Open main menu
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Hsarrazin!


A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Copyright Watcher Barnstar
Pour tes éclaircissements concernant le statut juridique des œuvres de Maurice Ravel. ~Pyb (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  Thank you. Pyb :)

File:Malato par Delannoy 1909.jpgEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the   Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 16:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


Autopatrol givenEdit

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, you can now share images from Flickr using the UploadWizard, batch-upload up to 500 files with UploadWizard instead of 50 and upload freely licensed audio files in the MP3 format. Thank you. INeverCry 21:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you. --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


I do not understand this edit. Previous version was better since it did not need to calculate which license to display (based on the year of death) and had also license for US ({{PD-1923}}). --Jarekt (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

hi Jarekt,
I read somewhere that it was better to put PD-old-auto, since it could automatically adjust to the date of death - I systematically put it that way, each time I add a creator - I was told it was de "best" way... Is it not ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • for authors with date of death>100 the preference order would be:
  1. {{PD-old-100}} - since that is the "final template" which will never change
  2. {{PD-old-auto}} - same result but less clear since it has to be calculated each time based on current year
  3. {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-old}}
  • for authors with date of death<100 the preference order would be:
  1. {{PD-old-auto}} - the best since it chooses correct license based on current year and date of death
  2. {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-old}}
Also licenses merged with {{PD-1923}} or {{PD-1989}} (like {{PD-old-100-1923}}) are always better than the one without them since currently many people are trying to figure out standing of many files as seen by US law. That information should never be removed. BTW, thanks for generating new creator templates, once we have them many of file operations (like adding {{PD-old-auto-1923}} or {{PD-old-100}}) can be done by bot. --Jarekt (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, now I understand better :)
the licence system on Commons is very difficult to understand : I'm very much used to the French law, but, your templates are very confusing, and sometimes, a lot of old licence templates should by replaced.
for creators dead more than a century ago, I will try and put systematically {{PD-old-100}} - the "-1923" refers to the year of publication of the "book", not of the original text, if I'm not mistaken ? - should I add it systematically on books concerned.
I also correct publication dates of books when I find them erroneous (a lot of them are) :)
for {{PD-old-auto}}, is it possible to combine it with "1923", or is it useless ?
thanks for your help :)
for "creators", I'm a librarian, thus I like to have clear permanent Authority data, and I'm a wikisource sysop, so I'm used to complete them... it's no problem. I can help you on other books than the BNF ones, if you need (as long as I can read the language  )
Do you know "how" I can find back items where the "old-auto" has been used, and that are "more than 100 years", so that I make the change ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
PS : another question : the "Year book" category - should it be put on all books, or only books after 1923 ?
and could not it be put automatically from the "Date" field of the {{Book}} --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes "-1923" refers to year of publication, and is only needed due to crazy details of US law (it seems like every country have some crazy law, which makes life hard). It would be great if you can add it for books published before 1923. Combined {{PD-old-auto}} with "1923" is called {{PD-old-auto-1923}}.
As for "how" one can find back items where the "old-auto" has been used, and that are "more than 100 years", so that one can make the change - I would not worry about that - it is a very boring job for humans and quite doable for bots. Let them do it.
"Year book" category should be added to all books, and probably one can write a bot to copy it from Book template. As for adding creator templates, we can use them for all writers, artists, etc. for which we have images of their books or artworks. Especially the ones for whom we use one of {{PD-old}} templates. If it is interesting to you can look into non-modern category:Writers from France or category:Artists from Francethat do not have creator templates and add them. Or you can look into Category:Creator templates without home category: those creators often have some problem with associated category.
I am also big fan of "clear permanent Authority data" that is why I try to add it to every creator page I touch (I noticed that you are already familiar with Help:Gadget-VIAFDataImporter). --Jarekt (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you - I asked about the Year, because many BNF books have been wrongly dated 1995 (the date they microfilemed the original book) - so I have to change the date. I will just suppress the category then, leaving the work to the bot :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Help ! Best license for "old" artEdit

(copy to have the 2 questions together) Hi Jarekt,

Since you gave me very good advice about book license, I come to you about "Art" (only "old" art, like Gainsborough or Flemish painters). I mean, what would be the "final" license (like {{PD-old-100-1923}} for books) ? apart from {{PD-Art-YorckProject}} which is specific

What would be the "best" license to put on them ?

I saw many variations :

  • {{PD-art}} - not detailed enough I guess
  • {{PD-art|PD-old-100}} (but it does not suppress the "CC-PD-Mark|Author died more than 100 years ago public domain images")
  • {{PD-art|PD-old-100-1923}} (equivalent for {{PD-scan|PD-old-100-1923}} on books ?
  • {{PD-art-100}} - seems to have the same effect as {{PD-art|PD-old-100}}
  • {{PD-old-100}} (seems insufficient to me)
  • {{PD-Art-two-auto|1788}} - I saw that one on GAP (Google Art Project) - seems heavy too, because I guess it computes the delay... and the "Licence block" is very "BIG"

So please, would you help me to have a "best choice" (one that would not require to be changed, after a time) ?

--Hsarrazin (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes those can be confusing. We just have too many of them, see some more options at User:Jarekt/a:

  • {{PD-art}} is the same as {{PD-art|PD-old}} and PD-old is not as good as {{PD-old-100}} or {{PD-old-70}}. Here "art" means 2D art, since that template should not be used on 3D art.
  • {{PD-art|PD-old-100}} This was until recently ideal license: {{PD-old-100}} for the original painting and {{PD-art}} for the digitization. Lately there is also higher emphasis on additional US license.
  • {{PD-art|PD-old-100-1923}} this is equivalent for {{PD-scan|PD-old-100-1923}} on books and would be preferred to the previous one since it also clarify US legal status. However It is not clear to me what does it mean that painting was published before 1923? From previous discussions being published in a book qualifies, maybe public display? And how would we know which paintings were "Published" and when? So I add this one only if I can verify the publication claim. Reference with publication details should be required.
  • {{PD-art-100}} - I think it is the same as {{PD-art|PD-old-100}}
  • {{PD-old-100}} - This one is fine if you
  • {{PD-Art-two-auto|1788}} - That one seems great for images of authors who died less than 100 years ago. If you know something about publication date. --Jarekt (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

PS : I also found {{self|PD-old-100}}, which seems completely absurd to me... is it a "real" license ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It might mean that it is self made image where original is in PD and user have chosen not to add his own digitization license. Either way {{Self}} and {{PD-old-100}} do not go together.--Jarekt (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, thank you, that was what I deduced more or less  
Il will use {{PD-Art-100}} for most paintings, and {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}} when it's an engraving and I have publication date (which is the majority of the artworks I worked on recently, since they are from late 18e or early 19e)
Hope I do a not too bad work converting to {{Artwork}} too ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I just found that the equivalent to {{PD-old-100-1923}} for art would be {{PD-Art/1923|100}}
and the equivalent to {{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=XXXX}} would be {{PD-Art/1923|deathyear}}

- it would be much easier to find the right license if the structure of the template was the same   --Hsarrazin (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!Edit

  for all your work on adding Authority control templates o Creator pages Jarekt (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
thank you ! cheers to you to… I saw you worked a lot on the creators too :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

GND and PNDEdit

Hallo Hsarrazin,

thank you for completing informations from VIAF. I noticed you are also adding PNDs, even if there are GND-Numbers. The GND is a newer model and PND is part of it (GND = PND + GKD + SWD). GND and PND do have in fact the same number. If there are different numbers: the DNB has various records of the same person. So, you can stop adding PND, while other users are changing PND to GND.

more informations in German: de:Hilfe:GND (de:WP:PND redirects there), best regards --PigeonIP (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

in English: en:Universal Authority File
btw: I shortly got used to {{PD-old-100-1923}}. Befor that I only used {{PD-old}}) and was wondering if there isn't a template creating {{PD-old-75}}, {{PD-old-80}} or {{PD-old-100}} out of creator informations (and adding {{PD-1923}} form book informations). So thanks to you and Jarekt for introducing me to {{PD-old-auto-1923}}. --PigeonIP (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
About GND and PND: those are added by the Help:Gadget-VIAFDataImporter, so if there are some issues with that, then they should be addressed at the gadget talk page. I do a lot of maintenance on {{Authority control}} template but unfortunately I do not understand the difference between GND and PND. At the moment both are treated the same way by the template. If that is not correct than please help fixing/discussing the template at Template talk:Authority control. --Jarekt (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Basically it is the same. With PND and GND you have two numbers refering to the same data record:

The Universal Authority File became operational in April 2012 and integrates the content of the following authority files which are discontinued since:

At the time of its introduction (“GND-Grundbestand” from 5 April 2012), the GND holds 9.493.860 files, including 2.650.000 personalized names.

more: Template_talk:Authority_control#PND --PigeonIP (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I use the Help:Gadget-VIAFDataImporter to update the authorities… I noticed the pb about PND and GND at the same time a few days ago, in the Creator:Karl Wagner notice, but since I did not know which one was the right, I did not dare to make a correction… and I do not read German "at all" so I could not understand clearly the explanations on the German site…
thanks for your explanations, which will allow me to correct it when I see the "double" authority... If I understand correctly, I can change (automatically ?) PNDs to GNDs ? (I can add it to my cleanup script if needed) - or is it too soon ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
in fact, I just noticed in Creator:Karl Wagner that both PND and GND are contained in the template, but only GND appears while displaying it after saving - is it "necessary" to clean up ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no urgency. There are no new PND-numbers since April. You can change PND to GND (along with other changes). PND-links are still valid, but should ultimately be replaced by the GND. So far I only changed P to G, because of the similarities. But there may be some differences because duplicates are merged. In Creator:Karl Wagner GND and PND were identical. In Creator:Jean Bungartz not (at first): but GND 126544298 and PND 189551798 did refer to the same person (they merged it now, after I wrote an e-mail; PND 189551798 and PND 126544298 to GND 126544298)
PND may not show up because there is the GND and both are linked to --PigeonIP (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


It is ok, no problem. I usually don't have time to fill a complete template, so glad you did it for me. --Sailko (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


