Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons talk:10,000 paintings from Directmedia

ToDo / Coordinating workEdit

  • Licensing rights! (Vlado)
  • User:Eloquence and User:Avatar offered help getting the raw data and uploading it.
    • User:Eloquence is supposed to get the data (~4GB) via DVD. He is in direct contact with Vlado.
    • User:Avatar wrote a short perl script and imported the artist/painting data into a sql database.

We thought of creating a template for the meta-data. Because all data is in german we have to think about other language templates (important: english) and who will fill them.

Hey cool thing. And by the way the meta data template already exists for two weeks (It was created by me) and is accepted and used so far surprisingly good. Look at Template:Information, Template Talk:Information and Commons:Criteria for inclusion for all information about it. Hope this is what you're looking for. 22:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thats pretty much like the one, we like to create. For our needs, we think it's better to create another template, because we like to add several more meta-information (uh, I forgot that you unsubcribed the german ml). There are still some questions, how multi-language infos should be handled. This topic is still in discussion. --Avatar 23:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hm well of course I didn't want to make the template more complicated as it has to be easy to use (even with the curent variables people make enough mistakes). What meta information do you want to add that goes beyond the variables provided by this template? There are two possible ways embedding extensions within the information template. One possibility are well defined strings with an informal internal formatting (that would be the easiest one), or nesting another template within the template. E.g. if you want the Description variable with more detailed structured subinformation you can give this variable another template with its own subvariables that gets nested... It sounds tricky but according to MediaWiki handbooks it works nice... (never needed that feature up to now, but I found it very cool, when I read it). Hm oh it seems that I should subscribe again to the ML (I needed a break, as the noise on the ML made me quite angry and frustrated). Arnomane 00:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To each painter there are information about name, alternative names, date of birth, place of birth, date of death, place of death, time of work, place of work. To each painting there are information about artist, name of work, date, technique, measurememts, where it is, gallery, comment, country, art movement. Then there should of course be information about source, license, ... Because this data is structured in the same way for each entry, it will be wise to add this information in a template and not as plain text. It's like the personal data we added in de-wp. Hopefully later it will be possible to work with queries on this meta-informations (or convert them to wiki-data, when there is a running solution). --Avatar 06:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I expect the descriptions to be all very similar. If they are generated from a dataset anyway, it should be easy to write a script that translates the data. Most things (year, painter, etc) do not have to be translated, other things (like style, technique, etc) can probably be translated easily using a few tables. Only description and title would have to be translated by hand - if the descriptions are very similar, pattern matching could be tried. -- Duesentrieb 23:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

@Avatar: Okay lets have a look how we could use the single variables of the the Template:Information for your purposes:

  • Description = [name of work] shows [comment]. It is a [technique] with [measurements]. This painting belongs to the [art movement] and is now situated in [gallery] in [where it is], [country]
  • Source = scan out of the digital image database "10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei" of Directmedia
  • Date = created on [date]
  • Author = [painter]
  • Permission = Copyright expired as [painter] died [date of death], database was donated by Directmedia
  • other_versions = -

And then the appropriate license template:

  • "PD-old" or something like that.

So as I see it, there is only need for some sub structure in the "Description" Variable of the Information Template. Here is the page that describes all the tricks of templates. But it is not that easy as I thought to embedd a template in a variable name, see m:Help:Template.

Then make an gallery article for each painter that contains something as that:

[painter] also called [alternative names] was a painter that was born [date of birth] in [place of birth] and died [date of death] in [place of death]. He was a a painter of the [time of work] in [place of work].

Of course you could make additionally also a "personal data template" for the painters as in de-Wikipdia but please don't make it invisible as in de-Wikipedia. At the moment here are no meta data haters... :-) Make it visible as a normal taxobox in the right upper corner. Arnomane 11:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is possible to call the general Template:Information (see for instance User:Tillea/Template:AtilleI). This makes the structure of a enhanced Template:Information visible for the reader that has the same general frame but some substructure (of course code wise calling this template looks completley different). I think creating such a special designed template that embedds itself in Template:Information is a good solution for all those larger image gallleries (> 100 items) that provide structured meta data that goes beyond that what the generic and esay template information provides. As they would still be only an enhancement they would still have the same basic structure and there would be no visual confusion to the reader that would otherwise see a bunch of different structures. Perhapes we could create also some well defined more general enhancements of my template the same way, e.g. for photos or scans of art work or other kinds of media. Arnomane 16:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Link to "10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei" is invalid!

