Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

User talk:Jarekt

Joshua Trees in Joshua Tree NP 2.jpg

Unless you request otherwise, I will reply on this page to messages posted on this page. Add it to your watchlist!
If I left a message on your talkpage, regarding missing license and you would like to contact me please check my FAQ page first. If you still have a question, please leave a note on the bottom of this talk page by clicking Add topic link on the top right of the page. It would be very helpful if you mention the file in question using [[:File:file name.jpg]] format and sign your name by adding "~~~~".

Tech News: 2017-48Edit

20:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Wikidata personEdit

Why does Category:Johanna_Winblad and Category:Anton Julius Winblad have their occupations in red? Is it indicating an error or some sort with the information in Wikidata or is it looking for a category with the same name, even though there is no link? Let me know on my talk page or ping me please, thanks. RAN (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

RAN, The red indicates that the occupation is not supported by the {{Occupation}} template and will not be translated into other languages. See for example here. --Jarekt (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Anything I can do to help with the project that will fill in info for the redlinks? Do the red link need Wikipedia entries? RAN (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
RAN, The process of adding to {{Occupation}} is to add new words to Template:Occupation/en and Template:Occupation/list and hope that others will update the lists in other languages. The ideas of what terms to add can be found in Category:Pages using Occupation template with incorrect parameters. --Jarekt (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-49Edit

17:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

PD-1923 licenseEdit

Hello Jarekt, regarding this, I was on the (apparently wrong) belief that that tag applied to all copyrights expired before 1923. Do you know what would be the template for a PD-1923 work published by the Brazilian government back in 1824? I couldn't find it easily.-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The template that applied to all copyrights expired before 1923 is {{PD-1923}} with the text in template:PD-1923-text. I reverted the edits to template:PD-old-text, which is not related. For Brazilian governement images from 1824 images I would use Template:PD-BrazilGov + {{PD-1923}}. Or just {{PD-old-100-1923}}. --Jarekt (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!! {{PD-old-100-1923}} is really what I was looking for, in that case. I apologize for messing up with that license, I'm glad you noticed that so quickly. :) -- Darwin Ahoy! 13:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