Hsarrazin, deathyear as in this edit should have been year of the death. The result is the same so no harm done, but it is not going to work with "deathyear=70" etc. --Jarekt (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank Jarekt, that was a very "old" edit (as far as PD is concerned)   - I'm still learning, but I think that's more a "typo" that an "error", in the sense that I probably accidentally "mixed" 2 licenses, because I know what "deathyear" means...
hope I did not let too many of those behind me :)
well, thank you for watching my back anyway :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not watching anybody's back, but I am cursed with enormous watchlist, which is too big to trim or edit it, so I am stuck with it for time being. I watch e lot of pages, especially to templates and creator templates. This one is another edit I noticed: in this case "year" parameters are quite unnecessary since death date does not use any templates that would obfuscate the year. Year parameters are only needed if "date" parameters use {{Other date}} or {{Lifetime date}}. Cheers --Jarekt (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you,
in fact, I "had" to add these fields, because the birth and death dates were not recognized (I don't know why) and it was categorized as such [1], which was a little annoying... so, if you find "why", I will happily withdraw them   --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
You are right, the issue was with blank deathyear parameter. They should be either there or not there, but blank does not work properly. I guess I should fix the template at some point, since I was also confused by that a while ago. --Jarekt (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
while you are around, can you tell me if Underwood & Underwood should be created as "creator" (corporate) or "institution" ? I guess it should be "creator", but I'm not completely sure... --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I would say Underwood & Underwood should be a creator since it will be likely added to "Author" field not Institution field. However you should know that corporate creator templates are not universally supported. --Jarekt (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


Hallo Hsarrazin,

User:Joergens.mi, the creator of {{Gartenlaube (1883)}}, has an en-3-Babel. So you could have asked him as well in English. Maybe he could help with other german ws scans, too. Maybe with later difficulties? --PigeonIP (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, the whole problem with WS in german is "the way" they install their scans :
  • on de: they use essentially individual jpeg files, and use Commons to make the "circulation" device, with that kind of templates : the result is that jpg files inside this books cannot be easily documented,
  • while in other wikisources (fr but many others too), we generally use djvu files, with the "MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template" and other systems, that allow to have just "one" file for a whole book, and allow to visualize the book easily from one page to another… when we have images inside a djvu book, we "export" it to jpeg, (or take it from IA) and put it individually on Commons, which allow to use it anywhere, and document it in Commons :)
previously, I had very rarely encountered such files, but recently, I began to help on putting {{Creator}} and Authority templates on files, and I found that system, which is completely unreadable to the "ordinary" Commons editor, because of the systematic use of complex templates, one per book.
Next time, I'll try and ask Joergens.mi, but the {{Creator}} is not the only pb - the "PD" one too, because they put a unique license template on the whole book, and sometimes, there are paintings, or illustrations, that are from an older author than the book and do not have the same "PD" (for exemple, a painting from a 17th century in a book from an author who died 70 years ago.).
thank you PigeonIP,   --Hsarrazin (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Until today I didn't know "DjVu", only PDF. Is there a tool to create these files easily? What to do, if the file is too large? (Wasn't there an upload limit at commons?)
Out of pure interest: In a magazin there might be more than one illustration on a page (and don't forget the author of the item at this page.) How do you handle multiple PDs in other books or essay's? --PigeonIP (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
there are many tools to convert PDFs to DjVus, depending on the system your computer is running on, the easiest one being "uploading them to Internet Archive", which at the same time, makes a good OCR  
here you can find a lot of explanations, if you understand French a little - if not, I could consider trying a translation, for the benefit of wikisource in english, if there is not already a help page about it on en  
the biggest advantage of djvu is that it gives a better compression on "text" page, without loosing quality, compared to PDF…
I've never had to "handle" multiple PDs on a page, but I guess I would use the lowest PD, i.e. the PD related to the author who died last (since it's the rule that applies to any composite work)… OR, I would extract every image in a single file, and load them separately, to be able to use them independantly :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
UncleCarpenterEdward bw.jpg is a good example : if Henry Holiday is the illustrator, and not Lewis Carroll himself (which needs to be controlled), the PD is {{PD-Art/1923|1927}} since Holiday died in 1927 !! --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
by the way, on this page you can see how we handle separately the "Book" and its illustrations (see "Description"). --Hsarrazin (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand French. But there is the English page en:Help:DjVu files, too. It says that there are disadvantages with illustrations and DjVu. I am primarily interested in this topic, because there are wonderful illustrated books of Jean Bungartz.
{{Extracted from}} is new to me.
In Gartenlaube, are scans of pages and illustrations in the same category. (but maybe not with all)
for example Category:Gartenlaube (1883) with
Sometimes I think book templates may be ok, but on the other hand, they are expendable, too. see File:Die Taube, 1984, 0010.jpg
Have a nice day, PigeonIP (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you will find much more useful help on wikisource than Wikipedia. :)
In fact, the most important problem with illustrations from djvu is, there can be a degradation of image in djvu (depending of the original definition) BUT,
  • using Internet Archive to convert PDFs to DjVu allows you to have high quality jpeg2000 images, and work with them
  • you can manage the illustrations separately from the text, and insert them in the finished book from the jpg instead of the djvu, like there for example (look in chapters)
  • you can have a "normal" definition for the text, and a "very good" definition for the images in jpg (or png), which allows to have a smaller file for the scan you work on
  • and contrary to jpg files, djvu files can contain an OCR, which allowes easy correction
I know that you don't read french fluently, but you may try and "create" a page on s:fr:Livre:Revue_des_Deux_Mondes_-_1859_-_tome_19.djvu (any grey page) and see the OCR layer of text appear, which you just have to "read and correct", which makes it quite easy to work (depending on the quality of the OCR, of course)  
If you want to make a try, you may upload a book in PDF format on (well specifying the language) and see the result, and I can help you with the installing of the file - or, if you know him, you may ask Tpt, who is one of our admins, and knows very well how to handle djvu files and the "text layer" :)
Have a nice end of the Year !! --Hsarrazin (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Categorisation of Gerard Dukker imagesEdit

Hello Hsarrazin,

You're categorizing all these images by hand, but there will be 30,000 images uploaded from this photographer. Also there is a creator template, isn't it easier to just put the category in the creator template, rather than doing 30,000 times the same boring edit?

Greetings, Basvb (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, when I began, I did not know there were so many   !!
Normally, it is not considered good practice to include a category in a creator template, because it does not allow the sub-categorization in smaller categories (i.e. "1963 Photos by Gerard Dukker", "1968 photos by Gerard Dukker"), so I will ask an admin, or a bot to make the changes…
Thank you for your advice   --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
If you ask a bot, then please wait with the bot categorisation, only 16.000 of 500.000 RCE-files are uploaded, many more will come (with around 20 photographers in the 10,000's of images), so guess it's easier to do that when all images are here. Basvb (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
then, the best thing, is to upload the files by lots, and putting categories with the photographers name while uploading   - quite a job you're doing there, and very nice pictures
I'm working on all new {{Creator}}, to check all concerned files are completed (many "old" files are not…) - I'll try and "avoid" your photographers   --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


I am not a big fan of the new form of name LangSwitch templates in creator pages, as in here. May be it is habit, but I find "{{w|Luigi Crosio|en}}" much less readable than "[[:en:Luigi Crosio|Luigi Crosio]]". Extra layer of templates adds to the expansion limit, and at least to me it provides extra layer of obfuscation. Are there any advantages to those that you see? --Jarekt (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jarekt,
THAT is not really a problem - just need to modify the script to use the other link syntax   - I could probably do it myself, with a few tests, since there is just one line with Regex to change, but I'm not home tonight, so I won't be able to ask him on IRC - our favorite playground to discuss and improve scripts ;)
I guess Tpt just did not think about the pb in terms of expansion limit and server call. I will try and leave him a message, otherwise, maybe you can put him a message directly on his discussion page, so that he can modify it rapidly   --Hsarrazin (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
It is not a big deal and it does not have to be stooped today. I did not realized it is some kind of script. I guess my other issue with it is that some of my scripts do it one way and if Tpt's script does it the other way than there is a LOT of changes to the page each time it is run. The script I used in the past to create most LangSwitch templates in creator pages can be found here. I am actively rewriting this script to make it more friendly, and I was running pieces of it this month (see here). Another minor difference between our scripts is handling of the default field. I try to use gallery if it exists, and if English version is missing I try to add a link to wikipedia in the language of the creator (under assumption that it is the most mature) and than to few largest wikipedias that use Latin alphabet. I am trying hard to leave the name linked to some article. I will be running my code with LangSwitch sometimes soon (only for creators with interwikilinks that do not have LangSwitch statements), do you have any ideas on things to improve or add? --Jarekt (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
It is a script, but not a bot - I run it manually on each creator, so no "big" change   - As for the "default" field, it is ALL my responsability since the script does not create one - I read the instructions about LangSwitch, that said that the English is default when it exists, but when it does not, I did not dare to "create" a link to languages that other people would not understand, so I left "Default" without link, but I can easily add a link - my choice would naturally be the pedia of the native language of the creator, when it is in latin alphabet, but not when it is Russian or Chinese  
I do not know python, but I will try and understand your script this evening (I'm at work now) and give you my ideas. --Hsarrazin (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I worked on the script some more last night and I am running the LangSwitch part, as we speak. As for ideas on script extensions, you probably base them on comments in the code, of what script does, and could do. One think I was thinking was adding wikidata links based on Tpt's database. --Jarekt (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Precisely   - First, it's intended for that purpose, and second, it would be much more quick than by hand  
Did you see the comment just under this one, (by Marsupium) about Wikidata in Authority control ? - what do you think ? the discussion on the Village Pump seems to have ceased… --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not read French, and Google translate of the conversation is not clear. Sound to me that there might be some questions about possible improvements/corrections to VIAFImporter gadget, and those should be probably discussed at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-VIAFDataImporter.js. As for addition of Wikidata link to {{Authority control}}, I think that that might not be necessary since I think that once interwiki through wikidata is fully implemented we will have a link to wikidata at each commons page with interwiki links, just below the list. Of course we can still add wikidata ID to {{Authority control}} anyway, but I think it is much more important for Wikidata to have link associating each page with Commons category, than other way around. There is not need to do the work twice and once we have links in Wikidata than it would be easy to move them by bot here. --Jarekt (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot about you not understanding French, and Marsupium writes very bad french  
He/she thinks (and I agree) that the main advantage of adding Wikidata to "Authority control" instead of directly to {{Creator}} would be the ability to add Wikidata to Categories that are not "Creator home cat" :)
Concerning VIAFImporter, there is the little pb of PND authorities, that are the same as GND, so VIAFImporter gadget should be modified slightly to use GND labels instead of PND, and consider PND as already imported if GND is OK :)
He/she also doesn't like too much the addition of "other" AC, like BNF and NLA, but that's another question   and BNF is very useful since : 1 - it's my own language AC base ; 2 - I'm very used to it professionnally… and 3 - contrarily to other AC bases (like LCCN or GND), it is "human readable" and understandable :D - I don't know NLA and it does not appear in the AC frame (but it is imported).
As for Wikidata adding Commons links, I don't know at all "when" they will do it, or even "if" they will do it… and for now, it is totally impossible to do it : only pedia links can be added :(
As for the LangSwitch, Tpt has corrected the script I use, so now, the code is the "classic" way - it was just a simple line of inserted code to modify… ;)
I will try and continue adding Commons Creators to Wikidata, since a lot of them are NOT in Wikidata. Thanks for your bot's work :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Tes modifications à Creator:Jeff KoonsEdit