Open QuestionsEdit

Image namesEdit

21:43 < Conti> any idea how we're going to name the images? "name of painter - name of painting.jpg"?

Maybe: Name_Of_Painter---Name_Of_Painting---Year.jpg --Habakuk 18:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But be aware this names will get long. For example: Paul_Gauguin---Porträt_des_Vincent_van_Gogh,_Sonnenblumen_malend---1888.jpg --Avatar 18:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why not use the "<painter's name>_-_<painting's name>" format, as used for example for Image:Holbein, Hans - Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk.jpg? James F. (talk) 23:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I like that. BTW: How long can filenames get before causing trouble? (255 chars?) --Avatar 23:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, 255 characters including namespace (to be safe - last I heard, there were areas of the code where the namespace's length was used as well), so, as "Image:" is 6 characters long, and ".jpg" and so on are each 4 characters long, there are 245 characters to use.
James F. (talk) 00:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems they were uploaded with <painter's name>_-_<incrementing_#>.jpg ... is there any plan to rename them? because.... this isn't so great for organization I don't think... especially since a lot are detaul pictures and thosed should be named "<main-painting-title> (detail X).jpg" or something. Grenavitar 08:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
The current scheme is not that bad--at least, it is better than using German titles even for non-German works ;) This way you can generate galleries with a little bit guessing. Now it is too late for renaming - current filenames are already in use on the German WP. --Keichwa 10:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


Will the paintings be tagged as PD? If not, will it be possible to dual-license them as GFDL and CC-by-sa? -- Duesentrieb 10:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Surely {{PD-Art}}?
James F. (talk) 23:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category structureEdit

How will the images be sorted into the category structure? Is it possible to at least generate a gallery for each painter automatically? -- Duesentrieb 10:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Every image should be placed in the category of its painter (should be a subcategory of Category:Painters, some text for each painter would be nice) and in a subcategory of Category:Paintings, but maybe someone could/should build a better structure for those categorys... (and of course the categorys Category:Public domain and Category:The Yorck Project (as a subcategory of Category:Image sources) are needed.) --Habakuk 18:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please take a look at User:Avatar/Categories and discussion. This is a first proposal by me. --Avatar 23:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some help neededEdit

Before going ahead with the upload, I could use some help. The list of artists below needs to be filtered. All anonymous artist descriptions in German (e.g. "Arabischer Maler um 1180") need to be moved from the list above into the list below. The reason is that I will create new categories for each artist, and I don't want to create categories for anonymous ones; however, in the current database, there's no distinction between the two.

If you think that a category in the list above should be created, but under a different name, do not edit the existing name directly, but write the new name next to the old one instead, separated with a "=" sign, e.g. "Adalpertus=Adalpert".-21:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I sorted some stuff out through searching for "Meister" and "Maler". It's not complete yet though, I think. --Conti| 22:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Marked problematic entries with *.
Should we mark already existing articles/categories?
(And of course the new articles/categories should be named Firstname Lastname instead of Lastname, Firstname, shouldn't they?) --Avatar 22:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Have split it.
Are we going to have them in German, in English, in another language, or in all of them? If non-German, should we work out the proper "translations"?
James F. (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
P.S.: I agree that articles should be created at Firstname Lastname, but category sort keys will have to be at Lastname, Firstname, of course, so good keep the split. Should we use standard lower-case forms, so
  • "de Foo", not "De Foo",
  • "le Foo", not "Le Foo",
  • "van Foo", not "Van Foo",
  • "von Foo", not "Von Foo",
... etc.?
James F. (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't need a mark for existing articles or categories, my script will check for that as needed. But it's good to have problematic entries in the list flagged. James, the metadata is German; where the artist names are different in English, it's probably best to use the English version (put it in the list below using the "=" syntax). Other than that I'll upload the files with the German metadata and leave it to others to translate it. I have the names both in "lastname, firstname" form and without, so I can use one for the title and one for the sort key. As for the case, I'll use it as in the lists below.--Eloquence 23:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Lists moved to /Lists for now.--Eloquence 11:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Where to put artist information?Edit

