this new donation. File:Esbós de la inauguració de l'Exposició Nacional de les Illes Filipines.jpg looks good. Right now I just have two comments:

  • Now that we have institution template, the "location" field should be for the location within the museum rather than the location of the museum that is already provided in the institution template. This avoids redundancy (maybe {{artwork/doc}} could be made clearer clearer on this)
  • Wikimedia considers that there cannot be any copyright claim for a faithful photograph of a Public Domain 2 dimensional artwork. Therefore, photos of public domain photos and paintings without frame should use {{PD-art}} rather than a Creative Commons 3.0 license.

--Zolo (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zolo and thanks for your comments. My answers:
  • Didn't know that "location" field was for the location within the museum. Sorry about that. I'm not sure I'll have this information in the artworks database I'm waiting for, but I'll try to.
  • I'm up to Wikimedia considerations, but I don't know how to deal with the museum content donation template: {{Biblioteca Museu Víctor Balaguer-license}} and the {{PD-art}}. Can I just simply erase somehow the cc-by part somehow in the museum's template? My intention was to recognize the glam-wiki on going collaboration, more than re-copyrighting the artworks. Can you help me, please ? I'm not that good at templates. Actually, it's my first one on Commons :)--Kippelboy (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure.
Yes erasing the CC part of the template would certainly be the best solution. It is comon practice to use a template that both tells "this image has been uploaded during a partnership with X" and categorizes in "images from X", and I see this is exactly what you have done. It is often put just next to the license - and even under the license header - but it is not really a part of the license (see for example File:Jay, Mrs. John (3-4 length profile) - NARA - 532934.tif). It could also make sense to have in the "source" part.
That said if some files are not completely 2D (be it only for a frame around a painting), you could also keep the CC3.0 tag : it is safer to have a too restrictive license at first than the other way round. But it should be added ina separate template, so that it can be removed when PD-art is applicable. Anyway it would be better to insure that they understand that most images are going to be tagged as public domain, this makes for a better start in the relationship. And if they are willing to release all the photos into the public domain it would be even simpler :).--Zolo (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
A few other comments:
I have tried to use {{title}} in File:Esbós de la inauguració de l'Exposició Nacional de les Illes Filipines.jpg. I think the format looks better but the template is not widely used an a bit brittle.
It is convenient to categorize artworks in a category dedicated to their author, even when he is not well known (I have also added it in the file). It can also be convenient to have creator templates. If you dont have any machine readable information about the artist, they could be stubs with only the name, the sortkey and their home category. The rest can be filled later on.--Zolo (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again Zolo :)! I just modified the template {{Biblioteca Museu Víctor Balaguer-license}}. From now on it's only about the ongoing collaboration, and the file copyright situation will be separated. Thanks also for the artist template. As i told you, I'm just starting on Commons ;). Keep in touch!--Kippelboy (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I have added autocategorization in Category:Images from Biblioteca Museu Víctor Balaguer directly into the template, which is more convenient for sources. I have also changed the name of the template to {{Biblioteca Museu Víctor Balaguer-cooperation}}. It does not make much difference but since it is not about the license I think it is better.