Salut Hsarrazin!

J'ai tout à l'heure vu ces modifications et j'en avais déjà réfléchi, cependent pas appliquées!

  1. Il me semble qu'il faut d'utiliser ce VIAFDataImporter avec circonspection: Comme on a déjà fait te remarquer plus en haut ici le PND est pas encore utilisé. Et je m'étonnais si quelque chose comme Template:NLA-link était déjà une fois en emploi dans Template:Authority control, cf. peut-être aussi w:Template talk:Authority control/Archive 1#BNF links.
  2. En ce que concerne les paramètres Wikidata, je me demande donc pourquoi on n'utilise pas aussi Template:Authority control à cause de l'interchangeabilité du code. Après on peut afficher le paramètre comme maintenant par un icône, alors pour copier le code ou aussi pour vérifier l'intégralité aussi du paramètre Wikidata, il me semble d'être beaucoup plus pratique d'intégrer Wikidata= dans Template:Authority control si on veut ajouter le lien Wikidata à ce modèle de toute façon. Et puisque ta demande n'est pas encore repondue je n'ai pas encore utilisé le nouveau paramètre. Alors, c'est à toi ça …

En tout cas on pourrait possiblement effacer ces PND et NLA trucs pour que pas troubler des autres auteurs‽ Cordialement, --Marsupium (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Bonsoir Marsupium, es-tu allemand ? tu n'as pas de "Babel" pour indiquer tes langues de communication. Je te réponds en français, parce que tu m'as écrit en français, mais si tu es plus à l'aise en anglais, tu peux m'écrire en anglais  .
Pour PND (en plus de GND), c'est un accident, dû au gadget VIAF Importer qui n'est pas tout à fait à jour - Pour la BNF, c'est la base de la Bibliothèque Nationale Française, et les fiches sont beaucoup plus faciles à déchiffrer que dans d'autres bases - il y a des milliers de "creator" avec une référence BNF ; et qui m'est très familière - c'est donc important de l'ajouter quand elle existe. Quant à NLA, c'est aussi un ajout automatique de VIAF Importer. C'est à l'auteur du gadget qu'il faudrait en parler.
Pour Wikidata, j'ai posé la question sur le Village Pump, et nous attendons une décision de la communauté, mais je pense aussi que ça serait bien dans les "Authority Control" :) - mais ça, je ne peux pas le faire moi-même. C'est à Jarekt qu'il faudrait en parler...
Très cordialement, --Hsarrazin (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, merci! Je pense qu'il est à l'auteur qui utilise un script de l'utiliser en sorte qu'il y a des bons résultats … hi-hi! En tout cas, je suis d'accord pour la BNF, c'est dans le modèle. Mais je ne suis pas sûr avec ce paramètre NLA, il reste qu'il n'est pas affiché … Néanmoins, il faudrait en parler avec l'auteur du script aussi, le script semble d'avoir plusieurs de problèmes. Et pour Wikidata, on verra (et je verrai peut-être aussi).
À propos de ma langue: D'où est-ce que tu sais que je suis allemand? C'est pas gentil!
Bonne nuit, cordialement, --Marsupium (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Ta langue ? si tu étais anglophone, tu m'aurais écrit en anglais directement… et ta syntaxe m'a paru plutôt "allemande" - autre indice : les "PND" et "GND"… - ils ne sont compréhensibles que par quelqu'un qui parle allemand   - je n'ai rien contre les allemands, juste je ne comprends pas leur langue…
Bonne nuit à toi aussi --Hsarrazin (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
(Ah, non! MDR! I read your comments in the section above only now and it may have some advantages writing in English. I liked to write in French only to train myself, however English is probably the simplest way at all.) I don't really care about the national library links, especially the BNF link surely makes sense. I just wondered why you used this parameter of which I couldn't find an application or description anywhere. And concerning the wikidata links Jarekt may be right. It seems that the links should be added to every page and not only artists or creators or actually any entities with Template:Authority Control in future. Even though it isn't possible to add commons links to wikidata by now and to realize Jarekt's propose we can't use this links connections anyway whether stored at commons or at wikidata at the moment. So it may be really losed work time to add the wikidata links “anywhere” at commons. Adding missing creators to wikidata seems to be a good idea to me by all means. Cheers, --Marsupium (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Marsupium, - sorry if I wrongly took you for a German   - you wrote "D'où est-ce que tu sais que je suis allemand?", which made me certain you were, because when you wrote "tu sais", I understood "you know", when in French we would write "tu penses" (you guess), which is not at all the same  
if you want to exercise your French, feel free to do it - but when I want to be certain to be understood, I will answer you in English…   (you really should put the "Babel extension" on your user page - it's much easier to communicate)
As for the National Libraries, I think people of any country are generally accustomed to their own (well, at least if they use them, which is my case, I'm a librarian) and it is easier for them to have access to their own NL than to other ones, where they don't find what they want, because they don't know them… as many AC possible is (I think) the best way for accomodating everybody.
There is at least one direct interest in making visible the link to wikidata : being sure the creator (or other data needing authority control) exists on wikidata (and thus, creating it if it doesn't, which I do, each time I find one) -
There is also a little script that was written by Tpt (one of ws admins and also one of wd's and who works here too), that can automatically compute the LangSwitch using Wikidata as source, which is much more simple than writing it by hand, even from the wikilinks of the Home category) : it's here and you may import it in your common.js to test it if you want : it adds a "tennisball" icon to your user's advanced toolbar.
Have a very nice day :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
What confusion! You unterstood me aright. In fact I am German and I nevertheless tried to train my French. Hi-hi! Now I have a short user page with the Babel boxes! Well, the national libraries are ok for me. And fine, it's nice to hear that the few data in wikidata is already in use. Thank you for your advice. If I will get along to create more creators I will use the script in the future.--Marsupium (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A relire à fondEdit