The Directmedia database includes some information about each artist: name, alternative names, date of birth, location of birth, date of death, location of death, work period, work location. The original suggestion was to either put this information directly on the image description pages, or on the artist pages, or both.

I would like to suggest the following instead:

  • I will set up a new [[Creator:]] custom namespace for the Commons
  • The metadata is put, using a to be created Template:Creator, on the page Creator:Firstname Lastname
  • It is transcluded on the relevant pages (category and image desc. for now) using {{Creator:Firstname Lastname}}.

This way, we can easily put the information anywhere we want without copy and pasting. Any objections to this procedure?--Eloquence 11:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm do you mean that we afterwards should copy these informations by hand to the gallery articles and the image descriptions, so that this additional namespace is a temporarily solution? Arnomane 11:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
No, I mean that the upload script will also put {{Creator:Bla}} on the image description page and the category description page (perhaps also any gallery page(s), if existing, though I'm not sure I want to create those). Hence, the same information would be displayed on all of them, while residing in one place.--Eloquence 12:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
So do you think my idea above with information in Template:Information at description page and some info on gallery page would be to much duplication? The reason why I'm in favour of my solution is that we have a quite unique structure so that we don't have a babylonic mixture out of different approaches that would otherwise be more difficult to unterstand for users and contributors to the Wikimedia Commons. Arnomane 12:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think the babylonic structure is already there due to the mix between category pages and gallery pages, and the general inflexibility of categories in the current system. The advantage of the Directmedia data is that it is available in structured form; I think it makes sense to use an approach that preserves that structure and avoids duplication. Whether other pages follow the same model is up to the editors, but I think the advantages of having all the creator information maintained in its own namespace are substantial. Otherwise I agree with you, for the metadata about works I'll try to create a meta-template that builds on Template:Information and adds the extra fields.--Eloquence 12:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Having a good template sounds like a good idea, though most of the fields in Template:Information are unnecessary.
James F. (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Well of course Template:Information is very generic as e.g at a photo you want to add information about the camera settings, while at an artwork you want to provide information about style and at a diagram maybe about the data sources you used. So as I think it is vital to provide an easy and generic as possible solution and not to create for every single usage a completely special solution of its own that would harder to understand for contributors I created the template at it is now after existing solutions at de-Wikipedia. So some variables maybe are in one case more important than in the other and other variables are needed as well from case to case. But you can enhance the Template:Information with own special variables e.g. for camera settings as e.g. one person already did with User:Tillea/Template:AtilleI (which is to specific for a general solution for photographs though). Arnomane 13:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hint in wikepedia articlesEdit

Hi. Did you think about putting a hint on the discussion pages of existing artist in the wikipedias that there are images available? --Habakuk 13:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