On that case, I believe {{PD-BrazilGov}} probably applies. I know I have questions about that PD-1923 tag, but for now I can't recall any of them. Eventually I'll came here again for advice when I face some dubious situation. Thanks for the revert, BTW.-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Jarekt. I'm facing a case where the license should be {{PD-old-90-1923}}, as the author is not stated, but it is irrelevant if the work is anonymous or not, and it was published in 1920. However, that license was deleted in 2015 for being redundant with {{PD-old-auto-1923}} - something which, as you said, is not true, as {{PD-old-auto-1923}} is not to be used in those situations. I restored the license and its corresponding category PD-old-90-1923, but it has a warning there saying that {{PD-old-auto-1923}} should be used instead, in order to automatically update the license - which is a point, and was the initial motivation for the edit I've made on {{PD-old-auto-1923}} - to make it comply, precisely, with such a requirement. What should be done in this case? Ignore the warning? Remove the warning? Duplicate {{PD-old-auto-1923}} into yet another license, so that it can cover those situations?-- Darwin Ahoy! 01:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Why not use {{PD-old-100-1923}} or {{PD-anon-1923}}?. I do not like resurrecting {{PD-old-90-1923}}, if you know someone date of death than use {{PD-old-auto-1923}} if you do not than do not use PD-old templates. {{PD-old-90-1923}} and other such templates was retired because files using it were would require to be updated to {{PD-old-100-1923}} after a decade. {{PD-old-auto-1923}} is better because it does it automatically. --Jarekt (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I can't use {{PD-old-100-1923}}, because it is not PD-old-100, and I can't use {{PD-anon-1923}}, because those are not anonymous works, though they are undoubtedly public domain. There is no other option, either we use {{PD-old-90-1923}}, or we change {{PD-old-auto-1923}} to allow for those cases (which was my original idea).-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Darwin, It might be the best if we start new discussion to Commons:Village pump/Copyright, so others with even more experience in licensing can participate. Could you point to an image, explain the copyright situation and we can figure out if we can meet those needs with existing templates or we need a new one. --Jarekt (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
File:Mapa histórico do Brasil - folha Purus.tif is an obvious situation. All photographs from Brazil with no stated author (or with stated author that we don't know the death year) taken between 1917 and 1922 also fall in such category, independently of being anonymous or not. {{PD-old-90-1923}} solves it for now, so I'll leave that discussion to another time in the future, unless someone else starts it.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Darwin, I do not think {{PD-old-90-1923}} is the right fit. If the work was created in 1922 and author was 20 years old at the time of the creation, and lived to the age of 80, than he would have died around year 2000. I do not know why do you claim he had to die in 1920's. I do not see any info in the file suggesting that. --Jarekt (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not a single author, it's a collective work comissioned by an organization, so what counts is the date the work was completed (or published, in case of an editor), according to the 1916 Brazilian law code that rules over those matters. In the case of photographs, the ones from that period should always be public domain in Brazil, independently of being authored or not. {{PD-old-100-1923}} is being used for those situations, and {{PD-old-90-1923}} says pretty much the same, only changing the period to 90, so if there is some problem with that, it goes much, much deeper than the mere use of {{PD-old-90-1923}} on those situations, which is basically the same as using the generic {{PD-old-100-1923}}, only changing the period.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Darwin, If you do not know that author died more than 90 years ago than you should not use PD-old-90 template. In case of File:Mapa histórico do Brasil - folha Purus.tif, you need to use Brazil specific template, and {{PD-BR-1937}}, {{PD-Brazil-URAA}} and {{PD-BR-URAAanon}} all seem to apply to it. Why not use one of the templates made for such cases? --Jarekt (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Because it's a PD-1923 case, and those should be kept apart from the URAA situations. And it's not only about Brazil, Portugal (and other countries) has the same disposition relating to collective works.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Darwin, If other countries have the same laws than we need to use templates that are specific to those countries. If we do not have such templates than we should create them. As for , PD-1923 vs. URAA laws in US. I would just add {{PD-1923}} license to the file in addition to {{PD-BR-1937}}, as the file meets conditions of both laws. --Jarekt (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm thinking if the correct thing to do wouldn't be to duplicate {{PD-old-auto-1923}} in a new tag in order to cover {{PD-anon-1923}} and all those cases where there is a certain date, and "this date has an equivalent effect on copyright expiration" to the author's death date. I don't believe URAA tags should be used for cases which are clearly PD-1923, as those are.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
If file meets requirements of {{PD-1923}} and {{PD-1996}} than it often has both licenses. See for example, File:IgnacyJanPaderewski.jpg, which has {{PD-Polish}} (which covers {{PD-1996}}) and {{PD-1923}}. Than you just add both licenses. --Jarekt (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't use a shortcut to cover those situations, as was done with {{PD-old-auto-1923}}, as they are exactly the same under PD-1923 and local country law, as are the cases where the author is known. I don't see the benefit of cluttering the URAA categories, which are always subject of close scrutiny, with obviously cleared PD-1923 material. Cases as the 1891 Constitution of Brazil should be also covered by such a tag, as they are not public domain because someone died, but for a completely different disposition on the law.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jarekt. I'll probably propose this (or ask for some suggestions on how to deal with those cases) at VPC at some point in the future, but I can't promise when. If you want this to go faster, please open the issue there, and ping me, and I'll follow suit and join. Cheers,-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Darwin I do not have any questions for Commons:Village pump/Copyright at the moment. In case of your file I would just use Brazilian template + {{PD-1923}}, the way we deal with other similar files. Creating more ways of doing the same thing just creates confusion, because others are trying to figure out why two similar files are treated differently. But if you disagree, please check at Commons:Village pump/Copyright how others feel about it before you create any new license template. --Jarekt (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no Brazilian template covering those old government files, nor there should be any need for it, as it's always PD-1923. Yes, I believe either {{PD-old-auto-1923}} should be changed in order to cover those situations, or a new similar template should be created to deal with everything that is PD-1923, but not related to anyone's death. I'll bring that to VPC, eventually, in the future.-- Darwin Ahoy! 03:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Szablon Wikidata personEdit