Hallo Hsarrazin,

maybe you can help me. Is there a way to remove the first page and the watermarks of (US)? A second step would be to transform the pdf to djvu  
Creator is Bruno Dürigen (1853–1930), I am working on a template. --PigeonIP (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello PigeonIP, and my very Best Wishes for 2013 :)
  • there are many useful apps that allow to take a part of a pdf - it depends on what system you work on - I'm on Mac OSX, and I use the standard "Preview" app - but on windows, you may use PDF SaM (Split and Merge), that allows to manipulate pdfs, and add or take pages off.
  • for the "Digitized by Google" watermark, I wouldn't bother very much if I were you : there are thousands of them on Commons, and it is very discreet...
  • for converting your pdf to djvu, the simplest way is to upload it on, but it seems that the same book as already been uploaded [2], and you can load it directly on Commons, using - it is a utility, build by Tpt, to allow direct upload on Commons from IA, and put the metadata from IA in "Book" Template  
I don't understand exactly what you mean by "working on a template", since, djvu files don't need a special template, contrary to books in jpg form, because you can navigate from page to page directly - you only have to fill in the "Book" Template, which Tpt's tool does for you - (see File:Aimard_-_L’Éclaireur,_1860.djvu for example)
then, if your wikisource allows djvu files, you just need to fill the "Wikisource" field with ":s:de:Index:Hsarrazin" if Index is the name of your Index pages - and after saving, click on the Wikisource Logo that appears in the frame of description (try clicking on the one in the Aimard Book in link just above, to see how it works. You will go to the Index page in your wikisource, which you will have to "create" and fill in the form, then correct the pages.
At least, that's how it works on many wikisources (fr, en, la, etc.) - on "de", I'm not sure - I don't understand how your books are mounted, and I don't understand german, so I cannot try to read the "Help" pages   - If djvu files are not "automatically managed" you'll have to ask an admin…
contact me, if you have problems with your file ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
By template I meant the creator-template for Dürigen. I am waiting for some further information to upload a photograph I'd like to use.
I tried to upload the Smithsonian-version via iaUploadBot to File:Dürigen - Deutschlands Amphibien und Reptilien - 1897.djvu. So far not successfully (server-cache?). But the toolserver said OK. I will try it again later. (by the way: illustrator is Christian Votteler - GND=142695890)
Wikisource is too much work at the moment. First, I am working on a biographical article. That shall become a link to the file.
Thank you for your help, especially the iaUploadBot-link. --PigeonIP (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome…
The "Creator" seems quite all right to me : you are not obliged to put "all" informations at first - it can be updated later   - is there an article on pedia ? - it would be better, so it can be linked to it… --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Article is in work – not much so far. I need some more essays first. DNB takes its time.
By the way: Best Wishes for 2013 to you, too. Thank you. --PigeonIP (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Hsarrazin, Deutschlands Amphibien und Reptilien are now on Commons. So are the twelve Farbentafeln (= color prints?, lithography?) by Christian Votteler. I used {{Artwork}} to provide informations. This template provides the parameter |inscriptions= How do you use it? In File:Dürigen, 1897, T05.JPG I unsuccessfully tried to describe the signature with {{Inscription}}. In Files like File:Dürigen, 1897, T09.JPG Druck ~?~?~?~ Stuttgart and File:Dürigen, 1897, T12.JPG ? Hochdanz Stuttgart are inscriptions or notes of the printer, how do you handle these? (The name of the printer is not identical with the printer of the book.)
The printer may be E. Hochdanz Stuttgart, who died 1885, or his Son Carl. --PigeonIP (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Well done :)
I don't know {{Inscription}} at all - for the signature, I generally use {{Signed}}, when I use a template - or when I don't know how, I just describe it in english - somebody who knows how to, will correct it, one day or another   - but it is important only when it gives "important" information (like identification of the subject, the date of the artwork, that kind of thing)
I don't know the name of the type of printing in english - in french, we call it a "chromo" (for "chromolithographie") - maybe chromolithograph, which would give |medium={{technique|chromolithograph}}
Do you "always" indicate who the "printer" is ? generally, I just indicate the publisher - the printer, only when it allows to recognize one edition from another by the same publisher :)
as for the inscription in the bottom of the picture, I guess it is the name of the company that printed the chromo - if you cannot decipher them, it is not "very" important, as long as the pictures are identified as coming from the book you cite (I use {{Extracted from}} for that. i.e. {{extracted from|File:Dürigen - Deutschlands Amphibien und Reptilien - 1897.djvu}} (so that you don't have to write all the ref. of the book)
I made a few modifications to the Book template : notice the "Title page" image, and the "Wikisource" logo, that gives a link to your wikisource index page (if it works that way on de.) - I also added the -1923 indication to the PD templates, since the book was published before 1923. It's important these days, since the US rules were changed last year.
Seems OK to me that way :) - now, you'll have to see how it works with Wikisource :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
{{Signed}} and {{Extracted from}} are good one. I will have to remember them. I am not using {{Extracted from}} at the moment, because the pictures are from the google-scan (strictly speaking).
"chromolithographie" is good with me. I am waiting for a response to my reproduction-problem on Template talk:Reproduction. The inscription-thing was verrrrry simple
I do indicate who the "printer" is. Not every time, but if there is a parameter to fill in and a reference to them in a book, I do. Maybe it is weird; my way to show respect to the work of others.
Wikisource: hmm, maybe the prologue...
What was this edit for? Remember GND=PND? And PND beeing "outdated"?  
Good night, PigeonIP (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
s:de:Vom Wesen der Waldeidechse   --PigeonIP (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Splendid ), though I really understand "nothing" in German (except for Ja, Nein and a few practical words  
but I thought you wanted to use djvu - isn't this from a pdf ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a scan of the full magazine, so I spared the work to do a djvu. (And I didn't remember it *cringe*) But I used PDF SaM the first time ever! The original pdf had two more pages. --PigeonIP (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(subject "poultry" moved to page bottom for easy finding)

error in handling of Russian nameEdit

In this edit something went wrong with the handling of the Russian name. --Jarekt (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

same here and possibly many more. --Jarekt (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sorry :( - did not see it, and yet, I read Russian   - I noticed that sometimes, when you just paste the link with the pipe before ]], the name does not reproduce correctly… and since it is LangSwitch, it is not very easy to check, unless verifying the "history". Thanx. --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you think it could be "triggered" by the comma ? I noticed it in French too, yesterday… --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there a way to select the creators with "ru" link ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The easiest way I know would be with en:Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser. You might find that tool quite useful. --Jarekt (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Unhappily, I run on Mac, so… well, I managed to be "very" careful on edits with russian yesterday evening… but what I need is a mean to select creators with ru links - do you know a mean ? is there a way with CatScan2 ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 openEdit

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 10:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Creator:Ernst Ludwig KirchnerEdit

Creator:Ernst Ludwig Kirchner here is some mistake. --Botaurus (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes Botaurus, I now :) - it's a problem of recognition of the ISNI subtemplate value - I submitted it to Jarekt, who maintains the template. If you can understand "why" the ISNI is not accepted (the last character is an X), please be kind enough to correct the template (if you can - I can't) or contact Jarekt - Thanx --Hsarrazin (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Authority control

And   Thank you. for the ISNI correction :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Zaporozhye Cossacks Replying to the Sultan' by Paul PorfiroffEdit

This painting is a copy of the Repin. I chanded its page to make this clear. Wmpearl (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks sooo much :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Creator templates without Wikidata linkEdit

You might find this category useful. --Jarekt (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it :) - thank you very much… not so big   - a good list of creators to add to Wikidata OR to create on Wikipedia… --Hsarrazin (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
That is much smaller than I thought it would be, especially since many creators will probably never have wikipedia article, like Creator:Benon Tuszyński or Category:Yahya Tayyib. --Jarekt (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Une étoile pour vous !Edit

  L’étoile décorative d’éditeur
Pour ta relecture sur Les Aqueducs antiques de Lyon. Otourly (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Merci Otourly… c'est loin d'être fini… j'en suis à peine à Claude   --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, a little display bug on "Creator"Edit

Hi, Lately I was debugging several unexplainable issues in Creator templates, some of them you pointed out here and some I run into here. I asked around about it on some mailing lists and the issue is apparently use of "no-break space character (U+00A0)" character. With this approach I menaged to fix all the cases I know there was a problem by just retyping the white-spaces as in here. It seems like that those characters are introduced by the script you are using to create or modify creator pages. Maybe the script has to be altered? Can you look into this? --Jarekt (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jarekt, thanx for your message.
I met Tpt IRL on saturday evening, and we discussed a lot about Authority control and Wikidata issues   - we also talked about you and the excellent work you do to help when there are weird problems to solve :)
from [3] it is very surprising that I may add a no-break space between the pipe and the Wikidata field name, since I just type them on the keyboard… my keyboard should not add (U+00A0) by default, or is it possible ? I thought that, on the contrary, the Gecko bug did prevent to add a "durable" no-break-spacesee fr wikipedia, could not find it in English
I think it may rather be an automatic conversion from a correction script, that could modify this space - I will try and detect it how it could happen, because, AFAIK, none of my regexp changes a space in a no-break space. Do you know how it is possible to make the "no-break-space" apparent in a page (when there is one) ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand it very well either. I can not detect U+00A0 in the page, and cutting and pasting it seems to replace it with space. The diagnosis of the problem can be seen here. But I do know that now If I run into such issue I just replace the "space" between "|" and parameter name of affected field with real space, and it seems to fix the unexplainable problems, like the name issue in this template. I am afraid that more cases like that might not have been noticed. And since all cases I noticed so far were added by you, (likely since you are one of the most prolific editor of Creator namespace lately :) ), may be you remember something different about those edits. At some point I cough myself creating categories with some unprintable characters in them and I realized that they all have been created by cutting and pasting from a single html source, which apparently had some unprintable characters in the strings. maybe it is something similar. However if you do not remember anything special about those several edits which added those characters, than I would not worry about it, but remember it as something to try when you run into page like here. --Jarekt (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday I noticed exactly the same type of problem on field Image page of {{Book}} (that I did not add, just completed with value), and it seems to have been the same problem :§
I added a regexp at the end of my "cleaning script", just in case I inadvertantly add such a space :)
thank you for the "diagnosis" - even if we don't know how it happened, it's all right if we know what cures it   --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