My category translationsEdit

Here is how I intend to translate the categories in the Directmedia metadata. The Directmedia version is left, the version that will be used on the Commons is right. Please post below if you think any of these should be changed.--Eloquence 03:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Postimpressionismus=>"Postimpressionist paintings",
Neo-Renaissance=>"Neorenaissance paintings",
Neo-Impressionismus=>"Neoimpressionist paintings",
Neo-Barock=>"Neobaroque paintings",
"Frühbyzantinische Malerei"=>"Byzantine paintings",
Kubismus=>"Cubist paintings",
"Spätbarock"=>"Baroque paintings",
"Spätantike"=>"Ancient art",
"Vorkarolingische Malerei"=>"Precarolingian paintings",
"Punjâbstil"=>"Punjab style",
"Frührenaissance"=>"Renaissance paintings",
Romantik=>"Romantic paintings",
"Präraphaeliten"=>"Preraphaelite paintings",
"Spätromantik"=>"Romantic paintings",
Klassizismus=>"Classicist paintings",
"Maniera graeca"=>"Maniera greca",
"Mittelbyzantinische Malerei"=>"Byzantine paintings",
Renaissance=>"Renaissance paintings",
Symbolismus=>"Symbolist paintings",
Vorrenaissance=>"Prerenaissance paintings",
"Art Nouveau"=>"Art Nouveau",
"Minoische Malerei"=>"Minoan paintings",
"Merowingische Malerei"=>"Merowingian paintings",
"Râjasthânstil"=>"Rajasthan style",
"Ottonische Malerei"=>"Ottonian paintings",
Jugendstil=>"Art Nouveau",
Biedermeier=>"Biedermeier paintings",
Manierismus=>"Manneristic paintings",
Gotik=>"Gothic paintings",
Rokoko=>"Rococo paintings",
Impressionismus=>"Impressionist paintings",
"Venezianische Malerei des 18. Jahrhunderts"=>"Venetian paintings",
"Venezianische Malerei des 18. Jahrhundert"=>"Venetian paintings",
Vorimpressionismus=>"Preimpressionist paintings",
Mogulstil=>"Mogul style",
"Etruskische Malerei"=>"Etruscan paintings",
"Altniederländische Malerei"=>"Old Dutch paintings",
"Macciaioli (Fleckenmalerei)"=>"Macciaioli",
"Byzantinische Malerei"=>"Byzantine paintings",
Volkskunst=>"Folk art",
Neo-Klassizismus=>"Neoclassicist paintings",
"Frühexpressionismus"=>"Expressionist paintings",
Expressionismus=>"Expressionist paintings",
"Spätgotik"=>"Gothic paintings",
"Karolingische Malerei"=>"Carolingian paintings",
Dekahnstil=>"Deccan style",
"Ch'ing-Malerei"=>"Chinese paintings",
Barock=>"Baroque paintings",
"Spätbyzantinische Malerei"=>"Byzantine paintings",
Realismus=>"Realist paintings",
Antike=>"Ancient art",
Dekhanstil=>"Deccan style",
Romanik=>"Romanesque paintings"

The pre-/post- prefices should be hyphenated, and the next term capitalised where appropriate (which looks to be all of them).

Thus, the changes I suggest are:

Postimpressionismus        =><s>"Postimpressionist paintings"</s> => "Post-Impressionist paintings"
Neo-Renaissance            =><s>"Neorenaissance paintings"</s>    => "Neo-Renaissance paintings"
Neo-Impressionismus        =><s>"Neoimpressionist paintings"</s>  => "Neo-Impressionist paintings"
Neo-Barock                 =><s>"Neobaroque paintings"</s>        => "Neo-Baroque paintings"
"Vorkarolingische Malerei" =><s>"Precarolingian paintings"</s>    => "Pre-Carolingian paintings"
"Präraphaeliten"           =><s>"Preraphaelite paintings"</s>     => "Pre-Raphaelite paintings"
Vorrenaissance             =><s>"Prerenaissance paintings"</s>    => "Pre-Renaissance paintings"
Vorimpressionismus         =><s>"Preimpressionist paintings"</s>  => "Pre-Impressionist paintings"
Neo-Klassizismus           =><s>"Neoclassicist paintings"</s>     => "Neo-Classicist paintings"

Other than that, it looks fine.

James F. (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Hieronymus BoschEdit

I uploaded the images of "The Garden of Earthly Delights" from EN and there are very different colors.... you can see the comparison I made on the Bosch page.... what to do about that? (and the not so good file name from these collections? Grenavitar 06:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Templated CategoriesEdit

There are many problems with categories dictated by templates. I was examining the Paul Cézanne uploads being done now and I wanted to organize into still lives, portraits, nudes, etc.... but since it is all templated how should this be done? If we cannot do then then how do we make the categories manageable? Grenavitar 07:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