Cześć! Zauważyłem, że stworzony przez Ciebie (moim zdaniem niezwykle fajny) szablon Wikidata person jest obecnie używany przy wielu różnych galeriach biograficznych, już nie tylko na stronach malarzy czy fotografów, co jak rozumiem było pierwotną intencją przy tworzeniu przestrzeni nazw Creator. I stąd moje pytanie: czy skoro Twój szablon (jeśli dobrze go rozumiem) po prostu na bieżąco, automatycznie zasysa dane z Wikidanych, czyli jego użycie nie zwiększa liczby stron do konserwacji itd. (tak jak było ze stronami Creator:), to czy dopuszczasz takie szerokie używanie go? Nie ukrywam, że ja bym się z tego ucieszył, bo moim zdaniem jest to dużo fajniejszy i lepszy sposób wiązania kategorii Commons z WD niż takie bardzo "suche" szablony typu sama kontrola autorytatywna. Pozdrawiam! Powerek38 (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Ten szablon jest bardzo prosty. Napisalem go bym mogl latwo stworzyc nowe kategorie ala osob. Nie mam nic przeciwko szerokiego uzytku tego szablonu. --Jarekt (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons focus group update, December 11, 2017Edit

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

Later this week, a full newsletter will be distributed, but you are the first to receive an update on new requests for feedback.

Three requests for feedback
  1. We received many additions to the spreadsheet that collects important Commons and Wikidata tools. Thank you! Now, you can participate in a survey that helps us understand and prioritize which tools and functionalities are most important for the Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata communities. The survey runs until December 22. Here's some background.
  2. Help the team decide on better names for 'captions' and 'descriptions'. You can provide input until January 3, 2018.
  3. Help collect interesting Commons files, to prepare for the data modelling challenges ahead! Continuous input is welcome there.

Warmly, your community liaison SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) - 16:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-50Edit

17:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


Can you process this request?--MaGa 19:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  Done --Jarekt (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again.--MaGa 20:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons newsletter, December 13, 2017Edit

Welcome to the newsletter for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons! You can update your subscription to the newsletter. Do inform others who you think will want to be involved in the project!

Community updates
Things to do / input and feedback requests
A multi-licensed image on Wikimedia Commons, with a custom {{EthnologyItemMHNT}} Information template. Do you also know media files on Commons that will be interesting or challenging to model with structured data? Add them to the Interesting Commons files page.
Presentations / Press / Events
Presentation about Structured Commons and Wikidata, at WikimediaCon in Berlin.
  • Sandra presented the plans for Structured Commons during WikidataCon in Berlin, on October 29. The presentation focused on collaboration between the Wikidata and Commons communities. You can see the full video here.
Partners and allies
  • We are still welcoming (more) staff from GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) to become part of our long-term focus group (phabricator task T174134). You will be kept in the loop of the project, and receive regular small surveys and requests for feedback. Get in touch with Sandra if you're interested - your input in helping to shape this project is highly valued!
  • Research findings from interviews and surveys of GLAM project participants are being published to the research page. Check back over the next few weeks as additional details (notes, quotes, charts, blog posts, and slide decks) will be added to or linked from that page.
  • The Structured Commons team has written and submitted a report about the first nine months of work on the project to its funders, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The 53-page report, published on November 1, is available on Wikimedia Commons.
  • The team has started working on designs for changes to the upload wizard (T182019).
  • We started preliminary work to prototype changes for file info pages.
  • Work on the MediaInfo extension is ongoing (T176012).
  • The team is continuing its work on baseline metrics on Commons, in order to be able to measure the effectiveness of structured data on Commons. (T174519)
  • Upcoming: in the first half of 2018, the first prototypes and design sketches for file pages, the UploadWizard, and for search will be published for discussion and feedback!
Stay up to date!

Warmly, your community liaison, SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery - 16:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Jarekt".