Bonjour, je me permets de vous répondre au message que vous avez déposé sur la page de Léna, même s'il ne m'était pas destiné. Travaillant sur les œuvres du Louvre depuis l'inauguration du Louvre-Lens, j'ai appliqué également ce système que d'autres ont créé. En voyant Category:Louvre INV 7288, je peux dire que c'est parfaitement internationalisé. Si ça vous intéresse à l'occasion, j'ai créé un inventaire des œuvres selon leur numéro d'inventaire, je le remplis à l'occasion. Cordialement, JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Bonsoir Jérémy,
ça ne me dérange pas du tout que tu répondes au message à la place de Léna :) - merci pour le compliment concernant Category:Louvre INV 7288.
J'ai vu l'inventaire, et j'y ajouterai mes contributions quand j'en ferai.
concernant des catégories comme Abduction of Deianira, vaut-il mieux les renommer en Category:Louvre INV 537 ou les laisser au titre ?
Je ne travaille pas particulièrement sur le Louvre, mais j'essaie de nettoyer les {{Creator}} - quand je tombe sur des œuvres du Louvre, et en particulier quand je trouve plein d'images de la même œuvre, je trouvais bête de recopier (ou d'harmoniser) toutes les données identiques d'une image sur l'autre, donc quand j'ai trouvé ce modèle utilisé par Léna, je me suis dit "Youpi !", mais je n'étais pas totalement certaine de l'utilisation. Après quelques séries, je me sens déjà plus à l'aise : malheureusement ce modèle n'est pas compatible avec les oeuvres qui viennent de Google - un peu bête  
à propos des séries des numéros d'inventaires du Louvre, sais-tu (savez-vous ? - je suis plutôt encline au tutoiement sur les wikis) à quoi correspondent les différentes "séries" ? je suis preneuse d'une explication, et même, on pourrait éventuellement mettre en tête de chaque série de numéros à quoi correspond le radical.
Très cordialement, --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Bonjour, n'ayant pas pu déterminer votre âge, je vous vouvoie, mais vous pouvez me tutoyer, ça ne me dérange pas.
  1. Pour Abduction of Deianira ou d'autres, je serais personnellement enclin à renommer, mais d'autres utilisateurs préfèreront le nom de l'œuvre en anglais. L'avantage du système Louvre INV 537 réside en la création d'inventaires sur Commons, et de listes d'œuvres lors d'expositions sur Wikipédia. Certains utilisateurs préfèrent la dénomination anglaise qui peut marcher pour les œuvres mondialement connues, mais le système de numérotation par l'inventaire permet d'avoir des données compréhensibles et lisibles dans toutes les langues. C'est aussi le meilleur pour plusieurs milliers de fichiers. Et lorsque la catégorie est bien programmée, un anglais, un russe, un hébreu, ou même un chinois peuvent consulter ces catégories et se déplacer (après, des personnes parlant telle ou telle langue peuvent traduire les modèles utilisés).
  2. Pour les œuvres provenant de sites externes, il y a bien souvent le problème de l'absence de numéro d'inventaire, si bien qu'il m'arrive de me retrouver bloqué.
  3. Pour les différentes séries, j'ai découvert ça début décembre, avec l'ouverture du Louvre-Lens (je n'avais jamais photographié d'œuvre auparavant), et Zolo en dit un peu plus sur cette page, je n'ai fait que compléter, mais je n'en sais pas plus. Jastrow a écrit cet article. C'est vrai que pour compléter l'inventaire, j'aimerais savoir jusqu'à combien vont les séries, mais c'est un chiffre énorme. D'ailleurs, l'inventaire ne comprend qu'une toute petite partie des photos sur Commons, puisque le travail est en cours. L'avantage, c'est que l'on développe un système proche de Wikidata, internationalisé, et qui reprendra à terme toutes les œuvres.
Cette liste de numéros d'inventaire, que je croyais complète, ne l'est même pas du tout, puisque je suis tombé sur des nouvelles séries, dont les chiffres précèdent les lettres, j'ai d'ailleurs demandé conseil à Jastrow. Cordialement, JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Grâce à vos travaux, je viens d'avoir eu connaissance de Template:Object photo, ça va bien faire avancer mes travaux, parce que j'ai plus de 250 œuvres à décrire. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
d'un autre côté, les numéros d'inventaire ont l'avantage de permettre ce genre de chose ou de trier les oeuvres dans des catégories comme celle-ci, quand on a beaucoup d'oeuvres qui portent le même titre   - dans ce type de cas, je serais pour une catégorie au nom des œuvres, dans laquelle on différencierait les œuvres en leur créant une sous-catégorie avec le numéro d'inventaire… en plus, l'avantage du numéro d'inventaire est qu'il évite de confondre des œuvres qui se ressemblent - et si jamais on s'est trompé d'identification, il suffit de modifier le numéro dans le {{Object photo}} pour que tout soit rectifié d'un coup… — je pense en particulier à un gros ménage à faire dans les tableaux de Bosch en particulier.
mon âge importe peu (d'ailleurs, on ne le demande pas à une "dame"  ) - je suis pour le tutoiement quand on collabore sur des projets…
merci pour les liens vers le blog de Jastrow - il y a plein de choses intéressantes là-dedans… --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Je suis du même avis que toi (je ne suis pas habitué au tutoiement, mais je vais m'y faire), et de toute manière, vu le nombre de catégories créées, à terme la base va être d'utiliser uniquement les numéros d'inventaire, comme INV où 81 œuvres sur 88 sont nommées par leur numéro d'inventaire, OA où il y en a 99 sur 100, RF où il y en a 80 sur 83... Ça va potentiellement embêter quelques utilisateurs, mais ce système est parfaitement adapté aux œuvres du Louvre, riche de 460000 œuvres (on n'en verra jamais la fin, mais en concevant un système simple et bien organisé, ce sont nos successeurs qui vont en profiter). Zolo a apporté quelques améliorations aux modèles, dont la possibilité d'indiquer pour une œuvre ses expositions, je vais en profiter dans le courant du mois pour remettre à jour les données des photos de la Galerie du Temps, je ne connaissais pas encore tous les modèles. Cordialement, JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
J'ai répondu sur ma page utilisateur. Cordialement, JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Je viens d'apporter quelques modifications pour la Galerie du Temps, ça reprend en partie le travail de Zolo d'une part, et d'autre part, il y a l'utilisation d'un modèle :
  1. La nouvelle catégorie est Galerie du Temps (exhibition, Louvre-Lens, 2013)
  2. Template:Galerie du Temps (exhibition, Louvre-Lens, 2013) donne les informations sur l'exposition, |cat= indique le numéro de l'œuvre dans l'exposition.
  3. Template:Book Galerie du Temps (Louvre-Lens, 2013) indique toutes les informations sur l'ouvrage utilisé.
Je vais de ce pas faire les mêmes choses pour l'exposition Le Temps à l'œuvre, et téléverser pour l'instant une seule photo (pour éviter la suppression des modèles s'ils ne sont pas utilisés). JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Bonne idée et joli travail :)
un petit problème par contre : la catégorisation automatique,_Louvre-Lens,_2013%29 inique que toutes les photos du même tableau sont rattachées à la Galerie du Temps. Il ne faudrait mettre la catégorie que dans la photo qui en provient effectivement, sinon, à la longue, ça va faire des dégâts dans les tableaux au fur et à mesure qu'on va mettre constituer une catégorie par tableau, si chaque photo affiche la liste de toutes les expos  
très amicalement --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
PS : au passage,   Thank you. : grâce à toi, j'ai pu trouver le modèle {{Temporary Exhibition}} dont je me disais bien qu'il devait exister quelque part, mais sans être parvenue à le trouver… ça va me faciliter le catalogage des expos temporaires, comme ici --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Je viens de m'en apercevoir, mais ce n'est pas si grave, dans la mesure où Objet décrit l'œuvre et son histoire (mais j'avoue que c'était pas prévu).
C'est Zolo qui a utilisé Temporary Exhibition pour me créer un modèle, du coup, j'en ai fait de même pour les deux autres. Pour l'inventaire des œuvres du Louvre par salle, j'ai fait un test, que je détaille un peu plus sur ma page de discussion. Cordialement, JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Voilà, j'ai trouvé la formule miracle : dresser une liste de base titre/modèle comme Musée du Louvre:Inventory où chaque catégorie/modèle correspond à une salle du Louvre dénommée d'après {{Louvre rooms}}, créer des modèles comme {{French paintings in the Louvre - Room 25}} avec uniquement des modèles, question d'internationalisation, et ensuite, intégrer ces modèles à la place du titre de la catégorie. Enfin, la dernière étape est d'avoir une œuvre par catégorie, et donc plus aucun fichier qui traîne dans la catégorie. De cette manière, on va tendre à terme vers un système très efficace, et entièrement internationalisé. Au final, à terme, au lieu de classer des fichiers, on classera directement leur catégorie. Cordialement, JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Super !   - yapuka… j'ai déjà une salle entièrement catégorisée French paintings in the Louvre - Room 13 et j'ai créé le modèle parallèle {{French paintings in the Louvre - Room 13}}
seule question restant en suspens : est-ce qu'on met le modèle dans la catégorie (comme j'ai fait), pour afficher les tableaux ? car la liste des numéros d'inventaire renseigne plutôt mal… --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Pour Category:French paintings in the Louvre - Room 13, la catégorie se catégorise elle-même, et je ne sais pas d'où vient le problème. Pour la navigation entre les salles, j'avais pensé à créer un modèle qui permettrait pour un même département de passer dans n'importe quelle salle très rapidement, et qui viendrait en en-tête. Sinon, oui, j'avais pensé à le mettre dans la catégorie, je crains qu'une opposition vienne, mais on verra. Pour l'instant, c'est encore en construction, mais on en verra les bénéfices quand ça sera assez opérationnel. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
un petit problème de catégorie transcluse - j'ai vu que tu l'avais "soigné" avec un "noinclude", que j'avais oublié de mettre   --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Premier essaiEdit

Et conclusion, tout fonctionne à l'instant. Je vais donc dans les semaines et mois à venir généraliser ce système en commençant par les antiquités orientales. Je vais être un peu lent au début à cause du Wikiconcours. Cordialement, JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Base AtlasEdit

Bonjour, je vois sur Template:Italian paintings in the Louvre - Room 5 que vous avez réussi à générer grâce au site la liste des œuvres dans cette salle, et je venais vous demander comment vous procédiez, parce que je n'ai pas encore réussi à générer cette requête sur le site. Cordialement, JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Bonjour Jérémy :)
Malheureusement, de la manière la plus bête qui soit… à la main… en fait j'ai fait une requête sur la salle, puis je suis passée d'œuvre en œuvre en copiant/collant les descriptions dans la page… plus bête, c'est dur… mais au moins, maintenant, on a la liste… je peux le faire pour d'autres pages si tu veux : en le mettant en "noinclude" on peut même utiliser le modèle directement pour faire l'inventaire et garder la liste pas encore traitée en dessous. --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