I am not sure what the "country" entry is actually supposed to mean. From the location of the information, it seemed to me 100% clear that the country of the "current location" city is meant, since the info appears between that and the current "gallery". Hence, it appears in Image:Jan Kupecký 004.jpg, Wien is in Czechia, and Image:Meister der Manessischen Liederhandschrift 005.jpg sees Heidelberg in Switzerland. Is the info meaning "country of origin? country where it was painted? country where the painter was born?". I'm not sure at all anymore. Either the location of that information is very misleading and "country" is not enough information in the title; or the information is just wrong in many cases. --AndreasPraefcke 07:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's the country where it was painted. It certainly has nothing to do with the location of the painting. (Feel free to edit Template:Painting to reposition things.) However, to be absolutely sure, you should probably contact Erwin Jurschitza at ejurschi(at)directmedia(dot)de.--Eloquence 17:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I changed the template to "country of origin", "current location (city)" and "current location (gallery)", and changed the order a bit. I think now it should be clearer. Thanks. --AndreasPraefcke 11:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Paul CézanneEdit

I just included the uploaded paintings of Cézanne in Paul Cézanne. nr. 190 seems to be missing. I included up to nr. 222; which currently seems the highest number. Elly 07:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Request for improvementEdit

Hello, I started Commons:10,000 paintings from Directmedia/Requests for improvement just to prevent many unnecessary or worsening trys to improve image quality. Please have a look. --:Bdk: 09:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


You're monopolizing the Special:Newimages page.

Perhaps you can find a better way to transfer all this. It's not just a few files you know! Send it all over via FTP, then have a wikimedia developer do something about it.

Also, I have to wonder if these will be just taking up space. Maybe there are some famous pictures in here, but an awful lot of the pictures are not notable in any way.

AlbertCahalan 17:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Every single picture is worth the upload--at least, as long we do not have something better. Without these picture you cannot talk about the artists (note, every artist needs an œuevre catalog!). Using there picture you can write nice articles on history in general, on museums, on biographical matters, etc. --Keichwa 18:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Being able to write an article doesn't mean that somebody will do so, and it doesn't make the article worth having. There's just no way that all 10000 pictures are notable. My kid draws pictures too. Anyway, uploading these via some other means (bypassing Special:Newimages) would be appreciated. AlbertCahalan 20:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
This is "commons". It does not mean that all media files on commons must appear as part of an WP article. If you want to write a book about an artist, you can expect to find all the picture you need on "commons". Of cause, any upload must on bypass the log mechanism. But you are right, the upload probably happened too fast... And the technical quality of some or many pictures isn't that great. --Keichwa 20:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Special:Newimages does not currently filter bot uploads as it should, a known bug: Bugzilla:1956. In any case, the uploads are finished.--Eloquence 21:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Just to say that I love this! I am a great lover of paintings and I can never see enough. Sure I am not the only one, musea a crowded with people like me. I am very happy with these and will add some to "my" articles of painters on NL wikipedia. Thank you very much Eloquence. Elly 18:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

It is doneEdit

See announcement. Please continue to report any issues. Changes to the image description pages or artist pages are not so difficult now that all the "heavy" stuff is on the Wikimedia servers.--Eloquence

Hi Eloquence, may I draw your attention on my question above (see "Country")? I think that is quite an issue. --AndreasPraefcke 13:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Is the Creator: pseudo-namespace necessary? If so, could you also make redirects from main namespace (like Abel Grimmer to Creator:Abel Grimmer)? Ausir 00:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
It's not a pseudo-namespace, it's a real namespace. The point is that the information from there can be easily transcluded on all the pages where it is relevant: category, gallery, image description page -- just add {{Creator:Name}} and you have it.--Eloquence 01:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This Creator: business seems like overkill to me. Do we really need to have Hubert van Eyck's place of death mentioned on every painting by him? I think a simple link to the relevant Wikipedia article would serve much better. Dbenbenn 00:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure... on Image:Hieronymus Bosch 023.jpg you deleted all of the information... but, who is to say that each wikipedia has that information in any form? It's not descriptive information it's prescriptive and that has a place for images on the commons so I don't think it should be deleted it. With thousands of pictures having been uploaded I don't believe the wikipedias are going to create an article for each of them and add that information which you removed... gren 07:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
see User_talk:Dbenbenn#Direct_Media_images for some other thoughts I had on this issue gren 21:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


