File talk:Château de Beauregard - Jeanne III d'Albret.jpg

 

deletion "debate"

Hello @Yann: , can you explain to me how the reason I gave for deleting this image is not valid? (my reason: No valid source cited. Pinterest page cited gives its source as altesse.eu, which identifies itself as a cigarette filter company.) I'm no expert at our file deletion/retention policy, but I do know that the uploader of this file has put many images of dubious origin on Commons and on several Wikipedias, generating a lot of clean-up work for the rest of us, and not communicating about any of it. Do you find this image to be adequately sourced? --Eric ^{my en.wp talk page} 23:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

The license is valid and the file is used, so there isn't any reason for deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Eric ^{my en.wp talk page} 15:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Image manipulation and source

Hello @Ecummenic: , and thanks for your work on this file. I found the image on the website that you give as the source. Shouldn't we put the direct url to the image's page there? And how do we know that the image is free to use, since it's on a commercial site?

Another question: The image we have here is a retouched version, and the aspect ratio has been changed. Don't you think we should fix that, or make a note of it? --Eric ^{my en.wp talk page} 12:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: Sorry to bother you again, but can you look at my questions here in this section? From looking at the website given as the source for this image (which I'm not convinced is the actual source) I suspect it is not free for us to use. Your thoughts? Merci par avance, --Eric ^{my en.wp talk page} 14:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Following up your request on my talk page, I looked at this. All of the works in Category:Gallery of the Illustrious in the Château de Beauregard, including this one, are from the 17th century and, therefore, free to use. Although we like to know the actual source of the reproduction, the fact that it is a commercial site is irrelevant since we follow Bridgeman and ignore any copyright claims by those who have reproduced the work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim! That is a big help. --Eric ^{my en.wp talk page} 16:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Et merci, Yann! --Eric ^{my en.wp talk page} 17:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

move to "Château de Beauregard - Jeanne III d'Albret"

Ecummenic, why did you move this? "Château de Beauregard" is not the artist's name; it is where the painting is currently located. I think there's something you're misunderstanding here, and I think you would do better to respond to attempts to communicate with you before making unilateral moves. FYI: Yann, Jameslwoodward Eric ^talk 03:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As he or she said in the edit comment, it is the form of name used for the entire series. In a perfect world, we might have "Château de Beauregard - Jeanne III d'Albret - unknown artist.jpg", I agree that using the same form of name for the whole series is appropriate. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that using a consistent naming scheme for a series is desirable. I do not agree that we should perpetuate an awkward filenaming scheme merely because it has been established unilaterally, by one editor's campaign to upload files with such names, en masse, without consulting his or her colleagues. I think that such an approach makes the Commons project look chaotic and disorganized, and is not suited to a file organization system meant to support encyclopedias.

To me it is obviously preferable to name files first according to their subject, followed by any additional pertinent info. That was my motivation for requesting the rename last month to Jeanne III d'Albret – Château de Beauregard. I don't think I'm alone in seeing it as logical to name an image of an artwork this way (in this case, the portrait subject followed by the painting's current display location). Note also that with our categorization system, the gallery location is redundant. The word order in this series' filenames makes it look like the naming scheme was not well considered, an impression I often get on Commons. These filenames look backwards to me. And Ecummenic's edit summary for the move, Artist's name at the beginning, it's a serie[s], seems to indicate that he/she is misunderstanding something. I must also add that I find it unfortunate when such a prolific editor is uncommunicative. PingYann, Jameslwoodward. Eric ^talk 14:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)