Hallo Hsarrazin. Do you have a hathi-login, too? Would you do me favour? to IA? --PigeonIP (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Pheww… I remembered that someone asked me for a scan on Hathi, but I had some difficulties to find it :)
In fact, I have no special "login" on Hathi… I use a proxy, I'm patient, and I download all images, and make one document afterwords   - but this one is really quite a big chunk - I'll try, but I can't promise :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello PigeonIP - good news, I found it on Google (thanx to OCLC, so I could download it in one piece…
Here it is
Internet Archive identifier
: DuringenGeflugelzucht1886
- I hope the OCR will be decent, but I'm not really sure, with gothic lettering. Wait for it to be completely derivated before you upload it on Commons. You may like to use iaUploadBot ( which automatically gets metadata from IA and puts them in {{Book}}
Have fun :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Can you modify the record? Author: Dürigen, Bruno, 1853- died 1930 and the publisher was located in Berlin (not Publisher: Berilin, Paul Parey).
By completely derivated you are saying to wait till All Files: in IA do have Djvu as well, right? --PigeonIP (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes I saw the error (copy/cut from the OCLC) after the derivation began… I cannot change it before it's over :( - and I'm also angry at myself because I carefully removed the Google pages from the pdf, and uploaded the wrong copy of the file… Grrrrrr…
yes, of course :) - in fact, it's easy to say whether any file on Commons is completely derivated or not : the "torrent" link is active   - sometimes it is active, and there is no djvu file : this means that there has been a problem during derivation, and it has to be re-derivated - please let me know if it's the case. --Hsarrazin (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
It is. HTTPS and Torrent are active, but there is no djvu... --PigeonIP (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Grrrrr… I should have guessed : no exotic characters in file names… the ü was too much :(( - ok, I reupload, on the same page, a new file… I'll take off the Google pages this time ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, back to the margin for a new file : finally uploaded after 3 attempts - I had to leave the Google pages, because taking them off was "popping up" the file to 760 Mo - don't ask me why… you'll have to take them off before uploading on Commons, or ask me to take them off after uploading to Commons, but before setting the file on ws… --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And now there is even no "read online"-link? I am so sorry for creating so much trouble. On the other hand I am so grateful, that you are helping me out here. At least at this point I would never know what to do. --PigeonIP (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC) psst: DuringenGeflugelzucht1886 *runs*
No, I had to remove the previous file and its derivatives to upload the new one, with a different name - the "ü" in the name of the file was the cause of the derivation failure — I learned that, the hard way, after dozens of failed derivations… never, ever, use non-ascii characters in the file name you upload, no accent, no ¨, no ', no ", only letters and numbers… and no blank either… --Hsarrazin (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
We may have no luck with this file. I tried to upload it 5 or 6 times today. But something is wrong. I got the The file have been successfully uploaded to Commons !-Message of the upload bot but at File:Geflügelzucht (Dürigen, 1886).djvu ist no file. I do copy the Book-template as well in hidden characters. My first intend was, that there are too much categories, but it still does not work with only one of them. --PigeonIP (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
== {{int:filedesc}} ==
| Author       = {{Creator:Bruno Dürigen}}
| Editor       = 
| Translator   = 
| Illustrator  = 
| Title        = Die Geflügelzucht, nach ihrem jetzigen rationellen Standpunkt
| Subtitle     = 
| Series title = 
| Volume       = 
| Edition      = 
| Publisher    = Paul Parey
| Printer      = 
| Date         = 1886
| City         = {{Berlin}}
| Language     = DE
| Description  = Poultry
| Source       = {{IA|DuringenGeflugelzucht1886}} {{after}} {{GBS|GqWEAAAAIAAJ}}
| Image        = 
| Image page   = 7
| Permission   = 
| Other versions = 
| Page         = 
| Wikisource   = s:de:Index:{{PAGENAME}}
| Homecat      = 
| Data checked = 

== {{int:license-header}} ==

[[Category:1886 books]]
[[Category:Bruno Dürigen]]
[[Category:Books in German]]
[[Category:Books from Germany]]
[[Category:Agriculture books]]
[[Category:Ornithology books]]
[[Category:DjVu files in German]]

Sorry PigeonIP, I could not work from my vacation place : no connexion :(

I've successfully uploaded the file, under the given name, and it's at your disposal :) - I will tell Tpt about the problem with IAuploadBot…

--Hsarrazin (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem, you vacation was well deserved. Maybe that day was too much traffic at the server. Thank you very much. --PigeonIP (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

{{Louvre number}}Edit

Bonjour, juste une petite note pour dire que j'ai réécrit {{Louvre number}} qui était devenu presque ingérable. Les noms de paramètres sont supprimés : on écrit {{Louvre number|INV 320|MA 23}} au lieu de {{Louvre number|INV= 320| MA = 22}}. --Zolo (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Merci Zolo, une simplification appréciée :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Inventaire du LouvreEdit

Salut ! D'abord, merci de faire le boulot à ma place :) Je dois dire que je ne comprends pas complètement comment marche le modèle. Pour les licences, c'est effectivement une question de dates : mes photos récentes sont sous CC-By, les plus vieilles dans le domaine public. Comme on ne peut pas revenir sur des libertés déjà accordées, mieux vaut laisser comme c'est. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

De rien, je travaille avec Jérémie pour essayer de rendre l'inventaire "lisible" ;)
pour le modèle {{Object photo}} - c'est très simple, il reprend le contenu de la catégorie dont on met le nom dans "Object=" - il faut que la catégorie contienne le modèle "Category definition: Object", et on a automatiquement l'identité de l'objet.
Ensuite, il ne reste plus qu'à mettre le nom du photographe et/ou la source (toi, ou WGA, ou Yorck, ou autre), la date et la licence. C'est super rapide, et il suffit de mettre à jour la catégorie pour que toutes les photos qui y sont rattachées soient mises à jour :)
pour les licences, OK, je ne suis pas encore très au fait pour les photos de contributeurs… je travaille habituellement plutôt sur des photos du web, en 2D… - si je fais des bêtises, n'hésite pas à me le dire… --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

salles du LouvreEdit

Ca fait très longtemps que le problème traîne et avec l'arrivée de Wikidata, ça ne parait plus avoir une grande importance, mais comme tu es là dessus en ce moment, peut-être qu'on peut en profiter. La catégorisation actuelle pose problème : les salles de peinture italiennes sont des sous-catégories Category:Paintings from Italy in the Louvre, alors qu'elles continne aussi autre choses (par exemple des statues romaines). En plus Category:Paintings from Italy in the Louvre mélange des catégories par personne et des catégories par salle, ce qui est assez bizarre. La solution la plus simple serait sans doute de renommer les "category:Italians paintings in the Louvre - Room X" en "Collections of the Louvre - Italian paintings - Room X" et de séparer cela de Paintings from Italy in the Louvre, qui pourrait alors être réservées aux catégories par artiste. Je peux faire ça ? Zolo (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

personnellement, ça m'est un peu égal, du moment que tout le système est cohérent :)
le problème éventuel que je vois, c'est que les autres peintures du Louvre sont organisées en Category:French paintings in the Louvre, Category:Early Netherlandish paintings in the Louvre, Category:Flemish paintings in the Louvre,, etc.
dans un souci de cohérence, il serait peut-être mieux de (re-créer) la cat. Category:Italian paintings in the Louvre, organisée par salle, comme pour les autres pays, et de renommer l'autre en Category:Painters from Italy in the Louvre, avec les peintres comme sous-catégories - et on pourrait même la mettre en sous-catégorie de Category:Italian paintings in the Louvre ?
Je pense que l'avis de Jérémy, et de peut-être de Jastrow est important aussi :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
PS : par ailleurs, sais-tu comment on pourrait faire pour que dans le modèle Template:Category definition: Object, les modèles déroulants du Creator et de l'Institution s'affichent par défaut "fermés" et non "ouverts" (voir Category:Louvre INV 778) ? sinon, on ne voit que le portrait du peintre au lieu de voir l'image de l'oeuvre (pour des raisons de positions relatives)
En fait, on en a parlé avec Jastrow et d'autres il y a un certain, et c'était ce qui avait paru la meilleure solution raisonnable, mais effectivement, il faudrait tout renommer, au moins pour les peintures. Jusqu'à maintenant, le rapport temps-bénéfice n'a pas paru assez favorable pour que quelqu'un s'y colle vraiment, mais à mesure que de nouvelles catégories apparaissent, le système devient de moins en moins cohérent : Category:Roman antiquities in the Louvre - Italian paintings Room 2 se retrouve dans "paintings from Italy", la catégorie mère mélange catégorie-salles et catégories-peintres, et, il me semble en plus que certains peintres sont catégorisés, non dans la catégorie mère, mais dans une catégorie-salle. Je me passerais assez volontiers de Category:Paintings from Italy in the Louvre mais c'est utilisé pour beaucoup de musée, donc c'est un peu délicat de s'en débarasser.
Pour refermer les créateur par défaut, ce n'est malheureusement pas encore possible. --Zolo (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
alors, si c'est d'accord avec les autres, je suis d'accord aussi… s'il ne s'agit que de renommer des catégories (pour la cohérence), Cat-a-lot devrait permettre de le faire assez rapidement ) - si tu mets les noms en redirect de catégories, je veux bien faire le ménage (liste-moi les cats renommées et je ferai le ménage si tu veux…)
pour ce qui est de l'incohérence de certaines catégories, comme Category:Roman antiquities in the Louvre - Italian paintings Room 2, on est bien obligés de faire avec l'incohérence du Louvre  
j'ai effectivement vu des peintres catégorisés en "salle" au lieu de la catégorie mère… je crois que ça a été fait quand "tous" les tableaux d'un auteur sont dans une même salle, mais je suis d'accord, ça manque de cohérence - il faudrait, au moins, les mettre dans les 2 catégories, ou (plus rationnel) reporter la catégorisation "lieu" et la catégorisation "auteur" au niveau de l'œuvre (ou de sa catégorie numéro d'inventaire)… --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
ehmmm……… réflexion : juste pour éviter d'avoir à renommer toutes les catégories/salles (et les templates d'inventaire correspondants), il vaudrait peut-être mieux utiliser "Italian paintings in the Louvre" comme catégorie-mère pour les "Italian paintings in the Louvre - Room X" - ça éviterait d'avoir à mettre en concordance toutes les autres "nationalités" de peintures, non ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Oui c'est peut-être plus simple, même si dans l'éventualité où des peintures italiennes se balladent ailleurs, ce ne sera pas tout à fait rigoureux :]. Par contre, désolé de devoir être un peu lourd mais j'ai oublié de mentionner une bonne partie du problème. Les peintures françaises et italiennes, ça pourrait aller. L'enfer c'est les autres : on a des catégories comme Category:Early Netherlandish paintings in the Louvre qui ne correspondant à rien dans la numérotations ou les noms de salles du Louvre. De ce côté là, pour respecter la disposition du musée il faut faire deux groupes : "Ecoles du Nord" et "Europe du Nord". Ca ne s'invente pas mais c'est simple. On a plus de problèmes avec les peintures peintures anglaises et espagnoles qui sont numérotées avec les italiennes. Je ne vois que deux solutions : la lourdingue ("Rooms of the Louvre - Italian, Spanish and English paintings - 32") ou la bizarre ("Rooms of the Louvre - English paintings" avec une seule sous-catégorie, "Rooms of the Louvre - English paintings - 32"). Quel est le moins mauvaise ? --Zolo (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Perso, je prendrais la bizarre - "English paintings in the Louvre - Room 32", car si on prend la lourdingue, il faudra la redécouper en 3, pour chaque pays   - si tu peux renommer les cat. sur les appellations du Louvre, tant mieux, mais il ne faut pas oublier que le Louvre peut aussi tout remanier, ce qui obligerait à refaire les cat. Il vaut mieux, à mon avis, des catégories cohérentes par le contenu, quitte à ce que 3 d'entre elles soient dans la même salle…
bon, je vais aller prendre mon train pour partir en vacances, là (rien depuis Noël), donc je ne serai sans doute plus en ligne avant demain… et j'espère que ma connexion sera bonne, là bas ) --Hsarrazin (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Finalement, même si on ne renomme pas chaque catégorie de salle, j'ai quand même renommé la catégorie mère en Category:Louvre by room - Italian paintings, histoire qu'il n'y ait pas d'ambiguité, . De toute façon, il faut recatégoriser toutes les salles qui sont en ce moment dans "Paintings from Italy in the Louvre" et dans "Paintings in the Louvre - Room X" ce qui n'a pas beaucoup de sens. J'essaierai de faire ça demain. Bonnes vacances. :)--Zolo (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
J'en ai profité pour y mettre la liste de toutes les salles qu'on sur le sujet. Ca permet de remarquer qu'il nous manque la 10 et la 11. --Zolo (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Personnellement, je n'y comprends rien aux salles du département des peintures, il va falloir que je me documente un peu, quoique Hsarrazin s'en chargent pendant que je m'occupe des Antiquités Orientales. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
J'ai commencé à établir la liste sur Com:Louvre/rooms, il y a encore quelques bugs, mais ça peut aider. --Zolo (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Génial le "département dépliant" :) - je présume que c'est grâce à lua… malheureusement, je viens de découvrir que je vais être quasi privée de connexion pour plusieurs jours (émetteurs 3G et wifi en panne sur Sète)… je m'y attaquerai quand j'aurai de nouveau du débit : là, je suis dans un cyber-café… je ne peux pas vraiment y passer la journée   --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Oui c'est du Lua, on aurait pu faire la même chose sans, sauf que la page metterait sans doute plusieurs minutes à se charger. Sinon j'ai commencé à nettoyer les catégories par pièce, mais si tu as des possibilités -et des envies- de devoir de vacances, il reste bien des rangements à faire ;). --Zolo (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