This: Image:Paula Modersohn-Becker 008.jpg seems to be a wrong file (same as Image:Paula Modersohn-Becker 002.jpg and not matching the image description at ...008 at all). --AndreasPraefcke 18:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Same with Image:Paula Modersohn-Becker 024.jpg and Image:Paula Modersohn-Becker 024.jpg. Number 21 seems to have the correct description in that case. --AndreasPraefcke 18:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another mistakeEdit

Many redundanciesEdit

Category:Hubert van Eyck and Category:Jan van Eyck have a lot of the same images. I've started tagging some of them as {{redundant}}. We need someone to go through and figure out which were painted by Hubert, and which by Jan. Dbenbenn 00:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just be careful... I found on the "Garden of Earthly Delights" that we have different copies that look very different of the same images... and I don't think we should just arbitrarily choose which to keep when they aren't the same and it's not just a quality difference. gren 07:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The categories linked above have identical images. I agree it's good to keep multiple different-looking versions. The problem appears to be that Hubert and Jan worked together on many paintings, and Directmedia has the same painting under both brothers. dbenbenn | talk 03:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Same problem with the co-operative work "The forge" by the Le Nain brothers:

are all the same file. --AndreasPraefcke 13:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Licencing QuestionEdit

See my message on the village pump : Commons:Village_pump#Category:The_Yorck_Project--Teofilo 12:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Licensing againEdit

I tried to modify the template ({{PD-Art-YorckProject}}) to make the licensing more clear. Originally the template claimed that the artwork and reproductions were in the public domain, but that Yorck Project claimed copyright to the reproductions and thus could release them under the GFDL. This seems confused to me: you can only claim copyright to things which are copyrightable, and cannot release things in the public domain under the GFDL (the applicability of the GFDL only works if you can claim copyright over it). It can't be both PD and GFDL.

So I split the licensing claim up a bit. Basically it now says that the original artwork is in the public domain. The Yourk Project is claiming copyright on the reproductions and releasing them under the GFDL (as I understand it). In some countries (notably USA, Bridgeman v. Corel etc.), though, the reproductions are not copyrightable, and are thus in the public domain (and can be used under any terms, not just GFDL terms).

Hopefully this is a helpful clarification and is correct. Whatever the case, the previous incarnation was, in my view, legally incomprehensible, so I tried to at least straighten it out a bit. --Fastfission 04:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstood the template. The individual images are PD, even in the Yorck Project version, but the collection as a whole is copyrighted and released under the GFDL. Ausir 16:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, okay. Then maybe we can clarify the template so that I and other won't misunderstand it, since I don't think I'm a bad reader. Perhaps we can change "The entire collection" to "The arrangement of the entire collection" or something along these lines. Saying "the collection" is very, very ambiguous -- it does not differentiate whether or not we are referring to the reproductions in the collection or the arrangement of the collection. It is not a pedantic point -- understanding this will help people to know how they can use the images and what sort of requirements there are on their use. --Fastfission 22:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

40,000 from zeno.orgEdit

Any chance of getting a new set of high-resolution images from Directmedia/zeno to replace the Yorck Project images? Even in 2005 many of them looked completely inadequate because of the very low (40%) jpg quality (see Commons talk:10,000 paintings from Directmedia/Requests for improvement). has much better images available now. There are so far over 2700 images in Category:Images from, but they appear to be done ad-hoc by individuals, not as part of a particular project (or even a particular bot). That compares to 10,385 in Category:PD-Art (Yorck Project), and now claims to have 40,000 Meisterwerk, which appear to be much higher quality that the original set. No doubt the original 10,000 are included in the current 40,000, but it's probably not practical to try to "replace" the original 2005 images on commons.

Would it be easier to get a new set of images directly from Directmedia, or to assign a bot at Commons:Batch uploading? Laura1822 (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Return to the project page "10,000 paintings from Directmedia".