petit problème de catégories "doublon" au Louvre…Edit

Bonjour, je suis là sans être là : on m'a contacté il y a une dizaine de jours pour me proposer un travail en vacataire lié au bassin minier, aussi, pour l'entretien qui aura lieu le 24, je commence à appliquer tout un tas d'améliorations. Cette semaine est un peu spéciale, je suis les Quatre jours de Dunkerque sur le terrain, je ne suis presque pas chez moi. Quant au Louvre, j'ai prévu d'y aller le 22 mai pour photographier toutes les œuvres de la nouvelle exposition inaugurée ce jour-là, et pour Le Temps à l'œuvre, toutes les photos sont sur ordinateur, mais j'ai pas encore commencé le travail. À vrai dire, je pense qu'il est possible d'utiliser Wikidata pour y décrire les œuvres, ça ne fonctionne pas encore, mais ça ne devrait peut être pas tarder.

Sinon, pour l'anecdote, j'étais à l'extérieur du Louvre-Lens ce matin. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Louvre MI 231‎ with only 2 filesEdit

Hi Hsarrazin, please consider that it makes no sense to create categories with only few file, here 2. It would have been better to have left the files within Category:Madonnas by Giovanni Bellini, so that everybody can find it. Also please consider the correct category naming, which also hides the files. I would appreciate if you could delete again the cat or at least do rename. Greetings --Oursana (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Oursana,
this cat. naming system is part of the project of cataloguing the whole Louvre Museum objects, using the Access number as Cat name… and comprises for now, hundreds of categories, for now, the files are scattered among many categories, and progressively added to the right ID when found… for now, there are 2, but some other pictures are probably in other places, like for many other paintings, where I found pictures in 10 different places…
I do not create a cat. when there is only "one" image of an artwork, but I do after I found at least two, because it is fairly reasonable that there are others, somewhere else…
I work from the room categories from the Louvre…, not from the painter's or other descriptions cats.
moreover, the cat. is still inside the Category:Madonnas by Giovanni Bellini, so you can find it ;) - and the cat. name makes it quite clear it is the picture that is in the Louvre, which is not the case for "Sacred conversation" or other names…
the advantage of using the ID is that it does not depend on the language or the knowledges of the person who names the cat. The title in different languages can be very different, and impossible to understand for someone who is not an English native-speaker… (or worse, when the description is made in German, which almost nobody, except Germans of course, understand  ) and there never is "one and only one" name for an artwork… and sometimes, many artworks may share the same title, which can be very confusing, too…
also the system uses the {{Category definition: Object}} / {{Object photo}} combination, which avoids to have several different descriptions for the same painting (or sculpture)… this way, the description is made once in the category (and completed in the same place), and transcluded automatically in each file in the cat.

I did not "decide" it… I follow what has been made by other french contributors/photographers, who input many files from the Louvre Museum… see Zolo or JÄNNICK Jérémy, for ex.
if you want to contribute to the Louvre Inventory, you may also see how it works, and add to this system - but if I rename the cat, or you rename it, consider it very probable that it will be renamed to the ID after some time, by other contributors… if you still want to see the picture in the Category:Madonnas by Giovanni Bellini, you may add the cat. to the files directly :)
there is also a discussion running on that description system, since Wikidata could make it completely obsolete in a few months… (again, see Zolo)… :) Greetings --Hsarrazin (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Hsarrazin, thank you for your answer. A category naming consisting of Louvre ID + title as usual would be more helpful, please consider this. Regards--Oursana (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Oursana,
as I said, I'm not the "designer" of that naming system… I cannot "change" it by myself…
maybe you should raise the question on the "village pump"… but remember that most of the contributors that work on this project speak French, and only "some" of them speak english, so perhaps too on Commons:Bistro ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(Copié depuis ma page de discussion.)

Bonjour Zolo, je veux te demander à réfléchir sur les noms des catégories des peinture du Louvre. Je voudrais favoriser, si les noms des catégories contiendraient aussi les titres des peintures et les noms des peintres et ne pas seulement des numéros inventaires. Voie aussi User_talk:Hsarrazin#Category:Louvre_MI_231 Peut-être il ne faut pas creer des catégories avec un ou deux fichiers seulement. Il faut que les catégories des peintures du Louvre vont aussi avec des catégories des peintres différentes, par exemple Category:Madonnas_by_Giovanni_Bellini et ne pas cachent les peintures.Regards --Oursana (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Bonjour Oursana (et Hsarrazin:),
L'habitude d'ajouter les numéros d'inventaire au nom de catégorie semble se développer, pour les objets archéologiques, et, dans une moindre mesure pour oeuvres d'art plus récentes. Ca a l'avantage d'éviter les ambiguités, mais ca rend la lecture un peu diffcile. Personnellement, je serais aussi favorable à utiliser numéro d'inventaire + nom usuel (peut-être renommer Category:Louvre INV 779 en Category:Mona Lisa (INV 779)).
Je trouve assez pratique d'avoir des catégories même lorsqu'il n'y a que deux (et éventuellement un) fichier, qui évite de mélanger catégorisation de l'image et catégorisation de l'oeuvre.
C'est vrai qu'on a un problème structurel majeur de chauvauchement des catégories (disons "Madonnas Gy Giovanni Bellini", "Paintings by Giovanni Bemmini in the Louvre" et "1490s paintings by Giovanni Bellini") mais on aurait vraiment besoin de changement techniques majeurs.
Je dois admettre que j'évite de trop m'occuper de ça en attendant de voir ce qu'apportera l'intégration de Wikidata :). --Zolo (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


Coyau (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Coyau (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Coyau (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Coyau (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Coyau (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Coyau (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Coyau (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Coyau (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Coyau (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Coyau (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Coyau (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Coyau (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Coyau (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Hi, do you have an idea why this page appears in Category:PD tag needs updating? And could you try to get it out of it? Thx in advance. --JuTa 21:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello JuTa,
I really don't know… perhaps it is because I use this script to replace PD-tags that are not valid any more like {{PD-old}} by more precise PD tags, so the unvalid PD-tag obviously is searched by the script…
This seems to be a recent problem… perhaps the algorithm that categorizes in this specific category has been changed recently, and the the presence of the tag in the script (necessary to search/replace it) triggers the category…
I am not good enough is js scripts to be able to modify the script so it works without that problem… if you know a sysop that would be able to help me doing so, please ask him to contact me… I would be very pleased to avoid the pb :)
--Hsarrazin (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


PD-Art should only be used where it's necessary to use it. When something is PD another way - for instance, Library of Congress scans being PD-USGov, or self-scans being released into the public domain by its creator - PD-Art actually serves to discourage use: It may be Wikipedia policy to act as if it is, but it's actually not legal to reuse things under that rationale in many countries.

Be careful about changing licenses to it; you can really screw up reusability that way. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've worked on many, many images… could you please give me an example where it was not appropriate, so that I better understand what you mean… AFAIK, PD-USGov does not allow reuse in many countries that are not US, either ) --Hsarrazin (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kimbell AP 1980.07Edit

Hi Hsarrazin, please you are not starting another museum with Hieroglyphe categories. Please add artists name and so possible the title. Regards --Oursana (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Oursana,
This was done exactly at the same time as other categories… After you asked the question for Community decision, I did not add any of those categories…
Sorry if these are a trouble for you… I only did what had been taught to me for the Louvre Inventory… I won't do it again, unless decided otherwise… :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup Hsarrazin pour ta réponse. J'ai vue ces catégories à Kimbell hier le premier fois, et peut-être j'étais effrayée. Et je crois, que ce n'étais pas moi à commencer cfd. Peut-être à la longue nous réussirons tous à installer un système de nominations praticable à tous. J'ai un grand respect pour les merveilleux travaux faites aux catégories du Louvre. Malheureusement comme ça elles ne vont pas avec le reste des catégories et forment une moderne sorte des hiéroglyphes. Je te souhaite joyeux Noël. Cordialement --Oursana (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 AnnouncementEdit

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!Edit

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Thanks for all your help tagging maps in the Mechanical Curator collection - after ten days, we've now done half the books and found 10,600 images! Andrew Gray (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thanks for that Barnstar :)
tagging is not really difficult, and I liked it, and found great pictures too...
I think there could be something interesting to do with portraits too… I saw a lot of them that could illustrate articles that we don't have pictures for :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Estetica.djvuEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Estetica.djvu. 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 created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

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 OTRS 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.

I removed {{PD-old-70}}, {{PD-old}} or similar templates from the files whose authors who died less then 70 years ago. Now the files have no license and unless it is fixed will be deleted in a week. If you know of other reason why those files are in public domain please feel free to add a new license template and alert me and I will remove {{No license}} tag. If you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not import this file. It was imported by italian wikisource contributors.
I only "cleaned up" a little the common page while I was working on Creators.
I certainly would not have imported a book by an author dead in 1952. :/ -- does not seem to be used on itws, for now. Could be removed without harm, I think, and restored in 2023 ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Creator:''Victor Schœlcher''Edit

Creator:''Victor Schœlcher'' has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this creator, 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.

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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Tangopaso (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Re:petit cadeau....Edit

Merci ! non je ne connaissais pas; et dommage que ce soit basé sur Google... On te voit plus sur IRC; tu boudes ? :-D Otourly (talk) 17:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

crop Oliver NeumannEdit

Is there a reason to request cropping a portrait out of this group picture instead of just using this image on Wikidata? Personally I do not really like "portraits" cut out of group pictures, because the cropped image naturally is quite small in comparison, often not really focused etc. --Tsui (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tsui: no other reason than : the image you give me was not available in the tool I used (WD-FIST). Thank you very much for your help. This one is much, much better :D --Hsarrazin (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I see. Didn't know about this tool and how it works. Thank you! --Tsui (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

A "Portrait" out if this picture? Seriuosly?Edit

You added the request to crop a "portrait" out of this picture. I removed this request. This picture - and the others from this evening - is in no way suitable to crop "portraits" from it. It is a scene during a play, the people are acting, making "funny" faces and are dressed and made up over the top according to the comedic charachter of the play. It would be very disrespectful - and respect for the people I take pictures of is at least my top priority - to portray them with a crop from this picture. Better to have no picture of someone at the moment than to portray them this way. --Tsui (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

crop requestEdit

Hi Hsarrazin, regarding this crop request, do you know Commons:CropTool? It is easy and you can do it yourself. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Herzi Pinki:
thanks for the tip. I did not know it. :)

In fact, I'm working with, which allows to find images for wikidata from the images found in wikilinks, but often, there is no "portrait". there is an option allowing to ask for cropped pic, that lists them in the category. I work on it in several stages... --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the crop. Never do blame the tool you are using .-) --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecatedEdit

Hello Hsarrazin, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


{{Creator:Henry Thomas Alken}}Edit

Hi, Hsarrazin I came across this portrait of Henry Thomas Alken and I was wondering if that would be a better option for the creator box. Maybe also rename the file? Thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the much better portrait... I changed the pic on wikidata, which automatically updated the Creator infobox.
I can't rename on Commons, I lack the rights. Ask an admin for it... maybe a little cropping of the portrait, too... --Hsarrazin (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I suggest File:Portrait of Henry Thomas Alken as Ben Tally O.jpg. cropping is something I am not familiar with. Lotje (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
cropping is very easy with Croptool (Commons gadget). do you want me to do it ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you go ahead with the cropping and I'll rename the file afterwards. Lotje (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Lotje: done ! I gave the cropped version the name you wished. --Hsarrazin (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Very nice! Thanks. Lotje (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Emanuel Halicz.jpgEdit

File:Emanuel Halicz.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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 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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
~Cybularny Speak? 20:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Bel Convert Tusnolobova-Marchenko (cropped).jpgEdit

File:Bel Convert Tusnolobova-Marchenko (cropped).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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 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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Маленькая красная тряпочка (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Creator:French SchoolEdit

It's almost exactly 5 years to the date that you asked for a multilingual French School template at the village pump "%C3%89cole_fran%C3%A7aise",_"English_school",_etc. 1, and now it's here   --Vera (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

in French we say Tout vient à point à qui sait attendre ! (everything comes to the patient ones...) ! well, it certainly does ! thanks \o/ --Hsarrazin (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

RE:Category:Manuela Bravo - death 2018 ?Edit

Gasp, apologies! It was definitely a copy/paste accident; I used Category:Madalena Iglésias as a source and forgot to remove that. Glad someone spotted the mistake! Thanks, RickMorais (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


Bonjour Hélène, Je me permets de venir te demander de l'aide, suite à cette discussion. Je me demande qui est l'auteur de [4] et [5], aussi reproduite ici : File:Le château de Chillon, vu du côté de Vevay.jpg. Je ne m'étais pas aperçu que c'est signé Pérignon, mais c'est plus clair ici, et clairement le même artiste. Gallica ne le mentionne pas dans les 2 notices (et pourquoi ?). Cela pourrait être Nicolas Perignon (Q20926466) ou Jean-Baptiste PERIGNON. Ton avis ? Par avance, merci. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Salut Yann
je suis en vacances, d'où le délai pour répondre...
pour moi, dans la signature "Pérignon, peintre du roi" (c'est "peintre du roi" qui est le titre important pour l'identification) est normalement - Pérignon, Nicolas (1726-1782) ou d:Q20926466
voir aussi - les autres Pérignon n'ont, a priori, pas eu ce titre.
la raison pour laquelle les images de Gallica n'indiquent pas son nom, est que les auteurs indiqués sont ceux du livre contenant ces gravures, et que la liste complète des illustrateurs n'a visiblement pas (encore) été faite voir C'est un travail d'expert en estampes du XVIIIe, et le livre a sans doute été catalogué par des bibliothécaires. Il faudra un peu de temps pour que tous soient identifiés... à moins que quelqu'un fasse le boulot sur wikidata et le signale à la Bnf ;D --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
PS : Yann. Par ailleurs, il y a (au moins) 2 Jean-Baptiste Pérignon, peintres, l'un est le frère de Nicolas (peintre ornementaliste) - c'est sans doute, l'autre le fils de Nicolas (peintre) mais je n'ai pas leurs dates -> voir Il faudrait sans doute consulter le Bénézit pour en savoir plus. --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, merci. J'ai remplacé le dessinateur par Creator:Alexis-Nicolas Perignon (1726-1782). Bonnes vacances !... Yann (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Dancourt - Les oeuvres de monsieur Dancourt, Vol1, 1729.djvuEdit

Copyright status: File:Dancourt - Les oeuvres de monsieur Dancourt, Vol1, 1729.djvu

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Dancourt - Les oeuvres de monsieur Dancourt, Vol1, 1729.djvu. 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 created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

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 OTRS 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.
Jcb (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
fixed ! it was due to a typo in licence template : 1023 instead of 1923.

This book was published in 1729, more than 60 years before copyright was instaured in France, so there is absolutely no reason this file should be problematic. --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Jcb (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


Bonjour. Merci pour le suivi. Les vitraux supprimés ont semble-t-il été créés en 1943 et 1949, donc logiquement par le fils. Ils entreront donc dans le domaine public en 2047. Même si ce n'est pas pour tout de suite, j'ai ajouté la catégorie à la PDD. Cordialement, BrightRaven (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

avec plaisir, je suis tombée dessus par hasard en cherchant une illustration de Sainte Ozenne (qui avait pour image sur wikidata... une église !
par ailleurs, je viens de réaliser que, cette semaine à mon boulot, on a fait rentrer en fonds un bouquin sur les vitraux représentant la 1ere guerre mondiale en Bretagne. Je vais tâcher de penser à y jeter un oeil pour trouver des infos sur les Uzureau. --Hsarrazin (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!Edit


Hi Hsarrazin, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please do not tag redirects as {{Speedy}}. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Deutsch | English | 한국어 | മലയാളം | Русский | Українська | 中文(臺灣) | +/−

D Y O L F 77[Talk] 21:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Cezanne orchard cote saint-denis pontoise.jpgEdit

Hi, do not under any circumstance blank the source field. If you think there is a copyright problem (which isn't the case for this file), nominate for deletion instead. Jcb (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Jcb:
there is NO copyright problem, since the author of the painting is public domain. I removed the so-called source indication, because the source of the file, of the photograph, scan, anything, cannot be Paul Cezanne. Paul Cezanne is the creator of the painting, and died in 1906.
this just does not mean anything, or does not source anything in terms of "source of the file"... that's all. Own work would be valid sourcing. Giving the name of the creator of the original work is not.
by the way, by revoking my edit, instead of just re-adding info, you removed important info, coming from wikidata, that gives much more info about this file than this so-called "source". --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The primary source of a work is always the author. So if the author is known the name of the author is good enough as indicated source. If you blank the source field, the file gets added to the already severely backlogged Images without source problem category, although the file has absolutely no problem. In cases like this admins in general undo the whole edit, mainly because most users won't change their modus operandi if we clean up after them. Jcb (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
If you say so, ok. That's not what I've been taught to do as to sourcing… or as correcting wrong edits (and I've been working on projects since 2010.
af for revoking, I'm admin too (on other project), and revoking is a very harsh movement to do, when the edit was more complex and you suppress all other parts of the edit. Is this a Commons thing ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this may be specific for Commons. We are heavily understaffed. Our problem categories are flooded, we e.g. delete 1000+ copyright violations every day, we fix hundreds of syntax errors caused by sloppy editting every day, 1000+ files without a license are uploaded every week. About 90% of the work is done by about 10 admins. We simple do not have the resources to take a lot of time for every case. Just undoing an edit if a user breaks something is a pragmatic choice, because every minute we spend on a case unnecessary, we cannot use for other urgent work. Jcb (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
sorry for loosing your time… --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  Comment I imported the image for the Catalogue with a proper source reference. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  Thank you. Yann :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Hsarrazin".